General Music Chat

I heard this bit on the radio last night, and was wondering if anyone else knew anything about it.

Remember the 80's song "Down Under" by Men at Work?

It seems that some jerk RECENTLY bought the rights to an old Australian folk tune. Apparently the tune is similar to the main melody in the Men at Work hit song (or some part of it is similar).

The jerk sued the band...and won! He now receives royalties anytime their song is played-even though they recorded it 20+ years ago, and he didn't own the rights to the folk song when their song was released.

This is seriously f'd up. I hope nobody buys the rights to "Mary had a little lamb" or I'm in BIG trouble!


No, seriously. This is just sick.

Idiotic.

It doesn't appear to have been settled in court yet.

Found this video, detailing the issue on an Australian News channel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyB2l5wqLE


I doubt that it is close enough, or even long enough, to merit a judgement against "Men at Work" but... I don't know how different copyright law in Australia is, than in America, but... stranger things have happened, so who knows how it goes.

And personally, I find no problem with a THIRD party being able to sue to protect THEIR rights. They are, after all, now the OWNERS of the song, and the original writer was COMPENSATED by THEM, when they bought it from her.

How is that wrong?

The original writer CHOSE to sell her song.

THEY paid her for it.

And they have the right to now profit from it, and protect it.

It's THEIR property now.

It doesn't appear to have been settled in court yet.

Found this video, detailing the issue on an Australian News channel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyB2l5wqLE


I doubt that it is close enough, or even long enough, to merit a judgement against "Men at Work" but... I don't know how different copyright law in Australia is, than in America, but... stranger things have happened, so who knows how it goes.

And personally, I find no problem with a THIRD party being able to sue to protect THEIR rights. They are, after all, now the OWNERS of the song, and the original writer was COMPENSATED by THEM, when they bought it from her.

How is that wrong?

The original writer CHOSE to sell her song.

THEY paid her for it.

And they have the right to now profit from it, and protect it.

It's THEIR property now.

Actually, if this were true then many publishers, including those of music lesson books, could also be sued. This song is everywhere.

Mary,

I think the video mentioned that the argument AGAINST their rights to royalties, is that the original writer. in effect GAVE the song away when she wrote it for a Girl Guides song competition, for them to sing. Clearly the original writer never sought damages for copyright infringement, and at least in America, a copyright is only as good as your willingness to protect it. The publishing company is just looking for a pay-day, and I doubt very much, that the decision will be in their favor.

My only argument, is a GENERAL ONE, that if someone buys the rights to your song, then they now own it, and have every right to pursue protection of it, just as the original writer would have.

In this case though, it has yet to be proven that the original song was infringed upon.

Was on the radio news months ago.
Next we'll get sued for playing an A Chord.
It's one thing to protect creative works.
It's a whole other issue to get stupid about it out of pure greed.

Actually, if this were true then many publishers, including those of music lesson books, could also be sued. This song is everywhere.

Sorry, Mary, but the rules don't apply in the same way to lesson books & lesson plans. For example, a music teacher CAN make copies of a CD or other recording, & distribute it to his students, without paying royalties to the song's owner.

In essense, it IS legal to make money off the hard work of someone else, in this regard...as long as it's for the betterment of future musicians & composers.

Was on the radio news months ago.
Next we'll get sued for playing an A Chord.
It's one thing to protect creative works.
It's a whole other issue to get stupid about it out of pure greed.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-retires-d-chord,5876/[/url]

Man those guys need to put down that crack pipe.

These lawsuits are getting ridiculous. What defines a damn copywrite infringement these days? Pretty soon they are going to put EVERY part of EVERY song ever copywritten on a computer program that will compare EVERY part of EVERY new copywritten material and even if ONE measure is found duplicated there will be a lawsuit. Why even bother copywriting ANYTHING? They should make it MANDATORY that in order to sue somebody for copywrite infringement then the ENTIRE song is deemed to have been stolen, including music AND lyrics. That way it will end all frivilous lawsuits.

Frivolous lawsuits are the name of the game. A couple of years ago it was the drug pushers advertising at almost every commercial break. Notice who is advertising at every commercial break now days? Lawyers looking to sue some company somewhere for anything and everything. Since the peoples health care was pushed through by the peoples party, lawyers have spent millions on adds looking for clients to fill their pockets. Then why not. The crooks that wrote the peoples health care would not include one of the things that raise medical expenses the most. Frivolous lawsuits and ridiculously high judgments. I know. They just want to teach them a lesson. But to my observation no one ever gives the settlement money to charity.

I think the lawyers who are into robbing musicians blind with copyright fees are getting envious of the lawyers suing the drug companies. It is the year of the lawyer, TV should bear that out. GREED makes the legal community go round..... I despise lawyers. Especially the ones who are stealing our liberty. I need to stop now because my mind is filling with explitives.

I love the idea of a lawyer. Doing their part in our great american system, fighting for justice and putting criminals behind bars. There was a line i heard in a commercial for some courtroom drama that went something along the lines of "Our entire legal system is justified if one innocent person goes free." To me, that's saying that they don't have a quota, they don't care about the money, they are helping the innocent for the sake of helping the innocent.


In reality, a lawyer is nothing but a walking middle finger aimed at sanity and decency.

I love the idea of a lawyer. Doing their part in our great american system, fighting for justice and putting criminals behind bars. There was a line i heard in a commercial for some courtroom drama that went something along the lines of "Our entire legal system is justified if one innocent person goes free." To me, that's saying that they don't have a quota, they don't care about the money, they are helping the innocent for the sake of helping the innocent.


In reality, a lawyer is nothing but a walking middle finger aimed at sanity and decency.

So that's why we keep electing them to public office?

I love the idea of a lawyer. Doing their part in our great american system, fighting for justice and putting criminals behind bars. There was a line i heard in a commercial for some courtroom drama that went something along the lines of "Our entire legal system is justified if one innocent person goes free." To me, that's saying that they don't have a quota, they don't care about the money, they are helping the innocent for the sake of helping the innocent.


In reality, a lawyer is nothing but a walking middle finger aimed at sanity and decency.

So that's why we keep electing them to public office?

politicians are like 2 middle fingers, while bending over to expose the anus.

So, anyway, vote for me on nov. 4th.

politicians are like 2 middle fingers, while bending over to expose the anus.

So, anyway, vote for me on nov. 4th.

I nominate that for the quote of the week!



Funny stuff bro!