4 ms·

Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.

by spodek 15y ago

Natsu 15y ago
Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.
- vacri 15y ago
  Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover bands...
  - Natsu 15y ago
    That's because the venue pays them on your behalf! http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/ http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-... "As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article." Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court. From unhappybirthday.com: "Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?" For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant.... EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.
    - vacri 15y ago
      He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.
      - gergles 15y ago
        His assertion is incorrect. Any public performance, whether "for profit" or not, requires a license.
        Natsu 15y ago
        See also the time ASCAP went after the Girl Scouts for royalties over campfire songs, which can hardly be construed as "commercial uses" under any reasonable definition. You will note their concern is over "public performance." Maybe I wasn't nitpicky enough when I said everyone, but I don't know any people who have only sung "Happy Birthday" privately and never sung it in school, a restaurant, or any other public place. Anyhow, as for the Girl Scouts: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalties-from-girl-scouts-and-regrets-it.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalt... "Things heated up in March [1995], when Ascap sent a mailing to 6,000 camps (out of 8,000 in the United States) and informed them that they had to pay royalties for public performances. But Ascap did not specify what it meant by ''public performance,'' and of necessity did not include a list of its four million songs. (Ms. Bergman says they are available on the Internet; a computer printout of the material is five feet high.) It did, however, include a schedule of annual fees that went as high as $1,439 for large year-round camps." And yes, ASCAP eventually backed off after the bad PR nightmare they generated by demanding that Girl Scout camps either pay them fees or tell the kids they're not allowed to sing. From the same article: ''What does the word 'nightmare' mean to you?'' she said. ''We're fighting for our lives. We have to do a lot of work to tell people that we're not greedy songwriters.''
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    How do you define non-commercial? What if you're rich and have hundreds of other rich people at your birthday party? What if one of the people singing Happy Birthday at your party is a professional singer? What about singing Happy Birthday as customers in a crowded restaurant? What if a band wants to sing Happy Birthday to itself or to an audience member while on stage? What if the audience spontaneously sings Happy Birthday to someone (band, speaker, etc.) on stage? How about someone recording your friends singing Happy Birthday at your small, private party, then posting it on YouTube (or any of the other scenarios gets uploaded)?
- pvarangot 15y ago
  I wonder if that is the reason most big restaurant chains, like TGI Fridays, have their own version of a song for their crew to sing when someone has a birthday there.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Yes, it is. Source: http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?printertopic=1&t=841667&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&vote=viewresult&sid=2c01b6580bfcd8ebc70d14fdc6455703 http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?printertop... EDIT: At first I thought Snopes said that, but I was wrong. Here's a different source saying the same thing.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- ryanklee 15y ago
  > Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. No, not really. Probably read your citations before using them to back up your claims; they'll be less likely in contradiction. As noted in the Snopes article, singing the birthday song is just fine for non-commercial use.
- tingletech 15y ago
  No, not really... according to the snopes link: """Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No."""
  - Natsu 15y ago
    I was trying to avoid having to nitpick every bit of it, which is why I gave references. How many people have only sung "Happy Birthday" at home, but never in a restaurant or any other public place? Here's the rest of your quote, starting right after that "no" - "Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)."
downandout 15y ago
In my opinion, this is really the heart of the matter. It doesn't just give power to the executive branch. If you create and pass a law that potentially makes a significant percentage of the population into criminals, you have a bargaining chip of unprecedented power. The greatest power that criminal prosecutors have is discretion - the power to charge or not charge any person with a crime. They can, and do on a daily basis, threaten charges that carry significant penalties and essentially force their target to enter into what they call a non-prosecution agreement. These are voluntary agreements, essentially saying that the government will not prosecute you if you follow the terms of the agreement. There are no rules for what the government can ask of the target in these agreements. They can quite literally require anything the government wants of the target - even things that a judge could not legally impose upon a guilty defendant to do as part of a criminal sentence. They can't throw hundreds of millions of people in prison - there simply aren't enough prisons - but they can have hundreds of millions of people doing whatever they want them to do.

Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.

by spodek 15y ago

Think of the power a law that everyone breaks gives the government! They must love it. Mostly the executive branch, but others too.

