Peter Black's Freedom to Differ

Podcast on Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Yesterday evening I had a chat with Ben Grubb from Tech Wired Australia about the High Court's decision Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.  Ben has posted a podcast of that conversation you can download here.  And see my previous posts on the decision here and here.

What others are saying about Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Yesterday the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, bringing to an end legal proceedings that have been going on for the past three years.  (I first blogged about the case in October 2006 here.)  I had hoped to post a summary of the decision as well as some comments by this morning but unfortunately it now appears that I'm unlikely to get the time to write anything until the weekend.  However, a few other Australian blawgers have posted their thoughts on the decision:

• My QUT colleague Kylie Pappalardo has an excellent summary on her blog OctaviaNet here.
• Warwick Rothnie posted his initial thoughts at ipwars.com here before a posting a more detailed summary and analysis last night here.
• On Australian Regulatory Compliance Review David Jacobson highlights a particular interesting part of the judgment here.
• Joshua Gans comments briefly here.
• Law student Katherine Liew has also written up her reaction to the decision here.

I'll continue to update this list as more people post their thoughts on this decision ...

One aspect of the decision that hasn't really been commented on yet was the nature of the divide on the Court.  Although all six justices agreed that the appeal should be allowed, the court divided into two groups of three justices each.  One judgment was authored by French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ, and the other was authored by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ.  This seems to be part of ongoing trend that suggests that maybe there is a divide on the Court emerging between the more established justices (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ) and the more recent appointees (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).  In particular, I can't help but wonder if there is minor battle taking place behind the scenes of the High Court between the new Chief Justice and the longest serving member of the Court, Gummow J, for the intellectual leadership of the Court.  If my suspicisions are correct, it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Update: link fixed.  Judgment also now available on AustLII here.

The High Court of Australian has handed down this morning its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.  I've been following this case since October 2006 (see my first post here) so it is interesting to note that Ice TV has ultimately been successful.  The judgment is not yet available on AustLII but I have posted a copy of the judgment for you to read here.  This is also what Ice TV has posted to their website:

IceTV wins High Court decision - freezes Nine!

April 22nd, 2009

The High Court of Australia has today ruled in favour of IceTV in what has been an epic three year legal battle with the Nine Network.

Six months after the appeal was heard by the High Court and 3 years since the case originally began the High Court has today in Canberra, allowed IceTV’s appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court. A comment as to the High Court findings will follow shortly.

In an official statement made immediately following today’s judgment, IceTV’s Chairman and major investor, Mr. Colin O’Brien said the following;

“I would like to thank all our shareholders, our staff, our customers and our business partners. Without their support during the last three years IceTV would not have survived. IceTV now looks forward to a successful future bringing both Free-To-Air TV and content via various partners to viewers in a way that satisfies viewer demand, whilst embracing the future of digital Free-To-Air television in Australia.”

Since it’s incorporation in 2005 IceTV has had one aim: To give TV viewers the freedom to record and manage their TV shows as they choose. To record what they want, skip what they want and watch it at a time that suits them. No longer do viewers have to watch their chosen shows when the Networks tell them or to watch content they would rather skip through. IceTV gives them this choice.

This win today is also a win for our many subscribers who enjoy the benefits of simpler, smarter TV viewing.

IceTV’s General Manager, Mr. Matt Kossatz made the following comment after the High Court’s decision;

“Today’s decision is the news that we (IceTV), our staff and our loyal users have waited 3 long years and worked very hard for. With everything happening with digital television in Australia at the moment, the timing is ripe and almost worth the wait. We are seeing more and more content coming to both free-to-air TV and via the web and as an independent company (not a TV Network), we will always have the ability to put the interest’s of the consumer first in terms of features we offer”.

For more information, please read our following Press Release.

A copy of the High Court’s Judgment is expected to be made publicly available later this week. A copy of the High Court’s Summary of Findings will be made available via IceTV’s website as soon as possible.

Regards,
IceTV

I'll try to post a summary of the judgment later today.

