Men at Work Lose 'Down Under' Court Case

after about 20 years and they just now realized that a flute riff sounds like a melody, come on statutes of limitations... this is bull shit

I read the following quote from the judge in this case:

"What Spicks and Specks does show is that there are difficulties in the recognition of the work, but a sensitised listener can detect the aural resemblance between the bars of Kookaburra and the flute riff of Down Under."

Well about 10 years ago I made a guest appearance on one song (Down Under) for a local covers band - playing the flute riff. I spent every spare minute for about 2 weeks rehearsing this flute part and then finally played it with the band. (I received their invitation to come back and join them again next time, so would that qualify me a "sensitised listener"???) Over the course of my rehearsal / performance, not ONCE did I think of Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree.

It's the song we have all come to know and love. It was 2 bars of flute music which were added for fun after the actual song was co-wroted. How sad the companies like to pull extra money from people who truly made a difference to this Industry. Marion Sinclair (The writer of the Kookaburra song) never saw it as a threat and never sued them for it. The only reason it has now come into the limelight, is that Larrikin Music, which is owned by London's Music Sales Group, bought the rights to the classic folk song in 1990, following Sinclair's death in 1988 and they want to get as much out of this as possible. "Men at Work", we're on your side and I hope that the courts see what is really happening here.

If the flute riff was sooooo bloody recognisable why did it take these people 29 years to sue. Shame on them. A win for the under dog my ass. This is a win for petty turds!

There's also a huge difference between legal and "intellectual" plagiarism. I'm sure the "Kid", did make sure he was legally "covering his ass-ets", when he recorded the song, but that still doesn't legitimize it artistically!

The short flute riff in "Down Under" (by Men at Work), is the true example of an "artistic tribute", to a beloved song (it simply, and briefly, helps emote the Australian heritage). What Kid Krock is doing, is shameless artistic vulgarity!

If it's even, at all, conceivably wrong, to sample a few bars of "Kookaburra" for artistic affect, then what does that say about someone who goes out and grabs "two" of the catchiest riffs known (better be safe, "one" may not do the trick), for the sole purpose of using "proven hit quality music" to mentally connect us to his own tune?

It's not "cool", it's not "different", it's not even "tributary" to those classics songs, it's perverse!

First of all, when I hear "Kid Krocks" song (especially for the 17th time per day), I have an immediate urge to "turn off" the radio and go find the original songs, especially werewolves (that IS a true classic, it inspired a hit movie, you know...). Second, I'm left with a lasting impression of how annoying and mediocre the Kid(?)s song is and how desperately it needed lots of help.

Please, both of the songs he rips-off, were 10 years old in 1989 (the specific year he refers to), in a most likely, fabricated, walk down memory lane. I relate memories to new songs receiving frequent airplay, at the time, like Kid Punk's new song (not a good memory, but a fixed memory, none the less).

You attribute some incredibly noble motives to a man who sings "I'm straight off the trailer
Cuss like a sailor...drink like a Mick.
My only words of wisdom are... (Radio Edit)"!

If he's really paying tribute to W. Zevon, why doesn't Kiddo mention the man? He creates the majority of his song around Zevon's music, but then, refers only (passingly) to "sweet home alabama".

No, this is a man who got his start spinning other people's music, as a DJ. It worked for him then, it's working for him now ($$$), he's nothing but a "pepsi commercial", a shameless product endorsement, for himself. "All summer long", reveals it.

blood sucking attorney--LOL

60% seems a rather large amount. Why 20+ years later is this an issue? You would think that after x amount of years it would be off limits to that type of lawsuit.

I had never heard of the 1935 version, But I loved the Men at work tune! 30% MAYBE but what do I know, it's not my writing being plagerized. I might sing a different tune otherwise. So guys? Does this mean we can look forward to new music to help pay for that????? I for one, would love to play more music from you dudes!

I actually feel sorry for Men at Work because the part of the song in question is only a flute piece. If the group would have left out the flute the song would have still retained its appeal. Coldplay, on the other hand, steals the entire riff and gets away with it. It doesn't make sense.

Sandi, "Greensleaves" was not SUPPOSEDLY written by Henry VIII, it is a well-known historical FACT that Hank 8 wrote it. He was an accomplished musician and composer, and this is his most famous composition. Check out a website for Greensleaves, and you'll see that Henry Tudor wrote it.

As for the subject at hand, MAW and plagiarism, this is total BS, and I hope they appeal this verdict and win. Not only does the flute riff sound only marginally like Kookaburra, but even if it DID sound exactly like it, it wouldn't be actionable. IMHO. Good luck, lads!!!

for the fool that used this article to attack rap music. rappers dont steal music. rappers get permission for any sample they use. that issue was settled over 20 years ago. get a clue. a group called de la soul was the first rap group to get sued and the issue was settle 20 years ago.

learn your history before you go into your biased attack on rap. actually, rap has more credibility that other genres. rappers MUST write their own lyrics.

stealing someones lyrics could literally get you killed. that never happens. even reciting someones lyrics with their permission is frowned upon and will get you black balled.
you wont find a successful rapper that doesnt write his own lyrics. i doubt if you will find any rapper who doesnt write their own lyrics. try again!

as for the music, rappers seek permission instead of blatantly taking someone elses material.

rappers find obscure tunes and sample them. they MUST get permission to use that riff,or hook or whatever you call it.

its not unheard of for a hit rap song to be held up for months or years because the samples couldnt get cleared. but you keep attacking rap, while the so called bands steal other peoples music. (coldplay had a blatant rip off, yet the first thing you think of is rap? a genre that plays by the rules?)

that snide remark about rap was totally stupid and exposed the pre-conceived bias you fester.

How exactly did the prosecution prove that any member of the band new of the Girl Guides song when they wrote Down Under?