New Wave Outpost Forum

February 4, 2010

Apparently the wheels of justice turn slowly in Australia. Men At Work's 80s smash hit, "Down Under" has been found to contain a melody from a nursery rhyme written in 1932. Australian Federal Court judge Peter Jacobsen ruled that the flute riff in "Down Under" mimics the "Kookaburra" song.

Plaintiffs are seeking 40 to 60 percent of the royalties earned by "Down Under" in Australia during the last six years, the time limit imposed by Australian law.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... ra/?hpt=T2







<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>

"Australian music group Larrikin Publishing bought the copyright to the song in 1990 after Sinclair's death in 1988."

"It wasn't until the quiz show in 2007 that Larrikin Managing Director Norman Lurie became aware of the songs' similarities and the potential for a law suit."

This is bullshit. First of all, if you didn't know until 2007, then you missed out and shouldn't be able to collect for anything before then, especially for a song you had no hand in creating. And 40-60%? That's effen robbery.

It has caused quite a stir down here... this song is more popular than our national anthem.. in fact.. many people treat it as our unoffical national anthem!!

The whole thing stinks!!

TM

I just watched a CNN story on this- they played both flute portions (Men at Work and Kookabura). They sound NOTHING alike! The 2 CNN anchors also felt the same[V]

Is Peter Jacobsen fucking retarded or something? And I thought The Rubinoos' and Joe Shatriani's lawsuits were ridiculous. This one takes the crown.

And why the hell does Australia not have statute of limitations on petty crap?

[quote][i]Originally posted by schwenko[/i]
<br>I just watched a CNN story on this- they played both flute portions (Men at Work and Kookabura). They sound NOTHING alike! The 2 CNN anchors also felt the same[V]
[/quote]

I don't know what clip CNN played, but the riffs are exactly the same. Dumb judgement but you'd have to be cukoo to not hear Kookaburra hear. Listen again:

http://www.zshare.net/audio/722357576dac88ff/

[quote][i]Originally posted by SomebodySomewhere[/i]
And why the hell does Australia not have statute of limitations on petty crap?
[/quote]
I don't know anything about Australian law, but you would think there would be some kind of copyright expiration into the public domain of like 50 years or something, or at least at the time of death of the author and original copyright holder. Exactly what kind of damages are due to a company that bought the copyright for the song *6* years after the release of Down Under? Utterly ridiculous. I'd be filing frivelous lawsuit charges.

[quote][i]Originally posted by dare2be[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SomebodySomewhere[/i]
And why the hell does Australia not have statute of limitations on petty crap?
[/quote]
I don't know anything about Australian law, but you would think there would be some kind of copyright expiration into the public domain of like 50 years or something, or at least at the time of death of the author and original copyright holder. Exactly what kind of damages are due to a company that bought the copyright for the song *6* years after the release of Down Under? Utterly ridiculous. I'd be filing frivelous lawsuit charges.
[/quote]

Its an attempt @ a cash grab at best. Whoever bought it, probably figured they were sitting on a goldmine? only to find out, it was pretty much worthless...so, what do they do? "sue" of course...like everyone else who feels "wronged" by the man.

"Keepin the '80s alive!"

6 years after they bought the song? Try TWENTY EIGHT years after the damn thing was released. At least Joe and those two opportunistic twits from The Rubinoos were timely with their frivolous lawsuits.

I feel so sorry for the taxpayers who have to pay for this total waste of court time.

Is there a website that lists everything owned by Larrikin? I feel like boycotting their entire catalogue.

[quote][i]Originally posted by SomebodySomewhere[/i]
<br>6 years after they bought the song? Try TWENTY EIGHT years after the damn thing was released.[/quote]
My favorite part is that the person who actually wrote "Kookaburra" was alive for 6-7 years after "Down Under" came out and never said or did anything.

[quote][i]Originally posted by rsgonzalez[/i]
My favorite part is that the person who actually wrote "Kookaburra" was alive for 6-7 years after "Down Under" came out and never said or did anything.
[/quote]


Listening to the "melody" of "Kookooburrito," I'm guessing she was deaf. Certainly, the judge is.

[quote][i]Originally posted by dare2be[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SomebodySomewhere[/i]
And why the hell does Australia not have statute of limitations on petty crap?
[/quote]
I don't know anything about Australian law, but you would think there would be some kind of copyright expiration into the public domain of like 50 years or something, or at least at the time of death of the author and original copyright holder. Exactly what kind of damages are due to a company that bought the copyright for the song *6* years after the release of Down Under? Utterly ridiculous. I'd be filing frivelous lawsuit charges.
[/quote]
If Australia picked a specific number of years before something entered the public domain they would have to revise it on a regular basis every time it looked like Walt Disney might lose the rights to Mickey Mouse in order to stay compatible with US copyright law.

Appeal! Woohoo! (just as well).

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainmen ... der-ruling


TM