Copyright Claim Against Led Zeppelin’s ‘Stairway to Heaven’ Moved to California

A lawsuit claiming that Stairway to Heaven was filched from an obscure song by the band Spirit has survived its first legal challenge.

The Philadelphia judge in the copyright infringement case against Led Zeppelin ruled yesterday that the suit shouldn’t be dismissed, and instead ordered it transferred to federal court in Los Angeles.

To many ears, the opening notes of Stairway to Heaven sound a lot like Taurus, an instrumental piece released on Spirit’s debut album in 1968, according to the complaint. At the end of that year and throughout 1969, Spirit and Led Zeppelin shared the bill at several concerts.

Lawyers for surviving Led Zeppelin members Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones, along with Warner Music Group, had asked U.S. District Judge Juan Sanchez either to toss out the case or to move it to California, citing the presence of several relevant witnesses and legal documents there. Spirit signed its first record contract in California, and its late guitarist’s trust was formed in the state. The lawyer for the trust of Spirit guitarist Randy California, which brought the suit a year ago, said it should stay in Pennsylvania, in part because the three musicians had played the classic-rock song at the 1985 Live Aid famine-relief concert in Philadelphia.

The new venue, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, might help the defense, which according to the ruling plans to challenge the creation of the trust. On the other hand, it’s the same court where a jury ruled in March that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke should pay $7.4 million for infringing on Marvin Gaye’s 1977 Got to Give it Up with their 2013 hit, Blurred Lines.

The fight has potentially high stakes. By 2008, when Conde Nast Portfolio magazine published an estimate that included royalties and record sales for Stairway to Heaven, the 1971 hit had earned at least $562 million. If the suit succeeds, a three- year statute of limitations would limit the award to the most recent earnings. The song was re-released last year as part of the band’s reissue of its first albums.

Sanchez said he declined to dismiss the suit “in the interest of justice,” because the improper venue could be fixed by sending the case to California. In his order, he said the Led Zeppelin members weren’t subject to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, in part because they don’t live there and hadn’t appeared to specifically target the district for selling their music. Because of the statute of limitations, the Live Aid concert wasn’t relevant, he wrote.

12 Ways to Spot a Misandrist

12 ways to Spot a Misandrist:

1. She will zero in on a man and turn on every charm she can. She flirts, laughs at his jokes and in general flatters him.

2. As time goes on and the man is caught up in the relationship, the mask slips and She Who Must Be Obeyed comes forth. She uses a schedule of ever increasing demands to keep him off-center and struggling to keep up. She switches back and forth between flirtatious and coy to harshly derogatory and accusing. She will use all kinds of anti-male shaming language.

3. She will make promises to men and when she fails to keep them, she will make it look like the man’s fault for holding her to account. He is a beast, he hates women, he won’t indulge her in the way she feels entitled to.

4. She will make promises or commit to a set time to meet and then be late – repeatedly. Or she’ll set a date for something and then cancel at the very last minute. Meanwhile she is in agonies of guilt if she lets down any women in a position to judge her in any way, no matter how minor the failure may be.

5. Her behavior towards men is arrogant and condescending. If they disagree with her she will call it “mansplaining”, or she will say she feels “unsafe” or “afraid.” She will feel entitled to special consideration she would never grant a man, and when confronted on this, will insist that’s “different.”

6. She is competitive with other women, asking if some other woman looks better than her and very possessive of every moment of her man’s time. She feels entitled to check his cellphone or email accounts for correspondence with other women of for contact information. She is not only competitive with other women; in fact she is eager to point out how some woman did something better than men can and will opine that if women ran the world, we’d all be much better off.

7. She will unknowingly treat men differently from women at work. She may assign heavier physical tasks to men, she may exclude men from private conversations where business decisions are made, she may foster an atmosphere where men are expected to walk on eggshells around women, for instance establishing HR policies that enable women to claim harassment for small acts but nearly impossible for men to claim anything is harassment. She may even punish men’s claims of harassment as a form of harassment. In social settings she will confide in other women and freeze men out, or she will use men as fashion accessories to impress other women.

8. She will feel entitled to use anything in her power against her man, justifying this by saying “All’s fair in love and war.” or that she is just making up for millennia of patriarchal oppression. She may demand sex and back her demands up with scathing shaming language if her man isn’t interested, or she may withhold sex as a punishment or a bargaining tool for some service or material things he wants. If he displeases her in some way, she will banish him from their bed to go sleep on the couch. She will make condescending remarks about the failures of men in general or make cruel jokes about some man’s misfortune or injury. She may borrow money from her man and then call it a gift and refuse to repay it. In a work setting she may use information developed by a man and then wonder aloud what men are good for.

