一樁搖滾神曲抄襲案 齊柏林飛艇贏了

LOS ANGELES — It’s long, it’s classic and, a jury decided on Thursday, it’s an original.

洛杉磯——它很長，它是經典，而且，這個星期四，法庭宣佈它是原創的。

Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake.

一個聯邦陪審團宣判，“齊柏林飛艇”(Led Zeppelin)的搖滾名曲《通向天堂的階梯》(Stairway to Heaven)當中前奏的樂段並不是抄襲而來，令樂隊在危及數百萬美元利益的版權訴訟案中獲勝。

The case pitted an obscure song from the margins of rock history against one of the canonical hits of the genre. The suit was filed two years ago by Michael Skidmore, a trustee for the songs of Randy Wolfe, a member of the band Spirit. It contends that the Led Zeppelin members Jimmy Page and Robert Plant had lifted substantial portions of the Spirit song “Taurus,” from 1968, for the beginning of “Stairway to Heaven,” which was released in 1971 and, by some estimates, has earned more than $500 million.

這樁案件一頭是來自搖滾史邊緣的一首名不見經傳的歌曲，另一頭則是搖滾樂史上的經典名曲。兩年前，“精神”(Spirit)樂隊成員蘭迪·伍爾夫(Randy Wolfe)歌曲版權的管理人邁克爾·斯基德莫爾(Michael Skidmore)發起了這場訴訟。它主張，“齊柏林飛艇”的成員吉米·佩奇(Jimmy Page)和羅伯特·普朗特(Robet Plant)剽竊了“精神”1968年的歌曲《金牛座》(Taurus)中的重要段落，用在他們1971年發行的《通向天堂的階梯》開頭，並且估計憑藉這首歌賺取了多於五億美元。

Mr. Wolfe died in 1997 and complained of the similarity in interviews but never brought a suit. The case was filed shortly after a Supreme Court ruling allowed copyright infringement cases to go forward even after long delays.

伍爾夫於1997年逝世，他曾在訪談中抱怨過兩首歌的相似之處，但從未提起訴訟。這起訴訟是在最高法院做出裁決、開始受理長期延誤的版權侵權案件之後不久提出的。

Lawyers for Mr. Skidmore presented evidence showing that the bands crossed paths while touring early in their careers, as well as testimony from music experts saying that both songs shared a similar chord progression and, most distinctively, a descending bass line in a chromatic scale.

斯基德莫爾的律師們呈上證據，表明兩支樂隊在事業生涯早期的巡演途中曾經碰面，來自音樂專家的證詞稱，兩首歌有共同的和絃走向，更明顯的是，它們都有一條下行的半音音階貝斯線。

Mr. Plant and Mr. Page both testified that “Stairway to Heaven” had been composed independently, and that while both bands had played on the same bill a handful of times, they did not recall ever seeing Spirit perform and had no familiarity with “Taurus” until the lawsuit was brought.

普朗特和佩奇都作證說，《通向天堂的階梯》的作曲是獨立完成的，儘管兩支樂隊曾經同臺共同演過幾次，他們都不記得看過“精神”的演出，在遭到訴訟之前，對《金牛座》這首歌也並不熟悉。

“I didn’t remember it then, and I don’t remember it now,” Mr. Plant said.

“我那時候不記得有這首歌，現在也不記得，”普朗特說。

The jury found that, although Mr. Page and Mr. Plant had access to “Taurus” before the release of “Stairway to Heaven,” the two songs’ original elements did not contain enough similarities. Before reaching the verdict on Thursday, the jury asked to listen to audio recordings of the introductions to both songs twice.

陪審團發現，儘管佩奇和普朗特在《通向天堂的階梯》發行之前就有渠道聽到《金牛座》，但兩首歌的原創成分並不具備足夠的相似性。在週四做出判決之前，陪審團兩次要求聆聽這兩首歌曲前奏的錄音。

“We are grateful for the jury’s conscientious service and pleased that it has ruled in our favor, putting to rest questions about the origins of ‘Stairway to Heaven’ and confirming what we have known for 45 years,” Mr. Plant and Mr. Page said in a statement on Thursday.

“我們很感激陪審團認真的工作，也很高興判決結果對我們有利，從而結束了對《通向天堂的階梯》來源的質疑，證實了我們45年來確知的東西，”星期四，普朗特與佩奇在一份聲明中說。

The plaintiff’s lawyer, Francis Malofiy, said an appeal was being considered.

原告律師弗朗西斯·馬洛菲伊(Francis Malofiy)說，原告正在考慮上訴。

The statute of limitations for past copyright infringement is three years. The two sides presented widely different estimates of Led Zeppelin’s earnings from 2011 to 2014, when the case was filed.

已過去的版權侵權案的法定時效是三年。該案件立案時，雙方對“齊柏林飛艇”自2011年至2014年的收入給出了相差甚遠的估算。

Experts for the plaintiff pointed to a $60 million music publishing deal that Mr. Page and Mr. Plant signed with Warner Music and suggested that a large portion of that could be attributed to “Stairway.” But later in the trial, an accountant called by Led Zeppelin’s side put the amounts at $615,000 for Mr. Page and $532,000 for Mr. Plant.

原告方的專家指出，佩奇與普朗特與華納音樂公司簽署了一份帶來6000萬美元收益的音樂版權發行合同，並認爲其中有一大部分應當歸於《通向天堂的階梯》名下。但隨着案件發展，“齊柏林飛艇”一方找來的會計師稱，該合同爲佩奇帶來61.5萬美元收益，爲普朗特帶來53.2萬美元收益。

The trial was the second major case in a year to involve copyright issues and the music industry, after Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ordered to pay $5.3 million to the family of Marvin Gaye over their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines.” That case, which has been appealed, has led to a wide debate in the music world over the limits of copyright protection, and whether the musical elements of homage — a song’s atmospherics, rhythms and overall “feel” — can cross the line into infringement.

這樁訴訟案是今年以來涉及版權問題與音樂產業的第二樁重大案件，上一樁是羅賓·西克(Robin Thicke)與法瑞爾·威廉姆斯(Pharrell Williams)被判決爲他們2013年的金曲《模糊的線》(Blurred Lines)向馬文·蓋伊(Marvin Gaye)的家人支付530萬美元。那樁案子正在上訴之中，也在音樂界激發了一場廣泛的的討論：版權保護究竟應當達到什麼限度？一首歌中的氛圍、節奏，以及整體“感覺”如果含有向其他音樂致敬的成分，那麼是否構成侵犯版權？