Inaccurate title: Happy birthday song was not copyrighted (Score: 1) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-09-25 15:49 (#NJ5V) The judge found that Warner/Chappell do not hold copyright to the song. It's not that it was released, it's that it was never really held. Re: Inaccurate title: Happy birthday song was not copyrighted (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-09-25 15:57 (#NJ6D) Either way, it was about time. Holding up copyright expiration (1976 and 1998) on recent works is bad enough. Somehow claiming they have an exclusive hold on a tune from 1893 is appalling. Re: Inaccurate title: Happy birthday song was not copyrighted (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-10-04 13:05 (#PDVB) Somehow claiming they have an exclusive hold on a tune from 1893 is appalling.Makes me want to sing Happy Birthday outside Warner/Chappell's offices on the date of the original copyright. That wouldn't hit a nerve, would it? :D
Re: Inaccurate title: Happy birthday song was not copyrighted (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-09-25 15:57 (#NJ6D) Either way, it was about time. Holding up copyright expiration (1976 and 1998) on recent works is bad enough. Somehow claiming they have an exclusive hold on a tune from 1893 is appalling. Re: Inaccurate title: Happy birthday song was not copyrighted (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-10-04 13:05 (#PDVB) Somehow claiming they have an exclusive hold on a tune from 1893 is appalling.Makes me want to sing Happy Birthday outside Warner/Chappell's offices on the date of the original copyright. That wouldn't hit a nerve, would it? :D
Re: Inaccurate title: Happy birthday song was not copyrighted (Score: 1) by pete@pipedot.org on 2015-10-04 13:05 (#PDVB) Somehow claiming they have an exclusive hold on a tune from 1893 is appalling.Makes me want to sing Happy Birthday outside Warner/Chappell's offices on the date of the original copyright. That wouldn't hit a nerve, would it? :D