©

[zoobie]

Interesting show on Free Speech TV about Copyright...and how the US govt has extended it now 3 times...the latest due to Mickey Mouse entering the Public Domain in 2003

Film and video documentary makers have been told to go home by ignorant lawers who haven't even bothered checking...yet just assume (or should I say bluff their way along the legal trail) it's copyright infringement.

Enter the age of compensation...where $5000 is needed to sing Happy Birthday on film, where assembling every non-movie clip of Elvis would cost the film-maker $800,000

Some movie and video documentary-makers are going ahead making their production and litigate later...if at all...thusly taking their chances with the courts with the fuzzy written laws regarding Public Domain, Fair Use, and Creative Commons or somesuch...

[Supreme2k]

From what I've seen and dug up, the whole Happy Birthday copyright is complete bullshit. It's akin to Al Gore and the internet, or me saying that I invented the wheel (even though I am 100% caveman).

[drjtech]

Snopes says:

Claim: The song "Happy Birthday to You" is protected by copyright.
Status: True.

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

Wikipedia agrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

If you think Snopes and Wikipedia are full of it (and, of course, that's possible) do a quick Google on "happy birthday copyright". I did find one article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 claiming that the song is not copyrighted. But, there are many more sites (i.e., http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ insisting that ASCAP is actively enforcing royalty payments when Happy Birthday is used in commercial media.

Here is the ASCAP page for Title Code: 380008955: http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=38000895..._pp=10&start=1

-drjtech

[Supreme2k]

I didn't say that it wasn't copyrighted, but that the whole chain of copyright on that particular gem is spurious, akin to claims of inventing the wheel.

And for the record, yes, Wikipedia is full of shit. It's rare that you have true scholars, or even people who know how to spell properly, editing the pages.

[Dv8ted2]

Snopes says:

Claim: The song "Happy Birthday to You" is protected by copyright.
Status: True.

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

Wikipedia agrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

If you think Snopes and Wikipedia are full of it (and, of course, that's possible) do a quick Google on "happy birthday copyright". I did find one article http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 claiming that the song is not copyrighted. But, there are many more sites (i.e., http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ insisting that ASCAP is actively enforcing royalty payments when Happy Birthday is used in commercial media.

Here is the ASCAP page for Title Code: 380008955: http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=38000895..._pp=10&start=1

-drjtech

Your use of Snopes and Wikipedia to prove your point is dubious at best. I could invent a website that states that the sky is pink, but that does not mean it is true. Happy birthday should have been in the public domain years ago. Even with it being copyrighted, you cannot enforce it. What are you going to do? Fine anybody that has ever sang happy birthday throughout the history of time. That is not feasible.

[Noahtuck]

So everyday 1000's of people are breaking copyright law when they sing "happy birthday" at their childs Bday party
GD criminals!!!!!!!!
They should be locked up!!!!!!!
Every damn one of them!!!!!!!


And YES!!! Wikipedia is full of shit a lot of the time!!
I have seen things listed on there that were downright WRONG and when trying to correct it, even with links to proof it was just deleted.

I could invent a website that states that the sky is pink, but that does not mean it is true.

Exactly!!!
I have said that for years when someone say's well i read it here, and i go well shit!!! You read it online or saw it on tv, it must be true!!!!


I was watching something on TV the other day were they showed how many text books that our children are learning from in schools all across the country have completely 100% incorrect information in them!!!
And not old text books but one's that have been published in the last year!!!!!!

Yeah, like it took all this time to discover that!!!!!!
I knew that 25 years ago!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!

[Supreme2k]

But you're saying that if it's posted on a web site, it can't be true, but then that means it is true, but you posted it on a web site, so it's not true, which means what you posted is true, but by being on a web site, it's not true, which makes what you said true...


+++++CARRIER LOST++++++++++++++++++
///////DIVIDE BY ZERO ERROR////////////////////

[guns1inger]

So everyday 1000's of people are breaking copyright law when they sing "happy birthday" at their childs Bday party
GD criminals!!!!!!!!
They should be locked up!!!!!!!
Every damn one of them!!!!!!!


And YES!!! Wikipedia is full of shit a lot of the time!!
I have seen things listed on there that were downright WRONG and when trying to correct it, even with links to proof it was just deleted.

I could invent a website that states that the sky is pink, but that does not mean it is true.

Exactly!!!
I have said that for years when someone say's well i read it here, and i go well shit!!! You read it online or saw it on tv, it must be true!!!!


I was watching something on TV the other day were they showed how many text books that our children are learning from in schools all across the country have completely 100% incorrect information in them!!!
And not old text books but one's that have been published in the last year!!!!!!

Yeah, like it took all this time to discover that!!!!!!
I knew that 25 years ago!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!

