Sonny Bono Copyright Extension

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: fox4zero
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 05:10 PM

I'm sorry to offer a dissenting opinion, but I am in favor of the 20 year extension to the copyright. This extension merely brings older copyrights up to date with the "life of the last surviving author + 50 years" current US copyright law and the Euro laws.

I don't see where a composer's creative property differs from real property (land,stocks,gold). The most vocal opponents of copyrights are restaurant and tavern owners who are forced to pay their employees, rent, liquor supplier, and taxes....who can thay try not to pay? Composers and authors, of course.

PARISH

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 05:10 PM

I'm kind of lost on this subject. What timeframe does the Bono law set for copyright expiration, and what would it be without the law?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: GUEST,Okiemockbird
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 04:56 PM

According to this table which was published in Forbes Magazine last year in a short article by Brigit McMenamin, "Happy Birthday" is now owned by Time Warner. Note that McMemamin's table has the wrong copyright date, however. The date I gave earlier, 1935, is the correct date according to The Book of World-Famous Music by James J. Fuld, New York, 1971.

T.

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: GUEST,Okiemockbird
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 04:47 PM

The words to "Happy Birthday to You" are Copyright 1935 by Mildred J. Hill(1859-1916) and Patty S. Hill(1868-1946). Under the extended 95-year copyright term these words will not enter the public domain until January 1, 2031. But watch for the copyright barons to ask for another 20-year extension beginning around 2015.

The original form of the melody is called "Good Morning to All", and was published in Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Chicago, 1893. This melody is in the public domain, as long as it is used exactly as it appeared in 1893 i.e. with a rhythm that supports an underlying text of "Good morning to all", five syllables. If you use the melody with a divided first note (supporting an underlying text of "happy"), you might get taken to court. Here I am guessing that the melody is the same except for the rhythm of the first note. But I haven't seen the 1893 book, so I can't be sure of this.

T.

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: GUEST,MAG
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 04:32 PM

Who actually did write "Happy Birthday to You," how long ago, and who "owns" it now?

The Seeger quote says it all.

MA

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: GUEST,Okiemockbird
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 04:24 PM

I don't know what happened to my post.

As I was saying, even Pete Seeger was quoted as saying, "The grandchildren should be able to find some other way to make a living, even if their grandfather did write 'How Much Is That Doggie in the Window'". But the voices against the extension were neither as well organized or as well funded as the voices in favor. T.

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 04:23 PM

MTed, this is very interesting. I didn't know what thread you were talkng about until Spaw named it in the other thread, which I've been reading only, until now. I didn't get it form the name of thread, sorry, I just thoguht it was about Bono's copyrights, only.

I don't know if there are any easy answers. I came to the Mudcat having spent 20 years promoting classical music which was fiercely protected by copyrights and me. I knew about public domain, but never totally understood the giving of folk music until I met a few Venerable Ones here and was reminded that music can be shared without being jealously guarded.

However, I also see the point of a composer whose stuff may hit big with a soundtrack, big name release etc. They deserve to make money from it and to have their rights to it protected for at least their lifetime. I also feel that way as a writer.

Tangled webs, conundrums, and we need a balance scale of metaphysical proportions to figure it all out.

Thanks, MTed for starting this thread.

katlaughing

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: GUEST,Okiemockbird
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 04:20 PM

MTed, you aren't alone in your distress at the way that copyright has strayed from its proper function. Many voices were raised during the time the bill was in Congress. Even Pete Seeger was quoted as saying, "The grandchildren should be able to find some other way to make a living, even if their grandfather did write 'How Much Is That Doggie in the Window'". But the voices against the extension weren't as well organized, or as well funded, as the voices in favor. Michael Eisner of Disney could get on a plane, fly to Washington, and sit down face-to-face with Senator Lott of Mississippi, who is not even his own Senator. I wrote to my Senator on the same issue, and I got back a perfunctory letter which showed that the Senator (or his staff member) barely skimmed my letter. It annoys me that Michael Eisner can get the ear of any Senator he likes, while I can't get the attention even of my own Senator.

T.

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 03:53 PM

T,

Thanks for posting this--I experience severe physical distress as I watch what is happening...

The thing that concerns me most is that most of the people who are most effected by this have little interest in taking any sort of action, beyond the usual ranting--

There is a parallel chat going on about how there is very little discussion of music related issues, but no one is reading this, or posting any thoughts on it (present company excepted)

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: GUEST,T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird)
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 02:55 PM

The District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the plaintiffs (in favor of the CTEA's plundering of the public domain). Professor Lessig is working on an appeal. Judge June Green's opinion was, to my reading, perfunctory and simplistic. Even a ruling upholding the CTEA should show a little more respect for the issues being raised.

The web page devoted to the case is at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/

The copyright law, according to the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, is supposed to benefit the public first and authors second. The copyright law we have, especially after this latest extension, benefits media conglomerates first, some authors (grudginly) second, and the public very little.

T.

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 12:27 PM

Another point, the BMI people claim they support this bill because it helps to bring the copyright laws in line with the copyright laws of "most of the rest of the world"--in fact(as I understand it) there is a clause in this law that is actually in violation of a treaty that the US has entered to with the European Union, and the US is petitioned to appear before the WTO--

As to who speaks for the public domain, as an amicus curiae--I don't think anyone does--

Subject: RE: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 12:09 PM

Very interesting to say the least Ted.......and who does speak for the public domain? Wonder what kind of time frame this case will move in, considering the jammed up courts?

Spaw

Subject: Sonny Bono Copyright Extension
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 22 Jan 00 - 11:21 AM

I enclose the following, courtesy of the BMI website:

Legislative Newsflash

Contesting Copyright Term Extension in Court October 20, 1999 The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension law is being contested in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC in a suit filed by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society of the Harvard University Law School. The suit, Eldred v. Janet Reno, was filed on behalf of the Eldritch Press, which operates a website that posts the full texts and excerpts of literature on the Internet. The majority of the literature posted on this website is in the public domain. The lawsuit contends that the Constitution intended copyrights to be secured for a "limited" time, and that the extension of copyright violates the Framer's intent. Specifically, the Eldritch Press is concerned that the extension of copyrights will postpone their ability to post certain works on their site, as these works will now fall into the public domain further into the future.  Posting works that have not yet fallen into the public domain without permission of the copyright owners could mean that the Eldritch Press would face criminal or infringement charges.  BMI, along with a number of other associations that represent copyright holders, has filed two amicus briefs supporting the government's position in this case BMI supports the rights of copyright holders and believes the extension of the term of copyright was a good and necessary change to the U.S. Copyright Law, as it brought the United States Copyright Law in line with the copyrights laws of most of the rest of the world. 

I am assuming that we, as lovers of, performers, of, and writers of, music, have a real interest in this--my view is that I favor the overturn of thislaw, because I believe that its effect is to remove things from the "public domain" which is a public trust, and hands them over to private interests so that they may profit from them. 

I also believe that it is about time that the "Public Domain" had some sort of organized and active protector--any thoughts (for all of you who are worried about non-music chat here, this is a real music issue, and a biggie)