Birthday Song's Copyright Leads To a Lawsuit For the Ages 442
New submitter chriscappuccio sends this excerpt from the NY Times:
"The song 'Happy Birthday to You' is widely credited for being the most performed song in the world. But one of its latest venues may be the federal courthouse in Manhattan, where the only parties may be the litigants to a new legal battle. The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed on Thursday by a filmmaker in New York who is seeking to have the court declare the popular ditty to be in the public domain, and to block a music company from claiming it owns the copyright to the song and charging licensing fees for its use. The filmmaker, Jennifer Nelson, was producing a documentary movie, tentatively titled 'Happy Birthday,' about the song, the lawsuit said. In one proposed scene, the song was to be performed."
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not sure you could claim that this is an original work of authorship.
Perhaps you could word it as a catchy jingle ^_^
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, you wouldn't have trouble finding a lawyer. And that's one of my biggest problems with a lot of lawyers: many of them have no sense of morality or justice. I'm not just talking about lawyers who represent defendants of violent crimes because I realize that they deserve a fair trial. I am referring to all of the lawyers that would argue either side of a case depending on which side offered them more money. These people are not driven by an inner sense of justice and making the world a better place, but simply following their own motivations of greed and rationalizing away any negative effects their greedy actions are causing society. Luckily not all lawyers are like that, but the greedy ones certainly paint a very negative image of lawyers in general and that image is hard to shake.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I am referring to all of the lawyers that would argue either side of a case depending on which side offered them more money. These people are not driven by an inner sense of justice and making the world a better place, but simply following their own motivations of greed and rationalizing away any negative effects their greedy actions are causing society.
It's almost like it's a job for them to argue cases, not some quest to improve the world.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, you wouldn't have trouble finding a lawyer. And that's one of my biggest problems with a lot of lawyers: many of them have no sense of morality or justice. I'm not just talking about lawyers who represent defendants of violent crimes because I realize that they deserve a fair trial. I am referring to all of the lawyers that would argue either side of a case depending on which side offered them more money. These people are not driven by an inner sense of justice and making the world a better place, but simply following their own motivations of greed and rationalizing away any negative effects their greedy actions are causing society.
In almost every dispute, both parties think they're right, and both may even have good and reasonable reasons for believing they're right. So, yeah, a lawyer could argue either side of that, because there may be good reasons on both sides. It may be a question of what the law really is (see the recent Myriad v. AMP patent case as to whether isolated genes are patentable), or may be a dispute over the facts (if a contract term means "A", then party A is correct; if it means "B", then party B is correct; and
Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Insightful)
Right? /sarcasm
I'm glad someone is pushing this topic (finally) and this is the perfect example. It's one thing to protect artists but the never-ending copyright extensions doing nothing of the sort. They ensure the media companies can generate recurring profits but, by and large, provide limit benefit to those actually responsible for the work. Oh wait...corporations are people now too.
Hopefully this is decided firmly, not on some silly technicality, and sets a precedent for other cases so common-use media can be pushed into public domain. Maybe someone will rule that copyright law is unfair, unconstitutional, or similar and FORCE our government to review this and move to a more rational policy.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Insightful)
Culture is being held ransom; music, literature, film, television... any medium you can think of is illegal to share, perform or otherwise widely enjoy without paying a gatekeeper. Thanks to the nature of the system if something isn't "saleable" it is left forgotten to rot in some media archive somewhere.
Back at the turn of the 20th century piano roll music was quite popular and sophisticated however much of it is lost forever because of the same kind of greed.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Funny)
I have a plan for changing this at the basic political level, finally getting rid of absurdly-long copyright terms. (And coincidentally, my plan should work for addressing the overbroadness domestic surveillance powers, too.)
The plan is to vote for Republicans or Democrats. (I haven't yet decided which; that's a minor detail.) This way, I can get Republicans or Democrats into key policy-making positions, where they will finally be able to enact the changes they have been promising.
