men at work are thieves?

[PETE'S BROTHER]

Men At Work vs. The Man: '80s Band Charged With Plagiarism - Stop The Presses! (http://m.www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Agzfpdmisoga9LPQAAP3RGubvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTNobGp 1MnI5BGEDMTAwMjA0IG11c2ljIG1lbiBhdCB3b3JrIGxhd3N1a XQEY3BvcwMxBGcDaWQtMjAwMDUEaW50bAN1cwRwa2d2AzEwBHB vcwMyBHNlYwN0ZC1mZWF0BHNsawN0aXRsZQRzbHBvcwNGBHRlc 3QDNzAx/SIG=13kfp5vlv/**http%3A//new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/105260/men-at-work-vs-the-man-80s-band-charged-with-plagiarism/)

[sadaist]

I looked up that campfire song on YouTube. I don't hear the similarity. But I do like Business As Usual. Great album. Most of those tunes still hold up today.

[Panamark]

This is ridiculous.
A woman in 1935 wrote a nursery rythme for the Girl Guides
called "Kookaburra". As an Aussie kid you know the song
very well. She gave the rights of the song to the girl guides.
"Downunder" was released in 1980 and sold gazillions.

Fastrack to about 2 years ago and some dudes "buy" the
rights of Kookaburra from the Girl Guides for a token sum.

Colin Haye the lead singer of Men at Work had joked
on a TV unterview that the flute pieces you hear
inbetween the verses on Downunder were inspired
by Kookaburra. Straight after this interview these
guys buy the rights.

They then proceed to launch a lawsuit against Men
at Work for "owed royalties" due to Downunder
containing parts of Kookaburra.

Dudes win court case, Judge orders 40-60% of
the royalties to be paid to these dudes..

Firstly to the short flute section (maybe 8 notes ?)
that they claim is Kookaburra, I still cant pick it
even though the nursery rythme was one of my
faves as a kid. Theres youtubes where they have
one on top of the other, I still dont hear it.

Secondly, if the owners of the song thought they
had been ripped, why was this not raised when
the song was released. Why 30 years worth of
sales, later ??

I see this as some very questionable scumbags taking
a risk that the judge would be an idiot, and it
paid off. I would hope that Men at Work take this
higher.

If not its sets a dangerous precedent. Will songriters
have to submit their works to special copyright experts
to assure no pieces or passages of the music even
vaguely resemble a past song ???

Men at Work have been dealt a very unfair blow here,
and I hope they can appeal this, and the fuckers that
tried to scam them get all the costs.

[sonrisa salvaje]

What in the hell is that statute of limitations on plagiarism?
It's been 28 f'ing years!!!!!
What a complete utter load of bullshit. How in the hell is the band, after all this time, supposed to pay back 60% of the millions and millions they have made on this song? Not only was that song on the first album, it has been on live albums and Colin Hay solo records as well. This could result in bankruptcy or the band never seeing royalties from this record again just in an effort to come close to paying it back.

[Panamark]

Im fookin mad as hell about this.
Thinking more.
Even if the notes in question are a direct copy of "Kookaburra"
which I already stated, I cant pick, and I know "Kookaburra"
backwards. Then surely the copyright owners are only entitled
to the percentage of the song these notes occupy ?
Which would be 2% at best ? So where the fuck does the
Judge get 40-60% from ??

Also what irks me, the woman who actually wrote kookaburra's
family will not see any of this, nor the girl guides she donated
the rights to.

It wasnt even the main structure or sung melody that these
guys went after, it was a few flute notes inbetween the verses ???
WTF ?? The Judge even acknowledged this.

If I posted both songs here, you would be shocked that the decision
went against them.

[Blackflag]

What in the hell is that statute of limitations on plagiarism?
It's been 28 f'ing years!!!!!
What a complete utter load of bullshit. How in the hell is the band, after all this time, supposed to pay back 60% of the millions and millions they have made on this song? Not only was that song on the first album, it has been on live albums and Colin Hay solo records as well. This could result in bankruptcy or the band never seeing royalties from this record again just in an effort to come close to paying it back.

In the U.S. (I don't know Australia), I think it's death of the author + 75years, or 120 years from creation, whichever is longer. The so-called "Mickey Mouse Act," because Disney always lobbies to extend these dates whenever Mickey Mouse comes close to expiration. :sick0020:

[Dan]

This Is Just BullShit.

[hambon4lif]

Fastrack to about 2 years ago and some dudes "buy" the
rights of Kookaburra from the Girl Guides for a token sum.

Colin Haye the lead singer of Men at Work had joked
on a TV unterview that the flute pieces you hear
inbetween the verses on Downunder were inspired
by Kookaburra. Straight after this interview these
guys buy the rights.

They then proceed to launch a lawsuit against Men
at Work for "owed royalties" due to Downunder
containing parts of Kookaburra.

Dudes win court case, Judge orders 40-60% of
the royalties to be paid to these dudes..

if the owners of the song thought they
had been ripped, why was this not raised when
the song was released. Why 30 years worth of
sales, later ??

If not its sets a dangerous precedent. Will songriters
have to submit their works to special copyright experts
to assure no pieces or passages of the music even
vaguely resemble a past song ???OK....I've been reading this a few times over trying to comprehend this logic, and I'm still a bit confused.
By all means, feel free to let me know if I'm off-base and un-cluster this fuck for me, but this is what I gather...

If I were to purchase the rights to a song written many years ago from the artist that wrote the song, I could then go after anyone I feel has lifted the song or even parts of it?
And though I had absolutely nothing to do with writing the song, because I now own the rights to it, I'm entitled to royalties from artists I feel have plagiarized said song?...

For example, if I were to buy the rights to "Rock & Roll Part II" tomorrow straight from Gary Glitter, could I then sue the living fuck out of Sammy Hagar?? Am I legally entitled to any royalties he's made from his cute little tequila song?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right, the court will be swamped from now until the end of time.

Is that how this works?

[chefcraig]

For example, if I were to buy the rights to "Rock & Roll Part II" tomorrow straight from Gary Glitter, could I then sue the living fuck out of Sammy Hagar?? Am I legally entitled to any royalties he's made from his cute little tequila song?

Nope, because Hagar included Glitter and Mike Leander (the writers of "RR Pt2") in the song's credits.

But otherwise, it appears that you are pretty much correct. If you own the property, you are more or less free to protect it's rights.

[sadaist]

As long as we're talking about it, I'm going to give some props to Colin Hay. His solo stuff is incredible if you like the mellower acoustic music. This guy is fuck all talented. I've seen him solo 3 times in So CA at mid-size clubs. Always worth every single penny. Plays his solo stuff but always tosses in the Men At Work tunes to please the crowd and has fun doing it. Actually shook his hand before the show when he approached all the smokers who were in the back area by the artist entrance. Helluva nice guy. Just wish he got the critical acclaim the likes of Sting as a solo artist. Colin is every bit as good....if not better.


