COMPARE! Men At Work sued over DOWN UNDER Kookaburra Girl Guides

[CALLEJAGROOVE]

If Men at Work commited a crime, all blues songs , all metal songs, all colombian vallenato and cumbia songs, all mexican corridos and all rock n roll songs must be prosecuted.

[Sonicrega]

@PortAdelaideFCDVDs

Wow...i didn't know people could be so damn tone deaf...

[LeewardFate]

bullshit!



[TheKcirtap1]

Fucking chea

[marially3]

This is ridiculous

[fvm78]

` ` ` THE DAY WILL COME (if it hasn't already) when ANY set of notes played will be plagerised. ` What happens then? THERE WILL BE NO MORE NEW MUSIC. ` ''When the musics over, turn out the lights.'' ` `

[JoeHalt]

It was only ruled to be only 5% of the royalties dating back to 2002 not 60%. Check your facts people.

[BigCrookster]

What is the difference between what Men At Work allegedly did and so called 'sampling' which every cunt and their granny does now!

Men At Work should have won this case hands down!

I know TONS of songs which have similar riffs and melodies, this is just bollocks!

[youdave777]

@BigCrookster yep: the blues!

[twinkie57401]

I thought Kookaburra would be in the public domain by now. I sang it 60 years ago in grade school.

[emkalmuk]

Can't they just issue an 'apology' and document some sort of 'writing credit' (use the term loosely) to them?

There will always be the occasional reinventing of bars here and there.  It's hard to know what may be in your subconscious. What about Cars "My Best Friends Girl" and The Beatles "I Will?" Unless it's completely obvious, just let it be...

[emkalmuk]

Stunning. What is the matter with people? This is sad and disturbing. I cannot believe this....really. The only 'positive' is that it didn't happen when they were in the spotlight. At least Men at Work got to enjoy untainted success. I know this is old news, but they band should appeal. Could they? Did they? Why does it have to be retroactive to when the song came out. That is really rotten!

[sysrq120]

To me its half a rip off,just the last couple of notes on the flute riff,no big deal.Its more of a homage than a rip off,all musos take certain notes/phrases ideas, and expand on them in their own way.For example the 'blues box',you know that pentatonic thing found in many a guitar solo,this is just trivial.

[deathray32]

What a travesty - there are about 8 notes in common between the two songs, and lawyers scam their way to millions on the strength of it. "Lawyer hanging from an old gum tree..."

[philxyz200]

There are such things as homage and irony which are legit artistic devices. That flute riff has one bar of that Kookaburra song which every Australian had assumed was in the public domain anyway (it wasn't). Have the Girl Guides been paying royalties every time they sang the Kookaburra Song? Because Down Under was a big target, these a*hole copyright trolls decided to go after rich pickings, what, nearly 30 years after it was a worldwide hit? They took that long to detect the reference? Bah.

[madaz75]

Only person who's getting rich of this song now is the Lawyers. Funny how 20 years after the fact when there's money to be had, does some one finally chirp in and demand royalties. Makes you wonder how much Royalties where paid to the original artists responsible for the rifts/tunes used in 100% of Rap songs.

[brownpants69]

Therefore: All recording artists & songwriters should automatically pay 5% of earnings into a central pot which should be distributed evenly to all copyright holders and their greedy money grabbing lawyers in the world, as no music is 100% orginal anyway.

[Skyddish]

This is not going to make me listen or like the song by Men At Work less.

"And remember kids; bad publicity, is also publicity!" ;-)

[bobdabuildaman]

What a pathetic waste of resources.

The only winners

here are the lawyers

who will be laughing like kookaburras

all the way to the bank.

[KatideChaos]

That's so retarded... That lawyer is a nutcase... People these days <_<

[booeytutu]

pop music was really trendy backin the 70's and early 80's,after a record was 2 years old it was considered outdated and either shelved or destroyed so i can't imagine anybody at that point in time caring about an "old gum tree" song from 1932 also it hardly sounds the same i do however find it strange as to how some people can get away with these rediculous lawsuits scam scam

[utube9000]

In the United States, citizens are entitled to a "Jury of their Peers".

