Bonkers copyright law

[sean99]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35057667

A legal dispute over copyright fees for the song Happy Birthday To You has been settled out of court.
Warner/Chappell is thought to have made $2m (£1.3m) a year by charging every time the song was used in a film, television episode, advertisement or other public performance.
It acquired the copyright in 1988 but a judge ruled it was only granted for specific arrangements of the music, not the song itself.
The tune was composed by two Kentucky sisters in 1893.

I find it hard to imagine why any song composed in 1893 remains copyright to this day.

 

[Minstrel SE]

I always found it a bit sordid that some corporation owns the rights to happy birthday.

It wasnt written by them and are there any descendents of the Kentucky sisters?

I thought after a while things went into the public domain. There are certain tv broadcasts that enter the public domain when the performer has passed away

Happy birthday is our song. How dare they grab money from a copyright!

 

[tones]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35057667



I find it hard to imagine why any song composed in 1893 remains copyright to this day.

It did say "tune", not lyrics. And the term of copyright is the entire life of its creator, ending at some point after his/her death. The Bern Convention stipulates this point to be at least 50 years, so, if the author dies on, say 1 January 1934, the copyright would expire and the tune pass into the public domain at midnight on 31 December 1984. However, US copyright in particular has undergone considerable stretching - the so-called Sonny Bono Act (after You-know-who) extended some US copyrights to 95 years. This is why Mickey Mouse is still subject to US copyright.

The advent of digital reproduction/streaming/downloading has tossed a major spanner into the copyright works, and the authorities are still struggling to come to terms with it.

 

[tones]

I always found it a bit sordid that some corporation owns the rights to happy birthday.

It wasnt written by them and are there any descendents of the Kentucky sisters?

Copyright is a property right and can be assigned for a consideration. Don't know the history, but perhaps this is what the authors did.

 

[Bob McC]

Rights to music are even traded aren't they?
Didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to the Beatles stuff at one time?

 

[Paul R]

A quite well known American composer produced an arrangement of 'Happy Birthday' in 1935, the publisher asserted copyright and ended up being part of Warner Chappell. The fact that the tune was first published in 189x and was republished with the 'Happy Birthday' lyric in 192x seems not to matter, because the later copyright was never tested in court by somebody with deep pockets. Until just recently.

Paul

 

[vuk]

all copyright law in our era is bonkers. the whole purpose was to help propagate knowledge. we don't have that problem any more.


vuk.

 

[Wolfmancatsup]

Rights to music are even traded aren't they?
Didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to the Beatles stuff at one time?

He did. I find it very strange that a musician might have to pay someone else if he/she performs his/her own music.

Mick

 

[davidsrsb]

Wasn't it standard in the 60s for the record company to own most of the rights, why the Beatles set up Northern Songs and Apple

 

[tones]

Wasn't it standard in the 60s for the record company to own most of the rights, why the Beatles set up Northern Songs and Apple

I think the whole thing was kicked off by Dave Clark (of Five fame) who made up for his inadequacies as a musician/songwriter by his adequacies as an entrepreneur - he insisted on control over the whole thing, writing, recording, producing, the works. As a result, in those early years, the Dave Clark Five made a lot more money than did other bands. I don't think the music industry ever forgave him for the bad example he set.

 

[tones]

all copyright law in our era is bonkers. the whole purpose was to help propagate knowledge. we don't have that problem any more.


vuk.

Actually no, the the whole purpose (from the very first copyright act, the 1709 Statute of Anne) was to prevent copying and to see that authors got a fair return on their investment.

Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted...

Anne only dealt with written works; the real problems started with the ability to record music and later pictures.

 

[tones]

Rights to music are even traded aren't they?

As I said in a previous post, copyright in an artistic work is property and may be assigned to a third party. As someone elsewhere said, in days gone by, artists were often obliged by their contracts to assign their rights in songs to the record label or its associated publishing company.

 

[sean99]

I have no problem with the concept of copyright, nor that it could be sold or assigned to a third party. I have a problem with the excessive duration which has copyright holders collecting economic rent for no conceivable benefit to the original author or wider society.