PS - and dude knows his eyes are crazy and even jokes about it. So no worries there.

[hambon4lif]

Nope, because Hagar included Glitter and Mike Leander (the writers of "RR Pt2") in the song's credits.

But otherwise, it appears that you are pretty much correct. If you own the property, you are more or less free to protect it's rights.Thanks for clearing that up for me.

While my heart was in the right place:biggrin:, I find the whole idea downright preposterous.

Any musician born after the 18th century is influenced and inspired by music that came before them, anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit. As Robert Plant has said many times before "Rock and Roll is not averse to a bit of thievery". And it goes deeper than that....there is no possible way that music you're influenced by will not come out in your own, subconsciously or otherwise..that's how it continues.

In Men At Works case, it's just tones from their homeland, which is unavoidable and completely natural. It's gonna come out in your music no matter what the fuck you do. Upon comparison, I just don't hear the blatant ripoff.
Rap "sampling" is another case altogether, where they take consciously rip a song, or when Billy Ocean lifted the bassline to Michael Jacksons "Billie Jean" wholesale.

This is something completely different.

This case should be thrown out purely on the basis of its ridiculousness.

[kwame k]

They're going to get 40 to 60% of the royalties for the flute part?

I don't hear it either and after 20+ years of continuous radio....now they sue?

Sure it's about protecting the copyrights......bullshit.

[Baby's On Fire]

"I come from the Land Down Under...."

One of the best songs by any band...ever...period.

Fuckin' love that song.

[Blackflag]

when Billy Ocean lifted the bassline to Michael Jacksons "Billie Jean" wholesale.

:Loser:

[sadaist]

And Men At Work lost.

40%-60% of the royalties from that song! Outrageous. For such a tiny piece of it. And Ron Strykert is basically MIA. Good luck finding him anywhere. He turned into some recluse/Unabomber hippy guy living in Montana last I heard. Colin Hay said he doesn't even know how to get in touch with him.

Men At Work vs. The Man: '80s Band Charged With Plagiarism - Stop The Presses! (http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/105260/men-at-work-vs-the-man-80s-band-charged-with-plagiarism/)

On the bright side, maybe this will hit them in their bank accounts and they'll be forced to do a huge worldwide reunion tour to recoup their losses. That would be a fun show.

Hmmmm....I think twinkle, twinkle, little star sounds a lot like Hot For Teacher. ;)

[Panamark]

Make up your own minds...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iygkpxzbVt8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iygkpxzbVt8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Panamark]

And "Downunder"

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DNT7uZf7lew&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DNT7uZf7lew&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Panamark]

Its so ironic for me, we live in an area with a lot of Kookaburra's
(Yes they laugh) nice sound to hear in mornings and evenings.

We had a baby boy 8 months ago and have been singing this old
classic nursery rythme to him. I've never once thought of the
old Kookaburra song when I listen to Down Under....

Fucking Bastards !!!

[Panamark]

Direct comparison, how out of whack is this ??
THe dudes that did this went to the trouble of pitch shifting too,
to try and make it sound more similar...

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MLbFEsgJ71Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MLbFEsgJ71Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[FORD]

I don't hear it. Usually these copyright infringement things are obvious enough (i.e the Satriani/Coldghey thing) but this one is complete crap.

I suppose next they'll say "Who Can It Be Now?" was ripped off from "Waltzing Matilda"? :confused:

Damn... now I have a sudden urge to dig out my vinyl copies of the first two Men at Work albums. :biggrin:

[Panamark]

And even if there is a faint resemblance, is it worth 60% of the songs royalties ??
Fark that.

[Panamark]

I don't hear it. Usually these copyright infringement things are obvious enough (i.e the Satriani/Coldghey thing) but this one is complete crap.

I suppose next they'll say "Who Can It Be Now?" was ripped off from "Waltzing Matilda"? :confused:



No shit ! Seriously, how can you write a song now ??
We only have 12 notes to play with. Is it possible to
write a combination of 12 notes that has never
been played before ??? This Judge is a total dickhead :mad:

[Dr. Love]

I hear it. The overlay isn't a good one because the timings are off from each other. Sounds like the exact same note progression to me. I guess it technically fits plagiarism but I don't think any reasonable person would go after them.

[Panamark]

I was wondering who was gonna be the first :)
The timings are off as they had to modify Downunder, slow down the riff
pitch change etc etc in an effort to make it fit.

[Panamark]

Doc Love, even if you detect similarity, knowing how little
(even measured in time) that those notes comprise the whole song,
do you think they deserve 60% ?

[Dan]

The Australian People Should Be Marching In The Streets Over This.

[Blackflag]

Do you guys own stock in the band, or something?

[Dan]

No,Just Give A Shit About,What The Fuck Is Happening To This Fuck-Up Case.

[Dan]

No More Vegemite SandWiches Next.:(

[Blackflag]

Innocent people go to jail, and we're supposed to march about a copyright case? Wake the fuck up, Dan. When you hear about the $1.5B patent case, you're going to have a stroke.

[Blackflag]

Just use ketchup instead. :)

[Dan]

Just use ketchup instead. :)

You Mean,Sauce.:D:hitch:

[Panamark]

The Australian People Should Be Marching In The Streets Over This.


Im there if it happens !!

Its like our second Anthem !
Who cares if there is a 2 sec tribute to
another Australian icon (Kookaburra)

Are Kraft gonna sue them now because they
sing "He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite Sandwich" ????

[kwame k]

The question needs to be asked.....who in the fuck was their lawyer?

[Blackflag]

I think it was Guitar Shark.

[Panamark]

No More Vegemite SandWiches Next.:(


great minds !;)

[Dan]

Innocent people go to jail, and we're supposed to march about a copyright case? Wake the fuck up, Dan. When you hear about the $1.5B patent case, you're going to have a stroke.

WTF?

This Song Is Like A National Anthem To The Australian People.

Just Dont Fuck With It.

[kwame k]

Im there if it happens !!

Its like our second Anthem !
Who cares if there is a 2 sec tribute to
another Australian icon (Kookaburra)

Are Kraft gonna sue them now because they
sing "He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite Sandwich" ????

Jesus Marky, don't give 'em any ideas.

[Panamark]

The question needs to be asked.....who in the fuck was their lawyer?

Sure as hell wasnt Johnny Cochran ! :biggrin:

[Blackflag]

WTF?

This Song Is Like A National Anthem To The Australian People.

Just Dont Fuck With It.

But they're not fucking with the song. They're just shaking down the people who wrote it. :biggrin:

[Panamark]

But they're not fucking with the song. They're just shaking down the people who wrote it. :biggrin:

Thats one in the same.