I don't know about Australian law, but in a case involving music copyright a  "Jury of your peers" should include OTHER MUSICIANS. Did the judge or the attornies have any musical background? Did they call in a musicologist?

In this case, the melody is the same. But in general, I don't think the average non-musical person is qualified to judge the intricacies of melody, harmony, rhythm and how they interact together.

[sonnicheeba]

yup this is a cover sample ... a replay of the othe original , yes it is

just like what dr dre does today -- most early rap songs replayed certain patrs of the songs cause thats the only way they could avoid getting sued -- to some degree--

but any way im gonna go sample this right now REEM SUPASTARR

and make a hot hit with this one -- lol

and split the publishing ofcourse

lets all just laugh our selves to the bank

[linclinc5]

What men at work need to do is trawel over 1000s of songs that were written before the Kookaburra song (1935)and find a similarity with the notes that are in contention. That way they can prove that Kookaburra isn't original and they've BOTH copied something else. I can't see though that MAW will have to pay out much, the flute represents about 1% of the song, not the 60% written about.

[chachihatesjoanie]

Crock of shit. What are we talking about, maybe ten freakin' notes? Screw that. Not to mention, the original Kookaburra song is a piece of garbage anyways. Who'd want to steal it? GAY your life must be indeed!

[amosnews]

Oh, for Christ's sake. Now someone is going to sue every blues singer that begins a song with "Well I woke up this morning..." To find five notes in a song that are the same in another song and sue over them is evil, and the judge is an idot for going for it. The greed part is expected. I am surprized there are judges so stupid.

[j4wn]

5% Of royalties from 2002 onwards was the ruling according to wiki. I doubt the band had ever heard this tune before, then the rights to the Kookabura song end up in greedy hands 27 years later. Typical.

[traciottawa]

This is BS. They are not the same sequence of notes. Anyone with half an ear could tell that. The fith note in the sequence (and further along a subsequent one) is flat or sharp compared to the other. What a crock!

[wawoodward101]

This is stupid trash. That melody is similar for just a few seconds. The song is not thing like the childrens song. Chords, notes and melodies can sound the same at times. This is not a case of plagerism for sure!

Wayne

[oasisoasis21]

even if those notes were borrowed who cares, the song rules, long live australia coz its awesome

[themooddisorders]

I could defend the Men at Work in this dilemma. I have no law degree, this is a folk song...... Kookabura was taught as an intro to musicanada Kookabura, Men at Work owe nothing! Zip!

If my opinion counts, then this song should have been aware of so called 'plagiarism' years ago!

[themooddisorders]

folk music

[cookiegurl777]

i guess they do sound the same......but honestly, sometimes you write songs and dont actually realise at the time that they sound like another song. I actually have done that before (but I DIDNT sell it under my name)

or maybe they wanted the song to sound aussie, and forgot to ask the peeps who own kookaburra sits in the old gum tree. bummer. sucks to be them.

[RCbeastly]

Unfortunately, paragraph 161 from the judge's ruling seems to be the clincher:

"But perhaps the clearest illustration of the objective similarity is to be found in Mr Hay’s frank admission of a causal connection between the two melodies and the fact that he sang the relevant bars of Kookaburra when performing Down Under at a number of concerts over a period of time from about 2002. "

[damianson]

fucking rediculous fuckoff lawyers

[robinsonjay]

this is ridiculous. vaguely similar but put it all in context and you say 'this song sounds nothing like that song'. a riff that sounds familiar... yeah, a bit. but i think this isn't following the intent of the law. i'd be afraid to write a song at this point because they all have *something* in common. but listen to the 2 in entirety and you're left wondering why we're even talking about this.

[flaxman0]

The band admitted stealing it. Once that happened they were toast.

