A judge in Sydney, Australia ruled today that Men at Work’s ’80s megahit “Down Under” infringes on the copyright of an old children’s song called Read the full post.
Feb 4
2010
02:37 PM ET
Men At Work's 'Down Under' stole from children's song, judge rules
- Comments 41
- Add comment
Two things – if they had left a gap in the song of a bar there would be no issue….maybe a message to musicians that space in composition is sometimes better than more notes. AND notwitstanding, the Judge was sitting up the gum tree smoking it!! He clearly knows bugger all about music – he’s off with the birds for sure !!! Mr Justice Tone Deaf !!
Even though the two basic elements (music & lyrics) that constitute a song are totally different in nature, the same basic principle (which has nothing to do with the amount of content that has been copied) applies at law, in order to decide whether “Infringement of Copyright” has taken place. This same basic principle also applies in the case of written material, in order to decide whether “Plagiarism” has taken place. A media article (e.g.) that could fit on only a single A-4 page is said to have been plagiarised even when ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION of the said media article has been reproduced, just the same as when the said media article has been reproduced in a more voluminous version. This rule is based on the fundamental principle of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968 which states that the purpose of copyright laws is to protect ORIGINAL WORKS [FULL STOP].
Insofar as MUSIC is concerned, even if the sound of an instrumental segment contained in a particular musical arrangement is reproduced – regardless of the number notes that have been copied in the same musical order of succession as was featured in the original work – it is said that an “Infringement of Copyright” has taken place. This is because a song which has been either PARTLY (or completely copied) is no longer a work that can be said to be an ORIGINAL WORK.
Notwithstanding the application of this fundamental principle of the Copyright Act in this particular case, the fact that one of the writers/creators of the song “Down Under” has made the admission that the flute riffs originally contained in the song “Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree” have been copied and incorporated into the musical arrangements contained in the song “Down Under” – ‘to inject the latter song with a more Australian flavour’ – is the essential (proven) material fact which concludes that copyright has in fact been infringed. This is simply because an ORIGINAL WORK has been ADMITTED to have been COPIED. The point of substance which exists in this particular case is that the copied original flute riffs that were contained in the first (original) song and incorporated into the second song, features in each and every recording of the song “Down Under” that has been sold worldwide since the first commercial release of the said song.
Okay, listen to R.E.M.’s “Hope” and Leonard Cohen’s “Suzanne”. There’s a much more obvious case of plagarism. And no one gives a damn. As they shouldn’t.
This is a joke. If I were MAW I’d be shaking with anger right now.
I just don’t hear it. There are eight notes in the scale. Some HAVE to repeat, but this is not the case here.
I think that judge has his head up his ass and paid off by the rights owning company.