[NATEDOG001976]

They're going to get 40 to 60% of the royalties for the flute part?

I don't hear it either and after 20+ years of continuous radio....now they sue?

Sure it's about protecting the copyrights......bullshit.

Yeah, they need a weed smoker like you!

[Blackflag]

I'd like to know why the judge decided instead of having a proper jury. That's what fucked this up. That place is like a third-world country with a kangaroo court. No pun intended.

[Dan]

Fuck,It's Going To Be,Back To Work For The Band Again.

Men At Work Tour 2010?

[Dan]

Mark,Get Mr Rudd On The Phone.

[Panamark]

They're going to get 40 to 60% of the royalties for the flute part?

I don't hear it either and after 20+ years of continuous radio....now they sue?

Sure it's about protecting the copyrights......bullshit.

That sums it up well mate !

[Panamark]

Mark,Get Mr Rudd On The Phone.


I cant speak Cantonese ?? :biggrin:

[kwame k]

Sure as hell wasnt Johnny Cochran ! :biggrin:

:biggrin: No but they better consider digging him up for the appeal.

[kwame k]

Yeah, they need a weed smoker like you!

Bitter much, Nate?

[Panamark]

:biggrin: No but they better consider digging him up for the appeal.

Watch the "Downunder" vid earlier in thread.
I think they are trying to dig him up back then for now
even though he was alive then but they knew he would
be dead now and Im gonna freak out and have a terminator
brain explosion !!!!!

[kwame k]

As long as they force Johnny to use the.....


<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:61727" width="480" height="400" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" flashVars="autoPlay=false&dist=www.southparkstudios.com&orig=" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>

[NATEDOG001976]

Bitter much, Nate?

Bitter?

Well,

I just want the place where we all came to, to talk Roth!

Rothfans, is not the place anymore!

Fuck it, no more PC.

Back to the roots!

[kwame k]

Bitter?

Well,

I just want the place where we all came to, to talk Roth!

Rothfans, is not the place anymore!

Fuck it, no more PC.

Back to the roots!

Sleep it off, Nate...why are you rambling about this in a Men At Work thread?

Maybe you should switch to pot, might make you less aggressive.

You're too much of a bitter and angry drunk, dude.

[Panamark]

The Chewbacca Defence !!

Awesome !!

[NATEDOG001976]

The Chewbacca Defence !!

Awesome !!

Yeah, no Mr. Lounge to pat you on the back!

Tired of the fake ass pussies!

[Dr. Love]

Only two things to say ... first, I don't think they deserved any money for it. Secondly... you guys consider that your second national anthem?

You guys must have a really bad first national anthem...

[sonrisa salvaje]

Do you guys own stock in the band, or something?

No. It's just that we don't want to see bad things happen to good people. Men At Work, and especially Colin Hay as Sadist pointed out, are good people. There are a lot of artists who are scumbags. Colin Hay is definitely not.

[sadaist]

Here is a really cool groovin version. Ringo & Shiela E both on drums. This song never fails to make everyone around smile...from Slayer fans to Culture Club fans. One of those true universally great songs.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L5Vh2w_PMac&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L5Vh2w_PMac&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[sadaist]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8qSS4CTxnDg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8qSS4CTxnDg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Blackflag]

No. It's just that we don't want to see bad things happen to good people. Men At Work, and especially Colin Hay as Sadist pointed out, are good people. There are a lot of artists who are scumbags. Colin Hay is definitely not.

No, I understand that. I like his music and he seems like a decent guy. But shit like this happens every day, and it's only money. I'm not marching in the street unless it's some really outrageous shit.

[Unchainme]

Yeah, no Mr. Lounge to pat you on the back!

Tired of the fake ass pussies!

http://hathbanger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/fleshlight.jpg

yeah I mean thats gotta get old after not getting laid so many times, eh toolbag?

[Panamark]

Only two things to say ... first, I don't think they deserved any money for it. Secondly... you guys consider that your second national anthem?

You guys must have a really bad first national anthem...

Believe it or not we have about 4 depending on who you talk to.
Untill the early 70's (rough guesstimate) it was God Save the Queen.
Just as the British sing.
Well eventually we all said fuck that, we need our own.
Some kind of referendum went down between "Advance Australia Fair"
and "Waltzing Matilda"
Advance Australia Fair is now the official anthem.
However most Aussies really love Waltzing Matilda, and its not uncommon
to hear it played at Major Sporting events after the official Anthem.

Then along came "Downunder", which then became like another
"unofficial" anthem like Waltzing Matilda.
It also gets played at sporting events etc.

Confused ?

Personally I love them all except the Queens one.
(Only cos that was not Australian, at all, no offence intended
to the British here)

But Advance Australia Fair is what you hear at the Olympics
and is always the "official" anthem for other events in Oz.

[FORD]

Im there if it happens !!

Its like our second Anthem !
Who cares if there is a 2 sec tribute to
another Australian icon (Kookaburra)

Are Kraft gonna sue them now because they
sing "He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite Sandwich" ????

Chuck Berry will probably sue them for "Be Good Johnny". :biggrin:

[Panamark]

Chuck Berry will probably sue them for "Be Good Johnny". :biggrin:

Normally you would think this is ridiculous, but yeah, using similar
logic I can see how Chuck Berry could claim those words
are synonomous with him and they owe him..

The scariest thing about this case is that even if someone
thinks a few seconds of notes sound vaguely similar to
a past recording, they can sue ?? This has to be overturned
or there will be no more new songs. I think we reached the
point decades ago where it would be impossible to write
a sequence of notes that had not been written previously.

[Panamark]

I wonder who gets the royalties to "Happy Birthday" and "Silent Night"
whenever we all sing it or a band plays it ?

madness...

[Blackflag]

This has to be overturned
or there will be no more new songs.

It's been this way for years. And yet, people keep writing songs.

[FORD]

I wonder who gets the royalties to "Happy Birthday" and "Silent Night"
whenever we all sing it or a band plays it ?

madness...

Somebody actually DOES own the rights to "Happy Birthday". Damned if I know who it is, but this is why when you go into "Red Robin" or any of those other restaurants where they embarrass the shit out of you on your birthday, they sing their own original songs.

Religious songs like Silent Night are so old that they're permanently in the public domain by now. At least until some RIAA bastard finds a way to change that and cash in.

[Blackflag]

Dude, nobody owns the rights to "Happy Birthday." They just make up their own song because they're fucking annoying people.

[Panamark]

Somebody actually DOES own the rights to "Happy Birthday". Damned if I know who it is, but this is why when you go into "Red Robin" or any of those other restaurants where they embarrass the shit out of you on your birthday, they sing their own original songs.

Religious songs like Silent Night are so old that they're permanently in the public domain by now. At least until some RIAA bastard finds a way to change that and cash in.

Shit !!

