The Kieran Forum

[Stevo]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

I can't see how the Men at Work ruling is anything like this. Isn't it widely accepted that this was a genuine mistake and coincidence?

If what has been reported about Greenberg is correct there is no mistake about it.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

But to what end. It just seems a waste of time and money and is nothing but horrible PR.

Being devils advocate, why do you suggest bad PR ?

It dont see prosecuting a wrong should necessarily bring about bad public relations.

I'd like to offer the case of Larrikan music vs Men at Work.

The judgement was that Men at Work were in the wrong, however you will be hard pressed to find many people that see Larrikan music in a good light for their action.

It just seems petty and most will see it as so

You can quote plenty of cases Dan, but what it comes down to is... well, it's the vibe, Dan. :idea:

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

Your going to make me read it arnt you. Bastard !

Basically Larrikan bought the rights to "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" or whatever it is called. Then turned around and sued Men at Work for copyright infringement as they claimed that the flute solo within "Down Under" was copied directly from that song.

The judge agreed and awarded royalties to Larrikan music as well as ongoing royalty payments. This essentially meant a large portion of the financial income of the band members was taken away in one fell swoop, one of them had to sell his house and was finally found dead last week.

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

I can't see how the Men at Work ruling is anything like this. Isn't it widely accepted that this was a genuine mistake and coincidence?

If what has been reported about Greenberg is correct there is no mistake about it.

No not at all. It was accepted that they infringed copyright and this had to pay ridiculous amounts in royalties. No coincidence no mistake.

However the bad PR is all on Larrikan. Fortunately for them, they have made their money and they deal in an industry where bad PR doesn't really matter.

For us Bad PR does. Taking the Bulldogs to court would put sponsors names in line with court action, whether positive or not, sponsors wont like it

 

[MadMarcus]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

If we get bad PR does it mean we will no longer be everyone's second favourite team and people will (God forbid) start hating Manly???

Seriously though Dan, I take your point on the PR. It is certainly something that needs to be considered in determining the merits of pursuing a claim. Although I am not sure it outweighs the benefits in this case.

It will all depend on the quantum of the claim of course and that's anyone's guess really (although I think we all agree it will be less than $10 million!).

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

If we get bad PR does it mean we will no longer be everyone's second favourite team and people will (God forbid) start hating Manly???

Seriously though Dan, I take your point on the PR. It is certainly something that needs to be considered in determining the merits of pursuing a claim. Although I am not sure it outweighs the benefits in this case.

It will all depend on the quantum of the claim of course and that's anyone's guess really (although I think we all agree it will be less than $10 million!).

Far less than $10m and the bad PR could result in losses that are as close to the gains

 

[Stevo]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

Yes it was found that an infringement had occured but i don't think there was ever really accusation of malice was there?

There is definately intent and malice in the case of Greenberg.

 

[rainman]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

Yes it was found that an infringement had occoured but i don't think there was ever really accusation of malice was there?

There is definately intent and malice in the case of Greenberg.

Copyright does not have anything to do with malice or intent, it either is or is not.

As for the Blulldogs stuff there was no malice, it has just been blown up into a disproportionate mess by ticked off fans who wanted the status quo to remain.

It hasn't and there is no good to come from going on and on about it.

Just move on and get on with it.

 

[Earnie the Eagle]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

To the end that the dogs must pay compo. I think 10 mill should do it.

A nice round $10m eh. Id like to see the financial statement of claim on that.

I would be happy for an out of court settlement that makes the dogs withdraw any offers to our current players and not to approach any other players for 5 years.

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

To the end that the dogs must pay compo. I think 10 mill should do it.

A nice round $10m eh. Id like to see the financial statement of claim on that.

I would be happy for an out of court settlement that makes the dogs withdraw any offers to our current players and not to approach any other players for 5 years.

Won't and cant happen, that gets into restraint of trade

 

[Stevo]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

Why are we even talking about copyright?

It's not even close to being the same.

Toddy broke the rules. He should be punished for that, if only as a warning to him and others not to ****en bully us! **** him. He deserves it!

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

All the net result of any action would be possible a few hundred thousand at best, or an injunction against the contract that is and was in place.

That is it, it is completely ridiculous that it is being considered. The entire idea that the club went to these lengths is ridiculous. It cost the club nothing but a coach. We would have lost players as well no matter what.

that this is being discussed in so much detail is just so lame

 

[lsz]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

Sorry to preach and sound like a broken record but.....we have to consider the impact on the brand

What is the long term strategy? How would this impact it?