Natsu 15y ago

Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ Sure, there's some evidence that they may have done some iffy things with the registration, but you'd have to go through an expensive trial to prove that, so good luck.

vacri 15y ago
Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up. edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover bands...
- Natsu 15y ago
  That's because the venue pays them on your behalf! http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/ http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-... "As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article." Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court. From unhappybirthday.com: "Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?" For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant.... EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.
  - vacri 15y ago
    He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.
    - gergles 15y ago
      His assertion is incorrect. Any public performance, whether "for profit" or not, requires a license.
      - Natsu 15y ago
        See also the time ASCAP went after the Girl Scouts for royalties over campfire songs, which can hardly be construed as "commercial uses" under any reasonable definition. You will note their concern is over "public performance." Maybe I wasn't nitpicky enough when I said everyone, but I don't know any people who have only sung "Happy Birthday" privately and never sung it in school, a restaurant, or any other public place. Anyhow, as for the Girl Scouts: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalties-from-girl-scouts-and-regrets-it.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalt... "Things heated up in March [1995], when Ascap sent a mailing to 6,000 camps (out of 8,000 in the United States) and informed them that they had to pay royalties for public performances. But Ascap did not specify what it meant by ''public performance,'' and of necessity did not include a list of its four million songs. (Ms. Bergman says they are available on the Internet; a computer printout of the material is five feet high.) It did, however, include a schedule of annual fees that went as high as $1,439 for large year-round camps." And yes, ASCAP eventually backed off after the bad PR nightmare they generated by demanding that Girl Scout camps either pay them fees or tell the kids they're not allowed to sing. From the same article: ''What does the word 'nightmare' mean to you?'' she said. ''We're fighting for our lives. We have to do a lot of work to tell people that we're not greedy songwriters.''
- nitrogen 15y ago
  How do you define non-commercial? What if you're rich and have hundreds of other rich people at your birthday party? What if one of the people singing Happy Birthday at your party is a professional singer? What about singing Happy Birthday as customers in a crowded restaurant? What if a band wants to sing Happy Birthday to itself or to an audience member while on stage? What if the audience spontaneously sings Happy Birthday to someone (band, speaker, etc.) on stage? How about someone recording your friends singing Happy Birthday at your small, private party, then posting it on YouTube (or any of the other scenarios gets uploaded)?
pvarangot 15y ago
I wonder if that is the reason most big restaurant chains, like TGI Fridays, have their own version of a song for their crew to sing when someone has a birthday there.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Yes, it is. Source: http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?printertopic=1&t=841667&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&vote=viewresult&sid=2c01b6580bfcd8ebc70d14fdc6455703 http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?printertop... EDIT: At first I thought Snopes said that, but I was wrong. Here's a different source saying the same thing.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
ryanklee 15y ago
> Everyone who has sung "Happy Birthday" is also a pirate. Yes, really. No, not really. Probably read your citations before using them to back up your claims; they'll be less likely in contradiction. As noted in the Snopes article, singing the birthday song is just fine for non-commercial use.
tingletech 15y ago
No, not really... according to the snopes link: """Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No."""
- Natsu 15y ago
  I was trying to avoid having to nitpick every bit of it, which is why I gave references. How many people have only sung "Happy Birthday" at home, but never in a restaurant or any other public place? Here's the rest of your quote, starting right after that "no" - "Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)."

downandout 15y ago

In my opinion, this is really the heart of the matter. It doesn't just give power to the executive branch. If you create and pass a law that potentially makes a significant percentage of the population into criminals, you have a bargaining chip of unprecedented power. The greatest power that criminal prosecutors have is discretion - the power to charge or not charge any person with a crime. They can, and do on a daily basis, threaten charges that carry significant penalties and essentially force their target to enter into what they call a non-prosecution agreement. These are voluntary agreements, essentially saying that the government will not prosecute you if you follow the terms of the agreement. There are no rules for what the government can ask of the target in these agreements. They can quite literally require anything the government wants of the target - even things that a judge could not legally impose upon a guilty defendant to do as part of a criminal sentence. They can't throw hundreds of millions of people in prison - there simply aren't enough prisons - but they can have hundreds of millions of people doing whatever they want them to do.