Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Did you know that in the UK it is a breach of copyright to sing Happy Birthday on tv? (I assume it's the same for radio too)

WHO THE HELL IS IT COPYRIGHT TO? :shock:

Hallmark?

Moonbeam · Qualificator Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 30

It's owned by Summy-Birchard Music, a subsidiary of AOL/Time Warner.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

Dang, I am a know-it-all. I just can't stand it, I have to look things up.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

WTF? So do i have to pay royalties to this company if I want to sing at my friend's 21st?

Screw that! :lol:

Moonbeam · Qualificator Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 30

Nah, I think it's only for public performances for money.

Of course, anytime you sing it without paying a royalty you are guilty of OMG SOAL RAEP!! So pay up. :D

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Does that mean my soul has been raped 20 times?

Dear god o_o

stinkweedskunk · Prattler Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 155

There was just a big debate a little while ago on Slashdot, about how now the recording companies are going after people who publicly post lyrics and guitar tabs for popular songs on the internet. Now, I understand that these items are copyrighted as well, but in some of their cease-and-desist letters, they include ALL public perfomances and postings of copyrighted material. Like for a music store having to pay royalties 'just in case' a would-be buyer picks up a demo guitar and starts playing a song 90% of the people in there know, making it a public performance. So, are the music police going to bust me if I walk down the street humming some pop tune on the radio? If others can hear it, then I would technically be publicly performing the song.

Is the pentatonic musical scale copyrighted as well? Because nearly every rock and pop song released since the 50's uses it. I'm sure hundreds of chord progressions since then sound the same.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

What about at football and sport events? Can they arrest and charge hundreds of spectators who start singing 'We Will Rock You' or the like at a football game?

stinkweedskunk · Prattler Joined: 14 Nov 2005 Posts: 155

What with these LAWSUITES and junk, you'd think phurries were running the recording industry.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Maybe they are :shock:

Lolsuits more like

TheBobSays · Venter Joined: 19 Jun 2005 Posts: 260

What about at football and sport events? Can they arrest and charge hundreds of spectators who start singing 'We Will Rock You' or the like at a football game?

Curses! I had to go and ruin my lurking by responding, but here goes. To the best of my knowledge, not the spectators, as they're the ones that are paying to be at the game. The same as singing in the shower. But it's not the announcers/refs/players singing.

If you go to a family-style restaurant (TGIF, or whatnot) and mention that it's your birthday, they bring out the cupcake with the candle and sing a song. It is not the "Happy Birthday" song for that very reason. The restaurant can be fined for copyright violation.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Seriously, that's the biggest pile of crap I've ever heard

Happy Birthday isn't even a very good song, why the hell does it need copyright? Are they going to copyright nursery rhymes next?

RabidRick · Qualificator Joined: 15 Mar 2005 Posts: 28

Copyright laws are so weird. I didn't know the Happy Birthday song is copyrighted, though. Apparently it's STILL copyrighted in the US, too.

What I don't understand is HOW Time-Warner still has the copyright, though, if the authors (according to Wikipedia) died in 1946. If they bought the rights in 1988, before the Mickey Mouse Protection Act it would seem like the rights should have expired in 1996.

Like I said, copyright laws are wierd.

Barry Scott · Prattler Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 165

The US patent and copyright laws vary from lax to downright crooked. That's why big businesses register in the US because not only does it have the same weight (if not more) legally, it's pathetically easy to get with little or no challenge depending how much money you give them. Other countries employ that annoying "common sense" stuff that stops you patating biological life and stuff that's been in the public domian for years. The US system doesn’t have these problems seeing the laws that weren't written by someone as bent as a nine pound note, was written by an idiot, which slimy lawyers side-step. But hey, it's keeps big business happy so everybody wins right?

Charisma · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 346

Happy Birthday to you,
I went to a zoo,
he told me he'd yiff my dog,
and my neighbour's one too.

...you could sing that one instead. even in restaurants.

peppersprayed · Vociferator Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 420

What with these LAWSUITES and junk, you'd think phurries were running the recording industry.

I think they are actively trying to intimidate people in a blanket effort right now

you know as part of their war on piracy bullshit.... you see in the end they are fighting the tide like with VCRs

technically you aren't supposed to tape a football game.

MagnusSkin · Prattler Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 114

I recorded the Rose Bowl today... USC Trojans vs. Texas Long Horns. Damn Long Horns wasted the Trojans in the 4th quarter. Anyways, I don't care about pirating laws. I see those ads in movies now, "Would you steel a purse? Would you steel a car?" Then it goes on about steeling from the industries and money from hard working average joes... I laugh so hard.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

technically you aren't supposed to tape a football game.

Buh? Seriously?

But what about those teleboxes and sky boxes you can get where you can record programs to watch later? I could record football matches on it if I wanted to. Why aren't those illegal?

Foxid · Vociferator Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 305

technically you aren't supposed to tape a football game.

Buh? Seriously?

But what about those teleboxes and sky boxes you can get where you can record programs to watch later? I could record football matches on it if I wanted to. Why aren't those illegal?

I take it you haven't heard Ted Turner's insane drunken rantings about those. Or his insane drunken ranting about how people who fast-forward through commercials are stealing.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Can't say i have...I don't even know who Ted Turner is

Paul · Needs to get out more Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 1139

Happy Birthday isn't even a very good song, why the hell does it need copyright?

Every tangible creative/artistic "product" is is protected by copyright by default. That's the whole point of copyright. Something is only public domain if A) the copyright has expired due to time or B) it has specifically been signed away by the default copyright holder.