Colbert's Remix Challenge

When Larry Lessig appeared on The Colbert Report two weeks ago to talk about this latest book, Remix, he basically invited people to remix the interview over the protests of host Stephen Colbert's (see here).  Now Colbert has responded to some of the remixes that have popped up online (for some examples see here):

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Stephen's Remix Challenge

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Copyright blocks The Wonder Years on DVD

Techdirt reports that thanks to problems with music licensing rights, The Wonder Years is unlikely to be available on DVD anytime soon:

One of the tragedies of ridiculous music licensing practices has been that TV shows that involved great music can no longer be seen -- because when they were first aired, there was no aftermarket, and so no rights were cleared with the music owners. The famous case is the TV show WKRP in Cincinnati, which tried to get around the issue by replacing all the great classic rock in the original, with crappy new music -- really harming the quality of the show. Tom sent in a note pointing out that the classic 80s TV show The Wonder Years is actually facing a similar issue, and because of it, the show is not available on DVD. The show was famous for integrating great music into the overall show -- clearing all that music for a DVD release is apparently too difficult, leading to an overall loss to society and culture.

Read it here.

A-PAC: Australia's Public Affairs Channel

Australia's answer to C-SPAN, now called A-PAC, will launch on 20 January.  The website is online here, where you can watch a promotional (propaganda?) video that gives the impression that this channel was the most important outcome of Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit and that it has come "more than a decade ahead of that vision".

The Gob Act: A Tribute to Arrested Development

Although I'd normally post this video to my tumblelog Freedom to Dither, I am such a fan of Arrested Development that I thought i'd post it here instead.  So here The Gob Act: A Tribute to Arrested Development:

Mad Men Twitter fan fiction

Business Week has an interesting story on how Mad Men fans are using Twiiter in a way that is "blurring the lines between brand infringement and brand extension":

On AMC's hit show Mad Men, character Peggy Olson is the ambitious secretary-turned-copywriter at fictional Manhattan advertising agency Sterling Cooper. On the show, which is set in 1962, she's excellent at keeping secrets—such as how she bore a child out of wedlock. Off the show, she's more forthcoming. Olson—or rather, a person posing as her—uses the microblogging service Twitter to give fans a peek into her inner thoughts: "The men in the office are headed to the Oyster Bar. I'm going to the library. It doesn't seem quite fair," she wrote on Aug. 25.

Olson isn't the only Mad Men character on Twitter. Sterling Cooper creative director Don Draper began it all by issuing his first status update on Aug. 12. A few days later, seductive secretary Joan Holloway joined the fray, writing on Aug. 19, for instance: "Hoping @don_draper will be eating lunch outside of office again today, as he usually does. There's a sale on intimates at Macy's." That was the day Peggy Olson popped up.

In all, more than 15 Mad Men characters are Twittering, and more appear every week. All are posted by individual fans of the show and to date, none are known to be associated with the series. At least one blogger has speculated that Don Draper, Peggy Olson, and the others are actors hired by AMC interactive marketing agency Deep Focus, but AMC spokeswoman Theano Apostolou emphatically denies it. Several of the Mad Men Twitterers also said in interviews that they're independent fans, unaffiliated with Mad Men or AMC.

The unofficial Mad Men are using Twitter to push fictional characters into a new digital frontier—at the same time blurring the lines between brand infringement and brand extension. While a show's creators and distributors might ordinarily welcome the publicity that comes with seeing it depicted in a positive light beyond normal viewing times, they're also on alert for signs that their brand is being misused in some manner. Content owners are especially vigilant in an age when users can spread content quickly by means of social media, such as Facebook or Google (GOOG)'s YouTube. In July, Hasbro (HAS) sued the creators of an unauthorized version of its Scrabble word game (BusinessWeek.com, 7/24/08) that had become wildly famous on Facebook. For a time, Twitter disabled Mad Men accounts amid inquiries from AMC as to their origin—though AMC denies having asked for the accounts to be blocked.

Read more here.

Remixing Lessig and Colbert

When Larry Lessig appeared on The Colbert Report during the week to talk about this latest book, Remix, he basically invited people to remix the interview (see here).  Here are two audio remixes: one from Sam and another from Jim Vanaria.  Here are two video remixes:

And the audio to the show is available to be remixed on ccMixter here.

Twitter in the courtroom

In the US, a Colorado judge recently approved the use of Twitter, as well as live-blogging, inside the courtroom to cover an infant-abuse trial:

Prosecutors and defense attorneys wanted bloggers silenced in the courtroom next week, but a Boulder judge ordered Monday that cell phones and computers won’t be banned from the child-abuse trial of Alex Midyette, the Boulder Daily Camera reports. The attorneys argued that live-blogging and Tweeting the sensational case could tip witnesses to proceedings before they testified, thus impeding a fair trial. “I think there are other manageable options and less restrictive options than shutting down the flow of information during the trial,” Boulder District Judge Lael Montgomery said.

