|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by DadAgain
(Post 8313306)
Indeed - the section that caused all the fuss is a 1 bar riff: (very difficult to notate with ASCII alone but imagine a 4 beat bar broken down into semiquavers)
1- - - CCCC 2- -- D DD 3- - - C A 4- - - C Hardly groundbreaking, and I'm sure you could find those sequence of notes, or that rhytmic sequence in a few places in the musical cannon long before 1935... |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by DeadVim
(Post 8313328)
I wanna get me a musical cannon :D ;)
...although actually a musical cannon would be required for a good complete performance of Tchaikovski's 1812 overture.... :p |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by DadAgain
(Post 8313386)
Corrected (to 'canon') - thanks for the spelling pick-up :D
...although actually a musical cannon would be required for a good complete performance of Tchaikovski's 1812 overture.... :p It's yet to happen for me and I fear time is running out ... AC/DC on the 27th should take care of it though :D |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by JAMMIE DODGER
(Post 8313314)
how could they be found guilty when Vanilla Ice's ice,ice baby got away with ripping off Queen & Bowies Under pressure?
|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by DeadVim
(Post 8313328)
I wanna get me a musical cannon :D ;)
|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by cresta57
(Post 8313519)
It'd probably fire blanks:p
|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
"I believe what has won today is opportunistic greed, and what has suffered is creative musical endeavor," Hay said.
I agree with him, such a small % of the song isn't worth 60% of the royalties:thumbdown: |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by cresta57
(Post 8313547)
"I believe what has won today is opportunistic greed, and what has suffered is creative musical endeavor," Hay said.
I agree with him, such a small % of the song isn't worth 60% of the royalties:thumbdown: Without copyright law you have no books, no TV, no movies, no music. My view is that those who break it must be made to pay. |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
On tv this morning they said that MAW are appealing and that the royalties that they are liable for are only going to be for the last 6 years worth of sales and airplay and for any additional sales and airplay in the future.
|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by squeezzii
(Post 8313577)
On tv this morning they said that MAW are appealing and that the royalties that they are liable for are only going to be for the last 6 years worth of sales and airplay and for any additional sales and airplay in the future.
|
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8313633)
Why six years? Did they give an explanation?
And here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225826893478 Interesting that Larrakin thought they owned the rights for nine years before they actually did. And that they only paid 6k for them. Like I said greedy profiteers :thumbdown::thumbdown: |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by cresta57
(Post 8313661)
It's all here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertain...522882151.html
Interesting that Larrakin thought they owned the rights for nine years before they actually did. And that they only paid 6k for them. Like I said greedy profiteers :thumbdown::thumbdown: |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8313667)
Yes, well, certainly you are only entitled to royalties for the years you hold the copyright. Mrs whatsherface's estate should get all royalties for 1979-1990.
The original entry rules for the comp stipulated "any entries will become property of the Girl Guides" I'd have thought they had more of a right than Larrakin |
Re: 'Men at Work', are they really men at shirk
The closest case I can recall to this one was the case The Rolling Stones brought on The Verve for the main refrain of Bitter Sweet Symphony (main part of the song and hook) blatently ripping off The Last Time. For me that was a completely and utterly more obvious rip off compared to the MAW case.
Off memory I believe The Verve ended up having to pay 100% royalties for sales of the single and 10% of the album. This could be costly for MAW |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:31 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.