Well theres a few restaurants in this country that could be sued :)

[Panamark]

"Here comes the Bride" is another that springs to mind in this scenario.

[Blackflag]

Dudes, read the fucking rule on page one. Shit! These songs are all really old.

[Panamark]

Kookaburra was relatively old too, but yeah get your point.

[chefcraig]

Through a series of convoluted actions, Warner Music (http://www.ibiblio.org/team/fun/birthday/)actually holds a copyright for "Happy Birthday" dating to the the 1930s, even though the song was written sometime in 1893.

[Blackflag]

If anybody is paying on that, they're suckers. As far as I can tell, that fucking thing is expired.

[chefcraig]

And that in and of itself is the kicker: Think about it, Warner did pretty much the same thing that these guys in Australia did.

[Blackflag]

Well, when was this Kookooburo song written? Not the 1800's.

[Dan]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lofgud4wLLo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lofgud4wLLo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[kwame k]

Chuck Berry will probably sue them for "Be Good Johnny". :biggrin:

He sued the Beach Boys and won for Surfing USA because it ripped off Sweet Little Sixteen......

Never knew this, though......


When Chuck Berry accused Brian Wilson of bogarting his melody, the Beach Boys’ manager, Wilson’s father Murray, gave Berry the copyright to the tune. He didn’t tell the members of the band, however, who supposedly only learned 25 years later that they weren’t getting royalties from this song and that Berry now receives credit for writing it. Berry, for his part, supposedly enjoyed “Surfin’ USA.”

Link (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15449)

[kwame k]

Through a series of convoluted actions, Warner Music (http://www.ibiblio.org/team/fun/birthday/)actually holds a copyright for "Happy Birthday" dating to the the 1930s, even though the song was written sometime in 1893.

These bastards are fucking coldblooded.



In 1995, ASCAP decided that summer camps were getting away with publicly performing copyrighted campfire songs without paying any licensing royalties. From a legal standpoint, ASCAP was within its rights, but its request that even large non-profit camp directors pay annual fees of as much as $1400 or face six-figure fines or a year in prison didn’t sit well with the public.

Girl Scout camps were hit particularly hard, and TV reports and a major story in the Wall Street Journal recounted tales of young lasses having to learn the Macarena in silence. Public opinion swayed against ASCAP as further tales recounted birthdays passing with no singing of “Happy Birthday” lest a camp director be forced to spend hard time, and the copyright holders eventually relented. ASCAP now charges the Girl Scouts $1 a year to license its portfolio, a symbolic compromise that reasserts the group’s ability to demand these kind of fees.

Link (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15449)

[standin]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lofgud4wLLo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lofgud4wLLo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That's the song?
Even I know that song!

What a crock! I can't believe that is not public domain.
I am going to have to go listen to this now~

[standin]

It sounds somewhat similar, but sounding similar is not a copyright. To measure a copyright it would need to be scored. And both have been scored at one point in the past. A recording is a whole other monster. At least here in the US. If the scores are the same and however many time it is used in the song would determine if it was used and the extent it was used.

However, law is law. Is there no stature of limitations for this particular law?
And the action conducted by the previous rights hold would take president. By the previous rights holder not claiming their right, they did not acknowledge them.
Now with the rights being bought by a new group from that point forward their rights could be enforced.
When the first holder of the rights to that song took no action that was action and action saying the song was not recognized to be similar.

If you can go back and sue on old revenues and change business decisions made in the past, there is a lot of lawsuits to be had.
This is just laughable to be able to sue on prior decisions of a business after a business acquisition.

What is Fox interactive media going to be able to sue all you folks that use photobucket inc as a link source because photobucket inc did not charge you at one point in time or kept track of who to charge and Fox thinks you should have been charged?! This is preposterous.

Powered by Google Docs (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CbpX6fsUY4AJ:www.fenwick.com/docstore/publications/Corporate/M%26A_List.pdf+recent+business+acquisitions&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiAD6fGmtGW-HxzufCIRDi2aU_jOxSHvBJmyKeSGajusM7zrHHRL_Qggn5R6mL p1nk18fZjhbvdTX392wYFY6rTkMV31PLAZCzLzJJE25VrD8a2a igbR07QjeQgLZJzqMcYc-WK&sig=AHIEtbRPZVQv3QyRiQW5gAzSPZDZ03lVbA)

[FORD]

He sued the Beach Boys and won for Surfing USA because it ripped off Sweet Little Sixteen......

Never knew this, though......

When Chuck Berry accused Brian Wilson of bogarting his melody, the Beach Boys’ manager, Wilson’s father Murray, gave Berry the copyright to the tune. He didn’t tell the members of the band, however, who supposedly only learned 25 years later that they weren’t getting royalties from this song and that Berry now receives credit for writing it. Berry, for his part, supposedly enjoyed “Surfin’ USA.”

Link (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15449)

Guess the Beach Boys never read the credits on their own records? Granted, with the exception of Brian, they didn't play on a lot of those records, though Surfin USA was certainly early enough that they did.

Every album I've ever seen with that song on it was credited to B.Wilson/C.Berry so I don't know how they missed it?

[kwame k]

Guess the Beach Boys never read the credits on their own records? Granted, with the exception of Brian, they didn't play on a lot of those records, though Surfin USA was certainly early enough that they did.

Every album I've ever seen with that song on it was credited to B.Wilson/C.Berry so I don't know how they missed it?

You're right FORD, this sounds fishy now that you mention it.....

[kwame k]

"Surfin' U.S.A." is the title of a song with lyrics written by Brian Wilson for The Beach Boys, set to the melody from Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen. Berry has sole credit for composing the song.[1] "Surfin' USA" was recorded by The Beach Boys released as a single on March 4, 1963 and it also appeared on the 1963 album of the same name.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfin'_USA_(song))

I mean it's from Wiki but everything I find shows Chuck Berry, maybe it's like they say, lyrics by BW and music by CB.

[Panamark]

Well, when was this Kookooburo song written? Not the 1800's.

1930's

[Panamark]

Chuck Berry could sue himself, Look at "No particular place to go"
and "School Day" :biggrin:

[chefcraig]

1930's

Which means that following the precedent set by the Warner action, this realistically could not be appealed properly until sometime in (at least) 2030.


Chuck Berry could sue himself, Look at "No particular place to go"
and "School Day" :biggrin:

I don't think that would work, as Fantasy records tried to sue John Fogerty for plagiarizing himself a while back. Fogerty put out an album called Centerfield, which had some tunes that sounded like the ones he wrote while under contract to the label as a member of CCR. The absurdity of the idea actually made it to a U.S. courtroom, where the farce was acted out. Although Fogerty won the case, it wound up in the hands of the Supreme Court as to how the damages were paid out.