Everyone, if you think the current laws are unfair and ridiculous and you want to Do Something about it, November 2014 will be your first big chance: vote to finally get some Republicans or Democrats into congress. And then in November 2016 vote for a Republican or Democrat president too. (Can you imagine the changes we would see at DoJ, if only we were to have a Republican or Democrat president? Can you imagine the reforms we would see in copyright law, if only we have a Republican or Democrat majority in the houses? Can you imagine what limits would be imposed upon the NSA by the president, if only we were to elect a Republican or Democrat to that job?)
CHANGE CAN HAPPEN, if you do what is necessary to make it happen. For that, the parties (Republicans and Democrats) who are against the status quo, and instead, support common-sense reform, need your support. These parties have never had the opportunity to show their colors, and if only we would give them the chance, I'm sure they wouldn't let us down.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Funny)
When even Dr. Sheldon Cooper gets the joke there is no excuse for not getting it yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. I've always hated the "Happy Birthday Song" and I have used copyright as an excuse to replace it whenever possible with the one Peabody and Sherman used in one of their episodes. I think it was the one with Sitting Bull. To distract the Natives, the settlers sang (in a sort of native war-chant mode):
Happy Happy Birthday!
Happy Happy Birthday!
Happy Happy Birthday!
UGH!
Jay Ward and his heirs haven't tried to sue me yet.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Put in reforms that revert copyright back to a shield and curb it's use as a sword.
And one of the best ways to do that is...
2) Disallow corporations to own copyrights. Require that they be in the name of actual persons and make it so they can only be leased to a corporate entity. That way the corporation is beholden to SOMEONE.
and of course
3) Get rid of Micky Mouse copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I screwed up "it's".
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, wow. I like that.
That has two possible meanings, and I like them both.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand this mentality. You think people who say that mean "A corporation is actually the mind of a real person floating around without a physical body?"
It just means everything a corporation does is actually being done by a person or a group of people, and those people don't lose their rights just because their "group" is a corporation. The corporation as a whole has a right to free speech because any group of people who collaborate to produce speech have the right to free speech. If corporation
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as I hate corporations pulling crap like this, this type of "corporations aren't REALLY people" precedent would create so much legal chaos that this would ultimately be a horrible idea.
Corporations are people, or they aren't.
But I do agree that the length of copyrights is a joke (with companies like Disney leading the way on that front).
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporations are not people, they are a legal economic structure to protect the owners personal assets.
How can corporations be people when they are property?
Dartmouth v. Woodward; Southern Pacific (Score:3)
Re:Dartmouth v. Woodward; Southern Pacific (Score:5, Interesting)
Semitroll: wasn't slavery abolished? How did that wording go? What's the legal basis for a person being able to own a person-like entity?
Re:Dartmouth v. Woodward; Southern Pacific (Score:4, Interesting)
Rights without responsibilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Then if a member performs an illegal act, is not the association also performing the same illegal act?
An excellent question. If the association (a corporations) has the rights of a person should it not also have the responsibilities of one?
Re:Rights without responsibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
This allows management to hijack capitol...
Best typo ever!
Crporations are ... (Score:4, Interesting)
To my mind the problem is the "corporations are people" mantra is only trotted out when it's legally convenient, and is promptly ignored when personhood would be inconvenient. Basically they get all the benefits of being a legal person, with none of the downsides.
So just as an idea, what if we we also classify corporations as something they are much more similar to? Another institution explicitly created for the concentration and leveraging of power (wealth being one form of power). Governments. Let the default assumption be that corporations have to comply with all regulations and constitutional limits imposed on the governments of the jurisdictions that they do business in. Cleary that might require some fragmentation - Google China and Google US would be subject to some fairly incompatible regulations, but that might be for the best. Do we really want to live in a world where corporate power rivals or exceeds that of many/most governments? (Democratic) governments are at least titullarly under the control of their populations, but I realy don't see global cooperation reaching the point where governments can effectively reign in the power of international mega-corporations any time soon, and even if the cooperation existed there doesn't seem to be the will. Not surprising since corporations (and the powerful people controlling them) are themselves largely responsible for selecting and empowering the candidates that the rest of us get to choose between.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Informative)
Also - copyright terminates when the author(s) die. None of this life-plus-eleventy-thousand-years crap. When you kick, your works revert into the public domain ... we *all* benefit from that.