It is this sort of inane bullshit that makes legitimate discussion of copyright issues difficult. It is not breaking copyright to sing Happy Birthday at a birthday party, just as it is not breaking copyright to hum or sing your favourite pop song while you wait for a bus. If the material is being used for commercial gain, and is protected by copyright, then payment is due. Yes, there is a legitimate argument that copyright laws have been extended far beyond the protection that was originally intended by those that created them in the first place, and there is also a fair argument to be made that there is a large degree of corrupt commercial influence behind many of the decisions by US law makers when it comes to these changes (as well as anything to do with oil, the military, the environment, tobacco, pharmaceuticals etc).

However every time copyright gets mentioned here, the same few noise makers pipe up with the same mis-informed, tabloid news rhetoric. It just makes you look like uneducated rednecks, and frankly, no-one is interested in listening to something so stupid (except the tabloid press). The irony is that while you are happy to slag off Wikipedia as a reliable reference, most of what you spout in return sounds like the ramblings of any of the wild internet conspiracy sites - you know the ones - they are covered with links to UFO sites, New Age medicine, JFK theories and the likes. Not the sort of thing that builds confidence in your arguments.

Either get informed, or get off the soap box. The guy who thinks the Venusians are coming to save the world is waiting for his turn.

[zoobie]

The whole TV program showed how the filmmaker and artist's hands are tightly tied due to such extreme legal intrepretation of regulation and compensation thusly extinguishing many projects from ever being produced...

I can hardly point my camera anywhere these days without it causing a huge pile of permissions being required then charged...It's just too much

I'm not sure you can make a docu on a shoestring anymore...

[Dv8ted2]

I can hardly point my camera anywhere these days without it causing a huge pile of permissions being required...It's just too much

As long as you use your own created material, you normally would not have anything to worry about.

[thecoalman]

zoobie, I'd have to agree. Copyright laws are way beyond what they should be.

It is this sort of inane bullshit that makes legitimate discussion of copyright issues difficult.

Quoted for agreement.


on the topic of Wikipedia, it is a pretty decent source however there is lot of idiots on there that watch over articles they have written like mother hen watching their chicks. When researching information I find the citations at the bottom the most valuable part of the article. I added some information once to the anthracite coal topic there fixing some historical inaccuracies and some some other data like sizes and uses which are pretty much absolutes only to find the edits reverted because they were "wrong". I guess a century of my family and 15 years myself working with the product isn't sufficient qualification to know what is what. I've never edited anything since.

[Number Six]

But you're saying that if it's posted on a web site, it can't be true, but then that means it is true, but you posted it on a web site, so it's not true, which means what you posted is true, but by being on a web site, it's not true, which makes what you said true...


+++++CARRIER LOST++++++++++++++++++
///////DIVIDE BY ZERO ERROR////////////////////

I, MUDD

[zoobie]

I just saw another Free Speech TV show...and it started out with a Fair Use Notice which went on to say that clips used in the following show fell under the Fair Use Agreement of 1976 for purposes of commentary, criticism, and education. The show contained some funny b & w clips from the 1940's & 50's...Personally, I'm glad that people are going ahead and using stuff rather than being scared away by lawyer speak...

[guns1inger]

This is one of my favs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

[lordsmurf]

I've had people tell me on wikipedia that something sitting on my shelf doesn't exist. Nevermind that I was doing this 20 years ago, and they were probably still shitting their diapers, I am wrong because I don't sit at home and login to wikipedia every day.

Wikipedia is a good place for leads to scholarly information, nothing more.

A lot of articles have been so mush-mouthed because people try to appease arguing, mentioning "both sides" of arguments where one person is correct, and the "other side" is wrong. Why the hell should a encyclopedia include wrong info? I read one of these just this morning, while browsing for some info.

Should our school books include arguments for why the world is flat, and why it's only 6,000 years old?

[guns1inger]

Should our school books include arguments for . . . . . . . . . . . . why it's only 6,000 years old?

In many parts of the US, apparently yes. Unfortunately an Australian (from Queensland, of course) is one of the main proponents.

[zzyzzx]

Reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons where thye went out of their way to mention that all the Christmas songs that they were singing were in the public domain.

[lordsmurf]

Should our school books include arguments for . . . . . . . . . . . . why it's only 6,000 years old?

In many parts of the US, apparently yes. Unfortunately an Australian (from Queensland, of course) is one of the main proponents.

Teaching kids bullshit should be considered "child abuse".

[Dv8ted2]

Teaching kids bullshit should be considered "child abuse".

[Jester700]

Should our school books include arguments for . . . . . . . . . . . . why it's only 6,000 years old?

In many parts of the US, apparently yes. Unfortunately an Australian (from Queensland, of course) is one of the main proponents.

Teaching kids bullshit should be considered "child abuse".

Indeed. But in such a case, "abuse" would include most Sunday (and in some cases, Saturday) morning instruction around the world...

[zoobie]

forgot to mention that Free Speech TV show I saw also included some recent clips of NBC news with Brian Williams so perhaps it's legal for commentary, criticism, and education but not profit? who knows...
Brian, incidently, was the first to broadcast the news in HD...

In another FSTV show, some guy says he's going to write G. W. Douche a letter...
It starts out..."Dear Shithead..."