[kwame k]

Chuck Berry could sue himself, Look at "No particular place to go"
and "School Day" :biggrin:

Oddly enough that has happened, in a twisted way....John Fogerty was sued by his old label for plagiarizing himself...Old Man Down The Road they said was a rip-off of Run Through The Jungle.

[kwame k]

Which means that following the precedent set by the Warner action, this realistically could not be appealed properly until sometime in (at least) 2030.



I don't think that would work, as Fantasy records tried to sue John Fogerty for plagiarizing himself a while back. Fogerty put out an album called Centerfield, which had some tunes that sounded like the ones he wrote while under contract to the label as a member of CCR. The absurdity of the idea actually made it to a U.S. courtroom, where the farce was acted out. Although Fogerty won the case, it wound up in the hands of the Supreme Court as to how the damages were paid out.

Shit beat me to it, again.....that's what I get for getting up and going to the bathroom and getting another beer :pullinghair:

[Panamark]

LOL ! I always thought "Old Man" and "Run through the Jungle" were one
in the same, even the guitar riff...

[Panamark]

Which means that following the precedent set by the Warner action, this realistically could not be appealed properly until sometime in (at least) 2030.



Hopefully Men at Work can use this !

[kwame k]

The whole trial came down to Fogerty actually playing both songs on guitar and explaining the difference....if memory serves me.

[Panamark]

I remember hearing "Old Man" for the first time on the radio and
thinking it was a new version of "Run through the jungle" until
I started hearing that the lyrics were different and the chorus
is a little different too... I think I remember fogherty saying that
of course some of his songs will sound the same, as he wrote them.
(In relation to that battle)

[standin]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4333385629_6e096ab0f6_o.gif

60s folk songs and folk music - songbook and tune-book entry - Kookabura (http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/folksw/005745.HTM)

http://www.musicnotes.com/images/productimages/mtd/mn0074995.gif

[standin]

Looking at the sheet music, I don't see the infringement.
It goes D 4x, A 3x
G (I think)5x, F 1x, E 1x.
That is not the same, even if I got EGBDF and FACE in the wrong order.

[standin]

In music numbers (notes) and beats must match or its not the same fucking song.
When I take Dave's or anyone's music flip it, change the tempo and rearrange it.
It is not the same song. Did I lift direct. Oh yea. Totally take it directly from whatever isolated track I have, but it is not the same song when I finish. Even when I rip the vocals, it is not recognized as the song it originated from. I can't flip and rip vocals much, that's why I do not use them much. But still, no one be able to physically replicate when I flip and rip a vocal. Now, the fact that the words are the same, that is a different matter. However, they are not the same when I flip them and use them for background.

[standin]

They need a forensic analysis with expert testimony, not some flighty musician saying "can you hear the difference, your honor?

[kwame k]

Looking at the sheet music, I don't see the infringement.
It goes D 4x, A 3x
G (I think)5x, F 1x, E 1x.
That is not the same, even if I got EGBDF and FACE in the wrong order.

Wow, that's a blast from the past flashback....

E-very
G-ood
B-oy
D-oes
F-ine

was the mnemonic thingy my music teacher used....have no idea why that triggered that memory.

[chefcraig]

Shit beat me to it, again.....that's what I get for getting up and going to the bathroom and getting another beer :pullinghair:

One of the best "accidents" in my life occurred one weekend, after a rained-out BBQ. The fest happened on a Saturday afternoon, and mother nature poured down on things. It wound up being a wonderful evening indoors, the kicker being all of these coolers full of beer got moved indoors. And that is where it all came together, as I said, quite by accident: I laid there on the couch, within arms' reach of cold, refreshing beer to enjoy a Sunday afternoon with.

To be certain this was not an anomaly, I repeated the experiment. Yes, by filling a cooler full of ice and beer a mere 2-3 hours prior to a sporting event, couch-viewing is the way to go. You will find that intoxication increases, along with your enjoyment of televised anything. Of course, the mileage you get between cans or bottles is all of your own, and naturally will be altered by your choice of snacking stuffs.

[kwame k]

One of the best "accidents" in my life occurred one weekend, after a rained-out BBQ. The fest happened on a Saturday afternoon, and mother nature poured down on things. It wound up being a wonderful evening indoors, the kicker being all of these coolers full of beer got moved indoors. And that is where it all came together, as I said, quite by accident: I laid there on the couch, within arms' reach of cold, refreshing beer to enjoy a Sunday afternoon with.

To be certain this was not an anomaly, I repeated the experiment. Yes, by filling a cooler full of ice and beer a mere 2-3 hours prior to a sporting event, couch-viewing is the way to go. You will find that intoxication increases, along with your enjoyment of televised anything. Of course, the mileage you get between cans or bottles is all of your own, and naturally will be altered by your choice of snacking stuffs.

Dude, an epiphany moment if there ever was one....just in time for the Super Bowl!

Craig's tailgate party, sofa style....just be careful with the BBQ grill, bro :biggrin:

I'm soooo doing that at Sunday's party :beers8:

[Dr. Love]

Are you sure that's the music for the flute? The last phrase the dude plays on the flute is the same as the last phrase in that nursery rhyme. The pitch may be different but the overall phrasing is the same.

[standin]

Are you sure that's the music for the flute? The last phrase the dude plays on the flute is the same as the last phrase in that nursery rhyme. The pitch may be different but the overall phrasing is the same.

I didn't run the song through a computer for analysis to see if the sheet music is a fraud, but that is an release from Sheet Music Downloads | Sheet Music Songbooks | Musicnotes.com (http://www.musicnotes.com)

That specific sheet would be an legal documentation from the holder of the rights of the song "Downunder" by Colin Hay and Greg Ham also known as Men at Work. If it was wrong, what is being sold would be considered fraud. And that would be a whole other class-action lawsuit.

When dealing with copyright (not recordings), it is what is written, not what is played. A recorded person has a whole other set of litigation rules.

Nothing exists until it is written or recorded. When a dispute arises about a undocumented recording, it is the person that physically writes down the music that has the copyright. This part I researched in 2004. However, the person that writes the undocumented recording does not have usage rights to use the recording that usage right is held with the person recorded. Unlike pictures, which usage rights are held by the person taking the pictures or their employer if they have signed their rights.


Musicnotes.com is the leading Internet-based sheet music store offering nearly 110,000 pieces of digital sheet music and guitar tablature from Alfred Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Disney Music Publishing, Bourne Music, EMI Music Publishing, Mel Bay Publications, Universal Music Publishing, Brentwood-Benson, Peermusic Publishing, BUG Music, Famous Music Publishing, Word Music, Shapiro Bernstein, ICG, The Loving Company, Manna Music, Spirit Music, Faber Music LTD and EMI Christian Music Publishing with many titles from other publishers continually added to our online catalog.

