Yes Sued for Copyright Infringement

[Mr.Krautman]

There are indeed strong similarities but the melodic sequence is so basic and simplistic that any (uninspired) musician could have created it almost by accident and chances are high it had been already used before in other works.
But there are traces of a recent similar antecedent with F.Monkman (settled outside of courts) which (if mentioned) could be used to weaken the credibility of the sued. Unquestionable previous (artistic) collaborations between the plaintiff and the sued won't help the latter either. Repeated legal actions for artistic plagiarism is never good...

[bondegezou]

There are indeed strong similarities but the melodic sequence is so basic and simplistic that any (uninspired) musician could have created it almost by accident and chances are high it had been already used before in other works.
But there are traces of a recent similar antecedent with F.Monkman (settled outside of courts) which (if mentioned) could be used to weaken the credibility of the sued. Unquestionable previous (artistic) collaborations between the plaintiff and the sued won't help the latter either. Repeated legal actions for artistic plagiarism is never good...

And that's presumably why Story picked on The Quest. Instead of thinking there is a valid claim here, or even that Story misguidedly believes there is, one can see this as being more cynical. Picking something that sounds like a track on The Quest, because TQ already has the history of "The Ice Bridge" error, is a deliberate part of the strategy to garner attention and get people on your side.

[Mr.Krautman]

And that's presumably why Story picked on The Quest. Instead of thinking there is a valid claim here, or even that Story misguidedly believes there is, one can see this as being more cynical. Picking something that sounds like a track on The Quest, because TQ already has the history of "The Ice Bridge" error, is a deliberate part of the strategy to garner attention and get people on your side.

Looks like a deliberate strategy to me too.
There's no way Story wasn't aware of the Monkman "error".

[Sputnik]

His last album was heavily promoted as having Jon Davison guesting on it. I'm guessing Davison isn't going to guest again. Story has thus lost that opportunity to cash in, and I suspect that will cost him more in the long run.

Surely, he's lost his connections to Davidson and the Yes crowd. He probably got all out of that he was going to get. I think it's an open question what he might gain by being perceived as a "David" going up against the "Yes Goliath." This story is getting coverage beyond what his album alone received. This may be good for his public profile, win or lose. Hard to say right now.

The musicologist's assessment is overly generous (which is presumably why he was employed). See this debunking video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGyfrs7CQYU

The report claims there are 10 notes in "Reunion" that match a sequence with one additional note in "Dare to Know". The pieces are in different keys, so you have to transpose them to match. That means the first note will always match! So we're down to 9 notes out of 10 matching. But the musicologist ignores 3 notes where there is a natural/flat distinction between the two pieces. So, it's only 6 notes out of 10 actually matching, I believe. So, some similarity, but not "almost identical".

Yeah, I did my own analysis of this back on page 2 of this thread, and I reached similar conclusions as the guy in the video. I'll repeat what I said there:

"The basic idea is identical, but it has been tweaked a bit. If the whole thing hinges on this section by itself, I'd personally say this idea was "borrowed" or "adapted" to suit the Yes song. From a legal perspective, I'm not sure if the tweaks constitute enough of a change to exempt this from plagiarism or infringement. In the context of the overall song, this is a fairly trivial part, and a somewhat typical type of pattern, though not as typical as the descending cadence is Stairway to Heaven that the Spirit guy claimed was stolen.

I think it's 50/50 how this goes, depending on what evidence Howe and Davidson have of developing the part independently, or the impact of the very real differences between the two parts. Also, like the Stairway section, this is a small part of a larger song. It's not like this part is the basis of the piece. The Yes song goes to many places that Dare to Know does not. I'm not sure what legal impact that has on infringement. It's not like "My Sweet Lord" that basically stole the entire chord pattern and melody of "He's So Fine.""

So, in a sense, I agree with what the guy in the video is saying, but I still hear enough similarity there that I wouldn't toss the case out based solely on those differences. I do agree that the musicologist marked some tones as identical that clearly are not, which reduces the degree of exactness, but the two sections still really similar - too similar for me to feel this was solely a coincidence. I also agree with the guy in the video that this is just one part and that "Dare to Know" does lots of other things, but that doesn't mean there wasn't infringement of that particular part. This was true in the Stairway to Heaven case as well, and I assume that had his estate won, Randy California would have been given a writing credit and some portion of the royalties of Stairway based on that.

I'd just reiterate that I think it's 50/50 how this goes. It's not a slam dunk, but there are a lot of factors too look at, and too much of a familiarity to simply dismiss it off hand.

Story is suing Howe, Yes and Sony. Sony has deeper pockets than Howe, Yes or Story and might have different feelings about such cases. I don't know whether that makes a settlement more or less likely, but I do presume Sony have an experienced team to handle cases like this. Reading the legal submission, it is apparent Story does not have an experienced team!

Yeah, Sony may step up and fight it harder, and with more firepower, than Story can muster, assuming it's worth it to them. We'll see how it goes.

Bill