It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show.

With the holiday weekend in the U.S., it was a slow week for copyright news but that doesn’t mean Patrick and I got to rest any. We had several major developments in the U.S. Copyright Group legal battle with Time Warner Cable, the conclusion of the Men at Work case and a politician that doesn’t understand copyright isn’t a magic eraser.

This week’s stories include:

• Time Warner/U.S. Copyright Group Have to Work Together
• U.S. Copyright Group to Only Get 28 IPs Per Month
• Men at Work Get to Keep Most of Their Money
• Politician Complains About Her Old Viewpoints Being Repeated
• Hulu Launches a Plus Program
• Woot and the AP Have a Spat

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

Also, just a small programming note, we will NOT be having an episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show next week as we will both be taking a week off. You’ll instead get to listen to our failed attempts to get caught back up two week from today!

About the Hosts

Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey (@plagiarismtoday) is the Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today (Hint: You’re there now) and works as a copyright and plagiarism consultant. Though not an attorney, he has resolved over 700 cases of plagiarism involving his own work and has helped countless others protect their work and develop strategies for making their content work as hard as possible toward their goals.

Patrick O’Keefe

Patrick O’Keefe (@iFroggy) is the owner of the iFroggy Network, a network of websites covering various interests. He’s the author of the book “Managing Online Forums,” a practical guide to managing online communities and social spaces. He maintains a blog about online community management at ManagingCommunities.com and a personal blog at patrickokeefe.com.

1: Time Warner Facing Copyright Infringement Charges?

First off today, Time Warner Cable is facing accusations that it is committing contributory copyright infringement by the U.S. Copyright Group. The USCG is filing a series of massive lawsuits against alleged file sharers and has sent a subpoena request for some 809 IP addresses, which Time Warner says is burdensome and should require separate filings for each suit. The USCG has said that Time Warner’s lack of cooperation is an attempt for the company to bill itself as a safe haven for piracy and, as a result, it is committing contributory copyright infringement.

2: Columbia GS Grad Speaker Stole Patton Oswalt’s Joke

Comedian Patton Oswalt is well-known for not taking plagiarism of his work lying down and when Columbia University valedictorian Brian Corman gave a graduation speech that lifted one of his jokes almost word-for-word, he didn’t back down. He not only received an apology from the student but also caused the school to add a disclosure to the YouTube clip of the speech, indicating that the content was misused and the school does not approve of the use. This is almost certainly not how Corman wanted his graduation speech to be remembered.

3: Yahoo, Facebook Others Back YouTube In Copyright Lawsuit

Finally today, Google has gained some new allies in its fight against Viacom over alleged infringement at YouTube. Many of the company’s rivals, including Facebook and Yahoo have signed on to an amicus brief supporting the company in its fight. According to Viacom, especially in the early “pre-Google” days of YouTube, the site turned a blind eye to infringing material uploaded to the service and established a business on the misappropriated content. Google, the new owners of YouTube, claim that the site is protected by the DMCA safe harbor protections and is not liable.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 6 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Music publishers: iTunes not paying fair share

First off today, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) announced their plans to collect more royalties for authors and composers, but at least one of the sources is causing a great deal of controversy.

The groups wish to force iTunes, as well as other online music retailers, to pay for the 30-second samples that are provided free with most songs to help encourage sales. This would work by charing Apple a “performance” fee for every time the sample is played.

Such a plan would almost certainly lead to rate hikes within the iTunes store, which is still somewhat reeling from its recent price increases.

The groups also plan to go after downloads of movies and TV shows, which currently pay no performance or mechanical royalties, and purchases from iTunes itself, which don’t pay performance royalties either.

Needless to say, this will be a tough sell to the public, which is already wary of the music industry.

2: Cable: Let us lock down your TV (we’ll offer movies sooner)

Next up today, Time Warner Cable and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association both met with the FCC to throw their support behind the MPAA’s plan for selective output control (SOC), which would allow the movie studios to disable certain outputs on consumer equipment, thus, according to them, reducing the risk of piracy.

The movie studios hope this will enable them to distribute movies before they are released on DVD and the cable companies, obviously, would like to distribute those movies for them, likely for a fee.