In addition to the instant delivery of digital sheet music, the site also offers music books & more, a catalog of over 260,000 traditional music titles, CDs and videos from Alfred Music Publishing, Hal Leonard, Mel Bay, Word Music, Music Sales Corporation and others.

GuitarTabs LLC and MXTabs.net, the first legitimately licensed site designed to provide musicians with advertising-supported access to free tabs, while also compensating music publishers and songwriters for their intellectual property are also members of the growing Musicnotes family.

Musicnotes has been featured in numerous publications, including Billboard, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and USA Today. It has also been named one of the Top 500 Retail Web Sites, one of the Top 50 Web Sites for 2006 and Hot 100 Web Sites for 2009 by Internet Retailer Magazine.

[Panamark]

Interesting stuff Standin !

Like, I can hear similarities, but it doesnt
(to my ears) sound note for note,
the phrasing as Doc Love mentions is the
same. But Im still not convinced its note for note.

[Panamark]

The song goes down in key around the 4th/5th note, and
Men at Works flute goes up. Its not note for note.
Same phrasing.

If you imagine that entire flute piece its the last 2 seconds
that they won on. And I can clearly hear clashing notes
even with the phrasing synced. The flute piece goes for
what, 10 seconds ?? so 2/10th of a flute line that isnt note
perfect is worth 60% of the entire song.. ??


Fucked up !

[standin]

From what I have read. Stupid lawyers lied and said the song rights were held by the Camp Girls. If the stupid lawyers had not lied (for whatever reason), they would have been able to show the legal documentations and there would not have been a case. There was not documentation to back their claims. However, the Camp Girls will need and should have had authorization from the copyright holder. However, it appears the WORDS go back to a Welsh poem or folk song, which would have to be researched for authentication. If the notes of the old Welsh poem/song has been written there may be a case of plagiarism.

The lawyers screwed up when they lied and pissed the judge off.
And who doesn't want to stick it to a music corporate music company in this day and age? The judge probably heard Lady Gaga and grew to dislike even more the modern corporate music. :biggrin: Go judge! Stick it to the Man um person um corporation !:hee:

The fact is unless the sheet music that is published is fraudulent there is little likeness.
Even the notes are different. One song using 16th notes and the other 8th notes.

[Dr. Love]

I didn't run the song through a computer for analysis to see if the sheet music is a fraud, but that is an release from Sheet Music Downloads | Sheet Music Songbooks | Musicnotes.com (http://www.musicnotes.com)

That specific sheet would be an legal documentation from the holder of the rights of the song "Downunder" by Colin Hay and Greg Ham also known as Men at Work. If it was wrong, what is being sold would be considered fraud. And that would be a whole other class-action lawsuit.

When dealing with copyright (not recordings), it is what is written, not what is played. A recorded person has a whole other set of litigation rules.

Nothing exists until it is written or recorded. When a dispute arises about a undocumented recording, it is the person that physically writes down the music that has the copyright. This part I researched in 2004. However, the person that writes the undocumented recording does not have usage rights to use the recording that usage right is held with the person recorded. Unlike pictures, which usage rights are held by the person taking the pictures or their employer if they have signed their rights.

I don't think the sheet music posted covers all the instruments that play in the song. I think it pretty clearly doesn't have the flute transcribed (or the drums for that matter, though that intro part is clearly transcribed).

[Panamark]

It would be cool if we had the sheet music fo the flute
and Kookaburra.. (So we could compare)
This is whats so disturbing, its not the song they are claiming
against, its a miniscule part of a flute piece, in fact the correct
matching notes probably account for 1 sec.

Thanks for the input standin ! I think we will be hearing more about
this, Men at Work's team have not made a statement yet as far
as I can tell.... (Not reported if they did)

[standin]

You are incorrect. Though drums do have another language than what is written here. There is enough beat information to speak this piece including rhythm.
If I wanted to play this in tuba. I have the information. If I wanted to throat sing this piece, the information is there.
If the drums are not written down in the drummers own type of score exactly as written and included in the copyright, I suggest Kwane grab a computer and transcribe those fuckers this evening and fedex it to his lawyer. Matter fact, I suggest that whomever plays the french horn out there score a piece, just in case it goes historical and makes it to symphony.
The flute part is transcribe as it can clearly be seen. One can play this song without "drums". However, this could be played in percussion as is is written. The song challenging it does not have "drums". This lawsuit is based off of one measure that measure and even the measures are different. Do I need to circle them for you? The rhythm section of the score is not in question. Once again, if the rhythm section is not included in the copyright, kwayn should get busy and copyright that fucker.
The melody is intact and there.

If you notice the words and the notes to the words are not there also. The singer that would sing the words does not follow this score. It is for instruments, preferably ones that have melody.

"That intro" what intro part do you speak of?

[GAR]

For example, if I were to buy the rights to "Rock & Roll Part II" tomorrow straight from Gary Glitter, could I then sue the living fuck out of Sammy Hagar?? Am I legally entitled to any royalties he's made from his cute little tequila song?

You're a GENIUS

[GAR]

I have the information. If I wanted to throat sing this piece, the information is there.
I wish to sing this piece with my vapors. Will you share your informations?

[Panamark]

I know this song as its permanently programmed into my brain
since I was a baby. The line in question from the Kookaburra
song is "Merry Merry King of the Bush is he" I now know the
flute section the lawsuit was about, I cant sing the traditional
line of the song over the flute. Close but not exact.

FUCK THEM !!

[Terry]

I don't hear it. Usually these copyright infringement things are obvious enough (i.e the Satriani/Coldghey thing) but this one is complete crap.

I suppose next they'll say "Who Can It Be Now?" was ripped off from "Waltzing Matilda"? :confused:

Damn... now I have a sudden urge to dig out my vinyl copies of the first two Men at Work albums. :biggrin:

As well you should, since they are two damn fine records.

[Dr. Love]

You are incorrect. Though drums do have another language than what is written here. There is enough beat information to speak this piece including rhythm.
If I wanted to play this in tuba. I have the information. If I wanted to throat sing this piece, the information is there.
If the drums are not written down in the drummers own type of score exactly as written and included in the copyright, I suggest Kwane grab a computer and transcribe those fuckers this evening and fedex it to his lawyer. Matter fact, I suggest that whomever plays the french horn out there score a piece, just in case it goes historical and makes it to symphony.
The flute part is transcribe as it can clearly be seen. One can play this song without "drums". However, this could be played in percussion as is is written. The song challenging it does not have "drums". This lawsuit is based off of one measure that measure and even the measures are different. Do I need to circle them for you? The rhythm section of the score is not in question. Once again, if the rhythm section is not included in the copyright, kwayn should get busy and copyright that fucker.
The melody is intact and there.

If you notice the words and the notes to the words are not there also. The singer that would sing the words does not follow this score. It is for instruments, preferably ones that have melody.