[PatrickGoud]

It is definitely not the same, just in the same chord setting and rhythm.

Together it would make a very nice 2 tone piece.

AND these are only 2 bars!

If this is a copy , all metal bands would have to pay for copying Metallica, or even Black Sabbath.

The beatles could sew about every pop band that recorded songs after 1975.

[ostattack]

Ridiculous! 99.9% of these songs are totally different

[DALSU]

it's not ripped off

try the Escape Club's song wild wild west VS Elvis Costello's Pump It Up

very same delivery. that's a little too close for comfort

[reedha]

if this is the case, the holder of robert johnsons royalties own the rights to every rock song ever "written"...this is a reggae riff also...should one entity of lawyers own the reggae root song that is the basis of every reggae song you've ever heard???? what a joke...too many lawyers....plus the fact that when the lawyers get involved in these cases, the artists are never compensated anyway, just the bloodsucking lawyers....go to law school everyone!!!!

[LordInksworth]

@reedha NO way - this is a direct copy of the parts of the original song. I don't like money-grabbing lawyers, but they are in the right here. Law is law.

[jkranak]

@LordInksworth Law is law? This is not an example of law deciding a case, this is a judge deciding a case. If a judge can decide that taking a short riff from a 50 year old song played on a different instrument and included as a small part of a song is copyright, then copyright law is deeply flawed.

[CircleDircle]

@reedha hmmm....I'd love to hear of the rock song that owes anything to Johnson.....Day Tripper? nah Seven Nation Army"....nope....although Johnson ripped off Son House LEFT AND RIGHT!

[genmaxpain]

fu*k ozy and usa and any other country that can sue get a real country that you cant be sued and cant sue any1 unless its a big candy ass business like BP or FAIRFAX sue them

btw its 5% royalties they have to pay to a gay birds/kids/teachers flute song

[ruaraidhpetre]

The tune is from an old welsh song "Wele ti'n eistedd aderyn du?" which is in the public domain. The court decision is therefore a miscarriage of justice.

[ruaraidhpetre]

I would have thought it would be worth finding the same sequence of notes in a melody that pre dates the copyright of "Kookaburra" to show that it was not original in that song. There would be a good chance of finding it somewhere.

[LordInksworth]

Have a look at the Men At Work video for Down Under. Look at the flute player. Whenn he plays the parts where the melody EXACTLY COPIES the parts of the Kookaburra song (ie "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" and "merry merry king of the bush is he") nnotice where the flute player plays these melodies: Where is he? HE'S SITTING IN AN OLD GUM TREE, way up there in the branches, playing the famous melody. They KNEW what it was but didn't imagine it could one day spell trouble for them.

[gerrade71278]

@LordInksworth yes. However it's not a gum tree but some other kind.

[MrGotemus]

@LordInksworth. Mate i viewed the the film clip and all i can say is you are obviously not from Australia. Gum trees have a certain distinctive appearance, that my friend, looks nothing like a gum, not even close. A quick look at google images should give a better perception of what gum trees look like.

[MrGotemus]

@LordInksworth Not a gum tree

[MrGotemus]

@LordInksworth. Mate you are clearly not from Australia, as you have no idea what this iconic tree looks like. I viewed the film clip and that is clearly not a gum tree. As you obviously don't have them in your backyard maybe a quick look at google images will fix your perception of what a gum tree looks like.

[jagphillyfan1]

@LordInksworth They didn't think it would be trouble because they didn't think anybody actually had the rights to the song. They believed the song was kind of "general knowledge" and therefore okay to use.

[mmasny]

@LordInksworth And quite rightly so. This is bullshit. You say law is law. OK, I say law is a pile of crap.

[philxyz200]

@LordInksworth Heard of irony? Homage? In my opinion these should be fair use type defenses to copyright infringement. And these trolls took 30 years to detect this one bar reference to the Kookaburra song! C'mon. It's money grabbing and it has a chilling effect on any musicians thinking of using samples or references to other music in their work - and that happens in all pop music in one way or another. Should have been thrown out of court.

