Conan O’Brien Takes His Parting Shots, But Not His Comedy Bits

In the recent decision by Conan O’Brien to leave NBC, the network has claimed ownership of his comedy bits and characters over his 17 year career with them.

Conan and NBC have formed a $40 million deal for Conan to leave “The Tonight Show” so Jay Leno may return to it; Conan is not prepared to return back to his old late-night time slot.

Although NBC is claiming rights over Conan’s characters and comedy routines such as Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, “The Year 3000″, and Conando, Conan and his writing staff seem unconcerned. However, NBC fears that Conan may take shots at Leno by appearing on other competing talk-shows as a guest.

Men at Work alleged to have plagiarized Girl Guide folk tune

Although it is a song that is guaranteed to get Australian-expats singing along in pubs across the world and has been for some time, Men at Work’s hit from the eighties has recently faced accusation that it might not be completely unique.

The Federal Court of Australia has just announced its ruling in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing v. EMI Songs Australia, holding that the band Men at Work, in their song Down Under, copied a substantial part of the children’s folk tune Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree. The flute riff from Down Under purportedly has similarities to Kookaburra, which was written in 1934 by school teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guide competition and to which Larrikin Music now owns the copyright. The court ruled that Larrikin was entitled to damages—which could total millions of dollars—from band members and their record company EMI.

Legal action was initiated by Larrikin’s managing director, Norman Lurie, in 2007 soon after a television music quiz-show publicly pointed to similarities between the two iconic tunes. After a hearing in the Federal Court last year, Justice Peter Jacobson ruled that Down Under bore an obvious resemblance to Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, a short folk song taught to Australian schoolchildren for more than 70 years.

In Jacobson’s judgement he said that “the 1979 recording and the 1981 recording of Down Under infringe Larrikin’s copyright in Kookaburra because both of those recordings reproduce a substantial part of Kookaburra.” Though it had a markedly different “feel” and musical context in Down Under, he said the riff was an iconic Australian melody and had been “substantially” reproduced by Men at Work. He added that it was a reasonable conclusion that Greg Ham had knowingly plagiarised the tune “for the purpose and with the intention of evoking an Australian flavour in the flute riff”.

Larrikin, Men at Work and EMI will meet on February 25th to discuss the findings and begin discussions about costs. Adam Simpson, Larrikin’s lawyer, said EMI and the band may be required to pay as much as 60 per cent of their earnings/royalties from the last six years, the time limit imposed by Australian law. Whereas John Anderson of EMI said the company would need time to consider what he termed a “complex judgment”, mentioning that significant damages would not necessarily follow the ruling. EMI is also considering appealing the ruling on the international hit record.

It should be noted that the estate of the late Marion Sinclair will get nothing from this court win for Larrikin. Australian music group Larrikin Publishing bought the copyright to the song in 1990 after Sinclair’s death in 1988.

Also, Men At Work’s Down Under was originally demoed in 1978 and registered in 1978 without the Ham flute riff. The hit recording with the flute addition took place in 1981. Ham’s flute riff was part of the arrangement and not part of the songwriting. He is not credited as a songwriter.

Google and NSA to work together on security

The Washington Post reports that Google has enlisted the aid of the NSA in analyzing the attack it suffered last month. Google says that the NSA will not have access to any private information about users. The ACLU has published a blog post reminding Google that the NSA’s primary purpose is surveillance.

More Criticism of the UK Digital Economy Bill from MPs and Peers

According to the BBC, the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, composed of MPs and peers, has expressed rights concerns about the bill, which is aimed at addressing copyright infringement. Andrew Dismore MP and chair of the Committee has noted the bill is insufficiently clear in its current form. The group claims the Digital Economy Bill, which is currently at the Committee Stage in the House of Lords, has “the potential to breach internet users’ rights” and that it could create “over-broad powers”.

International patent filings dropped in 2009

Earlier today ABC News reported that the World Intellectual Property Organization recevied fewer international patent filings in 2009 than in the previous year. This marks the first time that filings have been down, year over year, since 1978.  However, even with an 11 percent drop, the U.S. remains the top filer with 45,790 international patents applied for in 2009.

Who Dat Say Dey Own “Who Dat”

The cheer of this year’s Superbowl champions, the New Orleans Saints, is a phrase that has been chanted for some years – “Who Dat Say Dey Gonna Beat Dem Saints? Who Dat? Who Dat?”

It is only now the NFL has attempted to assert rights to the phrase through the Florida Department of State. It has issued cease-and-desist orders against New Orleans vendors who sell Saints memorabilia featuring the wording.

The NFL says the shirts infringe on a legal trademark it owns. Separately, two brothers and longtime Saints fans claim they own the phrase, which was around before the team’s inception in 1966.

Fans and merchants are outraged, the NFL’s timing coincides with the Saints first outstanding season in years.

Patent office grants review of dangerous VOIP patent

C2 Communications holds a patent for VOIP phone calls with landlines as endpoints. The patent would prevent long distance carriers from routing calls over the internet or the provision of services like Google Voice. The US Patent Office has granted the EFF’s request to re-examine the patent based on evidence that descriptions of the technology had already been published years before C2 was granted the patent. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a program called Patent Busters devoted to the re-examination of invalid patents.

Is copyright reform needed for Canada’s digital music market to compete?

In a recent blog entry Michael Geist notes that growth in sales of digital music in 2009 in Canada outpaced the U.S. for the fourth straight year. He also points out that digital sales, as a percentage of total sales, is higher in Canada than in every major European country. He uses this information to assert that the music industry’s blaming of Canadian copyright law for their current misfortunes is “quite clearly misplaced”. What do you think? Does the fact that digital music in Canada is selling comparatively well mean that industry calls for reform are overblown?

Australian ISP wins landmark copyright case

iiNet, an Internet Service Provider in Australia, has won a landmark case against the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). AFACT had tried to argue that iiNet was not taking strong enough steps to deter illegal copying of films and videos over its network. The decision is sure to have far-reaching ramifications for both Australian and international copyright law.

Italy Planning to Apply Broadcasting Regulations to Online Video Sites

The Wall Street Journal reports that Italy is proposing to impose television-broadcasting regulations to websites which host videos, which would require sites to obtain broadcasting licenses and permission to host copyrighted videos. It also could render sites liable for libelous content posted by users.

If the rules are extended, Italy would set a precedent in holding sites like YouTube responsible for user-generated content and a new standard of government regulation of video sites in Europe. Google and Yahoo have both expressed doubts and objections to the draft decree, noting that these regulations could restrict development of technology. This could also promote content-sharing deals between video sites and TV broadcasters to ensure the latter could enforce its copyright more easily against other sites which post copyrighted material without permission.