Last week, when the attorneys filed the joint motion to keep bloggers out of the courtroom, a Kansas journalist who has pioneered new media trial coverage cried foul. “Courts are supposed to be public and this is just another way of creating public access,” Wichita Eagle reporter Ron Sylvester wrote in an e-mail to the Colorado Independent. In addition to a Tweeting trial coverage, Sylvester maintains a blog, What the Judge Ate for Breakfast, with further insight into the local courts.

“[R]eporting through live blogging is simply text descriptions, just as newspapers have been reporting on the courts for ages,” Sylvester wrote. “When I use Twitter to cover trials, there’s really very little difference in what I do with social media than what I write for the next day’s newspaper.”

Montgomery agreed in her ruling Monday, ordering witnesses to refrain from reading about the testimony of other witnesses. “The court believes that is a more appropriate way to proceed than shutting off the reporting at the front end,” the Longmont Times-Call reported.

Read more here (from the Colorado Independent).  (Hat tip: Social Media Law Student.)

Before my Australian readers get too excited about this ruling, I cannot see this ruling taking place in Australia.  The principle of open justice in Australia is very different from the US, and my feeling is that the courts here would be more likely to grant TV or radio access than Twitter or live-blogging in Australian courts - and I can't see TV cameras or microphones being regularly allowed into Australian courts any time soon.

TV Tonight Awards

TV Tonight, probably Australia's leading television blog, has posted the winners of the 2008 TV Tonight Awards.  You can see the winners are here.

Best media and entertainment posts from 2008

Continuing my end-of-year wrap ...

Here are what I consider to be some of the "best" media and entertainment themed posts from 2008.  Again, some of these posts are academic, some are trivial, some just link to what other people say, and some are a little random, but they do represent what interests me and what I have posted on this blog in 2008.  Also, due to a deliberate decision to change the mix of posts on this blog during the year, there were not as many media or entertainment themed posts as in previous years.

Television:

• Potential Big Brother housemates turn to Facebook - some potential Big Brother housemates  purchased advertising space on Facebook to promote themselves.
• Dance fiasco? How about news fiasco? - who would you ask if you wanted to know whether you could copyright a dance?
•  "I just don't see it as a TV series. Maybe a movie?" - talk that there might be an Arrested Development movie.
• "Someone get Patricia Hammond a Xanax" - FoxNews anchor Shep Smith has a wonderfully entertaining rant against an emailer accusing him of bias against Mitt Romney.
• It's time to go Big Brother ... for now - why I watched Big Brother and why it will be missed.

Other:

• Sad day for Australian journalism -  lamenting the end of The Bulletin and the Sunday program.
• Some comments on the US election - this post surprised a number of readers.
• Offensive, banned and rejected ads - some of these are amazing.
• Some interesting top ten lists - a few different top ten lists.

Video:

• Don't forget to check out my list of the best videos of 2008.

Freedom to Dither

• Finally, if you want more media and entertainment posts, check out my tumblelog Freedom to Dither.

Best TV of 2008

Continuing my end-of-year wrap ...

Best Australian TV Shows:

1. Insiders - As followers of my Twitter stream know, I religiously watch Insiders every morning ("If it is Sunday, it is Insiders").  It is without doubt the best political talk show in Australia and it provides an entertaining and informed discussion of the issues of the week each and every Sunday.
2. The Hollowmen - Although it is no Frontline, the Working Dog team returned to scripted TV with this original and clever comedy looking behind the scenes of the Prime Minster's office in Canberra.
3. The Gruen Transfer - It took me a while before I finally watched The Gruen Transfer this year as I can't stand Wil Anderson.  And even though Wil continued to annoy me the behind the scenes look at the advertising industry was both amusing and revealing.
4. Underbelly - This gritty Australian drama about the gangland shootings in Melbourne set a new bar for quality Australian drama (making City Homicide, which made my "Best of TV" list last year, look pedestrian by comparison).
5. Very Small Business - Starring Wayne Hope and Kym Gyngell, this unlikely Australian comedy about a failed businessman was a surprisingly enjoyable.