 

[Earnie the Eagle]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

To the end that the dogs must pay compo. I think 10 mill should do it.

A nice round $10m eh. Id like to see the financial statement of claim on that.

I would be happy for an out of court settlement that makes the dogs withdraw any offers to our current players and not to approach any other players for 5 years.

Won't and cant happen, that gets into restraint of trade

I am quite aware that it would not happen Dan, just trying to be a bit light hearted about it all.



O

 

[MadMarcus]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

If we get bad PR does it mean we will no longer be everyone's second favourite team and people will (God forbid) start hating Manly???

Seriously though Dan, I take your point on the PR. It is certainly something that needs to be considered in determining the merits of pursuing a claim. Although I am not sure it outweighs the benefits in this case.

It will all depend on the quantum of the claim of course and that's anyone's guess really (although I think we all agree it will be less than $10 million!).

Far less than $10m and the bad PR could result in losses that are as close to the gains

If the losses are close to the gains then I agree don't proceed, but I don't know how you can measure the losses or the gains based on the information available to us!

Agree with far less than $10m though...

 

[Vyssini]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

I can't see how the Men at Work ruling is anything like this. Isn't it widely accepted that this was a genuine mistake and coincidence?

If what has been reported about Greenberg is correct there is no mistake about it.

No not at all. It was accepted that they infringed copyright and this had to pay ridiculous amounts in royalties. No coincidence no mistake.

However the bad PR is all on Larrikan. Fortunately for them, they have made their money and they deal in an industry where bad PR doesn't really matter.

For us Bad PR does. Taking the Bulldogs to court would put sponsors names in line with court action, whether positive or not, sponsors wont like it

So let me understand your argument regarding the possible ramification for sponsorships- Manly, who feel they are the victims of dishonest / illegal / call it whatever you want behaviour take the perpetrators - Greenturd, Ha$ler, Chihuahuas- to court, and it is our sponsors who will not like it. Of course the chihuahuas' sponsors will be jumping hoops...

I am not a lawyer so I will leave legal arguments to those that claim they are, but Manly should take all appropriate action- if it means legal recourse, then so be it.

 

[bones]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

I can't see how the Men at Work ruling is anything like this. Isn't it widely accepted that this was a genuine mistake and coincidence?

If what has been reported about Greenberg is correct there is no mistake about it.

No not at all. It was accepted that they infringed copyright and this had to pay ridiculous amounts in royalties. No coincidence no mistake.

However the bad PR is all on Larrikan. Fortunately for them, they have made their money and they deal in an industry where bad PR doesn't really matter.

For us Bad PR does. Taking the Bulldogs to court would put sponsors names in line with court action, whether positive or not, sponsors wont like it

Suing Men At Work and suing The Bulldogs are like chalk and cheese. Suing Men At Work created bad publicity because peope actually liked them and they were Aussie icons. The same can't be said about the Bulldogs.

 

[Dan]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

I can't see how the Men at Work ruling is anything like this. Isn't it widely accepted that this was a genuine mistake and coincidence?

If what has been reported about Greenberg is correct there is no mistake about it.

No not at all. It was accepted that they infringed copyright and this had to pay ridiculous amounts in royalties. No coincidence no mistake.

However the bad PR is all on Larrikan. Fortunately for them, they have made their money and they deal in an industry where bad PR doesn't really matter.

For us Bad PR does. Taking the Bulldogs to court would put sponsors names in line with court action, whether positive or not, sponsors wont like it

So let me understand your argument regarding the possible ramification for sponsorships- Manly, who feel they are the victims of dishonest / illegal / call it whatever you want behaviour take the perpetrators - Greenturd, Ha$ler, Chihuahuas- to court, and it is our sponsors who will not like it. Of course the chihuahuas' sponsors will be jumping hoops...

I am not a lawyer so I will leave legal arguments to those that claim they are, but Manly should take all appropriate action- if it means legal recourse, then so be it.

it's a civil dispute, unless you are American or Clive palmer it will not end well.

 

[globaleagle]

RE: Foran - Will he ? Won't he ?

The only thing new in this thread is my comment saying there is nothing new in this thread.

Please ensure every 10th post is a pic of a random cheerleader.

cheers.