NYT: 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Invalidated by Judge

[Frank Forman]

Wonderful. I think copyrights should expire after twenty years.

'Happy Birthday' Copyright Invalidated by Judge
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/media/happy-birthday-copyright-invalidated-by-judge.html

By BEN SISARIO

A judge ruled on Tuesday that the long-claimed copyright on "Happy
Birthday to You," the most popular tune in the English language, is
not valid.

The decision, by Judge George H. King of United States District
Court in Los Angeles, is a blow to the music publisher
Warner/Chappell and its parent company, the Warner Music Group,
which have controlled the song since 1988 and reportedly still
collect some $2 million annually in licensing fees for it.

If the judge's ruling stands, "Happy Birthday to You" would become
part of the public domain. "Since no one else has ever claimed to
own the copyright, we believe that as a practical matter, this means
the song is public property," said Mark C. Rifkin, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs.

The case, filed in 2013 by Jennifer Nelson, an independent filmmaker
planning to make a documentary about the song, has been closely
watched as a challenge to long copyright terms and corporate control
of common culture.

Judge King's 43-page decision delved into the complex history of the
song--a paper trail of copyright registrations and yellowed
songbooks that goes back more than a century.

The song's melody can be traced to "Good Morning to All," a song
written by Mildred Hill and her sister Patty, a kindergarten teacher
in Kentucky, and first published in 1893 by the Clayton F. Summy
Company.

Birthday-themed lyrics began to appear early in the 20th century--
although their authorship was unclear, as Judge King noted--and in
1935, Summy registered a version of "Happy Birthday to You." That is
the copyright claimed by Warner/Chappell, which acquired the song in
1988 when it bought a company that then had the Summy catalog.

But the judge found that while Summy had published the original
version of "Good Morning to All," it never properly had rights to
the birthday lyrics.

"Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the 'Happy Birthday'
lyrics," the judge wrote, "defendants, as Summy Co.'s purported
successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the 'Happy
Birthday' lyrics."

A spokesman for Warner/Chappell said the company was "looking at the
court's lengthy opinion and considering our options."

Warner/Chappell has long enforced the copyright as it would for any
other song, requiring licensing payments for its use in television
or film. According to estimates cited in a 2010 study of the song by
Robert Brauneis, a professor at the George Washington University Law
School, "Happy Birthday to You" yields about $2 million in these
fees each year.

Ms. Nelson, the filmmaker who filed the case, was joined by other
independent artists, and in their suit they asked for Warner to
return licensing fees for the song dating to at least 2009. On
Tuesday, Mark C. Rifkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said they
planned to ask the court to certify class status for others who had
paid these fees.

Ms. Nelson said in a statement: "This is a great victory for
musicians, artists and people around the world who have waited
decades for this. I am thrilled to be a part of the historic effort
to set 'Happy Birthday' free and give it back to the public where it
belongs."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:48:37 AM UTC-4, Frank Forman wrote:

> Wonderful. I think copyrights should expire after twenty years.

I guess you've never been a writer or composer. Even the pre-Mickey Mouse
limit of 26 years renewable once wasn't sufficient to protect long-lived
artists. Should Stravinsky not have been paid in 1968 for performances of
*Firebird*?

[O]

In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1...@panix1.panix.com>, Frank

Forman <che...@panix.com> wrote:

> Wonderful. I think copyrights should expire after twenty years.
>
> 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Invalidated by Judge
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/media/happy-birthday-copyright-inva
> lidated-by-judge.html
>
> By BEN SISARIO
>
> A judge ruled on Tuesday that the long-claimed copyright on "Happy
> Birthday to You," the most popular tune in the English language, is
> not valid.

Potential users should note though, that the decision will probably be
appealed by Warner/Chappell. Here's another article with some
different detail:

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/judge-warners-2m-happy-birth
day-copyright-is-bogus/>

-Owen

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 24.09.2015 15:56, O wrote:
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1...@panix1.panix.com>, Frank
> Forman <che...@panix.com> wrote:

>> A judge ruled on Tuesday that the long-claimed copyright on "Happy
>> Birthday to You," the most popular tune in the English language, is
>> not valid.
>
> Potential users should note though, that the decision will probably be
> appealed by Warner/Chappell. Here's another article with some
> different detail:

I'll postpone my birthday again, then. It only makes me older anyway.