Best Overseas TV Shows (that aired in Australia in 2008):

1. Dexter - A superb drama that has reimagined the conventional serial killer and police investigation narratives.
2. Dirty Sexy Money - In many ways this show was a contradiction: it was well acted and written and yet it delighted in its trashy, over-the-top plotlines. However, the result was a consistently entertaining drama that will be missed in 2009.
3. 30 Rock - In 2008 Tina Fey could do no wrong.
   
4. Kyle XY - A few seasons old in the US, this original family drama was first broadcast in Australia this year.  The mystery surrounding Kyle and his abilities, coupled with intelligent plots focused on family and teen issues, created a winning family drama.
5. Bones -  It took me a few seasons before I started to watch Bones and yet as soon as I did I was hooked.

Honourable Mention: Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog - Although this wasn't strictly a TV show (not that that stopped Time from including it in its list of the top TV series of 2008), Joss Whedon's musical about a would-be supervillain applying for membership in the exclusive Evil League of Evil deserves to be mentioned as arguably the most original program of the year, even if it was broadcast on the internet instead of on television. 

(Note there are a lot of shows I have not yet seen, including In Treatment, John Adams, Mad Men and Battlestar Galactacia.)

Keith Olbermann's "homoerotic" obsession with Bill O'Reilly

During the week Keith Olbermann attacked the late night FoxNews Channel show Red Eye, sparking this priceless response from Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld:

Tech Wired Australia podcast

This afternoon I was interviewed by Ben Grubb from Tech Wired Australia on the iiNet copyright lawsuit.  You can listen to or download the podcast here.

The always fair and balanced Brit Hume

This election is the last time Brit Hume will anchor the FoxNews Channel's coverage.  When FoxNews was starting out over ten years ago, Brit gave the channel instant credibility and since then he has ensured that FoxNews has lived up to its fair and balanced mantra.  As Brit will be missed, here are couple of recent articles talking about his past, present and future:

• Politico;
• The Boston Globe;
• The Miami Herald;
• Time Magazine;
• South Florida Sun Sentinel;
• Tampa Tribune.

McCain on SNL

With three days left before the election, John McCain makes fun of his situation on Saturday Night Live:

Santos and Obama

Aficionados of The West Wing have been noticing for some time a few similarities between the arc last season of the show that saw Matthew Santos become US President and the meteoric rise and skillful campaign of Barack Obama.  Politico outlines some of these similarities in the introduction to an interview with Jimmy Smits, the actor who portrayed Matthew Santos:

It’s an urban legend that actor Blair Underwood based his “L.A. Law” role of a hotshot black attorney on Barack Obama during the late 1980s. Underwood had been playing the part for years before he even met Obama, who was president of the Harvard Law Review at the time. But it is true that Jimmy Smits’ charismatic candidate character Matt Santos on “The West Wing” was inspired directly by the politician. Indeed, writer-producer Eli Attie even spoke to Obama adviser David Axlerod to pick up backstory and other details for use in his scripts.

The many parallels between “The West Wing’s” final season and the current presidential race have been widely noted. Like Obama, Santos was a former community organizer with a wife and two kids who enjoys grassroots support, excels in soaring rhetoric about “hope,” yet lacks real Congressional experience. His far older Republican rival, Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda), had a chilly relationship with conservatives in his own party and often engaged the press with “straight talk.” Indeed, “The West Wing” also predicted an October surprise of sorts, only it was a nuclear reactor meltdown instead of one on Wall Street that altered the race.

Though the “West Wing” finale was more than two years ago and Smits moved on to a role as an assistant D.A. on the quirky cable drama “Dexter,” thoughts of Santos and his eerily prescient presidential quest still weigh on his mind. Less than a hundred hours before the election, Politico spoke with the actor, who had just returned from introducing Obama at a Ft. Lauderdale, Florida rally that capped off the candidate’s groundbreaking half-hour infomercial. “I’m not a policy wonk – I’m somewhere between being undecided and a surrogate,” he says with a laugh when asked about his role in the real-life campaign.

Read Politico's interview with Smits here.

UNSW thinking about stopping free wi-fi ... what is this really about?

