Hi All,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
Les,
Thank you for arguing the other side.
People put emotion into something which is pretty much academic.
I'd like to point you to Coldplay (Coldplagiarism)'s rip off of Joe Satriani's work.
H
|
Yep and here's another example I know will be close to your heart: Listen to the bass-riff in the last 90 seconds-odd Pink Floyd's track: Pigs (three different ones) from "Animals" (1977) and compare to the chorus melody of the smash hit single (not that I'm endorsing it in any way at all ...) "I was made for lovin' you baby" by Kiss (1979).
there is a strange similarity there ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B
I don't see how someone should be able to sell a copyright as has happened with kookaburra. The composer or their estate gets nothing each time it is played including every time it is played at the local public school or preschool. The precedent means that almost no songs written in the last 80 years can be played without paying royalties. You could say that the royalties come with the sheet music but simple tunes like kookaburra can be easily learnt without ever buying a sheet or illegally copying one.
It's all a bit silly really.
|
Well, we could argue about the morals of the situation until the cows come home, but that's the law of the land. It's there to protect things that are copyrighted for good reason. Why not be able to sell? By selling your copyright, in effect, you are getting your future royalties up-front. The buyer takes the risk that it may not perform as well as hoped.
I can't see it as different from amy other type of property. Until not long before his death, Michael Jackson owned the rights to nearly all the Beatles work. He bought them as an investment no doubt to collect royalties and hoped they'd appreciate as time went on when he could sell them at a higher price.
How is this different from buying an "investment property" or shares??
What we all have to remember in the end is this: While Hays and Ham are both named as respondents in this action and centrally involved in the evidence, the
third respondent is EMI who owns the rights to and published "Downunder". That is who Larrakin is really after I'd guess because EMI's got lots nad lots of money. I'm guessing Ham isn't sitting on millions (he's currently a guitar teacher at a high-school according to Wiki) (you can't get blood out of a stone). And I'm sure Hay isn't mega-rich nowadays either.
And the money Hay earned from the song? One has to ask "Where can it be now?" I guess!
Well, in truth, EMI made the most money from it (much, much more than Hay or the other band-members) and Larrakin probably want their share from EMI -- and take a bit from Hay on the way if they can.
However, I don't like their chances of recovering a mega-payout. Note the last few sentences from the Judgment:
The question of what percentage of the income of Down Under ought to be paid to Larrikin has not been determined in this part of the proceeding. Whilst the issues which I have determined in this part of the case have a bearing on the question of what is the appropriate percentage, the ultimate determination of that question will depend upon the application of legal principles and factual considerations that have not been dealt with in this part of the case.
The respondents submit that Larrikin’s claim to be entitled to 40-60% of the income grossly over-reaches a proper allocation of any such entitlement. That is a matter to be determined in the final part of this proceeding.
They've asked from 40-60%. Reading between the lines, 2-5% (if that) is more likely -- but I guess we'll see. Substantial but not likely to send Hay or EMI broke.
But make no mistake, win, lose or draw,
all the lawyers involved will make a lot of money from this case.
Lawyers always win ...
Best,
Les D