9. On a date, she will react in whatever way is contrary to the way the man is acting. If he makes some special effort to please her, she will pout and be dissatisfied. If he wants to chat, she will be distant or moody. If he pulls finally back, she will plead and play up to him. If he tries to pay for the date she may scold him for being old-fashioned and sexist and if he doesn’t she will scold him for being cheap.

10. Sexually she demands total control. Aside from dictating when and under what conditions sex will take place, she has no interest in his sexual pleasure at all, except to sneer at it occasionally and call him a pig. She may demand oral sex and call him a misogynist is he is uninterested but nearly accuse him of rape at worst and male-dominant misogyny at best if he expects her to give oral sex. She believes she has a right to control even his fantasy life and will call him a pervert or sex addict if he looks at porn, or even if he just masturbates. She has an inviolate right to all his orgasms.

11. She sees nothing wrong with casual affairs and if one turns serious, that’s her right too. And if she becomes pregnant pursuant to one of these affairs, she will demand that her man accept and raise the child as his own, or else he’s “’irresponsible” and “selfish” and “How can you do that to a child!!!??” and just not a Real Man.

12. She may disappear from a relationship, leave the country even, and then when she finally comes back, she will expect to be received like nothing ever happened and she can expect to be celebrated for this.

MAC plans to protest PRC ‘national security law’ at meet

Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Chairman Andrew Hsia (夏立言) yesterday stated that the government would protest the wording of a draft law proposed by China’s rubberstamp lawmaking body when the two sides meet on the offshore island of Kinmen later this month for scheduled talks.

Hsia was questioned by People First Party Legislator Chen Yi-chieh (陳怡潔) during the Legislative Yuan’s weekly Internal Administration Committee (內政委員會) regarding the “National Security Law” (“國家安全法”) which is undergoing revision in China’s National People’s Congress (NPC, 全國人民代表大會). When asked if the MAC would respond to China’s legislation, Hsia stated that China could not use unilateral means to change the fact that “we are a sovereign nation.” He added such moves by China to enact the legislation would damage cross-strait ties, and that he would protest the matter when both sides meet.

Article 11 of the proposed law states that: “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China cannot be divided. Maintenance of national sovereignty and territorial integrity is a shared obligation of all the Chinese people, including compatriots from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.”

The draft law, which could be passed in the spring of 2016, replaces a previous counterespionage law and is viewed by experts as Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s move to tighten control over domestic and international security issues. The Chinese government created the new National Security Commission in 2014, which is chaired by Xi, in order to have control over policy coordination on security matters which had institutional autonomy during the leadership of former leader Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).

The inclusion of Taiwan with China’s Special Administration Regions of Hong Kong and Macau mirror previous practices of using its domestic legal machinery to bolster territorial claims.

Hsia also confirmed during the briefing that the bilateral meeting between the MAC and its mainland Chinese counterpart the Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO, 國台辦) would be held before May 29. The proposed agenda of the meeting, which has been in the works for months and will involve Hsia and TAO head Zhang Zhijun (張志軍), includes aviation safety, the co-establishment of representative offices and a trade-in-goods pact.

The meeting between the MAC and TAO was postponed when Beijing unilaterally declared new civil aviation flight routes in the Taiwan Strait in January, which Taipei protested.

Sharia in Toronto: Woman with Guide Dog Refused Entry…

Kaye Leslie and her guide dog Jordan were on their way to meet family for lunch Sunday when nephew-in-law Steven Lewis called with a surprising message: an employee at Paramount Fine Foods was refusing to seat the group because the golden retriever couldn’t mix with its halal-style food.

Lewis said he requested a table for four with a “bit of extra space” for the guide dog at the Middle Eastern restaurant and bakery on Yonge St. The unidentified employee told Lewis and his wife Leah, Leslie’s nice, that dogs weren’t allowed in the near-empty restaurant.

“I said, ‘No, it’s a service dog. It’s a guide dog.’ He said, ‘No, this restaurant’s halal, you’re not allowed in here with any dogs,’” said Lewis, a onetime Toronto resident who was in town for the weekend from Muskoka.

All businesses licensed by the City of Toronto must provide service to people with service dogs, according to the city’s licensing bylaw.

Catholic Service Disrupted by Abusive Muslim ‘Migrants’…

On Sunday morning, a group of young Muslim immigrants interrupted a Catholic procession in honor of the Virgin Mary with verbal insults, shouting, and threats as the group passed in front of the Islamic Cultural Center in Conselice, a small town in lower Romagna.

In predominantly Catholic Italy, the month of May is dedicated to the traditional processions carrying a statue or image of the Madonna, usually accompanied by the singing of hymns and praying of the rosary.