"That intro" what intro part do you speak of?

http://www.gospeljohn.net/wp-content/uploads/facepalm.jpg

[Dr. Love]

It would be cool if we had the sheet music fo the flute
and Kookaburra.. (So we could compare)
This is whats so disturbing, its not the song they are claiming
against, its a miniscule part of a flute piece, in fact the correct
matching notes probably account for 1 sec.

Thanks for the input standin ! I think we will be hearing more about
this, Men at Work's team have not made a statement yet as far
as I can tell.... (Not reported if they did)

Listening to the song, I can hear the supposed infringement played several times through the song. I think probably if it were once it wouldn't be a big deal, but it seems to be an important part of the composition, repeated multiple times. It's a hook that people remember. And it's very similar to the nursery rhyme as well.

I'm not saying that they are right to sue or that MAW ripped them off, but there is a similarity and didn't they say they took the inspiration from the rhyme?

[standin]

Yes, I believe he did say "inspiration". That is derivative work and protected under fair use.
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse: Derivative Works (http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/)

Let me show an example:

Every note, sound and utterance on the production "untitled" is derivative works from David Lee Roth.
David Lee Roth's "Running With The Devil" inspired this work. Musical there is no infringement. The words written without score are being infringed.
The fact that recorded sound was use to create the work is a whole other litigation.

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFuATnurHNI&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFuATnurHNI&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

[Dr. Love]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4057/4333385629_6e096ab0f6_o.gif

60s folk songs and folk music - songbook and tune-book entry - Kookabura (http://www.traditionalmusic.co.uk/folksw/005745.HTM)


<object id="_ds_24356004" name="_ds_24356004" width="670" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=24356004&mem_id=279142&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0&allowdownload=1" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><br /><font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24356004/Down-Under-by-Men-at-Work-Flute-Sheet-Music">Down Under by Men at Work Flute Sheet Music</a> - </font>

Compare the 1st through 4th bars of Kookabura to the 5th bar of Down Under. It's the same progression and relative note phrasing.

I don't think it's worth a lawsuit but I suppose when 1/2th of your entire "song" (if kookabura can be called that) is lifted and made into a major melody of another hit song then I suppose you start smelling the money.

[Panamark]

Listening to the song, I can hear the supposed infringement played several times through the song. I think probably if it were once it wouldn't be a big deal, but it seems to be an important part of the composition, repeated multiple times. It's a hook that people remember. And it's very similar to the nursery rhyme as well.

I'm not saying that they are right to sue or that MAW ripped them off, but there is a similarity and didn't they say they took the inspiration from the rhyme?

Yes the singer said they were inspired by it for sure.
Thats what prompted the other guys to acquire the rights and
sue, I believe ...

[Panamark]

<object id="_ds_24356004" name="_ds_24356004" width="670" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=24356004&mem_id=279142&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0&allowdownload=1" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><br /><font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/24356004/Down-Under-by-Men-at-Work-Flute-Sheet-Music">Down Under by Men at Work Flute Sheet Music</a> - </font>

Compare the 1st through 4th bars of Kookabura to the 5th bar of Down Under. It's the same progression and relative note phrasing.

I don't think it's worth a lawsuit but I suppose when 1/2th of your entire "song" (if kookabura can be called that) is lifted and made into a major melody of another hit song then I suppose you start smelling the money.

The part in question (as my ears hear it)
would account for a fifth of Kookaburra, but
perhaps 2 seconds of the flute riff.
And honestly, it still doesnt sound note perfect to me
however I agree on the phrasing/timing.

So 2 seconds x the amount of times they play the riff. Whatever that
adds up to in relation to the entire track length time. Thats how a fair
percentage should be calculted, Not 60%.

[Panamark]

This is the section of kookaburra in question
Same phrasing etc, different notes.(or different key I should say)

[Panamark]

Ok total track length is 3:14, I picked up the above "riff" 5 times.
Lets give it the benefit and say it goes for 3 seconds each time.
(although closer to 2)
Thats 15 seconds of 3:14 (194 seconds)
Whats that equate to in percentage ? 60 ???
Its around 3/4 of 1 percent.

I may be out a bit either way with the calcs here
but my point all along is still the same, is if it is the
same notes (which it is not, same progression in
a different key) then the percentage of the song it
occupies does not deserve the amount they were
awarded.

The different key and also octave and the
naturally shrill sound of the flute,
sounds way different to the key we sang
it as children, nobody I have spoken to ever picked
the link. Also the flute is playing it faster than
we sang it...

Still say it sucks even though I can now see the note pattern.

[Dr. Love]

This is the section of kookaburra in question
Same phrasing etc, different notes.(or different key I should say)

Looking at the sheet music above it appears that pattern of notes is played twice (4 total measures). The sheet music indicate the song has 8 measures. That's why I was saying it was half of kookabura :)

I agree that the percentage is out of whack ... and that perhaps the people that bought the rights shouldn't be suing at all given the pretext for why they are doing it.

But if it had been the original songwriter, I'd be more supportive. From what I can tell, they did practically lift half of his/her song. At the very least, ask permission or give some sort of credit, or write a different damn flute part.

Who the hell plays flute in rock'n'roll anyway?

[Dr. Love]

Other than the skin flute.

[Panamark]

If I have read the story correctly so far,
It was written by a woman in the 30's who gifted it to the girl guides.
No money involved.

It was only after some dudes heard Colin Haye refer to it, that
they checked out who the rights belonged too and voila !

Men at Work, and possibly every person in Australia would have
considered that song so old it would be public domain.

On this subject I seem to recall a Heavy Metal song in the
80's that "paid homage" to the roots of Rock and played
the actual riffs note for note throughout the song. I think
Black Dog was somewhere in there... Now that was really blatant.
Yet nobody sued them. I cant remember who the hell it was,
if I do I will post it.

[Blackflag]

You really need to simmer down.

[Panamark]

You really need to simmer down.

Nah - I could rave on about this for 4 more years !!
I dont believe there has been anything like this in musical
history. This is a bad precedent. Correct me if wrong.

I couldnt give a flying fuck if it were Loverboy, this is wrong !

[Panamark]

Fightback ???

Colin Hay plays Land Down Under without the offending flute to show it was all his song
By Alan Howe From: Herald Sun February 08, 2010 12:00AM EXCLUSIVE - Colin Hay: Down Under (2010)Play

Hay records new version minus flute
Says the flute was "incidental, at best"
Men at Work to fight rip-off ruling

LAUGH, kookaburra, laugh? He must be splitting his sides.

The judgement last week stating that Colin Hay and Ron Strykert stole the late Marion Sinclair's annoying Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree may well be challenged, and good thing, too.

The song was born from a bass line put on cassette by Strykert and which had hypnotised Hay.

