This kind of stupid litigation happens all the time. My guess is it was just a
publicity ploy to remind everyone that there are laws about copyright, and that
music is one of the easier areas where those laws can be abused. They never
would have been able to police such a ruling anyway. Certainly sensible
situations where copyrighted material is used need to be handled correctly, and
songwriters need to be able to profit from their craft. But this seemed to be
one of those things that creates headlines.
Debra Knodel
----- Previous Message ----------------------------------------------------
To: harp @ MIT.EDU @ UGATE
cc:
From: EMARGERUM @ mecn.mass.edu @ UGATE
Date: Friday August 30, 1996 01:42 AM
Subject: Re: Copyright
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date sent: 30-AUG-1996
>PS-- does this mean I can get sued for busking? How about singing in
>the shower?
If you use copyrighted songs for money, you can conceivably be sued.
If you sing for money in the shower, you can be sued.
>Am I the only person here who's really scared and disgusted by actions
>like this? What happened to the folk tradition?
It's just good old property law which has been around for a long time.
The earliest case involving copyright of which I am aware was St.
Columba (aka Columkille/Columcille) who in the 6th century copied without
permission from a book of Scriptures owned by another Saint. The
other Saint objected to the unauthorized use of his property and
Columba was ordered to turn over his copy. Columba didn't like the
decision either and vowed never to set eyes on Ireland again. Which
he did by sailing to Iona, the nearest place in Scotland from which he
couldn't see Irland. (Columba did return once to a council in Ireland,
but did so blindfolded.) The decision of the Irish court at the time
was "To every cow, her calf." We are a little looser than that now
and if the work is old enough to be traditional the copyright has
probably expired. Note however, that the copyright on "Happy
Birthday!" only ran out in the last decade, which is why it has seldom
been used on television.
If I recall from the distant days of my youth, there was a year during
the war when there was a conflict between the songwriters and the
radio stations about payments for using copyright material. This might
have been 1942 or 43. For about a year, all the music on the radio
was traditional out-of-copyright stuff. Stephen Foster was the
darling of the airwaves. (Not particularly apropos, but interesting,
there was a slightly earlier time when no recordings were permitted on
radio. The musician's union had a lock on broadcasting and only live
performances were permitted.)
In any case, music and lyrics are creative material which belong to
the creator. If the creator wants, they can give it to the public.
If they don't want to do so, it remains their intellectual property
and it is their right to ask for a fee for its use. I think that is
only fair to someone who has produced a song of quality. If you are
going to sing songs for profit which are copyrighted, pay the fee or
ask the copyright holder for permission to use the song without
payment of such fees.
Ed Margerum
emargerum@mecn.mass.edu