Concerns have been raised by many advocacy groups that SOC could cripple existing TV hardware and cause headaches for consumers. The FCC has, in the past, rejected bids to implement SOC though clearly both the MPAA and cable companies are hoping for a change of heart.

3: SKorea prosecutors reject porn piracy charges

Finally today, an update to the South Korean porn filings. Earlier U.S. and Japanese porn studios filed some 65,000 complaints with South Korean prosecutors alleging that their copyright was being violated and that the content was being distributed to inappropriate audiences. This, in turn, followed a similar filing of 10,000 complaints, only 10 of which were acted upon.

Prosecutors did say that they would target several of the uploaders for the distribution of pornography, but not the copyright infringement issues. Prosecutors have said that this is to avoid putting juveniles in jail and, for that reason, the law firm representing the studios has said they will not appeal the decision.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: And Warner Makes Three

First off today, emboldened by its recent victory, which allowed its antitrust case to progress against Universal, Redbox has filed a nearly identical lawsuit against Time Warner, making them the third, along with Universal and Fox, to be sued by the company.

Redbox makes DVD rental kiosks that are common at grocery stores and malls, but movie studios, frustrated at what they see is an attack on their DVD sales business, have been pushing wholesalers to withhold new releases from Redbox for 28 days. This has lead Redbox to file a lawsuit against all three now claiming both copyright misuse and antitrust violations. The judge in the case with Universal dismissed the copyright misuse claims, mostly due to the fact copyright misuse is a defense against copyright infringement, not a cause for a lawsuit, but allowed the antitrust claims to move forward.

However, oddly enough, Redbox has added the copyright misuse claims back into its suit against Time Warner, making the lawsuit an almost perfect copy of the one it filed against Universal and Fox. I guess we’ll see if they get a different result.

2: Pirate Party swashbuckles into Finnish politics

Next up, The Pirate Party has yet another new chapter, this one in Finland where it has registered as an official political party. Having collected the necessary 5,000 signatures, the party is officially recognized in the country, following on the heels of similar groups in the UK, Czech Republic and Australia.

The Pirate Party has been the most successful in Sweden, where the party earned over 7% of the popular vote in the recent EU elections and earned a seat in the EU Parliament as a result. According to a representative the Finnish Pirate Party will support “a reform of copyright laws, protecting privacy and freedom of speech as well as transparency in politics.”

3: Apple sued for infringing “1000 TVs” copyright

Finally today, gear up for a dose of copyright FAIL. Photographer Louis Psihoyos is suing Apple claiming that his “iconic” photograph, entitled “1000 TVs” was used without permission in the i.TV app, which is a TV guide app for the iPhone and iPod Touch. He is seeking actual and other damages that he feels is in excess of $2 million.

There’s only one small problem with the lawsuit, Apple doesn’t actually make the I.TV app, I.TV does. You can find this out youself by visiting the I.TV site or just looking in the app store. Since the app isn’t for sale it seems likely Apple will be protected by the DMCA and this lawsuit will go nowhere. That is, until the correct defendant is added.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

photo credit: stevendamron

Today, August 13, is my birthday. Like so many birthdays before I expect fully that my family will call me up and sing a very familiar song, Happy Birthday to You.

Though few are familiar with my aunt’s rendition of the song, which is done in a very convincing Donald Duck voice, the song itself is possibly the best known tune in the English language, or even the world.

However, if tonight my wife and I go to a restaurant and the staff decides to sing a song (meaning my wife has played a very mean joke) it won’t be Happy Birthday to You (HBTY) they sing. The reason is simple, they would have to pay money to use it and it is cheaper to come up with a new song and avoid the issue altogether. This is because, at least according to popular convention, the song is copyrighted and any use of it for a commercial work requires a licensing fee.

But despite the fact restaurants and movies both avoid the song as much as possible, many movies use “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow” instead, the song is big business. Generating an estimated $2 million revenue per year, approximately 1% of all song royalties awarded.

Yet, it might all be an illusion, a licensing scheme for a song without any copyright to protect.