[dr90210gunshow]

@LordInksworth Then perhaps this is not plagiarism but parody ...

[Robert697]

Shesh .. should the estate of Richie Valenz sue The Beatles for ripping him off from La Bamba?

Twist n Shout: watch?v=pVlr4g5-r18

La Bamba: watch?v=Jp6j5HJ-Cok

[xMaximumPowerx]

Men at Work shit all over that kookaburra song!

[MsAussie83]

I made a comment on this 2 months ago, and I just now noticed that somebody somewhere along the line flagged it as spam. Is there any particular reason why they did this? I know I didn't say anything offensive.

[LordInksworth]

@MsAussie83 I un-spammed your post. No idea how that happened.

[Tarandfeather1]

Amazing, ... they take 3 seconds of this song!

I bet if you take 3 seconds of some random song then you will find the same notes in some other, ... ! Maybe you can do that with every song!

[AEMoreira81]

@Tarandfeather1 US courts have ruled that 3 notes are enough.

[AEMoreira81]

I don't know---it's really close. It could have gone either way.

[AEMoreira81]

Alike? REALLY close on that one. I don't know.

[ccc21dm]

thats stupid! men at work are amazing

[ChuckNorrisIs1337]

ITS THREE. FREAKIN. NOTES. Wtf @ legal system

[citruskiwi0033]

wow i would think that kookaburra would be in public domain because i thought the song was old but i guess its not old enough yet haha. but i love the song down under

[Freddies666]

@citruskiwi0033 i think men at work thought the same when they forgot to give credit to the kookaburra author ...

[mkho]

@citruskiwi0033 50 years after death of original artist or public figure = public domain

[MsAussie83]

If you ask me, from a singer/songwriter's point of view, there's not enough similarity to warrant a copyright infringement. Kookaburra's in a major key,

in this case D-Major. Down Under's in B-Minor. And, I can tell you this right now, if Colin Hay and the members of Men At Work are reading this, I'm on

your side. I'm with you all the way, mates. I love you, you sweet Australians!

[tReC64]

according to the Copyright Act the copyright on kookaburra sits in the old gum tree is valid till 2058

[Pom07Kev16]

I really like the song from men at work, the other song i barely know and i think that 30 yrs is too long and for 3 seconds worth of song...

[ccaccord07]

@Pom07Kev16 i agree , the other song was recorded in 1935

[jamiesea]

Who knows it Men at Work were even trying to copy it. There's SOOOOOO many songs that can sound the same and have a line or two that's almost note for note.

[RCbeastly]

Have a listen to Deep Purple's studio version of Fireball. About 2:20 or so there is an organ solo that has the melody of "laugh, kookaburra laugh, kookaburra gay your life must be".

If Larrakin sued Men at Work for "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" (something no-one noticed for 20 years) - and won - it should be even easier to sue Deep Purple and win.

I wonder how many other songs have accidentally "plagiarised" kookaburra?

[LordInksworth]

@RCbeastly That deep purple bit sounds a little like kookaburra, but lawyers could easily show the difference in rhythm, tone, register etc etc, but it is there, true.

[musicalaviator]

@RCbeastly The only reason Larrikin got this one was because of some gameshow. I wonder if the next big Larrikin Music lawyer witch hunt will be due to a text comment on Youtube. :P

Just kidding ya.

[stoneroses13]

the motivation is money.. pure greed!!! if im a small kid and my father is the owner of Larrikin Music or the judge that made the decision, i will very feel ashamed of them and i wish i'm not their son...

the ghost of Marion Sinclair will haunt this greedy assholes

i feel very very angry w/ this people..

[OneHectare]

There are far more blatant bites than MAW out there, what about 'Holy Grail' by Hunters totally stealing Bostons 'More than a feeling' Riff?

