Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Happy Birthday" Public Domain After All?

Posted by timothy on from the casual-dining-employees-rejoice dept.

New submitter jazzdude00021 writes: No song has had as contentious of copyright history as "Happy Birthday." The song is nearly ubiquitous at birthday parties in the USA, and even has several translations with the same tune. Due to copyrights held by Warner Music, public performances have historically commanded royalty fees. However, a new lawsuit has been brought to prove that "Happy Birthday" is, and always has been, in the public domain.The discovery phase for this lawsuit ended on July, 11 2014, yet this past week new evidence surfaced from Warner Music that may substantiate the claim that the lyrics were in the public domain long before the copyright laws changed in 1927.

1 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... by gnupun · · Score: -1, Troll

    In the event that it's not, you do realize how stupid, ignorant, and deluded you are, right? The text of the constitution that authorizes copyright reads:

    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;

    And you are an immoral, greedy little freeloader.

    Those fine sounding noble words in the constitution don't match reality. If a copyright holder want protection (copyright or patent), he has to spend thousands to millions of dollars in legal expenses. Patents require anywhere from $10K to $90K just to get a patent approved, patent maintenance fees are extra. How about the public share a part of the expense in getting these patents? How about the public share expenses in training people who create copyrighted works and also finance the cost involved in creating the copyrighted works? No? I thought so.

    You want someone else to do all the work and take the risk for you while you sit back and consume their works like mini-feudal lords.

    And why was the phrase "Limited Times" used there? When a law is written, it should have a rational reason backing it. There is no rational reason "limited times" was used instead of "indefinite duration" other than to maliciously limit the amount of wealth that can be earned by the family of the copyright holder and his/her descendants.