Down under plagiarism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbur

I'm going off topic here but I reckon a number of manufacturers ought to be sued. Imagine using logos that over the years became symbols of reasonable quality to stick on crap.
Jim

---

Well said - I guess it hasn't happened because who no-one will pay the lawyers six figure sums to sue them. Apparently they will for copyright - however dubious the premise may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuzzie

I heard the current copyright owner (of Kooka..) being interviewed yesterday and admitted they paid around $6500 to buy the copyright only a couple of years ago.

---

If this is true how can they clam any money as the Men at Work song was made years before he paid for the song the person who made the song (Kooka) should have done some thing about this some time ago. It's like if you had a car and some one hit it and you do stuff all about it and sell the car the new owner wont chase up the person who hit the car to pay for it.
They need to get a life and get over it.
David

HE probably bought it with the intention of suing them.

Makes you wonder doesn't it??:?:?:?

Was a similar case overseas where one of the big rock bands was sued for "subliminal" use of a few notes!! Utter Shyte!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

HE probably bought it with the intention of suing them.

---

Apparently, neither he nor anyone else noticed the similarity until it was brought up on Spics 'n' Specs.

If taken to its extreme it would see an end to the recording of live music especially jazz where improvisation is the norm. When the mood takes a jazz player he/she will use anything they've ever heard.
Lawyers would have to listen to every note before the final release of any recording.:?
Cheers,
Jim

Personaly, I think copyright should go back to the original seven years - none of this 50 years after the death of the original creator nonsense - if they want to make more money, come up with something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Personaly, I think copyright should go back to the original seven years - none of this 50 years after the death of the original creator nonsense - if they want to make more money, come up with something new.

---

I don't think the industrial revolution would have taken place if they had copyright BS like this at the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Apparently, neither he nor anyone else noticed the similarity until it was brought up on Spics 'n' Specs.

---

Correct, but apparently the Kookaburra tune is used extensively in teaching music in the USofA and they had already made substantial royalty settlements there for its use. $$$+++

Now about all those pieces composed by Anonymous, such as Scarborough Faire, Elizabethan Seranade, Greensleeves etc.

And what about Waltzing Matilda. The version most of us use was omposed by Mary Cowan. There were other versions around before she got to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artme

Now about all those pieces composed by Anonymous, such as Scarborough Faire, Elizabethan Seranade, Greensleeves etc.

And what about Waltzing Matilda. The version most of us use was omposed by Mary Cowan. There were other versions around before she got to work.

---

Enough to make you change your name to anon.
As for Waltzing Matilda, saw this in Wiki:
Although no copyright applies in Australia, the Australian Government had to pay royalties to Carl Fischer Music following the song being played at the 1996 Summer Olympics held in Atlanta
Jim

There have been major legal cases in the past where songs have been obvious copies i.e. Huey Lewis (I want a new drug) vs Ray Parker (Ghostbusters) and George Harrison (My sweet lord) vs ???:doh: but this is ridiculous. It comes down to two bars improvised (not written) by the flute player in a different key, different rythm and different tempo. Why should greed ruin two iconic aussie songs?
:(