 

[tones]

I have no problem with the concept of copyright, nor that it could be sold or assigned to a third party. I have a problem with the excessive duration which has copyright holders collecting economic rent for no conceivable benefit to the original author or wider society.

100% in agreement with that. The US extension is ridiculous, and the EU extension to 70 years - the so-called "Cliff Richard Act", as that gent was one of its keenest pushers - is unjustified. To me, the Berne Convention's 50 years is quite long enough.

As I wrote on an IP blog to celebrate Sir Cliff's success:

Got myself a tryin‘, balkin‘, pleasin‘, stalkin’ copyright
Gonna do my best to fleece you, no way will you get off light
Royalties for I, and that is why it augments my bankroll
Got mah one an’ only balkin’, stalkin’ copyright

Just a-look at those teeth, they’re real
If you don’t believe me, infringe, you’ll feel
Gonna make sure you’re bound to flunk
Your chance is sunk
To steal stuff away from me

Got mahself a tryin‘, balkin‘, pleasin‘, stalkin’ copyright
There’s no way you’ll mess with me by churning out free megabytes
Got mah rovin’ eye and that is why I’m gonna stop you cold
Got mah one an’ only balkin’, stalkin’ copyright

 

[paulfromcamden]

I think the whole thing was kicked off by Dave Clark (of Five fame) who made up for his inadequacies as a musician/songwriter by his adequacies as an entrepreneur - he insisted on control over the whole thing, writing, recording, producing, the works. As a result, in those early years, the Dave Clark Five made a lot more money than did other bands. I don't think the music industry ever forgave him for the bad example he set.

John Coltrane did the same thing setting up his own publishing company Jowcol (JOhn W COLtrane) Music in 1959.

 

[sean99]

100% in agreement with that. The US extension is ridiculous, and the EU extension to 70 years - the so-called "Cliff Richard Act", as that gent was one of its keenest pushers - is unjustified. To me, the Berne Convention's 50 years is quite long enough.

As I wrote on an IP blog to celebrate Sir Cliff's success:

Got myself a tryin‘, balkin‘, pleasin‘, stalkin’ copyright
Gonna do my best to fleece you, no way will you get off light
Royalties for I, and that is why it augments my bankroll
Got mah one an’ only balkin’, stalkin’ copyright

Just a-look at those teeth, they’re real
If you don’t believe me, infringe, you’ll feel
Gonna make sure you’re bound to flunk
Your chance is sunk
To steal stuff away from me

Got mahself a tryin‘, balkin‘, pleasin‘, stalkin’ copyright
There’s no way you’ll mess with me by churning out free megabytes
Got mah rovin’ eye and that is why I’m gonna stop you cold
Got mah one an’ only balkin’, stalkin’ copyright

Great stuff, and the irony of this is that I suspect Sir Cliff is one of the less pirated artists of his era, and not due to a litigious nature.

 

[vuk]

Actually no, the the whole purpose (from the very first copyright act, the 1709 Statute of Anne) was to prevent copying and to see that authors got a fair return on their investment.

academics and historians do not have that perspective, which is modern propaganda.

see here:
http://copyright101.byu.edu/module1/page3.htm

Purpose of Copyright Law

The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes.

vuk.

 

[tones]

academics and historians do not have that perspective, which is modern propaganda.

see here:
http://copyright101.byu.edu/module1/page3.htm





vuk.

Sorry, Vuk, this falls at the very first hurdle. Copyright is NOT a monopoly right, unlike the other branches of intellectual property (patents, trade marks designs). It is a defence only against copying. So, if you were, entirely independently, to come up with, say, one of the Harry Potter novels, there is nothing that Jo Rowling could do about it.

Any article that gets this most basic fact wrong can be trusted roughly as far as I can throw the Queen Mary.

 

[vuk]

tones.

surely the most important concept here is what the basic purpose was. i don't think there is much scholarly disagreement about that: to propagate knowledge. we simply don't have that problem any more-if anything, copyright law actually discourages the very thing it was supposed to enable.



vuk.