Background

According to Snopes, HBTY began life as “Good Morning to All” and was written by the Hill sisters, Mildred J and Patty Smith. It began life as a song for teachers to sing to a kindergarten class morning and, though the melody is the same (save a split note at the beginning of each line to accomidate two-syllable word “Happy” instead of Good”), the lyrics were notable different.

Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.

What happened next is murky and largely unknown. Over the next forty years, the song became very popular but the lyrics changed, first to “Good Morning to You” and then to the better known HBTY version. Who changed them and when remains a mystery.

What is known is that in 1934 the Hill sisters upset with the unpaid and unattributed use of their song in a musical “When Thousands Cheer”, filed suit. Though the case never went the distance and was settled before a judgment was rendered, the Hill sisters felt confident enough in their ownership of the copyright of HBTY that the work was published and copyrighted a work for hire by Preston Ware Orem, who was credited for writing the lyrics, for the Summy Company, the publisher of “Good Morning to All”.

Currently, after a series of deals and buyouts, the copyright is held by Time Warner and its licensing is handled by ASCAP.

The original copyright was supposed to have expired in 1991 but the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the work’s copyright to 75 years after publication and the Copyright Extension act of 1998 added another 20 years. As such, the copyright will not expire until until 2030.

Until then, though family members, including my aunt, are safe when they sing the song, those that with to use it for commercial purposes are pushed to pay high royalties.

Happy Birthday To No One

If it seems odd to you that a song that is 115 years old, at least, is still copyright protected, you are not the only one.

According to a recent research paper, the copyright in the song might be just an illusion. There are several potential challenges to the copyrightability in the song including:

1. Unoriginal: The song bears strong resemblance to several works that came before it, including “Happy Greetings to All” and “Good Night to You All”.
2. Dubious Control: Since the 1934 case never made it to a judgment, it is unclear why the sisters and their publishers had the right to register the copyright in HBTY. To date, no court ruling has declared the Hill sisters, or those that came after them, the rightsholders in the song.
3. Renewal Issues: Prior the Copyright Act of 1976, a renewal was required after 28 years to maintain copyright. It is unclear if the renewal was properly filed, filed by the correct party in a prompt manner. As such, the work may have long since slipped into the public domain.

The list of potential issues go on, but, despite the possible legal challenges, the song continues to rake in millions per year. The reason is that it is cheaper to license the song, even at the high rates, allegedly as high as $10,000 per use in a movie, than it is to litigate and possibly lose.

In short, answering the question of HBTY’s copyright status would cost more than the licensing fee, making it cheaper and much faster to pay up and move on.

Bottom Line

Is HBTY really copyrighted? No one knows for certain. Though it seems doubtful and as if there might be some very strong legal challenges to the copyright, until someone takes the matter to court and gets a judge to rule on it, there is no solid answer.

What is clear is that Time Warner has a money printing machine in the song. Two million per year is a tidy sum of money for a song with roots that go back well over a century. However, because of this, how we interact with and use the song is severely limited. That, in turn causes people to evaluate how much the copyright system we have benefits the pubic and if it is being used fairly.

The good news is that we don’t have to worry about paying royalties when we sing the song at our family table. This means that my aunt is safe from getting a letter from ASCAP.

Disney, on the other hand…

As usual, I sat down with Chris Matthieu from Numly to discuss the past week in copyright news, views and abuse. This week was a whirlwind week, with eighteen stories covering a wide spectrum of topics from all over the online copyright landscape.

This week’s stories include.

• Chuch of Scientology Plan Backfires
• The RIAA Speaks Up and Angers College Students
• Time Warner Raises Rates for File Sharers
• Demonoid is Welcome in Sweden
• Ford Goes After its Biggest Fans
• And Many more…

You can download the MP3 file here (direct download). Those interested in subscribing to the show can do so via this feed.

Show Notes

[audio:http://media.libsyn.com/media/plagiarismtoday/copyrigh20eps42.mp3]

And that’s just the beginning.

Remember, as usual, this week’s linkroll is a “raw” link list. Some stories are duplicated, some do not point to their original sources and some may not be accurate. A great deal of refining goes into producing the show notes for the Copyright 2.0 Show.