Business As Usual: Men At Work Sued For Rights To “Land Down Under”

8 Feb

Another week gone, another week started, my dear readers, and at the cusp of this one I’ve got a treat for you.  Longtime Correspondent and friend of the blog Jo Fergus of Environauts and ThumbShift has graciously agreed to come on board as an Official State of Affairs Guest Blogger.  In the interest of giving you something to read that isn’t my shit day in and day out, I’m going to be inviting several friends of the blog to guest write here at the mighty SoA, and Jo has the distinction of being the first of this new wave.  Give it a gander and if you like what he has to say, go check out where he can usually be found.

So without further ado…
I give you the first-ever Official SoA Guest Blog!


Men At Work - Down underAs many have already heard, the Aussie 80’s band “Men At Work” are in the process of having their collective asses exhumed from the sand dunes of time, so that they can be sodomized by a publishing company called Larrikin Music. Specifically, so that Larrikin’s lawyers can excise their pound of flesh, amounting to as much as 60% of the the working Men’s royalties for the song “Down Under”…Which according to a select group of lawyers and other parasites, infringes on the folk song “Kookabura Sits in the Old Gumtree”!

No…Seriously!

Reams have already been written about this ridiculous claim, that’s been awarded by some Australian judge who probably couldn’t whistle Dixie to save his life (let alone determine and compare musical structure), but we’re not going to turn this into another diatribe against the evils of a world controlled by tone-deaf lawyers.

We’re also not going to make any punny remarks with all those great lyrical references that first helped turn Australia into a pop culture phenomenon back in 1983, long before Mick Dundee’s character (which was written by…Bueller? Anybody?) turned that actor/guy (Paul Hogan) into an international tourism icon. The Media has already had a heyday, shamelessly dropping semi-clever references to those great lyrics, without offering EMI one red cent (of course) under the auspices of “fair use”.

According to this ruling, it seems that EMI (Men At Works label of record) must have been wasting a lot of time trying to convince the court that Larriken could NOT have owned the infringed work when this first came to trial back in June 2009. EMI basically stopped the trial dead in its tracks (pending this latest ruling) because they claimed that proper title to Kookabura had in fact been assigned to the Victorian Girl Guides back in 1934.

What I am compelled to stop and ask is…

Why the hell was EMI Records trying to hide behind the freaking Girl Guides to save “Down Under” from the clutches of greedy Lawyers and Publishers!?!

Larriken maintained that they bought the song (in 1990) from the estate of the original composer Ms. Marion Sinclair (deceased 1988).  Sinclair composed Kookabura in about 1934 for a Victorian Girl Guides competition, but EMI failed to demonstrate that the Girl Guides should still have retained ownership according to the terms of their contest submission.  More importantly, the entire trial was seemingly hinged on this technicality, and delayed while Larriken had to defend against EMI’s counterclaims, lest the Girl Guides (joined by the Boy Scouts?) rise up and enslave the Music Industry with their unclaimed rights to this, and any number of other campfire songs!

Something tells me that the Girl Guides likely never even appeared on this battlefield with their own army of lawyers, and EMI was left to derail their case all on their own by focusing on this legal side gambit. Surely EMI could have used their musical muscle to clearly demonstrate that a partial section of a flute riff, that only appears in the intro and bridge of the studio recording (not the original composition), is not actually based in the lyrical or melodic structure of Kookabura, and also did not in any way define significant or overall characteristics (lyric, rhythm, melody, harmony) of the SONG “Down Under”. At best the flutey bit from Down Under is a tiny ode to Sinclair’s childrens song, and should be treated like any other example of musicians and composers tipping their hats to each other in their own compositions. Instead this ruling sets (Australian) legal precedent, that cultural and historic Folk references do not in fact belong to the People. On this slippery slope, Artists would theoretically need to try and quantify every micron of their craft and it’s lineage, in order to determine what inspired who, and how much they owed as a result!

Krikey! You’d think that EMI could have afforded to help avoid this quagmire by trotting out a few world-class musical experts to show the differences between these two songs, rather than delaying an entire trial pending a determination on where the Girl Guides stood in the matter of musical copyright, and the origins of folk music.

I wish we had more time to learn about where things went wrong in this trial in the land “Down Under”…I mean Kookabura. But for anyone in a distant time zone, it’s already tomorrow in Australia.

Down there, this story of feckless greed is likely already well played out in the Media, and its carcass has already been carried off into the bush by these craven Dingos, who clearly just wanted an easy feed off the aged carrion of some forgotten 80’s band…Struthe!

Jo Fergus is honored to contribute to the State of Affairs and can otherwise be found probing the Future at EnVironauts.com or pedaling his ass to get another site over the hump at ThumbShift.com

One of the funny things about Copyright is how long it lasts. The composer holds the rights for their lifetime plus 70 years to presumably assure some sort of legacy for their family in the event of an untimely death. This begs the question: why can this period can be re-assigned to a Corporation like Larriken through a posthumous purchase?

Oh wait…I forgot. Corporations have managed to secure all the same rights of actual “People”, while also retaining all the perks of being a collective amalgamation of legal and financial force, while also benefiting from being disembodied entities that can exists far beyond the time limits of individual human flesh. In other words, Corporations have all the same rights as we do (plus far greater means to enact them), and they will ALSO outlive us all by countless generations. Leaves one to wonder why the original limitations were ever removed (one by one) from the frameworks for Corporate Charters to begin with.

But now I severely digress into trying to describe the dangerous qualities of what has now become the MOST powerful and dominant form of Life on the Planet Earth.

Sorry.

4 Responses to “Business As Usual: Men At Work Sued For Rights To “Land Down Under””

  1. Jo Fergus February 8, 2010 at 8:17 PM #

    One of the funny things about Copyright is how long it lasts. The composer holds the rights for their lifetime plus 70 years to presumably assure some sort of legacy for their family in the event of an untimely death. This begs the question: why can this period can be re-assigned to a Corporation like Larriken through a posthumous purchase?

    Oh wait…I forgot. Corporations have managed to secure all the same rights of actual “People”, while also retaining all the perks of being a collective amalgamation of legal and financial force, while also benefiting from being disembodied entities that can exists far beyond the time limits of individual human flesh. In other words, Corporations have all the same rights as we do (plus far greater means to enact them), and they will ALSO outlive us all by countless generations. Leaves one to wonder why the original limitations were ever removed (one by one) from the frameworks for Corporate Charters to begin with.

    But now I severely digress into trying to describe the dangerous qualities of what has now become the MOST powerful and dominant form of Life on the Planet Earth.

    Sorry.

  2. Ryan February 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM #

    Copyright laws have been scrutinized to no end since the inception of the internet (well, more specifically, Napster.) And for good reason. I personally think they shouldn’t exist, or be modified to adapt to the current cultural landscape (ie. the media sharing habits of online users.) Check out the “Copyleft” movement for some inspiration. They are an unofficial group of abolitionists set out to reverse the outdated laws of Copyrighted material.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

    Anyways, great post.

  3. dawna March 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM #

    I like your blog. I also used a pic from your blog and gave credit to it.

    just wanted to let you know:)

    http://dawnawright.webs.com/supportnotrealitytv.htm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Business as usual men at work - May 17, 2011

    […] Business As Usual: Men At Work Sued For Rights To “Land Down Under … Feb 8, 2010 … 3 Responses to “Business As Usual: Men At Work Sued For Rights To “Land Down Under”” … […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: