Insanity: Men At Work Lose Final Appeal For Using Brief Riff Of Classic Folks Song, Which Went Unnoticed For Decades
from the pay-up dept
More copyright insanity coming from down under. As you may recall, a couple years ago, the music publisher Larrikin sued for copyright infringement over the 80s pop hit Down Under by the band "Men at Work," claiming that it infringed on a classic Australia folk song, called Kookaburra. It seemed odd that it would take decades for anyone to make this claim, and even the boss at Larrikin only noticed it when an Australian quiz show mentioned it in a question. Then, suddenly, Larrikin wanted to get paid. The district court sided with Larrikin as did the appeals court. Now, as a bunch of you have been sending in, Australia's high court is refusing to hear the appeal, meaning the appeals court ruling stands... and apparently a big chunk of royalties from the pop song will be going to Larrikin -- who had nothing to do with the song and didn't even notice the weak connection until someone pointed it out.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, copyright, down under, kookaburra, men at work
Companies: emi, larrikin music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it, why must artists be a slave sublclass that works for free? Huh?
You swing the "copymaximalist" broadbrush freely, but its just FUD to hide your piracy apologism. You need to grow up and realise that we live in a civilized society, not the wild west.
You are a Piracy Theft Party spokesperson, but that party is over. Really, try to be sensible for once.
Stealing is wrong. Raping and killing is wrong. Terrorism is wrong.
You need to stop fighting strawmen and just obey the law. Really, the goverment should stomp on rogues sites like this one.
PROTECT IP is coming for you, Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re to: slave 201
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re to: slave 201
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re to: slave 201
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some tool gets a dead guys (or gals) package and wants to reap without sowing anything? You're fucking kidding me right now right?
And some of you guys wonder why people "steal" your shit?.. because you're fat fucking lazy idiots than can't do much apart from "steal" your damn selves. We're coming.. you have no delivery stream lock in - we have evolved. We have evolved around you and will continue to as long as your fat, stupid, self-serving asses are still asking your, clearly, better halves to keep changing the channel for you.
You're fat, slow and stupid. Oh, and you suck.
PROTECT-IP - yeah, what-the-fuck ever.. and nobody smokes weed either.
Cheers!
Oh.. wait.. this is sarcastic isn't it? Well... then... I win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though this may be a proof of a derivative of Poe's Law.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of [Copyright Maximalists] that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So make copyright non-transferrable.
Hey, Mike, here's your weekend homework: a list of FIXES for this broken system. You can't beat something with nothing. After all these years, you should be able to rattle off the changes needed. Don't worry much about whether practical, just list what you'll do when society recognizes you as philsopher-king and grants you a year to sweep away the accumulated privileges to set society right again. ... (Good heavens, even my fantasies have a time limit set on them!) ... Anyway, telling us this never ending series of losses to moneyed interests is NO help: LET'S HAVE YOUR SOLUTIONS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable. -- additional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable. -- additional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
Copyrights should last for 5 years with an option to 5 more and that is it, if you made money out of it fine if not others have a chance to make it too.
Then you can put all the more stringent laws there can be and people wouldn't mind that much.
It has to be very short though if you want to make things get ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
While we're hitting the crack pipe: yes! Short-term opt-in copyrights FTW! My prediction is copyright law will never be improved. In 50 or 100 years time all this bad law will still be on the books, but nobody will bother using it anymore. It will be like those laws making it illegal to shoot a buffalo from a moving train. So is that prediction, cynical, hopeful, or both? Pessoptimistic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
Hmm, you are probably right. That's how I and virtually everyone I know already treats it, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
I can live 5 maybe 10 years with ridiculous copyrights, I could reluctantly accept that although I dislike it tremendously, I can wait 5 to 10 years, but I will never ever respect anything passing that.
They can make it criminal, have fines that expand at the speed of the universe expansion, not allow any public or private viewing without payment, put ridiculous DRM and so forth I can live with all that if it is very very short and that is 5 year for me, with the maximum being 10 and no more.
Copyright is a monopoly, it is a social poison and should be administered in very low doses.
If they want me to hold my hands to a hot frying pan voluntarily it will be very very brief or they will find themselves fighting for their lives trying to hold my hand to that hot surface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
This idea wouldn't hurt patents either. If you aren't producing a product you might not be able to afford the 5 year upgrade cost. If you are sitting on a patent, you have reason to find it viable or not within 5 years.
Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
This would ensure a lively and decent public domain as well.
but this all is just a pipe-dream, will never happen, unless we can oust the morons calling the shots and get people in that also take the public's interests in mind when proposing laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
Frankly I don't even believe in IP law, I believe it should be free and every one should be able to use anything from anywhere to make money out of it and the market decides who is the most capable people and let the market structure itself on the natural evolution of those markets.
Of course that would make it difficult for someone to exploit commercially any thing, but that is not a bad thing, it weeds out the weak and incapable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
The reasoning for this is that some works take longer than 5 years before they become successful or recoup their costs. If an artist cannot make a profit after 20 years, either they're an astoundingly poor businessman or their work is not worth the money. After 20 years, those who wish to continue making money as a monopoly can do so (but not pass royalties on to those who did not create the work), and works not considered "profitable" can freely enter the public domain where they ultimately belong.
I've not heard a reasonable objection to this idea in the many years I've been suggesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
How about this: the best copyright term is the shortest one that is sufficient to incentivise production, because that's its only legitimate purpose. I think we're both going off of intuition rather than facts (though if not, lay 'em out), but 20 years to life seems like WAY longer than necessary to me.