That big businesses use the "money talks" American legal system to muck around and protect their own economic interests beyond what was intended with copyright laws is incidental... they do so in all aspects of law.

technically you aren't supposed to tape a football game.

Buh? Seriously?

No. You're always allowed to make one copy of something you've legally obtained (as you would have a TV broadcast) for your private use.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

I look at it in the way that Mozart's symphonies are copyright...well unless you're not very observant, Mozart is dead

So IMHO any money gained from people paying to play his music should go to his family line...or a mozart trust fund...or something

I mean who came up with the Happy Birthday song to begin with?

Paul · Needs to get out more Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 1139

I look at it in the way that Mozart's symphonies are copyright...well unless you're not very observant, Mozart is dead

So IMHO any money gained from people paying to play his music should go to his family line...or a mozart trust fund...or something

Everything by Mozart is public domain - just like pretty much anything else published before the early 20th century.

I mean who came up with the Happy Birthday song to begin with?

It says so in Moonbeam's link in the sceond post of the thread.

What I don't understand is HOW Time-Warner still has the copyright, though, if the authors (according to Wikipedia) died in 1946. If they bought the rights in 1988, before the Mickey Mouse Protection Act it would seem like the rights should have expired in 1996.

That's also explained in Moonbeam's link.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Thanks for taking apart my stupidity post ^_^ I think I need a lie down @_@

TheBobSays · Venter Joined: 19 Jun 2005 Posts: 260

I look at it in the way that Mozart's symphonies are copyright...well unless you're not very observant, Mozart is dead

So IMHO any money gained from people paying to play his music should go to his family line...or a mozart trust fund...or something

I mean who came up with the Happy Birthday song to begin with?

Since you're a brit, you're excused from knowing this whole sordid affair. :wink:

Public domain is anything that is, well, common. Language. Numbers. Math. The wheel. The Torah. Aesop's fables. Shakespeare. Things that any one of us can use, a foundation from which we build. In nature, there is no such thing as a copyright, as you can't tell a cat not to copy your moves.

Copyright, in the US, is a limited monopoly granted to the creator of something new and useful (art, machine, etc) as a reward and incentive to add to the public domain.

The original intent is all of humanity saying to the artist/writer/inventor, "Okay, we're lending to you our language/concepts of music/math/previous works in exchange for you making something new. You're going to have 14 years in which you can profit from this thing you've made with our tools, but then, your creation is added into public domain in order to let others build upon that."

Over time, of course, those with these limited monopolies have sought to extend the copyrights indefinitely, to deny others the social contract that they benefited from.

So no, Mozart's works are not copyright, nor is A Tale of Two Cities, nor Romeo and Juliet. However, a recording of an orchestra playing something of Mozart's is copyright, but not to him, but to the people playing the music. In that case, their performance is the new art added.

Anyways, venting done. And remember, Google is your friend.

raygirl · Prattler Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 198

Since you're a brit, you're excused from knowing this whole sordid affair. :wink:

I feel I've lived a somewhat shelted life up until this point XD

So no, Mozart's works are not copyright, nor is A Tale of Two Cities, nor Romeo and Juliet. However, a recording of an orchestra playing something of Mozart's is copyright, but not to him, but to the people playing the music. In that case, their performance is the new art added.

Oh. But if say it was a reading of Seamus Heaney's poetry by...say...Eric Idle...the copyright is to heaney and not to Idle?

Anyways, venting done. And remember, Google is your friend.

Not mine...didn't even send me a christmas card ¬¬

vanilla rin · Apocrisiary Joined: 03 Jul 2005 Posts: 45

Oh. But if say it was a reading of Seamus Heaney's poetry by...say...Eric Idle...the copyright is to heaney and not to Idle?

The poetry would never become copyrighted to Idle. Unless it has become part of public domain, it is always Heaney's.

However, if either (a) Idle had bought the rights to use Heaney's work by the current copyright holder, or (b) Heaney's work was in the public domain, if Idle was to perform it, the performance would be copyright Idle. Never the poetry.

TheBobSays · Venter Joined: 19 Jun 2005 Posts: 260

Oh. But if say it was a reading of Seamus Heaney's poetry by...say...Eric Idle...the copyright is to heaney and not to Idle?

The poetry would never become copyrighted to Idle. Unless it has become part of public domain, it is always Heaney's.

However, if either (a) Idle had bought the rights to use Heaney's work by the current copyright holder, or (b) Heaney's work was in the public domain, if Idle was to perform it, the performance would be copyright Idle. Never the poetry.

Yeah. The key word here is added value. This is why facts cannot be copyrighted, but creative and artistic expression using the same sets of words can. A phone book. A database of numbers. A listing of countries and their capitols. Those are all public domain and cannot be copyrighted. A song that puts the names of countries together in an amusing fashion, however, can, because of the novelty and creativity involved.

And it's only the added part. So Idle would never, ever have the copyright unless purchased (See: Music Industry), and the poem would not be attributed to him. We're talking about how Eric reads it, what he brings to the table that's new, that's why he'd get the little © seal. The inflections in his voice, the funny mannerisms.

Similarly, many publishers print out copies of Shakespeare, and you are free to copy (by hand or by photocopy) the bard's words as many times as you want, as it's all in public domain, and unless there's footnotes on the pages (Not page numbers or titles. Again, there's no artistic uniqueness in labeling in consecutive order), or a foreword made by someone still breathing, there's nothing added. It's public domain and not copyright.