I'd rather just a straight up term of 30 years (or whatever number is most reasonable), regardless of whether or not the author is still alive.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather just a straight up term of 30 years (or whatever number is most reasonable), regardless of whether or not the author is still alive.
First decade for free, $10 registration for the next year, doubling every year after that, in perpetuity. This allows the "owner" to extract any economic value they can see in the item, and very quickly puts the vast majority of works into the public domain. Central registration also makes it easy to find the owner if you actually do want access to the work for licensing or the like, or to find out if the work has been registered. Each ten years the cost go up by a factor of 1024.
Year 11 - $10 (total $10)
Year 12 - $20 (total $30)
Year 13 - $40 (total $70)
Year 14 - $80 (total $150)
etc.
Price for year "n" = $10 x 2^(n-10)
Total price to pay for every year up to and including year "n" = $10 x ( 2^(n-9) - 1)
Year 20 costs $10240, total cost $20470
Year 30 costs $10,485,760, total costs $20,971,510
The details of the free period length or the first yearly amount can of course be changed, but the doubling rate is what makes this type of system work. Make it five years free and one dollar for the 6th year, and it works great too. Heck, one penny for the first year gets you to the ten bucks level in a decade, so maybe that's the way to go.
Then don't include life of the author (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why ever should we be restricted by imbecile ideas from another millennium when deciding what is appropriate for today?
If you're going to pick one number from the last millennium, I'll just go ahead and pick another:
Maximum copyright term should be 14+14 years (copyright act of 1790 US / statute of Anne 1710 UK)
It could easily be argued that the early protection if 14+14 is WAY TO LONG for the 21th century. Way-back-when 14 years (extendable only if the author still lived) was sufficient it might take a sig
Incentives (Score:3)
Every time this suggestion comes up, I repeat that I don't want the law to create more incentives for homicide.
Easily solved. If the individual dies of anything other than natural causes the work immediately become public domain at the time of their death.
Re: (Score:3)
Every time this suggestion comes up, I repeat that I don't want the law to create more incentives for homicide.
Easily solved. If the individual dies of anything other than natural causes the work immediately become public domain at the time of their death.
Please, please -- can we just get the author's lifespan out of the equation? The idea of copyright is to provide an incentive for an author to create a work in the first place (invest initial time and effort with ability to recoup investment later) as well as to foster further creative works after the first one. In the words of the original Constitutional stipulation, we're trying to encourage "progress" in the arts, not a reward system.
There's no reason for copyright to be longer than the initial speci
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:4, Insightful)
That additional time is so long, that it removes all incentive to attempt influencing the expiry time. Either the author is already dead, in which case the expiry time can only be changed by changing the law. Or the author is still alive, in which case the copyright of the work will last for so many years into the future, that no living person will care about the exact date. It is easier to influence the expiry time by having the laws changed, which is happening faster than copyrights are expiring.
I agree it should be tied to the publication date. But I think five years is too short. I consider 20 years from the first publication (with author's permission) to be more appropriate. It should come with certain requirements, such as the work remaining available for purchase. Attribution requirements should last longer, but derivative works should be possible. If a product is leaked without author's permission, then the time shouldn't start ticking yet. But there need to be a limit on how many years can pass between such a leak and the actual publication, if full term copyright is to be retained. There also need to be rules preventing any loopholes from making money off a staged "leak" and then retaining copyright after a later "publication" date.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Copyrights are supposed to encourage the creator to create more work. As soon as the creator is dead, the chances of her/him creating more work are somewhat diminished. At most a copyright period should be for N years or natural death of the creator, whichever comes first.
2) Corporations should be allowed to have some sort of copyright, after all, their payments to creators enables the creators' work. But these copyrights could be much smaller and of a different nature. Like an "exclusive license" that lasts upto the point the product is no longer actively published. "Actively" could be reasonably specified in some way; i.e. after the first year where sold copies amount to 10% of first-year sales.
