> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:01:53 +0200, Pat Cook (Jeeper One TV)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Leave it fuckin' AOL to take something like "Happy Birthday" and
> > copyright it for fuckin' profit (Sorry, I don't buy the so-called
> > "private charity" bullshit). :-( :-( :-(
>
> Would you relax. AOL didn't copyright it. Copyright is automatic.
>
> You seem to prefer the opposite system. A system where copyright would be
> lost when a work becomes really popular (e.g. when Happy Birthday becomes
> a cultural icon). That would hurt creativity even more. What's the
> incentive for creating works if you can't make money the one time in your
> life you create something really good?
Good Morning to All was written in 1893. In 1935 the Hill sisters sued for copyright (42
years after the fact and it is not even clear that they wrote the new words to the song
(Happy Birthday to You). The last Hill sister died in 1946. Whose creativity is being stunted
when we use this song? Time Warner's? Their creative act seems to be buying something
already made and cahing in on it (and lobbying to extend the copyright laws so they can
cash in more). Happy Birthday to You will be covered by copyrigh5t laws until 2030 (unless
Time Warner/MS/other big uncreative companies can get the copyright laws extended
again. That's bullshit, and it is not doing anything to help creativity.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Individual | Fireant |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