In 1978, while driving down Power Street in Hawthorn, near the intersection of Riversdale Road, a line suddenly came to him: “Living in a land down under”.

Hay quickly mapped out the rest of the song on acoustic guitar. He called from California to play me the song as he originally intended it, with just a guitar and him. You can listen to it now on our website.

It is an emphatic challenge to the comments by Federal Court judge Peter Jacobson that “in my opinion, there is sufficient degree of objective similarity between bars of Kookaburra . . . to amount to a reproduction of a part of Miss Sinclair’s rounds”.

Down Under lived as a song long before musician Greg Ham unwittingly reprised a handful of notes from Kookaburra in his cheeky adornment to the worldwide hit.

At first, Ham wasn’t sure where the notes had come from, and in any case it was just a passing reference to somebody’s else’s moment, quite a tradition in jazz, classical, pop and rock, and in painting, in film, graphic art, political speeches, architecture and even cooking. When did you last see an acknowledgement of someone else’s idea in a recipe book?

Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones is a plagiarist. Greg Ham is a flautist.

When Men At Work recorded Down Under the song already existed, it wasn’t something that came out of thin air, the song was alive and well. It was a song,” Hay told me.

The judge says himself that the ‘two bars were part of a flute riff that was added to Down Under after is was first composed’ ... so the inference there is that the song already exists, and if the song already exists therefore it’s copywritten.

“It was always a big song, with or without that reference . . . (the flute) was incidental, at best”.

The Kookaburra notes “crept in there, it was innocuous”.

“I really love the song. It doesn’t define who I am or what I do and it may be hard for people to understand, but I really feel like I’m protecting the song. It has a life, to me. Down Under is a song unto itself. It’s been that way since 1978. It’s not fair.

“For me the song was a success before Men At Work, when I played it at the Cricketer’s Arms and somebody walked up to at the end of the night and said to me (the Scot Hay adopts a broad Australian accent) ‘hey, mate, can you play that song about downunder, I really like that’. That’s when it was a success to me.”

Hay has re-recorded his original version of Down Under so that our readers can hear it and make up their own mind if they agree with Judge Jacobson that “a substantial part” of Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree was stolen by Men At Work.

[Panamark]

Colin Hay without the flute. (As was originally wrriten)

Video - news.com.au (http://player.video.news.com.au/news/?1407252739)

[Panamark]

How cool was that, Colin still delivers 30 years later !! :baaa:

[WACF]

How cool was that, Colin still delivers 30 years later !! :baaa:

That was cool...I hope they win this.

[Blaze]

By KRISTEN GELINEAU, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 16 mins ago

SYDNEY – A judge ordered Australian band Men at Work on Tuesday to hand over a portion of the royalties from their 1980s hit "Down Under," after previously ruling its distinctive flute riff was copied from a children's campfire song.

But the penalty — 5 percent of the song's royalties — was far less than the 60 percent sought by publishing company Larrikin Music, which holds the copyright for the song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree."

"Kookaburra" was written more than 70 years ago by Australian teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition, and the song about the native Australian bird has been a favorite around campfires from New Zealand to Canada.

Sinclair died in 1988, but Larrikin filed a copyright lawsuit last year. In February, Federal Court Justice Peter Jacobson ruled Men at Work had copied their song's signature flute melody from "Kookaburra."

On Tuesday, Jacobson ordered Men at Work's recording company, EMI Songs Australia, and "Down Under" songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, to pay 5 percent of royalties earned from the song since 2002 and from its future earnings. A statute of limitations restricted Larrikin from seeking royalties earned before 2002.

The court didn't specify what the 5 percent penalty translates to in dollars.
"I consider the figures put forward by Larrikin to be excessive, overreaching and unrealistic," Jacobson wrote in his judgment.

Adam Simpson, Larrikin Music's lawyer, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Hay and Strykert were not in court for the decision and couldn't immediately be reached.
"Down Under" and the album it was on, "Business As Usual," topped the Australian, American and British charts in early 1983. The song remains an unofficial anthem for Australia and was ranked fourth in a 2001 music industry survey of the best Australian songs. Men at Work won the 1983 Grammy Award for Best New Artist.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100706/ap_on_en_mu/as_australia_men_at_work

[Blaze]

the penalty — 5 percent of the song's royalties — was far less than the 60 percent sought by publishing company Larrikin Music, which holds the copyright for the song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree."
Cliff notes :biggrin:

[twonabomber]

are we to believe the Men At Work back catalog still sells well enough to earn decent royalties? ok, the 80's stations probably still play it, but enough that 5% is going to hurt these guys?

what's half of nothin'? that's right...nothin'.

[Blaze]

are we to believe the Men At Work back catalog still sells well enough to earn decent royalties? ok, the 80's stations probably still play it, but enough that 5% is going to hurt these guys?

what's half of nothin'? that's right...nothin'.
That is a good thing, read the back story to this. The guys that got the 5% were pirates.

[Seshmeister]

Personally I don't think either of them should get anything - copyright should last for just 20 years.

[Nickdfresh]

Personally I don't think either of them should get anything - copyright should last for just 20 years.

It was 70 years in the U.S. as of the late 1990s. But I'm pretty sure the corporatist assholes have ever expanded copyright law so that the original artists are not the ones benefiting...

[twonabomber]

That is a good thing, read the back story to this. The guys that got the 5% were pirates.

i did read the backstory, so STFU.

[Hardrock69]

:biggrin:

[Blaze]

i did read the backstory, so STFU.


They are notorious for using “i” instead of “I”
:biggrin:
http://www.romancescams.org/RedFlags.html



What the big dealo is that the case did not set precedent (or president in dealo language ;) ).

[Blaze]

What the big dealo is that the case did not set precedent (or president in dealo language ;) ).

correction:
the case set precedent*

[Blaze]

Personally I don't think either of them should get anything - copyright should last for just 20 years.
Just curious, don't ya think a parent's work should be able to be set as investment for their heirs if arranged?

[PETE'S BROTHER]

Who the hell plays flute in rock'n'roll anyway?

ron...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBRyjMHO_Ew

[Hardrock69]

Jethro Tull?

Heart?

[Nickdfresh]

nevermind!

[Doctor Dude]

On this subject I seem to recall a Heavy Metal song in the
80's that "paid homage" to the roots of Rock and played
the actual riffs note for note throughout the song. I think
Black Dog was somewhere in there... Now that was really blatant.
Yet nobody sued them. I cant remember who the hell it was,
if I do I will post it.

Are you referring to this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qze06Ig2eQM

Sorry about the long intro.

[Doctor Dude]

It was 70 years in the U.S. as of the late 1990s. But I'm pretty sure the corporatist assholes have ever expanded copyright law so that the original artists are not the ones benefiting...

I read about this subject recently..... turns out you can blame Disney. AND Sonny Bono.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act