[OneHectare]

Aha! VERY interesting! Good work LordInksworth.

EMI vs. FESTIVAL/MUSHROOM... Bring on the barristers...

This could take a while to resolve.

[LordInksworth]

@OneHectare I reckon the case will be dismissed and the original judge will have his old arse kicked for being so gullible.

[heycall999]

@LordInksworth

my teaccher showed me this vid and the Men at work was fined 40million US dollar is it real?

[LordInksworth]

It's real. They haven't been fined anything, yet, but they might have to pay money to the people that own the copyright of Kookaburra. However, they are fighting back!

[sirtinycreep]

@LordInksworth Then what about the rest of the song...that wasn't copied. It's absurd.

[OneHectare]

MunchyToy nailed it, But what's even MORE disturbing is that the 'Behavoiral Scientists' (Mass Media) SOLD US A BIG FAT LIE with this one. Larrikin, the supposed 'bad guy' publisher, exists in name only! FESTIVAL RECORDS bought Larrikin Publishing in the 90's, from ANOTHER publisher in the 80's. The guy that started Larrikin is a genuine old-english 'bird watcher' type guy. He was prolly a boy scout 2...A real (person) 'folk' lover. This 'Lone Gunman' crap the MK Media dishes up is BOGUS.

[LordInksworth]

So it's Festival Records are the bad guys. Well, EMI have appealed and I reckon they'll win the appeal. Then Men At Work and kookaburra's all over the world will be laughing.

[MunchyToy]

I've just had a listen to the motif in question. The Down Under flute motif in D major begins on the mediant rising a semitone to the subdominant and finishes on the tonic. The original Kookaburra piece, also in D major, begins on the dominant rises a tone to the submediant and finishes on the mediant. The two could be played simultaneously and I would suggest the Down Under flute part in that eleven note phrase mimics the original.

[lombmusic07]

Love it, love it, I am cracking uupp here

[OneHectare]

Guys... This example shows TWO quite separate, individual lines....In Fact, the first TWO lines of Kookaburra. The Flute plays the melody for the second lines lyric: "Merry, merry king of the bush is he..." (Does anyone else actually remember how Kookaburra goes?) News media controllers played this (annoyingly wrong) comparison also. I agree with the argument that its a reference, like the jazz concept though. I heard Larrikin only worked it out after a question/answer on Spicks & Specks. scabs.

[MCFLYINox]

exactly! thankyou!

[BladeJones]

Woop dee doo! The song has a substantial part of one tenth of 1% of the song, and it's just part of a RIFF! Big fucking deal!

[AndyFisher142]

Its very similar I agree but she was just a teacher wasnt she teachers compose stuff all the time they dont copyright everything! Besides my school music teachers burn cds ok for use in class but still surely thats copyrighted. The allegasion is BS and stupid!

[explode90]

@AndyFisher142 In Australia a musical composition is actually copyright from the moment it's in a physical form, so written down, recorded, anything.

The problem with this infringement is that one riff has be ruled as a recognisable portion of the song, based on the quality of the melody. I don't think Men At Work meant to do it though; there's only a certain number of notes in the western scale and playable on a flute, and I think the song would have done just as well without this exact riff..

[CaptBart]

Two very different passages! it doesn't fit within what is defined as plagiarism in music, from what I know of it.

Having actually known Ron Strykert, this is not something those guys did, STEAL, it's an example of some no talent money guy, exploiting the candle at both ends. He knew exactly what he was gonna do when he bought that song.

[LordInksworth]

I wonder when he bought the rights to Kookaburra? Sounds like you're right: he bought them and planned this whole thing. BUt I red somewhere that someone from Larrikin said that Kookaburra had earned them a lot of money [over the years?]. If there's a thing called Karma, the Larrikin guys will come back as snakes.