The Marian procession is a tradition in Conselice, and every year, the faithful gather at the Piazza Foresti and then proceed along a number of streets including the Via Dante Alighieri, which also passes in front of the Islamic Cultural Center. On Sunday, after the 9:30 a.m. Mass, a group of 100 faithful, including several small children preparing to receive their first Holy Communion, began the procession as usual.

Apparently understanding the procession to be a provocation, a group of Muslim youth from the Islamic Center began hurling verbal abuse and threats at the passing procession.

According to an eyewitness, “During the slow procession of the sacred image, some kids on the ground floor of the building of the headquarters of the Attadamun Islamic Cultural Center began shouting a kind of chorus like ‘Get out of here’ and ‘Go away from here.’”

The participants, especially the children, were reportedly stunned and confused; they halted the procession before regrouping and hurrying past the Center.

After receiving complaints from members of St. Martin’s parish, the mayor of Conselice, Paola Pula, met with representatives of the Attadamun Islamic Cultural Center on Tuesday morning.

Following the meeting, the Islamic Center prepared a formal letter of apology and delivered one copy to the mayor and another to the members of the parish.

In a statement, the mayor said that “the incident, even if it concerns the behavior of minors, is intolerable and must not be underestimated.” She also said the youth involved have been reprimanded by representatives of the center.

“We reaffirm our commitment to respect all sensibilities and religious affiliations,” she said.

Men Cannot Be Feminists

Men Cannot Be Feminists

Posted on | May 13, 2015 | 73 Comments

The oxymoronic phenomenon of the “male feminist” is an endless source of amusement. If groveling self-abasement were an Olympic sport, “male feminists” would win the gold medal every four years.

Modern feminism is basically about three things:

  1. Killing babies;
  2. Hating men;
  3. Lying.

A common feminist lie is to deny that they hate men. This is exactly the kind of shameless dishonesty we must expect from fanatics who assert that killing babies is women’s most basic “right.”

Hateful bloodthirsty liars are not the kind of women that normal men find attractive, yet there are always enough abnormal men in the world that some of them actually want to have sex with feminists. Inspired by twisted masochistic neuroses or other perverse impulses, these pathetic males declare themselves feminists and, while not all “male feminists” end up in the lunatic ward like Professor Hugo Schwyzer, they always meet a sorry end, groveling for the approval of sadistic women whose raison d’etre is their contempt for men.

Meghan Murphy is the proprietor of Feminist Current, “Canada’s leading feminist website.” She has a Masters degree in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies, but still insists on describing herself as “a heterosexual woman who has been in a number of heterosexual relationships,” despite never having met a man she actually likes or respects enough to consider them her equal. Like every other feminist, Meghan Murphy only ever speaks of men as her moral and intellectual inferiors. No man could ever deserve her trust or admiration, and certainly she could never be expected to praise a “male feminist” like Noah Berlatsky:

Noah Berlatsky . . . perfectly exemplifies the trouble with male “allies.” He not only presumes to know more about what’s good for women than women themselves, but has taken it upon himself to dictate what the future of the feminist movement should look like, using Playboy as a platform, at that. . . .
Propping up a man whose “feminist cred” consists of attacking feminists and smearing the feminist movement is as ignorant as it is dangerous. . . .
Men like Berlatsky are big supporters of “feminism” so long as it benefits them. Playboy Feminism™ works to elevate male power and privilege and supports a notion of liberation that says: “Beautiful naked women, splayed across pages for the male gaze is what freedom for women is really about.” . . .
Playboy and the male gaze have absolutely nothing to do with female sexuality. To imply as much is to reinforce the notion that women exist only in relation to men and, therefore, that women’s sexuality depends on the male gaze.
Despite challenges such as a fundamental lack of understanding around what feminism is, Berlatsky has persisted in his quest to reinvent our century-old women’s movement, painting feminists as needing, simply, a little male leadership. . . .


How much more clearly can Meghan Murphy explain this to Noah Berlatsky? A basic goal of the feminist movement is to abolish male happiness. If you are a male and you are happy, you are the problem that feminism is intended to solve.

Does it make men happy to look at beautiful naked women? Then feminists must condemn beautiful women and also condemn the “male gaze”that enjoys seeing beautiful women naked. No man can ever be permitted to see a woman naked, because that has “absolutely nothing to do with female sexuality,” according to Meghan Murphy. Under no condition should “female sexuality”ever make men happy.

Meghan Murphy knows this, because she “has been in a number of heterosexual relationships” and no man has ever accused Meghan Murphy of making him happy. Nor is it likely any man would admit to having tried to make her happy. Even in Canada, most men have enough self-respect that they’d never admit something as shameful as that.