--
Lionel Tacchini

[Jonathan Ellis]

After 26 years, you've already made a pretty good living off the work if
it sold at all. Since "Firebird" most certainly did, he'd made his pile
off it and was already richer than most of us will ever be. I'd be
entirely okay with copyright expiring after twenty years.

-- JLE

[Adam Funk]

I think you've fallen for Big Media's propaganda that copyright
(misleading name) is some kind of natural right. It's not: it's a
privilege that the state *may* grant to artists in order to promote
the public good by increasing the amount of good material that will
enrich the public domain in the long term. (This is explicit in the
US Constitution.)

Copyright is clearly not *necessary* for human achievement, since the
world before copyright gave us a great deal of music, literature, and
art of high quality (such as Beowulf, the Sagas, Shakespeare, Bach, Da
Vinci, Gregorian chant).

Copyright legislation is supposed to be a trade-off between the
public's natural right to copy (which copyright law reduces) and
state-granted benefits to artists (who are thus encouraged to produce
more work than they might have done otherwise). (In the absence of
copyright, everything is in the public domain and available for free
re-use and maximal circulation.)

In other words, imposing restrictions on duplicating, performing and
modifying ("derivative works") creative works that already exist (1)
reduces the public good, but (2) can also increase the public good by
motivating artists to create more works that will end up in the public
domain in the long term. Copyright law must be judged according to
the extent to which the benefit (2) exceeds the loss (1).

Extending the duration of copyrights on works that have already been
created is fundamentally wrong: the state is throwing away a bit of
the public good and getting nothing for the public in return.

From the 17th century until recently, copyrights protected only
authors and in practical terms restricted only publishers (because
printing equipment was expensive and required specialist skills, the
legal restriction on the public's natural right to copy had little
effect). From the late 20th century onwards there have been
disturbing and corrupt changes in the laws to give publishers (rather
than artists) benefits to the detriment of the public (rather than
publishers).

The media lobbyists have corrupted not only politicians but public
discourse (by conflating copyright infringement with theft and using
ridiculous terms such as "piracy") to argue that they have a moral
right to impose their licensing terms on the public. (Remember that
copyright is supposed to be a privilege to authors over publishers,
not to publishers over the public.)


--
Most Americans are too civilized to hang skulls from baskets, having
been headhunters, of course, only as recently as Vietnam.
--- Kinky Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-09-24, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:48:37 AM UTC-4, Frank Forman wrote:

> >> Wonderful. I think copyrights should expire after twenty years.
> > I guess you've never been a writer or composer. Even the pre-Mickey Mouse
> > limit of 26 years renewable once wasn't sufficient to protect long-lived
> > artists. Should Stravinsky not have been paid in 1968 for performances of
> > *Firebird*?
>
> I think you've fallen for Big Media's propaganda that copyright
> (misleading name) is some kind of natural right. It's not: it's a
> privilege that the state *may* grant to artists in order to promote
> the public good by increasing the amount of good material that will
> enrich the public domain in the long term. (This is explicit in the
> US Constitution.)
>
> Copyright is clearly not *necessary* for human achievement, since the
> world before copyright gave us a great deal of music, literature, and
> art of high quality (such as Beowulf, the Sagas, Shakespeare, Bach, Da
> Vinci, Gregorian chant).

The world before copyright worked under the patronage system. US copyright
was brought about almost single-handedly by Noah Webster, who saw his work
pirated throughout the Colonies and journeyed to almost every one of the
capitals to lobby the legislatures, for the most part successfully, and in
1790 got Congress to enact its first laws on the topic.

There was no such thing as "big media."

> Copyright legislation is supposed to be a trade-off between the
> public's natural right to copy (which copyright law reduces) and
> state-granted benefits to artists (who are thus encouraged to produce
> more work than they might have done otherwise). (In the absence of
> copyright, everything is in the public domain and available for free
> re-use and maximal circulation.)

I don't know how "Queen Anne's Law" came about in 1706, nor how effective
it was, but the reasoning was similar back then. It was also a way to ease
government censorship.

There was no _international_ copyright until the 1880s, as any G&S fan knows.
I have a 5-volume edition of Macaulay's History of England printed in New
York in the 1840s -- he didn't see a penny from it. (BTW vol. 1 is fascinating
-- it takes him down to James I IIRC -- but after that it's hundreds and
hundreds of pages on the sources of the Revolution.)

