Copyright absurdity: Happy Birthday to You

At large ^ | Jun-Jul 2003 | J. Byron

[J. Byron]

I do not know why Senate Republicans are so responsive to Hollywood, and the recording/publishing industry. First we got term extension, adding 20 years to an already more than adequate term. (Upheld by the Supreme Court in the Eldred case.)Then we endured the Uruguay agreement where most foreign works published in the U.S. were put back under copyright protection. Then we were blessed with the La Cienega provision, which assured that all songs first published as recordings remained protected and were extended to benefit the publishing industry. Now Senator Hatch has announced his stupid "hack the copyright bandits" proposal. (I actually used to respect him.) In searching for public domain music for my own use, I learned that a copyright is asserted for the ubiquitous Happy Birthday to You. This is the most absurd assertion of copyright protection I have encountered in my quest. I compiled what information I could, related to that song, to negate the copyright. My blog gradually became an editorial. I have contributed it to the Internet community. Please consider and post your comments.

[J. Byron]

"I have seen a few movies where the 'Happy Birthday' song is done to different music"

Yeah, or they sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow"...

[4mycountry]

The lion, maybe. And um....I don't know who else there is......maybe Zavien could do the other part. ^^;;

Hey, welcome to FR. I see you are a newbie. Enjoy the FReeping!

[KarlInOhio]

"I have seen a few movies where the 'Happy Birthday' song is done to different music"

Yeah, or they sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow"...

Wallace and Gromit, The Wrong Trousers.

The screen version and the tapes have Gromit's birthday card playing Happy Birthday. In most recent DVD version it plays "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow", but if you switch to the commentary track you can hear it playing "Happy Birthday".

It's the wrong song Gromit, and it's gone wrong.

[Vetnet]

I was looking into getting into the business of making DVD's out of old public domain movies and then selling them for a few bucks, but with the new laws (thanks Disney!) I've given up on that idea. Lawyers and corporations get everything, everybody else gets nothing. That's what America is all about, right?

Unfortunately, even if you get as far as post production on a project, your problems are just getting started when you try to find an honest distributor. (One that actually pays you for your project)It's the same for the film or music industry

(I wonder if they'll ever have meaningful congressional hearings that cover that subject)(/Sarcasm Off)

[Willie Green]

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
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;

Artificial corporate entities have corruptly influenced Congress to ignore the wisdom of our Founders. They have perversely expanded the concept of "intellectual property rights" to violate and restrict the fundamental human right to freedom of thought, knowledge and expression.

I, for one, would welcome a radical reform of copyright law, restricting copyrights to nontransferable individual rights. Individual authors would enjoy their exclusive right for a truly limited period of time: Works of fiction/entertainment for maybe 15~20 years, Nonfictional works for perhaps 5~10 years, News/current-events for 1 year Maximum with provision for fair use.

[Pharmboy]

Why thank yew! Today IS my birthday!

[J. Byron]

"They have perversely expanded the concept of "intellectual property rights" to violate and restrict the fundamental human right to freedom of thought, knowledge and expression."

I agree with that. The real danger with copyright law in general is the scope being expanded to infinity. Abuse of copyright law threatens to protect mere ideas rather than nontrivial expressions of the ideas, contrary to the original intent. Some people wanted to copyright DNA sequences even though they are not creative works. Some people even try to assert copyright to facsimile reproductions of public domain works. Architecture is now protected. Fonts are in the process of becoming protected as they already are in other countries. I was even told that "staging" is considered a form of protected expression in some courts. For example, lets say I see someone's art-photo that uses a scenario I like. I set up a similar scene and photograph it. Nevermind that I copied nothing but an idea, I'm infringing.

[ConfusedAndLovingIt]

The real danger with copyright law in general is the scope being expanded to infinity. Abuse of copyright law threatens to protect mere ideas rather than nontrivial expressions of the ideas, contrary to the original intent.

I'm reminded of a short story I read many years ago about a politician who was pushing copywrite legislation basically expanding it to infinity (as you say). A friend of his explains to him that this will effectively kill new creative works because they are all pretty much simply variations on ideas already done. There is no such thing a completely new and original idea. The politician sees his error and does the right thing by killing the bill (remember, this is fiction). I'm pretty hazy on the details, but I wish I could remember who the author was because they sure could see what was coming.

[berserker]

FR Thread: Nuns Seek to Copyright Mother Teresa's Name.

[Neil E. Wright]

The short story you're thinking of is Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson. A story dedicated to Virginia Heinlein.

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

[ConfusedAndLovingIt]

The short story you're thinking of is Melancholy Elephants by Spider Robinson. A story dedicated to Virginia Heinlein.

Thanks! I'll have to look it up and read it again to see if it is actually anything like I remember it.

[SoothingDave]

I, for one, would welcome a radical reform of copyright law, restricting copyrights to nontransferable individual rights.

What good is property if you have no right to transfer it? If I invent something and GM wants to buy my idea damn straight I better be able to "transfer" my copyright (aka intellectual property).

SD

[SoothingDave]

A millenium after the death of an author isn't "a limited time". Neither is a century.

It is a time with a limit. A century certainly isn't "limitless" time, is it?

SD

[Willie Green]

What good is property if you have no right to transfer it?

Well, I suppose there's some validity to that, so I'll make a compromise.
Individuals can transfer their rights to an artificial entity, but then the time period for which the "right" exists is automaticly cut by 50%. If the individual wishes to retain the full time frame for his/her exclusive right, he/she may simply license the right to an artificial corporate entity without actually selling the "right".

Fair enough?

[SoothingDave]

Sounds good. For the record, I think the continual extension of copyright for entertainment property is ridiculous. Every time Mickey Mouse is about to expire, the deadline changes.

SD

[Richard Kimball]

I am disgusted that you compare Senators to whores. Although both take your money before f*cking you, whores actually perform a service.

[J. Byron]

Explain how you can copyright a name. Of course you could trademark it if used in commerce, or do what Spike Lee did to TNN. And I just saw this...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/943071/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/943018/posts
...and the fool of a client is representing herself.

[J. Byron]

"Every time Mickey Mouse is about to expire, the deadline changes."

To all the lawyers and legal buffs, read this:
http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/publicdomain/Vanpelt-s99.html

[Question_Assumptions]

If I told you that I was going to stay at your house for a "limited time", I think you'd feel deceived if I stayed until they carted my corpse out the front door -- or maybe longer. Given the original span of copyrights and patents, I do not think the sense it was used in the Constitution is the literal sense with which you are interpreting it. Please note that there is an analogy with the duration clause of contracts (some jurisdictions prohibit perpetual contracts so that 99 years is often substituted for where "perpetual" is meant) and that the stated purpose of the Consitutional power was to encourage innovation, which keeping writings locked up for a hundred or more years most certainly does not do. Where would Disney be if they had to pay royalties for all of those classic fairy tales that they animated?

[berserker]

Re post 38: You're a little late on the article since its out of date. The Supreme Court this year ruled that the law extending copyrights (I think it was called the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act") was constitutional.