Laughing at the Men at Work vs. Kookaburra case

Music copyrights and wrongs:

Colin Jacobs, Vice-Chair, Electronic Frontiers Australia, writes: Re. “Music copyrights and wrongs: money hits the right note” (yesterday, item 3). Tim Dunlop’s piece seems to have missed some of the larger issues at play in the “Kookaburra” case. To me the question shouldn’t be whether a musical riff was borrowed consciously or unconsciously, was part of the composition or the arrangement. It’s not who owes whom money. The question is whether culture can grow and thrive under conditions where a few notes can land you in a courtroom.

Copyright exists to give artists a monopoly on their work and incentivise further creativity — this benefits society, because we all want new music and art, and the more the better. Too much regulation, though, and copyright starts to stifle creativity. No art, whether it’s literature, painting or music, is created in a vacuum — all works borrow (consciously or not) from the artistic milieu in which they were conceived. If an artist has to be afraid lest a tiny corner of his or her composition contains a recognisable element from somebody else’s, art suffers, and society suffers.

As Harvard copyright professor Lawrence Lessig has pointed out, where would writing be if you had to secure permission from the rights-holder of a text when you wanted to quote a paragraph for illustration or review? It’s too absurd to contemplate. Yet in other media, we are headed increasingly in that direction. It’s a good time to be a lawyer, but not to be an artist.

Andrew Lewis writes: Couldn’t be quite sure which side of the fence Tim Dunlop was sitting on, but the recent case regarding Colin Hay and Down Under just highlighted to me that the law is an ass in relation to musical copyright.

That there was a connection with the Kookaburra song is taken as a fait accompli by Dunlop, but I can’t remember it ever entering my mind, and friends that I’ve asked are similarly confounded.  Sure, we have all heard musical notes before, probably all of them within our respective hearing ranges, but that hardly makes a case.

Mr Dunlop makes much of Colin Hay’s admission of conscious or unconscious references, but there hasn’t been a piece of music written that wasn’t unconsciously referencing some past song, at least since Mozart (he was the deaf one, wasn’t he). Robert Plant was gracious enough to admit that songwriters are one long line of beggars and thieves, and how can that not be so.

At least Mr Dunlop came to his senses in the end to suggest that the copyright should be less than 1% of the profits.  I think a reasonable person would suggest that whatever similarity was found, the supposed lifting of a few notes added exactly nothing to the value of the work, or its popularity, and should be compensated at that level.

And that’s before we even get into the argument about whether copyright should be maintained some 75 years after the original ditty was written, and a decade or so after the writer’s death.

The money is a big issue, but it’s the principle that stinks.

Niall Clugston writes: Tim Dunlop’s article sidesteps the issue.  Copyright is supposed to protect artists. Kookaburra was written in the 1930s for a non-commercial purpose, and the writer is long dead.  The fact is that 50 years after the death of the author is a long time. (In the future this will be 70 years due to John Howard’s sell-out to Mickey Mouse.)

If any of the “Men at Work” did notice the imitation, they would have assumed the song was traditional and in the public domain.  A payout to a rights-holding company nearly a century later in no way helps the author.  It does nothing for struggling artists today, just as none of the millions paid for his paintings go to Vincent Van Gogh.  Property law and art are poles apart.  The law should change.

Peter Wotton writes: Seriously would that gentleman on the Clapham omnibus really think that there was any real connection between the Men at Work song and Kookaburra? Certainly not this passenger.

However now that His Honour has handed down his verdict, can we expect that common sense takes control and damages are assessed at say $100, with all parties to pay their own costs?

John Taylor writes: Went to see Wicked the other day. Unmistakeably in the overture there are a few bars of Somewhere over the Rainbow. But I’ll shut up for $50,000. Send it by e-mail!

Free-to-air television networks handout:

Tim Deyzel writes: Re. “A quarter-billion dollar rort and the media plays dead. Wonder why?” (yesterday, item 1). Go Bernard Keane! And voiced as if addressing a Jack Russell with a still-struggling rat in its mouth).

