9 ms·
You can't blame Warner, they're obviously just protecting artists rights to be creative and innovate.
by bickfordb 11y ago
You can't blame Warner, they're obviously just protecting artists rights to be creative and innovate.
- mcphage 11y agoI mean, I agree with your sarcasm. But on the other hand, you're kinda right—instead of everyone singing the same Happy Birthday song, every movie and chain restaurant has to come up with their own version. And maybe one of them would have been better, and caught on instead. Of course, they all were terrible.
- cbd1984 11y agoThey weren't traditional. As simplistic and potentially annoying as the traditional "Happy Birthday" song was and is, it's part of the birthday tradition shared by a lot of English-speaking people, so it's special. It's simply special, and nothing can replace it. Ideally, works should be public domain long before they're traditional to that extent. It's just creepy for a company to assert ownership rights on some piece of culture that's been passed down through your family for generations.
- tedunangst 11y agoThat's a peculiar way to disincentive success. Hope to be successful enough to make some royalties, but not so successful as to be traditional because then you get nothing.
- curious_slinky 11y agoWell, you still get the satisfaction of creating a deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon.
- qq66 11y agoWell, I do believe that a work can become so important that it shouldn't be copyrighted anymore. The most notable example is Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which is a national artifact more important than anything in the Smithsonian. It should be freely distributable to everyone in America who wants to watch it, instead it is under enforced copyright. Perhaps the government should purchase the copyright using eminent domain in cases like this.
- nightpool 11y agoWoah I haven't ever considered the possibility of applying eminent domain to copyright brb mind blown. That seems... incredibly reasonable and helpful. (no sarcasm)
- tedunangst 11y agoMLK could have dedicated the speech to public domain, had he so wished. Again, "if we like your speech we're going to take it" -> not a great incentive.
- pyre 11y agoOn the other hand, are you going to argue that the existence of copyright is what caused MLK to write said speech? In the absence of copyright, we never would have had the "I have a dream" speech?
- linkydinkandyou 11y agoExcept Dr. King didn't write the speech. From Wikipedia: "The speech was drafted with the assistance of Stanley Levison and Clarence Benjamin Jones[17] in Riverdale, New York City. Jones has said that "the logistical preparations for the march were so burdensome that the speech was not a priority for us" and that, "on the evening of Tuesday, Aug. 27, [12 hours before the March] Martin still didn't know what he was going to say"." I'm not so sure these people would appreciate the fact that you think they should work without being compensated for it, or that somehow, compensation and/or ownership isn't a good reason to do something.
- salvadors 11y agoI suspect the primary compensation they hoped to get for that particular speech was _not_ financial.
- linkydinkandyou 11y agoPeople who write songs and materials for Churches do it to make a living. It's actually a big problem for folks who write songs and arrangements for Church Choirs--many of their customers don't feel they should be paid! I've been to conferences at Music and Musician trade shows where this very issue is discussed.
- dror 11y agoNo, you're successful enough to make some money, not necessarily a huge amount.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tedunangst 11y agoYou do realize you linked to a page about trademarks and not copyrights?
- gohrt 11y agoHave you read the Constitution recently? > 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. The whole point of the system is to encourage products that are successful enough to make some royalties and then become public domain.
- realusername 11y agoI think strangely, we are not hearing so much about the original inventors from the 20's, we should ask them what they think about that.
- anon4 11y agoIf you get to the point where your song is sung at every single English-speaking home at every birthday, you have effectively captured all the market. You cannot get more successful. You reached the end game, the top score, there is no more growth to be had. The oil well has dried up and the gold mine is empty. You are standing at the end of profit.
- alricb 11y agoBut it takes a good bit of time for something to become "traditional"; long enough that it becomes hard to figure out who, exactly, owns the copyright to what, as in this case. Limiting the term of copyright also has a function of promoting legal certainty: with relatively short terms, if there's a controversy, the court can have living witnesses and a fairly complete record, vs. a few strands of unconclusive evidence like here.
- triangleman 11y agoAnd let's not forget the adorable Futurama version, "What Day is Today?"
- saint_fiasco 11y ago> And maybe one of them would have been better, and caught on instead A new version would never catch on, because it would be under valid copyright.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y agoSounds like an awesome marketing opportunity for some kids friendly chain restaurant. Hire someone to write a new, catchy song and give the song away. Perhaps for TV and movies, require a small product placement deal. I'd probably try said product just because they did something I agree with...
- rplnt 11y agoFor 100 years though?
- mikepurvis 11y agoNot that I don't agree with you, but in my family we always sang this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIRtrR7LW7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIRtrR7LW7g The traditional lyrics just seem a bit bland compared with all that sweetness.
- bickfordb 11y agoSorry that this is sarcastic. I've always found it to be a problematic claim that without copyright, patents and other 17th/18th century "intellectual property" constructs we would not be motivated to create art, new technology, etc. All engineers, artists I have met only become informed of these contracts well after creating or innovating new art and technology. The only people taking advantage of these systems are at the end of any perceptual innovation (lawyers, lawyer driven predatory corporations, large corporations)
- kedean 11y agoDevils advocate, the only reason for that last part is because patent and copyright are only useful at the point where enough money is flowing around that lawyers are involved. Artists definitely care if someone steals their work, but you don't usually hear about that happening because copyright exists. You know all the hubub about certain comedians stealing jokes from other comedians? That's a realm with no copyright/patent equivalent.
- caf 11y agoFor all the "hubub", it doesn't seem to have stopped new comedic acts being being written?
- mdpopescu 11y agoSame with the fashion industry, where some people are trying really hard to bring copyright in despite the fact that it's much more profitable without it than the entire media industry.
- throwawaykf05 11y agoOr maybe because they are less able to protect their works, there are fewer people being motivated to participate in the comedy (and as mentioned by sibling comment, fashion) industries? The premise of copyright is not causing but promoting creation of works. Subtle but important distinction. Nobody said there would be no creation without copyright, just that there would be more with it.
- JohnTHaller 11y agoThe MAFIAA is here for everyone's benefit, of course: http://mafiaa.org/ http://mafiaa.org/