Who would say to themselves that they might consider making a movie (or book, or whatever), but only if they could have copyright on it for 20 years or more? I have a great idea for a book, but I'm not going to bother because I'll only have the copyright for 10 years? I don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
Maybe, but it seems like not only would those be a small minority, but they would also mostly be accidental. That is, I'm guessing very few works are released with a plan to recoup the money over a period of 20 years or more. Some might actually do that, but I think when that happens it's because the actual plan for making money failed, and then it either happened to make it up later, or a new plan was concocted to help make the money back.
So if I'm right, then a longer copyright term still isn't needed, because it doesn't generally enter into plans to create content. Now... does anyone know if I'm right? :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
With that in mind can you provide a percentage higher than 50% that would justify such a thing?
"Some works take longer" is not enough to justify giving anybody a long term copyright, it is a monopoly it is a social poison and as such should be given in very dilute form and that mean the shortest term possible and that is by today standards 10 years, after that most works loose the economic appeal and no longer are profitable or desirable in the eyes of commerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
Let the the creators/consumers hash it out, stop trying to force it one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
Actually I disagree with your assertion that if the public is unwilling to pay, content will not be created. I would say rather there is nothing any government could do to keep people from creating. They will do it no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
It is, however, inhibiting newcomers to the creativity process. If they are indoctrinated to believe that making money is the only reason to be creative, then creativity is harmed.
On the other side, non scarce goods seems like a market prediction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
2) 10 years for copyright. Period.
3) Sharing for non-commercial purposes (such as with friends) is perfectly legal.
90% of copyright issues go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
100% of copyright issues go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So make copyright non-transferrable.
End government granted monopolies
The End.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing new in music...
There are only so many notes, played in specific ways that are pleasing to the human ear. This means that any new creations have to, and will, be built from the work of others - that is fact and further, there is no music from the past that didn't rip something from the artists that preceded them.
All this is, is someone charging rent because they are too lazy and apathetic to get off their rear-ends and actually create something, even if it is just a reinterpretation of something from the past...
Unless of course you really do like Klingon Opera...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is nothing new in music...
Sticking with the "pleasing" aspect of a 7 note scale and 15 seconds worth of music to make a song, only allowing 1 note per second within that 15 seconds gives us the result of 4747561509943 possible songs. Factor in chords, tempo, key, time changes, key changes, additional instruments, lyrics, etc and you are left with basically infinite numbers of songs.
Saying all that, blues are my favorite type of music and people still keep coming up with variations on that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is nothing new in music...
Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is nothing new in music...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So i guess this means Lady Antebellum is
He's not dead last I checked. And his song is still better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let stand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let stand?
Just clock the guy and you see I'm not joking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright madness polluted by greed
Copyright should only ever last as long as the original creator is alive and should never be available to sale or resale by anyone but the original creator. All original creators should receive recognition both in print and financially for any use of their original work. This should include all artists of any type... painters, writers, musicians etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright madness polluted by greed
And when it's over, it's over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright madness polluted by greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMA is a bunch of Facists.
The people at GEMA should seriously think about what they are doing. It is not like Germany has not fallen victim to complete fascism in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Men At Work / Kookaburra
CS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Men At Work / Kookaburra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Men At Work / Kookaburra
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5413561&page=1
So much for that example.
As an aside, I love this quote (from the article I just linked):
"Through the years, there have been many copyrighted compositions such as 'Happy Birthday to You' that have become part of America's cultural fabric. And the ability of artists — authors, composers, lyricists and other creators — to be compensated for their copyrighted work is a cornerstone of the American economy and culture," Warner Music spokesman Will Tanous said.
So I have to wonder, which one is Warner Music: the author, the composer, the lyricist or other creator? They apparently inherited it from the Hill sisters.
It's a good thing Warner Music is being compensated after 80 years, because we know it will encourage the Hill sisters to create more good works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
parody okay, but not ?
Uh oh... If this comment has any impact on the recording industry it will probably be to make Weird Al pay royalties too.
Sorry, Al! Wasn't my intention!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is hard to work out Mike if you are 'for' or 'against' the LAW
Mike you appear to be saying
"We need to change the law because that law appears to be working so well!!!".
What are you upset about Mike, someone seeking the rights under the law, or someone taking the rights of someone else ?
I can understand your stance though, if you see a law that appears to be doing exactly what it intended to do, and working well that would upset you.
So who are you upset with here in this case Mike ?
Men At work for using someone elses riff, or Larakin for deciding to exercise their RIGHT to that Riff ?
It appears you are not quiet sure ether ! therefore the rant!!
Or is it just a knee jerk reaction when you hear the word 'copyright' you just have to type ?
Here is a heading for you !!
Man is convicted of murder, Mike called for repeal of murder laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is hard to work out Mike if you are 'for' or 'against' the LAW
Hush Darryl, adults are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(I suppose I can buy a used copy of Business As Usual to get a legal copy of the song without giving Larrikin any profits, and buy a new copy of Cargo to support MAW.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CEO Larrikins
Seriously though, this is truely dispicable. I hope he gets a massive dose of Karma for this, though I don't hold much hope. Unless I see him on the street as I mentioned earlier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Muzikmp3indir
Bilgiler için teşekkürler https://muzikmp3indir.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]