[CaptBart]

Your showing of these two songs side-by-side points out that what Colin is also saying,"Kookaburra maybe was reference but certainly wasn't plagiarized" the first group of notes (not more than 7) are similar BUT here is where the melodies differ, The MAW riff goes up and down but the notes are crisp and sharp while for Kookaburra they hold them.

[CaptBart]

And yes they are two speeds so that can make for those differences but there's seems in "Kook" that there's an extra inflection to a passing note and a trill to Greg ham's flute playing these are similar tunes but certain not worthy of 60% cut.

They need to re-cut a new version, not including the riff and always from now on include THAT one in any future CD's. And finally...the judge is tone deaf which made for the win.

[Pengo115]

I think MAW purposely put that in as a tribute and an Aussie reference. Who would have imagined they'd get sued for their trouble. Such is the world today...

[LordInksworth]

@Pengo115 Yep, it's a bad sign of the times my friend.

[crimsoncoin]

Blame the manager, or lost the books scenario, pay a discretion and walk away red faced- they lost for what ? They made that tune and song and had it liscenced so how did they lose, ah noway

[neverendingstory00]

Oh, that's the part they meant! I was reading about it, and trying to compare the songs, without really getting it. I think this is quite dumb, tho. Compared to hundreds of other pairs of songs that sound almost the same, this is nothing.. I'm impressed someone even found the *small* similarity..

[SuperEmmaXD]

This is bullshit! Theres like, one little bit that sounds the same. I love the song "Down Under" Dude, its not fair!!!

D:<

[stevespielberg]

I'm not a music expert, but it does sound similar. Still, I don't think they should have to pay anything. It's such a small bit; and I doubt they did it on purpose. Sometimes people come up with the same ideas. Things repeat. The lawsuit is dumb. Just some greedy asshole trying to get a quick buck.

[thatpianoguy2009]

@stevespielberg Agreed. Noting that this motif is just "1/10 of 1% of the song" (a paraphrase of a comment said earlier), one would think that if there was going to be a payout that it wouldn't be very much. But asking for 40-60% of ALL royalties dating back to the first airplay of the song almost 30 years ago because of a few notes? The judge allowed for 5% dating back to 2002 which is fair enough but we all know that the plaintiff, owing to his unnecessarily grotesque greed,is just an asshole.

[ric2152]

There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever to Kookaburra, I'm amazed and saddened by this decision...The courts are a joke.

[LordInksworth]

I just did another Compare - of Transvision Vamp's Baby I Don't Care and The Troggs' Wild Thing (but performed by the SUPERB Cold Chisel). Check this out and you'll be looking for more Cold Chisel, I guarantee it.

youtube. com/watch?v=cP-DP1YO7po

[LordInksworth]

Larrikin comes from either old english or Irish, meaning to be mischievous, humourous, larkin' about, a rogue-ish but loveable character. This word passed into Strine and famous Larrikins include Ned Kelly, Bon Scott, Barry Humphries and Shane Warner. Larrikin Music Publishing will never be well-liked or considered humourous...unless this is all an elaborate hoax to get Down Under back in the shops...? Or to make it Xmas no 1?

[0011clem]

Its unbelivable.. if I was a member of men at work, i would be spewing.... That judge is tripping or something.. get an a appeal going .. men at work . justice must prevail.

[LordInksworth]

@0011clem I agree. There's many thousands on people viewing this on YouTube, a good few different videos. I think things like this are bound to have an effect on public opiniona dn might even influence a turn around in that dim-witted judge's mind. It's an utter disgrace what's happened. In fact, it's pure theft on the part of Larrikin. And...what does Larrikin mean?...

[tedrewq]

Larriken you guys are greedy pathetic poms

[musicalaviator]

Kookaburra shat on all us Aussies

Spat right in our face for his Royalties

Fuck! kookaburra fuck!

Larrakin how gay your lawyers be.