3) How about getting rid of Mickey Mouse entirely?
Post-mortem copyrights are supposed to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyrights are supposed to encourage the creator to create more work. As soon as the creator is dead, the chances of her/him creating more work are somewhat diminished.
Post-mortem copyrights are supposed to encourage the author's estate to complete the author's unfinished works rather than shredding them. With no post-mortem copyright, Christopher Tolkien might not have allowed The Silmarillion to see publication.
Re:Post-mortem copyrights are supposed to... (Score:4, Interesting)
Which brings up an interresting point; is a work copyrighted before it is published/made publically available?
The Simarillion was not published in any (unfinished) form when Tolkien died.
Wouldn't it have been possible for his son to complete the work and claim copyright of the whole work?
Re:Post-mortem copyrights are supposed to... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Post-mortem copyrights are supposed to encourage the author's estate to complete the author's unfinished works rather than shredding them.
That's not why they came into existence, and it would only really apply in cases of reasonably famous authors where there would actually be a significant market for posthumous works -- for most creators, no one would care.
Anyhow, if you read about the history of copyright in the 1800s, you'll see stories about widows and starving families who wanted the money due to them from copyright for their husbands'/fathers' work.
(And before I get a lot of responses about how the kids shouldn't get to live off the
Then just have the N years (Score:3)
Postmortem of death + N years is to allow companies to contract with a copyright holder without fear that the idiot stepping in front of a bus ends the copyright tomorrow.
A flat term of 14 years after first publication, renewable once if the work is still in print at the end of the first term, would have the same effect.
Trade barriers against countries that use reason (Score:3)
There is no reasonable argument I can think of for post-mortem copyrights to last that long.
Other than that a country's trading partners happen to have made a business decision to erect trade barriers against countries that use reason. Most favored nation status often requires WTO membership, and WTO requires TRIPS, and TRIPS requires Berne, and Berne requires life + 50.
Re: (Score:3)
Other than that a country's trading partners happen to have made a business decision to erect trade barriers against countries that use reason.
That's not a reasonable argument. That is merely a statement of the status quo. So my original statement stands. I have never seen a reasonable argument for why post-mortem copyrights should last as long as they do.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think a corporation is? If we just switched the term corporation to business would your suggestion start to fall apart? When an author/artist dies, so does their copyright?
Let's pretend I make a movie. The day before release, the individual assigned for the copyright is shot. Can my competitors now charge admission to replay my movie?
The real problem is just duration, not the entity holding the piece of paper. You could argue the need for a moral copyright beyond a commercial copyright, but I think you end up on the same slippery slope.
12 Years from first commercial publication.
Re: (Score:3)
A shield is useless if you have no recourse against the people who violate your rights.
Do you know what a corporation is? even the slightest clue? ;liscent their copyright to whomever they want?
A corporation can be just ONE person. Are you saying a author who incorporates can't own their own copyright? Are you saying an author can
You solution is based on the shallowest of understanding.
If you want anyone to even to begin to consider what you have to say, stop using terms like Mickey Mouse copyright.
Re:Protecting the arts and artists (Score:5, Interesting)
Just posting for the hell of it. The message is in the sig... It is a universal truth.
Re: (Score:2)
never-ending copyright extensions
Thank you Disney and Sono Bono. Even The Emperor and Darth Vader must now bow to Disney.
Re: (Score:3)
I do think they might start reducing the time frame associated with "securing for limited Times."
I hope the judge opens the case by saying (Score:5, Funny)
"By the way, today happens to be my birthday."
Re:I hope the judge opens the case by saying (Score:5, Funny)
+1 Funny - I so hope he does.
Unfortunately, I suspect the media company's immediate response would be to file a motion to have the judge removed because of obvious bias.
We need more than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Bring back the original copyright terms [wikipedia.org]:
The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, he could apply for a second 14year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.
