Ableton Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8497433.stm

Has the whole world gone mad?

Yeah, I'm sorry but I don't see how they won that.

About time somebody took down the unstoppable juggernaut that is Men at Work.

glad the dance scene isnt so damn "omfg you stole my chord".

that's ridiculous. who actually decides these things in court.. is there a jury panel or is it just some judge? i listened to the kukama gum tree or whatever song and Men at Work (one of my favs) and can't really see any similarities, noticeable anyways.. but if you looked hard enough and if every case judged like this, so many countless songs would be guilty of copyright infringement also.. there's really only 12 notes to play with so some similarities and even some accidents are bound to happen..

I guess this is what happens when solely lawyers determine what is a reality in terms of music and a common musical language.

I don't know how Australian music law works, and I do hear a similarity in melody with Kookaburra and the Men at Work song, but it sounds like the songwriters were inspired by the Kookaburra tune and not necessarily ripping it off.

Men at Work's vocal melody is quite different throughout most of the song than the Kookaburra tune. The flute melody in the Men at Work song sounds somewhat similar. It'd be interesting to compare scores of the Men at Work vocal melody and the other.

Shit ruling.

The song writer died in 1988 the copyright owner 'Larikin Music' bought the rights in 1990. But it is pretty much an Australian folk song that is part of our collective cultural heritage.

Everyone rips off/borrows from everyone who has gone before them, whether it's consciously or unconsciously.

Should a company who bought the rights to a song's copyright after the songwriter has died, be allowed to claim compensation? I seriously doubt any money will be going towards the songwriters family.

If it doesn't get repealed, then this sets a very dangerous precedence for australian music copyright.

am wrote:Shit ruling.

The song writer died in 1988 the copyright owner 'Larikin Music' bought the rights in 1990. But it is pretty much an Australian folk song that is part of our collective cultural heritage.

Everyone rips off/borrows from everyone who has gone before them, whether it's consciously or unconsciously.

Should a company who bought the rights to a song's copyright after the songwriter has died, be allowed to claim compensation? I seriously doubt any money will be going towards the songwriters family.

If it doesn't get repealed, then this sets a very dangerous precedence for australian music copyright.

actually, the copyright is good for another 50 years after the death of the owner of the rights to the song.. so I guess whoever bought the rights still has till 2038 to reap the benefits.. still, i don't agree with the verdict..

This is getting stupid.

Can any of us ever be sure that when we 'make up' a riff or progression it is truly original and not actually a memory of another track?

Lame.

This type garbage is exactly why I don't fiddle with loops. Period. I/we make all my/our own drum patterns, bass lines, guitar riffs, lyrics... everything. I'll be damned, should I ever get paid out big on a track, if some 3rd party with no actual vested time or interest in the creation of the original piece come along and steal 60% of the long since spent profits, all over some tiny little bite of the song. They'll be suing school children next for live performances.

The swine that sued probably don't even make music.

Remember this shit when you're loopin it up.

nuxnamon wrote:

am wrote:Shit ruling.

The song writer died in 1988 the copyright owner 'Larikin Music' bought the rights in 1990. But it is pretty much an Australian folk song that is part of our collective cultural heritage.

Everyone rips off/borrows from everyone who has gone before them, whether it's consciously or unconsciously.

Should a company who bought the rights to a song's copyright after the songwriter has died, be allowed to claim compensation? I seriously doubt any money will be going towards the songwriters family.

If it doesn't get repealed, then this sets a very dangerous precedence for australian music copyright.

actually, the copyright is good for another 50 years after the death of the owner of the rights to the song.. so I guess whoever bought the rights still has till 2038 to reap the benefits.. still, i don't agree with the verdict..

Yeah, I know about the 50 year ruling too, but in this particular case, the writer wrote it for a Girl Guides competition in 1934, and as part of the competition entry process, she signed over the copyright to the song over to the competition.

The whole thing is dodgy... this company "larikin music' apparently bought the rights, then sat on them for 15 years until someone on a music quiz TV show pointed out that the melodies were similar.

They then sue these guys who worked hard for years to get onto the world stage and get into a position where they could release a song that could become popular.

To claim that the current copyright owner "Larikin Music' actually has the right to ANY of that money earned seems crazy to me.

wow..what a bunch of shit!

how do they even expect men at work to pay?
im sure they have spent most of the money from that song by now.

cant they try to get a judge to overturn that ruling in Australia?

am wrote: The whole thing is dodgy... this company "larikin music' apparently bought the rights, then sat on them for 15 years until someone on a music quiz TV show pointed out that the melodies were similar.

They then sue these guys who worked hard for years to get onto the world stage and get into a position where they could release a song that could become popular.

And to top it off, the Lawyer for Larkin Music touted the ruling as "a victory for the underdog".

well the band themselves are apparently broke so I think they're hoping they'll get something out of EMI

I remember having to do "sound alikes" in a previous job and being told the law was every fourth note had to be different (this was in the UK) and I guess the flute riff shared more than 4 of the notes, but I still find this unbelievable

You can guarantee this "larrikin music" will get no love in Australia.... sounds like some profiteering gold digger decided to try his luck and got away with it

Jesus the quality of that BBC story is SHIT.

It's the FLUTE melody that was called into question and not the entire tune. Which makes the ruling even more fucking assinine.

Greg Ham, the guy that played the riff originally, stated that he used a bit of that old tune for his riff.

Here's more of the real story from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... =allsearch


This is where it's HORRIFYING to think about how we get our news. And who from. Christ. If a story can be so utterly different from one outlet as compared to another for a matter as trivial as this, what are we to think on the really BIG stories.

Horrifying.


BTW, I saw Colin Hay perform about 6months back. Just solo with a guitar. One of the most amazing shows I've ever seen, bar none. The guy was amazing and his voice was stellar.