[LordInksworth]

@musicalaviator nice one

[thatpianoguy2009]

@musicalaviator win

[RubberWilbur]

It was pretty blatant that they got this musical tune from Kookaburra. It wasn't a coincidence that both songs came out of Australia. It's not like they threw some notes up in the air like a fart in the wind and coincidentally they had the unfortunately mishap of getting a few notes of a popular kid's song in it. I do think 60 percent of all the past and future royalties having to be paid to this company is crazy though.

[ballance27]

implies the right brothers own part ownership of all flying objects under the sky; bullshit!

[LordInksworth]

@ballance27 You're absolutely wright.

[WogPride201]

this judge must be some old death dumb ass muthafucka, or hes in on it some how. wat a retarded fuk

[wombab143]

It's really equivalent to a quotation in a book. The song is about being from down under and Kookaburra is iconic in Australia. It's like in "everybody was kung fu fighting" where there's a little bar of chinese-sounding music right after the refrain. Still, I'd throw the copyright owners a bone, 5% of royalties maybe.

[wombab143]

It's definitely the same little tune. I think the MAW guys admit it's at least an inadvertent copy. Kookaburra was in their head as it is in all Australians'. The question is whether it is fair use or just Aussie cultural reference. Even Shakespeare wasn't original. I think the publishers are entitled to some little bit 'cos as it turns out, Kookaburra isn't in the public domain as everyone thought it was, but 60% of royalties all these years later?  That's a little extreme.

[LordInksworth]

@wombab143 MAW's song doesn't copy the "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" melody: it only copies the "Merry merry king of the bush is he" bit. MAW did a slurring flute "riff" for the "Koookaburra sits..." bit & didn't do a straight copy. So, they copied a quarter of the melody, the 2nd quarter. The rest of MAW song is undeniably original and unique. 20 or 30 years to figure that out! It's a cash-grab. Shameful.

[01pgm01]

This is unbelievable. There are many pop songs that are wholesale theft other artists work and this gets the copyright smackdown? If I were MAW, I would prove that the melody predates Kookaburra, which I am sure it does which would reverse this stupid decision.

[sirgarence]

But you're comparing MAW's "merry merry king" bit with the "kookaburra sits" from the midi file, so of course it sounds different - the note intervals are different.

After the each chorus (0:50 and 1:50) MAW play the "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" part as well.

That said, 60% is bloody madness - let's hope common sense prevails in the final ruling.

[LordInksworth]

@sirgarence - You said "

After the each chorus (0:50 and 1:50) MAW play the "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" part as well."

No - MAW do not play a melody that corresponds to "Kookaburra sits on the old gum tree" bit from the old song: what MAW do here is a slurred flute bit, just a few notes, down the scale.

[sirgarence]

Yes they do. Go and hear it for yourself - 0:50 and 1:52 in the original tune.

[LordInksworth]

sirgarance - Damn - you're right! SirGarence and LordInksworth go head-to-head, and SirGarence wins. From memory, I couldn't recall hearing that, but you're right: it is there (although a wee bit out of sync as in it's the 2nd part of a longer phrase).

[sirgarence]

Very gracious of you milord :-)

[jjonas222]

it does not sound like the same note

[odinmp5]

this proves this planet is ruled by idiots.

same rythm, but, kokaburra is ina major scale,, the other one is in a minor.

what people dont know is that most top 40 pop songs all over the world are based on only 8 different chord progressions.

so everyone can start suing everyone and win!!

[LordInksworth]

The planet is, indeed, ruled by idiots.

[RockyBalboa211]

...I like to say that the planet is ruled by dumbasses, but idiots is fine as well.

[atakee]

the two comparisons are a 3rd apart and exactly the same :( such a shame, cos its a great track!!

[LordInksworth]

@atakee GUYS! The Kookaburra clip here is just a midi-file. It's not a clip of the actual Kookaburra song (there's no recorded version with copyright, as far as I know). The midi clip is the melody of the words that kids sing round the campfire while they're roasting their knees and scalding their throats with melted marshmallow.

[juglem]

If it is so close, why did it take 25 years for people to figure it out??