How about "25 years without any extension, then it goes into the public domain". What these money-hungry Hollywood and publishing executives don't seem to realize is that everything DRM'ed will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Lost in time like tears in the rain. (Score:2)
No great loss "Tears in the rain" wasn't that greater song I'm not even 100% if it charted ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_the_Rain_(song) [wikipedia.org]
Re:We need more than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't 5 years be more than enough? i thought part of the goal was to stimulate artist to make new stuff. if you can ride it out for 25 years on 1 hit you once scored, it's not much motivation to create something new -_-
Re: (Score:3)
No, that might help the 0.000001% or so of groups that get a hit right away, and even then the artists would get very little. What's more, it means that if you don't spend a crap load on ads right away, you might not get any money at all for the work. It's hardly unheard of for a band to take more than 5 years to hit it big, so the early stuff wouldn't be something they would make any money off of.
As for riding it out, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. We don't require construction wor
Re: (Score:3)
As for riding it out, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. We don't require construction workers to tear down their house every 5 years if they built it themselves, or for landlords to do the same, just because they're "coasting" on something that they did once.
This actually highlights the difference between copyrighted works and physical goods. Construction workers don't get a royalty check every time a house they helped build gets sold. Landlords get paid regularly because they own the physical good and are renting it to you on an ongoing basis. We're living in a world where copyright is rapidly being expanded and physical goods are being eschewed in favor of digital downloads, which are not usually transferable in the same sense as a physical copy of the work.
Different value appreciations (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We need more than that (Score:4, Informative)
The construction workers don't get a check from tenants every month either.
Re: (Score:3)
5 years might be enough for some types of works, but for other more long-lived works it's not practical. 25 years isn't really *THAT* long... certainly it'd generally be the case that anyone born during a period when a work was copyrighted, or if a particular work was created and copyrighted while they were growing up would still likely spend most of their adult life in a period where it wasn't. Pushing a century, however, as things are right now, is utterly absurd.
Fixed, reasonable length, and COMPLE
Re:We need more than that (Score:5, Interesting)
5 years is probably too short. While I hate copyright, it also prevents mega corps from co-opting people's creations and selling it back to us/using it to sell their products and services. They already do this to a certain extent but could you imagine how awful it would be if they had free reign to do anything they wanted with everything after 5 years?
Imagine you wrote a song, filmed a short video or created this amazing illustration and 5 years later it was used by corporations to sell everything from toothpaste to cars. How would you feel about that?
Copyright law cuts both ways. While it's often controlled and exploited by the mega-corps it's also the only line of defense independent artists have against those same mega-corps.
Re: (Score:2)
What these money-hungry Hollywood and publishing executives don't seem to realize is that everything DRM'ed will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Even if they realize it, it is unlikely that they care if a movie they released is impossible to watch 100 years from now, as long as they get their money now.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh... that's too long. It shouldn't be longer than 10 years, and some might say that even that is too long.
Re: (Score:2)
The present copyright term and "automatic rights" instead of "rights after registration" are not spontaneous American ideas, they are requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.
You will have to get the whole of Europe/ Asia to sign on to whatever changes you propose.
Or America could withdraw from the treaty, but that would mean Americans would lose their rights in treaty countries.
Terms could still be scaled back (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically every time Mickey Mouse is about to go out of copyright and into the public domain, Disney lobby for copyright to be extended.
Given that they actively use MM, their Trade Mark on him will never expire. Isn't that enough? Why continuously extend copyright?
Re: (Score:3)
Publishers should be forced to choose whether they want protection from DRM or from copyright. They should not be allowed to have protection from both. So if they choose to release it with DRM, the copyright will immediately expire.
The word "limited" (Score:2)
Constitutionally, copyright is meant to be for a limited time. What we have today hardly reflects the constitutional intent behind allowing the concept, originally used in other countries as a form of censorship, in the fledgling States.
Re:The word "limited" (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find funny is that the "strict constitutionalists" in our politics today have no problems with IP. People like Clarance Thomas talk about "original intent" but never have a problem with these matters. If there is one thing that has outstripped original intent of the constitution it's copyright. It wasn't put there for people to make money. It was put there to encourage people to be creative. Copyright in perpetuity does NOT encourage people to be creative.