The Fairfax papers have a story today about the University of New South Wales considering stopping its free wi-fi internet for students because so many students are using it to download illegal files:

The University of NSW has threatened to axe its free wireless internet service because students are bringing in their laptops and using them to download pirated music, movies and games.

The university's director of IT, Michael Kirby-Lewis, said complaints about illegal downloading by students had risen from one or two a month to "a number a day", putting UNSW and students at risk of litigation for copyright infringement.

UNSW has been issuing fines of up to $1000 to students who use its free wireless network for illegal downloading. Money generated by the fines is donated to fund student facilities around campus.

Sabiene Heindl, general manager of the music industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, said research by the Australian Recording Industry Association had found one in three under 24-year-olds downloaded music illegally.

She pointed to recent research by German online traffic management company iPoque that found 57 per cent of all Australian internet traffic was generated by peer-to-peer networks, which contain mainly pirated content.

Heindl welcomed the decision by UNSW to educate students about the risks of illegal downloading but denied the music industry had threatened the university with legal action.

On Friday afternoon, Kirby-Lewis sent a note to all students warning that the viability of the university's free wireless network had been "placed under threat" due to incidents of illegal downloading.

Students caught engaging in the practice would have their wireless access blocked for the remainder of the session and be subject to formal disciplinary action including fines of up to $1000.

Read more here (from The Age).  To be honest I can't blame the UNSW for thinking about taking this action - not only is the university potentially leaving itself open to litigation against it, but the numbers of people using the network in this way would be placing a strain on the network itself.  However, at its core this is merely a sympton of a much bigger challenge facing the entertainment industries. 

Despite extensive advertising campaigns and some high profile lawsuits in the US, young Australians continue to believe that it is acceptable to download music, movies and TV shows unlawfully rather than pay for them or wait for them to be released or broadcast in Australia.  Indeed, I am suprised that ARIA has found that only one in three under 24-year-olds downloaded music illegally.  Based upon my discussions with students (and law students at that, including students who are stuyding copyright law), I would have thought that figure would be much higher.  It seems to me that the entertainment industries are facing a losing battle and that they need to introduce new business models that embrace the reality that the future of entertainment is online.  iTunes, YouTube and Hulu are all steps in the right direction, except for one fatal flaw - they continue to insist on imposing national boundaries on the internet.  Not only are the various geo-identification techniques they use to impose these artificial national boundaries on the internet flawed, they fail to apreciate that the future of entertainment is not only online, it is also international.  The entertainment industries are not only losing this battle, they are losing the war - they need to move forward and embrace the future of digital entertainment.

Lessig on copyright and politics

During the week the New York Times published an op-ed piece from Larry Lessig explaining how copyright law is being used as a tool for censorship:

Copyright law has become a political weapon because of a statute passed a decade ago: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That law tells carriers like YouTube that unless they quickly remove material posted by users that is alleged to infringe copyright, they themselves could be liable for the infringement. Understandably, YouTube and others have become quite vigilant in removing allegedly infringing content. Indeed, the Web site has gone beyond the requirements of the law and has begun to shut down the accounts of people alleged to have violated copyright just three times.

The digital copyright act gives the alleged infringer an opportunity to demand that the content be restored. But in the height of a political campaign, even a few hours of downtime can be the difference between effective and ineffective. The law thus creates a perfect mechanism to censor political speech during the only time it could matter. Recognizing this, campaigns and their allies are beginning to exploit this weapon.

The answer to this problem is not to abolish or ignore copyright. Instead, the law should be revised, bringing focus to the contexts in which its important economic incentives are needed, and removing it from contexts where it isn’t.

Read more here.  Lessig was also in the news in the UK this week with The Guardian giving him a gushing editorial:

Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford professor, is a lawyer who gets things changed not for the benefit of corporations but to unleash the creative potential of ordinary people in a digital age. He founded Creative Commons, a non-profit organisation whose licences enable content creators to set their own terms for protection of their intellectual property. He regards extension of copyright as anathema to the YouTube generation and a brake on economic growth. He also thinks it is against the US constitution, which states that copyright should be "limited". The original limit has been extended from 14 to 70 years after the death of the creator, and Prof Lessig points out that one of the main corporations that lobbied for this, Disney, cut its creative teeth by raiding the public domain for works from Snow White to the Hunchback of Notre Dame. If the current term for copyright had existed then, it might have suffocated Mickey Mouse at birth. Prof Lessig is formidably qualified, with degrees in economics, management, philosophy and law, but it was only when he studied philosophy at Trinity College, Cambridge, that his conservative views underwent radical change. His latest book, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, will enhance his cult status on the web. This year he launched a web-based campaign to get Congress members to take a stand against corruption. So far only five have signed up, but if - as is possible - Prof Lessig ends up in government then he will have less need to rely on persuasion.

