[78-L] Kookaburra lawsuit

[bradc944 at comcast.net]

Sorry about the inclusions but they're germaine to the convo, mate... :)

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Biel 
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 19:52:08 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [78-L] Kookaburra lawsuit

>> To keep this on topic, was "Kookaburra" ever issued on a 78?
>> Cary Ginell

Don Chichester wrote:
> I once owned a copy of the ABC Kookaburra bird heard on the broadcasts of Radio Australia. 

I have a copy of this that I got from Ross Laird.  I think it was on 
Columbia -- it would take me a while to find it.  To explain, we're not 
talking about the song but the sound of "Jacko"  the Kookaburra bird 
that Radio Australia used to open each broadcast with.  The nickname of 
the bird is "laughing jackass" hence the name "Jacko" to the particular 
bird they used. 


>  Is this still on shortwave?  Don
>  
>   

They cut back quite a bit on their international service about ten years 
ago, even their Pacific Islands service which was practically the only 
radio in some areas.  I think it is still there but not easy to hear. 

---> I reply:

Yes, ABC's shortwave service is still there but limited, as you say.  It *can* be heard at times in the western part of the US when ionospheric propogation is willing, but you're right, it's a rarer bird nowadays (pun half-intended) than it was, say, 20 years ago.

I assume that the song that was the subject of the lawsuit was also on 
numerous 78s.  It is interesting that the lawyer said that it is too bad 
that the woman who wrote the song did not geet royalties from Men At 
Work during her lifetime -- the publishers bought the song after her 
death.  I Was going to comment -- but one of the commenters already did 
-- that we don't know if perhaps she DID know of the interpolation of 
her song and APPROVED of it and didn't ask for royalties!   Some of the 
commenters said that they did not hear any similarity at all -- but of 
course there IS.  They were listening to the SONG, not the little flute 
riff BEHIND the song.  The judge has already said that it was not an 
important part of the song, and hopefully give them maybe only 10% or so.


---> I reply:

According to the BBC (where I first heard of the lawsuit, on BBC Radio 2), the judge awarded (are you sitting down?) SIXTY per cent.

Cary talks about classroom use of songs, but you have to remember that 
public performance royalties are venue-based.  I am not sure about 
public schools, but I would think that there might be a system-wide 
blanket license that would cover all uses at any school in the system 
including the marching band at football games, and songs at dances, 
talent shows, school concerts, both students and outside acts.  This 
would include classrooms.  I know at the university there are site 
licenses that include all this and the radio station as well.   There is 
some fair use for instructional and discussion purposes, but remember 
that there are things which are published specifically for instructional 
purposes.  They have to have the ability to get paid for this use.  It 
is not all free, but is usually expected by the teacher to have been 
taken care of by the venue -- the school administration. 

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l