> In other words, imposing restrictions on duplicating, performing and
> modifying ("derivative works") creative works that already exist (1)
> reduces the public good, but (2) can also increase the public good by
> motivating artists to create more works that will end up in the public
> domain in the long term. Copyright law must be judged according to
> the extent to which the benefit (2) exceeds the loss (1).
>
> Extending the duration of copyrights on works that have already been
> created is fundamentally wrong: the state is throwing away a bit of
> the public good and getting nothing for the public in return.
>
> From the 17th century until recently, copyrights protected only
> authors and in practical terms restricted only publishers (because
> printing equipment was expensive and required specialist skills, the
> legal restriction on the public's natural right to copy had little

"natural right to copy"???? With which they were Endowed By Their Creator???

> effect). From the late 20th century onwards there have been
> disturbing and corrupt changes in the laws to give publishers (rather
> than artists) benefits to the detriment of the public (rather than
> publishers).
>
> The media lobbyists have corrupted not only politicians but public
> discourse (by conflating copyright infringement with theft and using
> ridiculous terms such as "piracy") to argue that they have a moral
> right to impose their licensing terms on the public. (Remember that
> copyright is supposed to be a privilege to authors over publishers,
> not to publishers over the public.)

That could have been remedied by Congress, but it hasn't been yet. Precisely
because publishers have more lobbying money than artists.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

>> Copyright is clearly not *necessary* for human achievement, since the
>> world before copyright gave us a great deal of music, literature, and
>> art of high quality (such as Beowulf, the Sagas, Shakespeare, Bach, Da
>> Vinci, Gregorian chant).
>
> The world before copyright worked under the patronage system. US copyright
> was brought about almost single-handedly by Noah Webster, who saw his work
> pirated throughout the Colonies and journeyed to almost every one of the
> capitals to lobby the legislatures, for the most part successfully, and in
> 1790 got Congress to enact its first laws on the topic.

It was hardly "piracy" if it was legal! Did the mediaeval monks who
copied MSS commit "piracy"?

> There was no such thing as "big media."

Right.

>> From the 17th century until recently, copyrights protected only
>> authors and in practical terms restricted only publishers (because
>> printing equipment was expensive and required specialist skills, the
>> legal restriction on the public's natural right to copy had little
>
> "natural right to copy"???? With which they were Endowed By Their Creator???

Sure. You have the right to copy stuff *unless* there's a special law
prohibiting it.

>> effect). From the late 20th century onwards there have been
>> disturbing and corrupt changes in the laws to give publishers (rather
>> than artists) benefits to the detriment of the public (rather than
>> publishers).
>>
>> The media lobbyists have corrupted not only politicians but public
>> discourse (by conflating copyright infringement with theft and using
>> ridiculous terms such as "piracy") to argue that they have a moral
>> right to impose their licensing terms on the public. (Remember that
>> copyright is supposed to be a privilege to authors over publishers,
>> not to publishers over the public.)
>
> That could have been remedied by Congress, but it hasn't been yet. Precisely
> because publishers have more lobbying money than artists.

Exactly.


--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it. --- Richard Feynman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:30:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> >> Copyright is clearly not *necessary* for human achievement, since the
> >> world before copyright gave us a great deal of music, literature, and
> >> art of high quality (such as Beowulf, the Sagas, Shakespeare, Bach, Da
> >> Vinci, Gregorian chant).
> > The world before copyright worked under the patronage system. US copyright
> > was brought about almost single-handedly by Noah Webster, who saw his work
> > pirated throughout the Colonies and journeyed to almost every one of the
> > capitals to lobby the legislatures, for the most part successfully, and in
> > 1790 got Congress to enact its first laws on the topic.
>
> It was hardly "piracy" if it was legal! Did the mediaeval monks who
> copied MSS commit "piracy"?

How is profiting from someone else's work without paying for it not wrong?

> > There was no such thing as "big media."
>
> Right.
>
> >> From the 17th century until recently, copyrights protected only
> >> authors and in practical terms restricted only publishers (because
> >> printing equipment was expensive and required specialist skills, the
> >> legal restriction on the public's natural right to copy had little
> >
> > "natural right to copy"???? With which they were Endowed By Their Creator???
>
> Sure. You have the right to copy stuff *unless* there's a special law
> prohibiting it.

That's a strange notion of "right."

Kindly derive that "right" from First Principles. Or from whatever moral
code you adhere to.

Or are you simply a Randian?

