
Lawyers who won Happy Birthday copyright case sue over “We Shall Overcome” - walterbell
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/lawyers-who-won-happy-birthday-copyright-case-sue-over-we-shall-overcome/
======
afarrell
I am generally a fan of international trade. It is the force that has lifted
billions of people out of extreme poverty.

I also believe it makes sense to have international IP protection to the
degree that The IP metaphor actually promotes useful arts and sciences. But I
am really displeased with the fact that the TPP makes the 70-year copyright
term a (likely permanent) fixture of international law.

You can find the full text here: [https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-
trade-agreements/tran...](https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-
agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text)

The offending language is Article 18.63 within the Intellectual Property
section.

~~~
cookiemonsta
Why _don 't_ people want copyright? Say you wrote a book. Why should other
companies/other people be able to copy it just because a certain number of
years has passed?

~~~
derekp7
Copyright isn't a "natural" right. For physical possessions, you can defend
them or have others defend them. For copyright, you are using my tax money to
have the government prevent what I can do with what ideas are presented to me,
even if it doesn't directly harm you. So it feels kind of like bullying.

But copyright does make sense "for a limited time". I think the big issues is
that the current time limits don't make sense. Let's say that you interpret
that having a government-enforced monopoly on creative works is what lets you
make money off them, and that making money is what promotes the initial
creation of those works. In reality, most of the market value on the vast
majority of instances of several classes of works is much shorter than "life
of the author plus 70 years". For example, a new hit song may sale quite a bit
in the first year, a bit more over the next few years, then it dies out into
obscurity. Long copyrights keep such works dead (no one will continue to
publish it if it doesn't make money, and nobody else is allowed to publish
it). So this is a net loss to society.

Now what what really makes sense, and feels more fair, is that if you as an
author want to use my government's force to maintain an exclusive monopoly on
your work, then you should pay for that service. This could be a per year fee
(doesn't have to be a lot), so that if the work becomes abandoned then it
doesn't become lost to society.

~~~
Nutmog
Physical property rights aren't natural either. We depend on the government to
prevent theft. Without that, anybody strong enough could just break into our
house and take what they wanted.

What may be natural, is the human feeling of ownership. But that isn't always
aligned with the legal definition. For example poor people feeling that their
gentrifying neighborhood is being taken away from them, even when they didn't
"own" any land in it. Plagiarism too - we don't like to see others take credit
for our work or ideas (which aren't copyright).

For-pay copyright sounds like a good idea. I wonder though if it would prevent
many lucky great work getting off the ground. You'd have to predict in advance
that it might be successful before paying the fee. Poor creators of work would
lose their right to copyright because they didn't want to take that gamble on
everything they produced.

~~~
slavik81
> For-pay copyright sounds like a good idea. I wonder though if it would
> prevent many lucky great work getting off the ground.

Grant a decade for free. After ten years, you probably know if it's successful
or not. Then you could choose to register for more (or not) with a good
understanding of its value.

------
Overtonwindow
This is just another example of the disastrous copyright system in America.
The whole thing needs overhaul. I hope there's a flood of similar lawsuits to
constantly remind politicians of the idiocy of their resistance to reform.

------
wiseleo
Ah, so this is good news.

Headline should be adjusted to indicate that Happy Birthday became public
domain thanks to their work.

~~~
jrs235
From my understanding, Happy Birthday isn't necessarily public domain, but
rather the true owner's are unknown at this time until someone can come
forward and claim ownership, and defend ownership in court. But it sounds like
it will be very difficult for someone to successfully do and therefore, Happy
Birthday is possibly public domain.

~~~
Sumaso
Just to chime in:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-
is...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-is-public-
domain-former-owner-warnerchapell-to-pay-14m/)

"The most important part of the whole case was having the song in the public
domain."

~~~
rhino369
That is describing the lawyers goal, but technically the summary judgment
order by the judge didn't find that the song was in the public domain. The
order did find that the defendants had zero proof that they were assigned the
rights to the song.

Basically the judge found that Warner didn't own the song. But didn't go so
far as saying nobody owned it.

The order says: " Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy
Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.’s purported successors-in-interest,
do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics."

There are real questions to whether the song is actually in the public domain.
The date of authorship is unclear and some the actions undertaken by the
alleged authors might have sent the work into the public domain.

------
pessimizer
Cool - at this rate, 3498 years from now, I'll be able to sing songs that I've
sung from the time I could speak _in front of people_ without paying the
great-grandchildren of someone who stole the copyright of somebody who learned
the song from somebody he met busking, then eventually died in poverty 80
years ago, having been paid $25.

------
nxzero
Amazing that people paid over $14 million in royalties to sing Happy Birthday;
wow, utter madness!!

------
rvense
I hope there's a big gathering in front of the courthouse when this goes to
trial. With singing.

------
jessaustin
I hope that if he had it to do over, Pete Seeger would _not_ copyright a
centuries-old song of oppressed people. We should all think about the long-
term results of temporarily convenient actions.

------
jaekwon
There's a real Pirate Party moment happening in Iceland now. And judging by
the tone here, the time seems right for a change.

[https://twitter.com/Kopimism/status/721150098453897216](https://twitter.com/Kopimism/status/721150098453897216)

------
ChrisDutrow
I'm curious why their request to use the song was denied.

------
snurk
The title is unnecessarily inflammatory. In the US, lawyers do not sue anyone.
They're not allowed to. They represent clients.

Maybe the situation is that the putative copyright holders of We Shall
Overcome hired the same successful legal team from the Happy Birthday case — a
very rational thing to do.

------
ommunist
Bastards should be lynched. Authors of the song created it to be sung.

------
jane_is_here
Songwriter chasers are the new ambulance chasers.

------
dominotw
Sick of hearing these stupid 'songs' anyway. good riddance.

~~~
quadrangle
Happy Birthday is a trite stupid song. We Shall Overcome is a beautiful,
inspiring, and musically rich anthem. The only thing they have in common is
being old cultural heritage that assholes have illegally and immorally cashed-
in on.