Re: (Score:3)
People like Clarance Thomas talk about "original intent" but never have a problem with these matters. If there is one thing that has outstripped original intent of the constitution it's copyright.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
How does current copyright law outstrip the original intent? The original intent is clear: Congress defines the length of copyright. Otherwise the authors of the Constitution would have specified the len
Re:The word "limited" (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably the current copyright system doesn't promote progress of science or useful arts, and there's no indication that copyrights will ever be for a limited time since Disney buys a new law whenever Steamboat Willie is about to leave copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
How does current copyright law outstrip the original intent?
Because long copyright terms encourage rent-seeking behaviour [wikipedia.org], which was explicitly what the founders were trying to protect against with the verbiage: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
/right/ to define a longer term.
If there would be just as much science and art with shorter copyright terms, then the law is in violation of the constitution. Congress does not have the
Re: (Score:2)
It seems there are a lot of things that were originally (or amended to include) aren't reflected in current law. Libel being an obvious example. If the 1st amendment were strictly adhered to, you couldn't sue someone for libel.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems there are a lot of things that were originally (or amended to include) aren't reflected in current law.
Because the government just does whatever it wants (as long as the public doesn't get too angry). Nothing new here.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's thanks to that nonsense that we have abominations like the Patriot Act, the TSA, free speech zones, and all that other garbage. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but I don't like this "living document" nonsense that pretty much gives them free reign. Want change? Amend it, but don't outright ignore it.
Happy Birthday to the Bank. (Score:2, Informative)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
- Originally copyrighted in the 1930s.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To promote the Perpetual Stream of Revenue, by securing for however long it takes to lose all value to Authors' and Inventors' Employers the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
- Ammended copyright in the 2000s.
"For the ages" (Score:2)
Slashdot might not be RockPaperShotgun in terms of title puns, but every once in a while you get a good one off.
Old York Times (Score:2)
This was covered on NPR back in early March. Way to step up to the plate, old media.
We don't need it (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiusnHOF9A [youtube.com]
.
But it's... (Score:4, Informative)
...already IN the public domain! Hapi Berth Dey Two Ewe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your wish is granted [unhappybirthday.com]
Interestingly enough, while the lyrics are copyrighted, you can hum the tune all you want, copyright-free, since the tune itself has fallen out of copyright.
Of course it's public domain ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega (Score:2)
In 2008 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion against copyright holders after failure to enforce trademarks for more than 40 years.
The defendant Thomas Kenneth Abraham for years was a producer of decorative fraternity and sorority paddles. In 1990 thirty-two fraternities and sororities commenced contacting Abraham asking his to pay a license to use certain house names and logos. The defendant asseted a "laches defense" which is when a copyright holder falls asleep which regard to their trad
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are extremely confused when it comes to IP laws.
Copyright != Trademark.
Laches defense would only exist if they had not actively been pursuing violators, which they have. How can you say "there has been no enforcement over the years", There has been so much enforcement the ridiculousness of it has entered our pop culture (The Simpsons have joked about ti, so has Futurama, iCarley, Sports Night, the Venture Brothers and so many more). I mean have you ever wondered why you never hear it on TV, you always
10 years (Score:4, Insightful)
This sort of thing is why copyright should only last for 10 year (or less). No extensions. No nothing. 10 (or less) years. If you can't profit in that amount of time, that's life.
IP Rights are an abuse... (Score:4, Informative)
They do not foster innovation, they impede it. Nor do they benefit the inventors, almost all "inventions" now go to big corporations. Who then abuse them all the more.
Very few musicians see even 10% of the $$$ their music earns.
Our present IP laws are so horrendous, society would be better without them. Sadly, politicians are so bought so we'll only see it get worse.
***
And yes there are better solutions. Patents, should only be held by inventors. And should only be granted for truly novel and new inventions. Nor should a patent prevent anyone else from building a better/cheaper mousetrap. Rather, a patent should merely grant a 10% tax break to the holder or the company of their employ.
This would encourage innovation, keep inventors employed (instead of immediately being laid off by companies after their invention is complete), rather companies would put inventors on their payroll just for the tax break. And then they'd be free to stay home and continue inventing.
