4 ms·

As far as I'm concerned, I'd have been happier if the case were fully litigated with a precedent set, and damages against Warner Music being as disproportionate

As far as I'm concerned, I'd have been happier if the case were fully litigated with a precedent set, and damages against Warner Music being as disproportionate as what the music industry wants against random file sharers. $14M? They got off too easy.

nitrogen 11y ago
So did the settlement not open Happy Birthday for everyone?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  It does as of next month. Also, the settlement proceeds (after attorney's fees) will be used to compensate the most recent licensees.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Unclear. What is clear is that Warner/Chappell don't have a valid copyright claim, but due to the history of the song/lyrics/tune other claimants could come forward and claim to own the copyright. Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030, because claims of ownership seem to end in 1935, however as the Warner/Chappell claim has been debunked it might be public domain as early as 2022. Keep in mind that "unknown owner" and "public domain" aren't the same thing. At the moment Happy Birthday isn't old enough to be public domain, there just may not be a known or established owner, so it could be "de facto public domain."
  - sparky_z 11y ago
    > Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030 Unless the law changes between now and then.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      In concede that. And I'd love to say "that could never happen" but if they want to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain then they need to extend the 1928 copyright yet again...
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    > Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030 Copyright will be extended again before that time due to a certain mouse-eared corporation.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sangnoir 11y ago
  In the out of court settlement, Warner agrees to allowing a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain, however, the judge will have to agree to it. "the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain" ... "An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review" Why is Warner suddenly graciously agreeing to this, you may wonder: "By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades" Disclaimer: IANAL

nitrogen 11y ago

So did the settlement not open Happy Birthday for everyone?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
It does as of next month. Also, the settlement proceeds (after attorney's fees) will be used to compensate the most recent licensees.
Someone1234 11y ago
Unclear. What is clear is that Warner/Chappell don't have a valid copyright claim, but due to the history of the song/lyrics/tune other claimants could come forward and claim to own the copyright. Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030, because claims of ownership seem to end in 1935, however as the Warner/Chappell claim has been debunked it might be public domain as early as 2022. Keep in mind that "unknown owner" and "public domain" aren't the same thing. At the moment Happy Birthday isn't old enough to be public domain, there just may not be a known or established owner, so it could be "de facto public domain."
- sparky_z 11y ago
  > Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030 Unless the law changes between now and then.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    In concede that. And I'd love to say "that could never happen" but if they want to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain then they need to extend the 1928 copyright yet again...
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  > Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030 Copyright will be extended again before that time due to a certain mouse-eared corporation.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sangnoir 11y ago
In the out of court settlement, Warner agrees to allowing a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain, however, the judge will have to agree to it. "the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain" ... "An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review" Why is Warner suddenly graciously agreeing to this, you may wonder: "By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades" Disclaimer: IANAL