[spitandshovelover]

I have to agree that the similarity is not strong enough to warrant the action taken. there is a small similarity, but it's not plagarism.... more like subconcious inspiration. They probably heard it their whole lives and it influenced their work without them realizing it, but it's still not plagarism.

[LordInksworth]

@spitandshovelover Spot on.

[ivodepivo21]

@spitandshovelover ..Spot ON

[petedoile]

I love men at work down under, I think because they made loads of money someone is having a shit about it, they are talented and always will be.

[iwantsoda]

thanks for the video. i've never heard of the Kookaburra song, but i love Down Under - who doesnt! i hope this doesnt financially ruin Men at Work.

ps. i laughed at your "marshmallow on a stick" line

[StRiGoAiCa]

The fact that I've known both songs for (more than?) half my life and have NEVER been reminded of Kookaburra while listening to Land Down Under or vice versa tells me that this judge needs to get a life and a hobby which is just as time-consuming as listening to two songs until they start to sound similar. xD They should have kept this one for April Fool's Day.

[LordInksworth]

@StRiGoAiCa April Fool's yeah, more like it. It's true - I've known these 2 songs for maybe 30 years or more. And it never crossed my mind. It's madness - everyone is freaking out! The judge must be about 90 and only likes serious classical music, which never sounds similar to other serious classical music. Maybe that's his problem. In pop/rock music, themes come and go. Does it mean I can't write the words "In the beginning," in a novel cos they were in an ACDC song? And in the bible.

[gordon777777]

One part sounds pretty similar, but as a whole, the Down Under song doesn't sound like this old song.

[LordInksworth]

@gordon777777 You're right. It really is a farce. Is anyone going to sue Transvision Vamp for doing a song that sounds like Wild Thing ? (called I don't care) No. That judge should be booted out into the Bush with nothin but half a warm tinnie of flat Fosters. With fagends in it.

[zygodactylae]

This court case was a farce. The fact that it even made it to court is laughable in itself. You could find the same level of similarity comparing millions of songs. The judge must be a deaf old git.

[LordInksworth]

@zygodactylae Absolutely. Either that or the judge is related to someone... I mean, for god's sake - the girl "wrote" that seventy-five years ago! She didn't music for it, just words and a little girl guides' melody. There's a WELSH version of it, even older than hers! I don't think it will stick, surely not. If it does, every songwriter is going to have to give up any influences. In the end, each song will be so original that eventually, there will be no more songs possible.

[LordInksworth]

I've done a COMPARE! of The Beatles Taxman and The Jam's START... Strangely similar, no?

youtube. com /watch?v=k0lNqNJZ6fM

[nigelnags]

Lord, Do you know any details of that welsh crow song??

[LordInksworth]

@nigelnags "Kookaburra" is sung to the same tune as the Welsh folk song "Wele ti'n eistedd aderyn du?" or "Dacw ti yn eistedd, y 'deryn du" (English translation "There you are sitting, black bird."). The syllables and themes are almost identical in pattern to those in "Kookaburra".

[LordInksworth]

ps - to my Oz cousins - I still have my koala you all sent me about 35 years ago. It's claws have fallen out, but most of the fur is still there. He's called Bluey. He's mine. He's REAL.

[nigelnags]

Brilliant video. I was going to do one myself, but you just saved me the effort.

[LordInksworth]

@nigelnags I did this for a laugh, mainly cos I've got cousins down under. They'll get a laugh too.

HI ANDY, BARBARA, IAIN, PAT !!!! !!!!! Strewth, it's a fair dinkum mate, down the rubbedy.

[anxresi]

SCAM!!

[LordInksworth]

@anxresi Damn right. It sounds a bit similar, but come on! It was recorded in WELSH yonks ago - same tune, welsh words. And Welsh folk believe the Kookaburra song, by Marion Sinclair, was taken from the Welsh version which is about a crow sitting somewhere. Probably in a valley.