> >> effect). From the late 20th century onwards there have been
> >> disturbing and corrupt changes in the laws to give publishers (rather
> >> than artists) benefits to the detriment of the public (rather than
> >> publishers).
> >> The media lobbyists have corrupted not only politicians but public
> >> discourse (by conflating copyright infringement with theft and using
> >> ridiculous terms such as "piracy") to argue that they have a moral
> >> right to impose their licensing terms on the public. (Remember that
> >> copyright is supposed to be a privilege to authors over publishers,
> >> not to publishers over the public.)
> > That could have been remedied by Congress, but it hasn't been yet. Precisely
> > because publishers have more lobbying money than artists.
>
> Exactly.

It's interesting that you didn't address the difference between artists
relying on patrons and artists relying on free enterprise.

[richard...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:30:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > "natural right to copy"???? With which they were Endowed By Their Creator???
> >
> > Sure. You have the right to copy stuff *unless* there's a special law
> > prohibiting it.
>
> That's a strange notion of "right."
>
> Kindly derive that "right" from First Principles. Or from whatever moral
> code you adhere to.
>

I'll give it a go, although I doubt that you could be persuaded even if Moses appeared with stone tablets.

The natural right to copy comes about because of the way we learn and have always learnt. Masters train apprentices who learn by imitation of the techniques taught until they get it right. Teachers teach by not just words but deeds. If you want to write a book you read books and see how you could write one better or 'improve' on the original you read. Poets recited poems, others wrote them down and they circulated, with variations.
We have the Allegri Miserere because Mozart wrote it out from memory.

Copyright grew up in England after Shakespeare, but it origins were in his time as the Stationers' Company kept copies of all books printed and did its best to keep other printers from stealing them. It was of reciprocal value to all the members, and by extension to the authors. Shakespeare's works circulated in manuscript for many years, and were widely copied, and to some extent rewritten for later productions.
All of this was perfectly natural, and based in what the enlightenment came to call the natural rights of man.

As printing became cheaper and it became easier to copy via unauthorised editions, copyright was made systematic. If you wanted copyright in a book you had to deposit a copy in the Stationers' Company in London (later the British Library), and the University Libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Dublin. This preserved reference copies of first publication within practical distance of all parts of the country.
I imagine the process in other countries was similar, though you are quite correct that in its years of rapid growth the US respected intellectual property rather less than China does today.
The copyright term has no particularly compelling reason to be longer than patent terms, though Disney thinks otherwise. Italy managed with a 17 year copyright term until forced to 'harmonise' with EU policies. The copyright term did not seem to discourage Italians from writing opera music or libretti, or art films for that matter - evidence enough that a long term is by no means essential to creative output.
Verdi and Rossini wrote for money, as did Dr Johnson 100 years before in London. Only a fool or a blockhead writes except for money was one of his sayings.
Haydn wrote for money too: Esterhazy was a patron who paid a salary, Salomon was ready money for new works. There really is no bright line between them. Creative people get their support where and how they can.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:34:37 PM UTC-4, richard...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:30:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > > "natural right to copy"???? With which they were Endowed By Their Creator???
> > >
> > > Sure. You have the right to copy stuff *unless* there's a special law
> > > prohibiting it.
> >
> > That's a strange notion of "right."
> >
> > Kindly derive that "right" from First Principles. Or from whatever moral
> > code you adhere to.
> >
> I'll give it a go, although I doubt that you could be persuaded even if Moses appeared with stone tablets.
>
> The natural right to copy comes about because of the way we learn and have always learnt. Masters train apprentices who learn by imitation of the techniques taught until they get it right. Teachers teach by not just words

How does that make copying a "right"?

> but deeds. If you want to write a book you read books and see how you could write one better or 'improve' on the original you read.

That's anything _but_ copying.

> Poets recited poems, others wrote them down and they circulated, with variations.

Highly unlikely; which poets do you have in mind?

> We have the Allegri Miserere because Mozart wrote it out from memory.

He didn't claim it was his own work.

> Copyright grew up in England after Shakespeare, but it origins were in his time as the Stationers' Company kept copies of all books printed and did its best to keep other printers from stealing them. It was of reciprocal value to all the members, and by extension to the authors. Shakespeare's works circulated in manuscript for many years, and were widely copied, and to some extent rewritten for later productions.

