Slashdot Mirror
"Happy Birthday" Hits Sour Notes When It Comes To Song's Free Use
vivaoporto writes: NPR reports that "Happy Birthday to You", one of the most recognized songs in the English language, is the subject of a class action complaint over the validity of its copyright. The publisher Warner/Chappell Music owns the copyright to the "Happy Birthday" song and anyone who wants to use the song must pay a licensing fee. How did Warner/Chappell get the rights? "This is where it gets complicated," says Jennifer Nelson. She is working on a documentary about the song and paid for the rights to use it. Now she's suing Warner/Chappell to get her money back, arguing it's part of the public domain. "I think it's going to set a precedent for this song and other songs that may be claimed to be under copyright, which aren't," says Newman. The Courthouse News Service have more information about the pending suit.
Sure they would. Why do you think they're so worried someone might steal their shit?
Admittedly, I can be daft... so forgive me and please enlighten me...
EXPENSES:
>> Pay songwriter to compose
>> Record
>> Send postcards
INCOME:
>> it's free
BUSINESS MODEL:
>> Profit!
I'm confused how INCOME - EXPENSES = "PROFIT!" ?!?
Well sure, you might lose a little money on each one, but you can make it up in VOLUME!
See, it's attitudes like this that hurt artists...
I mean, if we don't keep extending copyright, how can we encourage Elvis to keep singing new music?
P2P Killed Elvis!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
why is this chick considered to be attractive?
if anything she's just a plain jane.
We'll see how good YOU look after you've been dead 50 years...
#DeleteChrome
>How did Warner/Chappell get the rights?
They called dibs. C'mon, even children know how imaginary property works.
Returning copyright terms to a reasonable length is about fairness to society. It has nothing to do with fairness to content creators or preventing infringement.
We the people grant a limited monopoly on creative expression in order to promote more creative expression (paraphrasing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).
Among the arguments in favor of this monopoly right, "fairness" (i.e. I should control how this gets used because I worked hard to make it) is perhaps the least compelling.
Nothing posted to
Depends only on fine, profit and chance to be caught.
Whether a law is upheld by a corporation is a matter of risk management and accounting, not legal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.