Happy Birthday to Who?

[Charles Kozierok]

Many of you probably know the history behind the song "Happy Birthday to You", which dates back to the 1800s but people still have to pay royalties to Warner in order to use. Someone is challenging this in court, a suit that I am surprised has not happened earlier.

I'm no lawyer, but based on understanding of the history of this song, I find the idea of it being copyrighted dubious at best. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

 

[Mixolydian]

The music biz is nasty, nasty stuff. Pretty much why I stopped doing music professionally. Too much politics and bullshit.

 

[dawp]

your link is messed up.

 

[DrPizza]

Our country is messed up as far as patents, copyrights, etc. go. With many patents expiring in 10 years, it seems ludicrous that we protect things like songs or movies for over a century. I was talking to someone earlier about royalty free music - he pointed out (not sure if it's true or not) that in other countries (he mentioned England), stuff from the 50's is now royalty free.

 

[Moonbeam]

I watched a DVD from the library last night and got to thinking about the FBI warning and the commercials I had to see before I could watch what I had rented, same like on ones I own and marveled at the fact that if I found a way to bypass the shit and get straight to what I wanted to see I could be fined 250,000 and spend 5 years in jail. I thought to myself that the punishment was very disproportional to the crime. I got to thinking too, what should be the punishment for those who carry out such justice.

I believe this the fact this thread exists is just more proof that the sense of right and wrong comes from the fact that feeling for what is justice is innate, that rights, in other words, are inalienable.

We have here power and lust for money buying laws that operate based on cunning and self interest rather than love. It should be the job of every citizen, I think, to inform ones fellow citizens they have the right to ignore evidence and law at trial and not convict via jury nullification.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

your link is messed up.

Sorry, should be fixed now.

 

[Murloc]

yeah it's really retarded, 100 years is too much.
I think death of the author + 20 should be enough, so the author can enjoy his own money and after that it lasts as long as a patent.

The US have too many lobbies meddling with copyright and patent laws and enforcement.

 

[woolfe9998]

I watched a DVD from the library last night and got to thinking about the FBI warning and the commercials I had to see before I could watch what I had rented, same like on ones I own and marveled at the fact that if I found a way to bypass the shit and get straight to what I wanted to see I could be fined 250,000 and spend 5 years in jail. I thought to myself that the punishment was very disproportional to the crime. I got to thinking too, what should be the punishment for those who carry out such justice.

I believe this the fact this thread exists is just more proof that the sense of right and wrong comes from the fact that feeling for what is justice is innate, that rights, in other words, are inalienable.

We have here power and lust for money buying laws that operate based on cunning and self interest rather than love. It should be the job of every citizen, I think, to inform ones fellow citizens they have the right to ignore evidence and law at trial and not convict via jury nullification.

Yes, and then the next jury ignores the law and evidence and convicts someone because they're black and their victim was white. Allowing emotion to trump law and evidence cuts both ways.

We're better off reforming the system to improve our laws.

 

[woolfe9998]

Our country is messed up as far as patents, copyrights, etc. go. With many patents expiring in 10 years, it seems ludicrous that we protect things like songs or movies for over a century. I was talking to someone earlier about royalty free music - he pointed out (not sure if it's true or not) that in other countries (he mentioned England), stuff from the 50's is now royalty free.

Here, it depends on a number of different variables, such as what type of work it is, whether it was ever published, whether it was registered, and the date of original creation.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

 

[Brainonska511]

yeah it's really retarded, 100 years is too much.
I think death of the author + 20 should be enough, so the author can enjoy his own money and after that it lasts as long as a patent.

The US have too many lobbies meddling with copyright and patent laws and enforcement.

I think that's too long. It should be more like 30-40 years total, non-renewable. Individuals and companies will still be able to utilize trademarks to protect their intellectual property. It's not like if Steamboat Willie enters the public domain that people are suddenly going to be legally allowed to make Mickey Mouse cartoons. It's simply would mean (I hope, please correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone would be allowed to distribute the cartoon.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, and then the next jury ignores the law and evidence and convicts someone because they're black and their victim was white. Allowing emotion to trump law and evidence cuts both ways.

We're better off reforming the system to improve our laws.

We can and have always been able to reform our laws. Law are made by men, sometimes frail and venal men and sometimes they are applied by just these same men out of cunning and greed. There is no safety from the abuse of power except that the truth is unalienable and can be perceived only by the individual. Very wise and sophisticated men realized this long ago, in my opinion, and provided for jury nullification with just this fact in mind, that the highest conscious a person can have is to the truth of a single person's human nature. You fear jury nullification because you do not know this internal truth via self revelation and are suspicious of man's true nature. You will never reform the system without folk who are consciously aware of their true human nature, so I would recommend that you focus your attention on how to foster an enlightened citizenry first, before you go too far down the road of reformation.

I believe that you are intellectually too attached to a theoretical understanding of law when even monkeys understand justice by feel. I refer to experiment where they refuse to play games in which they are screwed by unfair and unequal rewards.

The day we take the unalienable fact that justice can't be codified or bottled, that it requires personal conscience and an innate will to justice, we become ants, just robotic cogs in a machine.

I will not render unto Caesar what is Caesar's because from where I stand Caesar doesn't own anything.

Jury nullification is an affirmation of the supremacy of the conscience of a single autonomous and free human being, a real life deus ex machine event that transforms things.