So Led Zeppelin won the case. No infringement.

Can I ask a related question -- how the HELL can Vanilla Ice get away with copying Queen's Under Pressure like he did. Or did he?

If he paid royalties, he's fine.

Thank God!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/23/medi....html?adkey=bn

That occurred in the early days of sampling (which was an absolutely nightmare for publishers). It took a couple of years but Queen was eventually paid Artist and Publisher royalties, along with being added as songwriters.

After Ice Ice Baby and Tone Loc's sampling of Van Halen's Jamie's Crying, publishers began taking the unique step of not pay ANY publishing royalties to either the rapper/songwriter and the band/Artist that was sampled until Song Splits had been negotiated by all interested parties. In many cases, neither side was paid for years on end. In some cases (and I saw more than a few of these), Rapper/Composers that claimed to write their songs in their entirety were given $400-$500k advances, only to release an album that contained samples.

In those cases, the publisher was just out the dough, because no one was going to settle.

It was a nightmare.

Thanks for this. Is "sampling" the industry term for borrowing a riff or entire melody from another song and incorporating it into your own?

And believe me when I say that every word that you write about the music industry is news to me. I know absolutely nothing about it (as is probably obvious by now) and I thank you for your insight and patience!

I'm actually shocked the case even made it to trial. Not only was it 40+ years after the fact, there's no way to prove that Zeppelin actually heard the Spirit song and either intentionally or unintentionally lifted a portion of it.

That said, there is more similarity between the Zeppelin and Spirit songs than the Marvin Gaye and Pharell/Robin Thicke songs. That was a travesty, IMO.

"Sampling" is taking an existing portion of a song and using it to create a new song. For example, James Brown's music is the most sampled music of all time. Rappers & Hip Hop Artists have used portions of his music as breaks or have used them as the music "bed", so to speak, and "Rap" over that music. In essence, no new music is being created. It's pre-existing music that's using a portion or "sample" of the music.

For example, in Tone Loc's Wild Thing, Eddie Van Halen's guitar from Jamie's Crying, along with Alex's signature drum fill can be clearly heard. When those aren't in play, there's a drum machine keeping the beat, or acting as the music bed, while Tone Loc raps.

No worries. :D

.....as it should be.

..that song does nothing but build to a frenzy after that opening sequence.

In fact, Page stated back in those days, going faster and faster was considered a big no no...and you can hear it..and its lovely..when Bonham finally chimes in...oh man...it just shifts gears.

I just went to youtube and listened to Taurus. (And by the way, did they make any money because I did that?)

It's not a very good song.

No. It's one of the biggest issues in the music business today. Google refuses to pay licensing fees and royalties claiming "Safe Harbor".

It's a sham.

That's kind of the only place I listen to music other than the stuff I bought on itunes.

Yeah, there are billions of plays on YouTube each year and the artist and songwriters aren't paid a cent (or even a fraction thereof).

It's an interesting problem, because most of the content on youtube is people who put stuff up just for the attention, and google makes ad money off of them.

Some people on youtube get paid, though, if they get enough views. I don't know how much, but they get paid. So is the problem that people are putting up music that's not theirs? I presume that I wouldn't get paid if I put up a Springsteen video that got 20 million views, but I would if I put up a video of my kitten chasing its tail. How does Google sort that out? It seems like they could figure out pretty quickly that any video of Springsteen that generates revenue in their model should get paid out to Springsteen and not "SpringsteenCrazyFan2015".

Correct. From my understanding (and YouTube isn't an area of expertise but I do have some knowledge), once a video has reached 1 million views, money is paid to the person that uploaded the video. The last I heard (and this is an aggregate) is that 1 million views pays approximately $1,000 dollars before AdSense takes a 45% share.

Yes, people are posting music in which they have no claims to ownership. Also, AdSense, YouTube's collection arm, keeps 45% of the revenue generated by the views. Payout per view can also vary from 50 cents to $5 dollars.

Google/YouTube can track which subscribers are using copyright protected music and videos and which aren't through watermarking technology. They also have a department that tracks that info so no revenues are shared in a scenario like you've described.

That's what makes them so disingenuous.