No indignation would be needed if the government had simultaneously announced a licence for a fourth commercial television network when it conceded public tax dollars to the incumbent three free-to-air networks on Sunday. This could have been a revenue-neutral decision.

I’ve previously argued that based on our current population alone we could surely support more competition. We had only 11.5 million people in 1965 when the precursors to 10, the last of the commercial networks, launched. We now have a population of almost double this. But taxpayer largesse to the incumbents was just too tempting in an election year.

Coal mining:

Mike Crook writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 5). Regarding the tip on the BHP accident record. Coal mining has always been a hazardous occupation in Australia as everywhere else. Australian accident and fatality rates went through the roof in the 1970s and the mining unions were able to win major concession from employers regarding safety procedures and especially working hours to improve overall safety.

One of the slogans was “tired miners die”. However by the 1980’s a selective amnesia had set in and the mining unions were unable to stop the spread of the deadly 12 hour rotating shifts.

These have now spread like a cancer throughout the mining and mineral processing industries, and more recently have spread to such inappropriate work places as construction and even paramedics. Labor state governments are largely to blame for this, through lack of regulation or enforcement.

I worked at Ulan Coal in NSW in the late eighties and observed at first hand the immediate result of the change to 12 hour rotating shifts. As we know, the average Australian worker would sell his mother for an extra few days off a year, but there is a downside.

At Ulan there was an almost immediate spike in tiredness related accidents (chopping off fingers with Stanley knives, driving accidents, etc), but worse was to follow, those miners who liked a beer were going to the pub already tired with the result that, in our communities, the tiredness and alcohol mix sent domestic violence through the roof. But, hey, the money was good.

We are now at the stage, where despite the best efforts of the CFMEU, workers demand the right to kill and injure themselves on the job and develop an almost macho approach to workplace safety. In this they are aided and abetted by the mining companies who introduced these horrendous workings and who, because labour costs are such a small component of their overall cost structures, don’t actually give a damn for their workers.

Any talk of safety from them is very subsidiary to the main game and just window dressing. The other component for the employer is, tired workers don’t have the energy to organize or agitate, so there is now very little industrial disputation on Australia’s mine sites, even though safety is viewed as a joke.

David Bradbury:

Mark Ptolemy writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (Monday, item 6). I think you guys have been sold some BS on Monday’s “Tips and rumours”, where Crikey published:

David Bradbury is trying to line up a shift to Chifley from his current seat of Lindsay, but incumbent Roger Price doesn’t want to move. Bradbury may face a preselection challenge from Adam Serle, who is unlikely to win preselection in Macquarie, or Mark Ptolemy or May Hayek — from Bradbury’s own Right faction.

I have no idea what David Bradbury plans to do nor frankly do I care, but I would like to clarify that neither myself, nor my wife May (nee Hayek) Ptolemy have any intention of seeking preselection for Labor in Lindsay. As parents of a beautiful but lively 18 month old daughter and one more baby on the way, we feel parenthood is far more important than politics. Besides we now live in the Blue Mountains in the seat of Macquarie.

And no, neither of us want to run for Macquarie either – we fully support Mayor Adam Searle, who will be the next ALP Federal member in Macquarie and who will do a damn good job too.

Skilled migration:

Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Students, skills and sustainable immigration: Evans rings the changes” (Monday, item 1). When I read the proposed changes to skilled migration intake I thought there may be some merit in them. Having got more into the detail, I can understand why employers are worried there will be skills shortages.

Sharan Burrow from the ACTU on queue supported the changes (no surprise there). From a vested interest union perceptive skills shortages are a good thing (higher pay), although they retard the nation’s economic potential (for everyone else).

The plan sounds like virtual central planning (which the ACTU and Minister Chris Evans seem to have forgotten has collapsed), and all I can say is good luck with managing overall numbers and local supply and demand for particular skills.

Belinda Neal:

Allen Young  writes: Re. “Robertson locals turning on Belinda Neal” (Monday, item 3). Belinda Neal has hit the panic button early. On my half hour morning walk this morning with the radio on 2GO FM (the Central Coast station) I heard two political ads spruiking how much she has done for her constituents.