That is a far far better solution than our current system which is forcing companies like Google to spend $8 billion buying Motorola to defend themselves against frivolous patents granted to Apple on decades old technologies. And in most cases, not an invention but the mere patenting of a use.
Copyright 120 years+!? (Score:3)
Looking at Wikipedia page it indicates the song is from 1893 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You [wikipedia.org]). How the heck can anyone claim copyright on it at this point? Sure the last of the two artists died in 1946, meaning it is currently death+67 years, but I still think it is way overboard and agree with it finally needing to be put into the public domain.
I think we need to revise copyright such that the copyright after death is much shorter, but add a notion of attribution in each place for after its expiration.
It shouldn't even be copyrighted (Score:5, Informative)
This is the sad fact. The "Happy Birthday" song shouldn't even be copyrighted.
It is a derivative work on an older song in the public domain(Good Morning To You) and is far too short to receive a copyright.
In other words, imagine if you changed the ending to the alphabet song and then tried to get it copyrighted. That would be laughable, even in our modern pro-IP courts.Yet someone did exactly that decades ago, and then some company has maintained the copyright on the "Happy Birthday" song for all of these years? It is a joke. Fixing this shouldn't even be the first blow for fixing our IP problems. It should just have been challenged in court by someone by now, but the company who "owns" the song only brings it up when they know that it is a large media company who would rather just license the song than try to challenge in court.
Copyrighted? Really? (Score:3)
With every possible name inserted into line 3?
Re:factoid (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the Machine.
Come with me. On behalf of Pink Floyd's publishers, we have matters to discuss.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, man. Welcome to the Jungle.
Re:factoid (Score:5, Funny)
When I violated Guns-n-Roses' copyrights, Axl Rose not only sued me, he threw me out of Guns-n-Roses. I never even knew I was *in* Guns-n-Roses!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are getting over their digital fear, actually. There are about ready to allow access to their catalog on Spotify. Wish You Were Here is available on Spotify already and when it hits 1 mil streams the whole catalog gets released.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of, the tune itself is public domain, but the words aren't. The public domain words, IIRC, are the ones for "What day is today?" Pretty much as sung by Elzar on Futurama.
Re:factoid (Score:5, Insightful)
What really pisses me off is that even a public domain work these days is subject to being "reclaimed" into copyright, if there is money to be made. Just look at "It's a Wonderful Life." No one would have even remembered that movie if it hadn't fell into the public domain and became popular to air around Christmas (since anyone could do it). But when someone realized it was actually making money and had became popular again, of course some corporation immediately sweeps in and reclaims copyright on it. Now it only airs once or twice a year on NBC and no one gives a shit.
Re: (Score:3)
no one gives a shit becasue its out of fashion. What you seem to fail to realize is that it's still on the air.
I mean, yeah reclaim copyrights are crap for a number of reasons, but people loosing interest with an available work isn't one of them.
forced corporate jocularity (Score:5, Funny)
Happy happy birthday from the Chili's crew, we wish it was our birthday so we could party too. HEY!
Carraba's:
Tanti auguri a te
Tanti auguri a te
Tanti auguri a te from Carraba's
Tanti auguri a te.
Bennigan's:
Happy Happy Birthday
On your special Day
Happy Happy Birthday
That's why we're here to say
Happy Happy Birthday
May all your dreams come true
Happy Happy Birthday
From Bennigans to you!
All Chotchkie's waiters are required to wear at least 15 pieces of flair.
Re: (Score:3)
I've also noticed that another feature of most of those restaurant chain birthday songs is that unlike the real song, they're written to require a vocal range of only about one eighth of an octave. I presume that's done to match the voice talent typically available in the random collection of waitstaff who "sing" them.
Re: (Score:3)
There are 13 notes in the range of an octave. At the very least you will have 2 notes in an eighth of an octave, one near each end of that range, plus you'll often be able to squeeze in a half step note. As in C, C#, D.
Re: (Score:3)
And their movie is about the song (censored), so the trial itself could become part of it.