5 ms·

They 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 cbd1984 11y ago

They 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Well, you still get the satisfaction of creating a deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon.
- qq66 11y ago
  Well, 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 ago
    Woah 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 ago
    MLK 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 ago
      On 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 ago
        Except 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 ago
        I suspect the primary compensation they hoped to get for that particular speech was _not_ financial.
        linkydinkandyou 11y ago
        People 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.
  - jcranmer 11y ago
    Actually, in US copyright law, it is possible for works to effectively lose their copyright. One of the elements of fair use (note: most jurisdictions do not have a fair use defense, so this only applies to the US) is that some things can become so important to the public interest that any reproduction is effectively fair use. The most notable use of this claim is the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination.
- dror 11y ago
  No, you're successful enough to make some money, not necessarily a huge amount.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    You do realize you linked to a page about trademarks and not copyrights?
- gohrt 11y ago
  Have 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  If 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 ago
  But 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.

by cbd1984 11y ago

tedunangst 11y ago

That'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 ago
Well, you still get the satisfaction of creating a deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon.
qq66 11y ago
Well, 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 ago
  Woah 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 ago
  MLK 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 ago
    On 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 ago
      Except 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 ago
        I suspect the primary compensation they hoped to get for that particular speech was _not_ financial.
        linkydinkandyou 11y ago
        People 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.
- jcranmer 11y ago
  Actually, in US copyright law, it is possible for works to effectively lose their copyright. One of the elements of fair use (note: most jurisdictions do not have a fair use defense, so this only applies to the US) is that some things can become so important to the public interest that any reproduction is effectively fair use. The most notable use of this claim is the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination.
dror 11y ago
No, you're successful enough to make some money, not necessarily a huge amount.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- tedunangst 11y ago
  You do realize you linked to a page about trademarks and not copyrights?
gohrt 11y ago
Have 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 ago
I 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 ago
If 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 ago
But 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.