Read it here.  However, not everyone was a fan of Lessig this week.  Business Week's Spence Ante didn't like Lessig's latest book, Remix:

But Remix is Lessig's weakest effort to date, a derivative essay that rehashes a lot of his older work. Like Martin Scorsese doing another mobster flick, Lessig seems uninspired, groping for a fresh take on familiar themes. Most annoying, he devotes only the last 35 pages of the book to his reform plan, and some of those ideas are not even that new.

Read the full review here and then check out Lessig's response here.

Some election themed videos

These two US Presidential election themed videos have been viral video hits over the past few days.

The first features Will Ferrell returning to Saturday Night Live as George W Bush giving his endorsement to John McCain and Sarah Palin:

The second asks wassup:

Palin on Saturday Night Live

Sarah Palin made two appearances on Saturday Night Live this weekend:

Sarah Palin opens the show:

The Palin Rap:

But Sarah Palin was not the only political figure to have some fun this weekend - both Barack Obama and John McCain made fun of each other and themselves at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner:

McCain part 1:

McCain part 2:

Obama part 1:

Obama part 2:

 

High Court begins hearing Ice TV

The High Court began hearing the Ice TV appeal today before six justices (Justice Kirby didn't sit).  The hearing will continue tomorrow.

The transcript of the first day of oral argument is already available on AustLII here (interestingly the Court gave leave to Telstra and the Australian Digital Alliance to appear as amicus). 

Peter Vogel, who was in the courtroom today, has blogged about it here.

By way of background it is worth noting that there has been quite a bit written on this case over the last few years.  I've chimed in (see here), as has Kim Weatherall (see here and here), The House of Commons (see here and here), Bill Patry (see here and here), and David Lindsay in a presentation to the Copyright Society of Australia (see here).  My colleague, Professor Brian Fitzgerald, together with Ben Atkinson, also made available today a paper they have written on the case, "Copyright as an Instrument of Information Flow and Dissemination: the case of ICE TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd".  You can download that paper from QUT ePrints here.

All very interesting ...

The Howard Years

Now available on YouTube is a preview of the upcoming ABC documentary The Howard Years:

TV Tonight's David Knox has more here.

After having read The Costello Memiors I am realy looking forward to hearing more about John Howard's term as Prime Minister from several other key players.

Kookaburra sits Down Under

Over the weekend The Sunday Telegraph had an interesting story on how the ABC TV show Spicks and Specks has given rise to an interesting copyright case:

TWO of Australia's most loved anthems are locked in a courtroom copyright battle sparked by a question on the ABC's music quiz show Spicks And Specks.

Publishing company Larrikin Music claims Men At Work's Down Under rips off the popular children's song, Kookaburra.

The claim centres on the melody that accompanies the line: "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree", which Larrikin Music alleges is reproduced in Down Under.

"This is a battle between two icons," Larrikin Music Publishing managing director Norm Lurie said. "We claim the song Down Under contains the 'kookaburra sits in the old gum tree' refrain.

"That refrain is an integral part of Down Under and we are not being recompensed for that song. The Kookaburra aspect of that song has never been acknowledged," Mr Lurie said.

The matter is set to be heard in the Federal Court in November.

Larrikin is seeking compensation from the Down Under songwriters, Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, along with record and entertainment giants Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony DADC Australia, EMI Songs Australia and EMI Music Publishing.

Mr Lurie said the alleged Kookaburra connection was raised on the ABC TV show.

"This question was posed on Spicks And Specks: 'What children's song is contained in the song Down Under?' The answer was: 'Kookaburra'," Mr Lurie said.

"The next day, my email and phone lit up with people asking: 'Do you know about this?'

"It's not like we've been sitting on our hands waiting. But there was no other course for us to take."

Read more here.  Seeing the song Down Under was written in 1981 it is perhaps surprising it has taken this long for this copyright matter to be litigated.  Regardless it will be interesting to see how the case is resolved.