Captain Copyright is ready to turn you into a criminal!

[w1z4rd]

More drakonian copyright laws to turn YOU into a criminal...

"A family who holds a birthday picnic in a place of public entertainment (for example, the grounds of a zoo) and sings 'Happy Birthday' in a manner that can be heard by others, risks an infringement notice carrying a fine of up to $1,320. If they make a video recording of the event, they risk a further fine for the possession of a device for the purpose of making an infringing copy of a song... The US Free Trade Agreement does not require Australia to go down this path, and neither US nor European law contain such far-reaching measures. We are at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law — with little if any public debate."

http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=32

How long are people going to let this insanity continue for? How long before you pay for every word out your mouth? How long before a corporation owns you?

 

[xtermin8or]

who owns the copyright to 'Happy Birthday' ?

 

[jontyB]

Surely cloning of animals (and people) is infringing copyright?

 

[bwana]

who owns the copyright to 'Happy Birthday' ?

I'm pretty sure it's Disney.

EDIT - my mistake - its Time Warner.

 

[moklet]

So are they gona fine all the schools as well where the little kidies sing birthday songs and whatever other song is copyrighted

 

[Leitmotif]

So now by extension they're not allowed to sing along to songs on their iPods, if they're in public?

I do this often, particularly if waiting for something at a government office.

 

[dlk001]

This is insane.

 

[w1z4rd]

Welcome to the insanity of copyright (TM)

 

[antowan]

who owns the copyright to 'Happy Birthday' ?

The version as we know it was copyrighted in 1935 by the Summy Company as an arrangement by Preston Ware Orem, and is scheduled to expire in 2030. The company holding the copyright was purchased by Warner Chappell in 1990 for $15 million dollars, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million. - ala Wikipedia

 

[bwana]

The version as we know it was copyrighted in 1935 by the Summy Company as an arrangement by Preston Ware Orem, and is scheduled to expire in 2030. The company holding the copyright was purchased by Warner Chappell in 1990 for $15 million dollars, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million. - ala Wikipedia

Like I said - Time Warner

 

[Peter_J]

The version as we know it was copyrighted in 1935 by the Summy Company as an arrangement by Preston Ware Orem, and is scheduled to expire in 2030. The company holding the copyright was purchased by Warner Chappell in 1990 for $15 million dollars, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million. - ala Wikipedia

Also from Wikipedia, and applicable in SA:

In those jurisdictions which remain life of the author plus 50 years for determining copyright both lyrics and music are already out of copyright.

 

[xtermin8or]

how would this be enforcable - If a law is not enforced it is not worth being a law

 

[w1z4rd]

how would this be enforcable - If a law is not enforced it is not worth being a law

You mean like the war on drugs and prostitution?

 

[xtermin8or]

no those laws are enforced, are the aussies going to have policemen listening out for people singing along to their ipods, radios etc, or people having birthday parties

 

[w1z4rd]

no those laws are enforced, are the aussies going to have policemen listening out for people singing along to their ipods, radios etc, or people having birthday parties

Those laws are enforceable and make as much sense as catching someone singing "happy birthday" in a public area is. This is not a promotional post to condone drugs or prostitution, but to point out how we make laws to govern ourselves to please a few. For instance, sending someone to jail for smoking cannabis, makes as much sense as sending someone to jail for not been able to pay for a fine for singing happy birthday, or arresting a prostitute for selling herself, when its okay for anyone else to pimp themselves in their trade.

 

[xtermin8or]

It's been a long day, maybe I am a bit confused, are you saying that the laws on copyright make sense, or that the laws on prostitution and drugs make no sense

 

[w1z4rd]

It's been a long day, maybe I am a bit confused, are you saying that the laws on copyright make sense, or that the laws on prostitution and drugs make no sense

What I am saying as that the laws on copyright make as much sense as arresting a person for say...smoking cannabis. Neither person has committed a "crime against humanity", but both will be classed as criminals due to silly laws written in ignorance.

In case you are wondering. Cannabis was banned initially due to white racism, because one guy who hated Mexicans thought cannabis gave Mexicans super human power and sent them on a killing rampage. It was banned at the same time alcohol was during the Prohibition.

However enough white people complained about not having access to their booze, and the law was rescinded. No one listened to the Mexicans.

Ronald Regan spent millions trying to justify the ban on cannabis, and his response when he got the results? "He threw them into the dirt bin"

 

[Fudzy]

Okay, so who here feels that Soloman Linda, or should I say his family have been rewarded some money for the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"? The laws of copyright cut both ways.

 

[xtermin8or]

Thanks Wiz - now i understand what you are saying, and just to set the record straight - the law at first glance seems insane

 

[w1z4rd]

Okay, so who here feels that Soloman Linda, or should I say his family have been rewarded some money for the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight"? The laws of copyright cut both ways.

I agree, artists should be compensated. To a degree. However, do you think Soloman Linda will appreciate it when in 15 years time, people get arrested for humming his tune as they walk to work? Do you think when his song starts destroying lives he will be as happy as he is now in the money he is making?