
Warner Music Pays $14M to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit - walterbell
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-863120
======
flyinghamster
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
So did the settlement not open Happy Birthday for everyone?

~~~
Someone1234
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
> Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030

Unless the law changes between now and then.

~~~
Someone1234
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...

------
Stratoscope
> Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly
> blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday"
> settlement.

Good for them. Well deserved!

Warner Music has clearly been wearing The Wrong Trousers.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOw7AwG-2Gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOw7AwG-2Gs)

Happy Birthday dear Gromit!

~~~
dogma1138
How much do you need to spend on a single law suit to be in an "operational
loss" when you're a 3 bln dollar yearly revenue company?

~~~
tomarr
Included in that loss may be all future revenues that could be attributed to
the 'Happy Birthday' song though, in the form of a write-off of the value of
the asset.

~~~
dogma1138
Well if the wrote it off they actually might end up making more money on it
because depending on the original asset value it can reduce their taxable
income to nothing.

------
richardwigley
>> Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030.

At which time Disney would have extended copyright another 30 years.

------
pdkl95
The best discussion of the "Happy Birthday" copyright brouhaha is by the
wonderful Vi Hart:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8)

Not only is her biting commentary on the insanity in copyright law succinct
and direct, her _musical_ analysis of the differences between the original
"Good Morning To All" and the modern "Happy Birthday" is _very surprising_.

Did you know the song modulates to 4/4 time for one measure? Even though the
song is always notated as never leaving 3/4?

~~~
andybak
I think she's got it slightly wrong. It's not that one of the 3/4 bars gets an
extra beat - it's the previous bar that loses a beat.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8&feature=youtu.be&t=9m22s)

Listen to the bit after she says '4' \- it sounds syncopated in her counting.
(Actually - 'syncopated' might not be the correct word - what I mean is that
the '1' ceases to sound like the start of the phrase)

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
It's a fermata on the second beat of that measure. Holding a note doesn't mean
you're changing the time signature.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermata)

~~~
aczerepinski
It's definitely a fermata.

Arguing otherwise is like saying the national anthem changes to 15/4 when
singers hold "land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeee."

~~~
spacemanmatt
It's definitely a fermata.

The fermata overrides the time signature temporarily. There is no need for a
time change.

------
radicalbyte
Income: $50m Cost: $14m settlement, $6m lawyers (guess) Result: $30m profit

Nice business model.

~~~
jackhack
You've forgotten bribes... uh, I mean, "campaign contributions", to
politicians* who enable this asinine system of practically perpetual
copyright.

*(google "senator disney")

------
nrclark
Excellent, now we'll finally be able to legally sing a song that everybody has
already been singing for almost 100 years. It's a good thing we got this in
under the wire before the next Mickey Mouse extension.

Copyright is stupid.

------
6stringmerc
Yay. Looking forward to the new versions of the song. At least it's where it
belongs now.

------
meeper16
Interesting to know that Apple is sometimes behind stuff like this
[https://medium.com/startup-study-group/steve-jobs-made-
warne...](https://medium.com/startup-study-group/steve-jobs-made-warner-music-
sue-my-startup-9a81c5a21d68#.jr89smslj)

