Copyright laws are too much on the side of private individuals. Call me a socialist, but at some point the "givings" side of the equation applies to intellectual property.
In intellectual property, the "givings"are that by using an idea or making a piece of music popular, the public create added value for that idea or song; the public generates the value of the object by its demand.
I read an article in the Smithsonian magazine about the "Happy Birthday" song copyright. It (the song) was written by a schoolteacher and her sister in Tennessee in the 1930s, but some company bought the rights to it. That's why the wait staff at your nearby chain restaurant don’t sing "Happy Birthday to you...", but some weird, made-up, UNCOPYRIGHTED birthday song.
When does it become part of cultural heritage? It is arguably the most recognized song in the world. To think that some faceless company owns the rights is ridiculous. It has long since passed from the realm of the private and is now a part of our folk culture. Frankly the same is true for "music stealing." I don't think artists should be deprived of their livelihood, and I will even agree that the companies that promote them should be allowed to make money, but the limit on how long the rights remain private needs to be changed. It's time to give "Happy Birthday" to the people, and probably a lot of other songs and ideas whose creators have long been wormfood.
In intellectual property, the "givings"are that by using an idea or making a piece of music popular, the public create added value for that idea or song; the public generates the value of the object by its demand.
I read an article in the Smithsonian magazine about the "Happy Birthday" song copyright. It (the song) was written by a schoolteacher and her sister in Tennessee in the 1930s, but some company bought the rights to it. That's why the wait staff at your nearby chain restaurant don’t sing "Happy Birthday to you...", but some weird, made-up, UNCOPYRIGHTED birthday song.
When does it become part of cultural heritage? It is arguably the most recognized song in the world. To think that some faceless company owns the rights is ridiculous. It has long since passed from the realm of the private and is now a part of our folk culture. Frankly the same is true for "music stealing." I don't think artists should be deprived of their livelihood, and I will even agree that the companies that promote them should be allowed to make money, but the limit on how long the rights remain private needs to be changed. It's time to give "Happy Birthday" to the people, and probably a lot of other songs and ideas whose creators have long been wormfood.
Comments
Post a Comment