With a slack jaw, and not much to say

[analogtodd]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/men-at ... 5826917098

I found the last paragraph to be an open book of an artistic heart.

[Nerfherder]

Wow. Agreed.

[keny]

lame opportunism

[kahnzo]

Confused - the flute part is an obvious rip off of Kookaburra - part of the reason that I liked the song back in the day. To suggest that the flute player didn't realize it was a rip off is pretty damn disingenuous.

Also, to suggest that Colin Hay didn't realize that it was a rip off of Kookaburra when they recorded it is utter nonsense.

[Y2Karma]

Most Americans never heard the Kookaburra song, I certainly didn't and I loved Men at Work, just listened to Buisness as Usual and Cargo the other day. They could have used any flute riff in there and I still would have enjoyed the song.

If the person who wrote the Kookaburra song made the claim that would be reasonable. If the relatives of the person who wrote the song made the claim. it would be semi reasonable. If some idiot that had nothing what so ever to do with writing the Kookaburra song makes this claim 20 years after the fact....it's just stupid greedy opportunism, which might be legal, but is still incredibly tacky and stupid.

I'm not sure how using that little flute part is any different than Kanye using Ray Charles' "Goldigger" riff in his song.

Besides, it was an Austrailian court. How serious should we take that?

heh

"who can it be now.......who can it be now...........who can it be now.........who can it be now?"

[Myk-El]

Yeah, I had some classes in US copyright as it pertains to journalism for my minor in college, I have no real knowledge of Australia handles things. Truth be told, what happened is really not any different than a song being sampled. But I do have to wonder why it took so many years for someone to make the claim? I'm also of a school that Copyright shouldn't extend beyond the life of the creator by more than 10 years which has passed in this case (and in the case of something owned by a band, 10 years after the last member dies). The way things seem to be going, nothing will ever enter the public domain ever again and I really think that's a horrible shame.

From reading about the "Kookaburra" song, it bears some similarities (not musically, but from an anally defended rights POV) to "Happy Birthday to You."

[Y2Karma]

"But I do have to wonder why it took so many years for someone to make the claim?"

Because it took twenty years for the sleazebag to obtain the rights so he could then turn around and sue?


just guessing

[kahnzo]

I wonder how much money 6 years of royalty payments for that particular recording of that particular song is.

[analogtodd]

quote="kahnzo"]Confused - the flute part is an obvious rip off of Kookaburra - part of the reason that I liked the song back in the day. To suggest that the flute player didn't realize it was a rip off is pretty damn disingenuous.

Also, to suggest that Colin Hay didn't realize that it was a rip off of Kookaburra when they recorded it is utter nonsense.[/quote]

I didn't take that away from the article at all... What Colin is referring to is that he wrote the song YEARS before it was recorded. The song exsisted long before the flute player put those 2 questionable bars in there.

Now the idea that someone comes along and perverts his music troubles him. Look, the woman who wrote the song in 1938 was still alive when Men At Work released the song... did she say anything about it then? Did anyone 5 or 10 years after the fact? No... some company bought the rights to some old back catalog and found a match, thats all... It is opportunistic.. it is GREED. it is pathetic.

Obviously, he's never played knifey spooney before

[kahnzo]

I'm just saying that the flute parts aren't "questionable" or "subconscious" - it's as silly as Vanilla Ice explaining the differences between his obvious sampling of Queen and the original.

Yes, musicians borrow from one another all the time. Yes, I've heard little stolen riffs and solos in recorded songs and think that those little parts don't justify the payment of royalities. But in the specific recording of this song, that flute part does constitute a significant portion of the song and does repeat, and does add to the songs appeal (in that it brought me memories of my mom singing the song when I was little.) Does this justify the payment of royalties? I think so.

Whether copyrights should be transferable is a whole other question, though. I think that they should be, but I also think that there should be a much shorter time limit.

Is this all just motivated by greed? Perhaps. It doesn't change what I think is a reasonable judgement. Should some money go to the guy that created the Amen Break? I think that we could argue, yes.