And yet not a single one of these manuscript copies has survived ... and no
one claimed authorship of anything by Shakespeare. Some things were attributed
to him that may not have been by him, but that's not what we're talking about,
is it.

> All of this was perfectly natural, and based in what the enlightenment came to call the natural rights of man.

Ah, so you have a quotation from, say, Rousseau or Voltaire to support your
claim?

> As printing became cheaper and it became easier to copy via unauthorised editions, copyright was made systematic. If you wanted copyright in a book you had to deposit a copy in the Stationers' Company in London (later the British Library), and the University Libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Dublin. This preserved reference copies of first publication within practical distance of all parts of the country.
> I imagine the process in other countries was similar, though you are quite correct that in its years of rapid growth the US respected intellectual property rather less than China does today.
> The copyright term has no particularly compelling reason to be longer than patent terms, though Disney thinks otherwise. Italy managed with a 17 year copyright term until forced to 'harmonise' with EU policies. The copyright term did not seem to discourage Italians from writing opera music or libretti, or art films for that matter - evidence enough that a long term is by no means essential to creative output.
> Verdi and Rossini wrote for money, as did Dr Johnson 100 years before in London. Only a fool or a blockhead writes except for money was one of his sayings.
> Haydn wrote for money too: Esterhazy was a patron who paid a salary, Salomon was ready money for new works. There really is no bright line between them. Creative people get their support where and how they can.

And one of those "hows," for you, is stealing.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 11:30:06 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> >> Copyright is clearly not *necessary* for human achievement, since the
>> >> world before copyright gave us a great deal of music, literature, and
>> >> art of high quality (such as Beowulf, the Sagas, Shakespeare, Bach, Da
>> >> Vinci, Gregorian chant).
>> > The world before copyright worked under the patronage system. US copyright
>> > was brought about almost single-handedly by Noah Webster, who saw his work
>> > pirated throughout the Colonies and journeyed to almost every one of the
>> > capitals to lobby the legislatures, for the most part successfully, and in
>> > 1790 got Congress to enact its first laws on the topic.
>>
>> It was hardly "piracy" if it was legal! Did the mediaeval monks who
>> copied MSS commit "piracy"?
>
> How is profiting from someone else's work without paying for it not wrong?

The great thing about ideas & information is that they are
non-rivalrous: they can be shared without loss.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others
of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power
called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long
as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces
itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot
dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no
one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of
it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself
without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
receives light without darkening me. ---Thomas Jefferson

>> > That could have been remedied by Congress, but it hasn't been yet. Precisely
>> > because publishers have more lobbying money than artists.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> It's interesting that you didn't address the difference between artists
> relying on patrons and artists relying on free enterprise.

What about it? Anyway, copyright is a *restriction* on free
enterprise, not a part of it. (I am no free market ideologue & am in
favour of moderate copyright law.)


--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]

[Peter T. Daniels]

Jefferson had lots of ideas. And died bankrupt, or nearly.

> >> > That could have been remedied by Congress, but it hasn't been yet. Precisely
> >> > because publishers have more lobbying money than artists.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> > It's interesting that you didn't address the difference between artists
> > relying on patrons and artists relying on free enterprise.
>
> What about it? Anyway, copyright is a *restriction* on free
> enterprise, not a part of it. (I am no free market ideologue & am in
> favour of moderate copyright law.)

How does that address the difference between patronage and income-by-sales?

[Adam Funk]

Go ahead & address it if you want to. I don't think it's particularly
important to the question of moderate versus excessive copyright.


--
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water,
or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?" [Dr Strangelove]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-09-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 6:30:04 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> > It's interesting that you didn't address the difference between artists
> >> > relying on patrons and artists relying on free enterprise.
> >> What about it? Anyway, copyright is a *restriction* on free
> >> enterprise, not a part of it. (I am no free market ideologue & am in
> >> favour of moderate copyright law.)
> > How does that address the difference between patronage and income-by-sales?
>
> Go ahead & address it if you want to. I don't think it's particularly
> important to the question of moderate versus excessive copyright.

You noted that in the good old days, artists didn't have to worry about
earning income from the sale of their work.

[Adam Funk]

No, I said that copyright isn't necessary for the arts to flourish.
Whether moderate copyright can produce better results for the public
good is a different question.


--
Indentation is for enemy skulls, not code!
--- Klingon Programmer's Guide

[Joe Roberts]

"Frank Forman" wrote:
>
> 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Invalidated by Judge
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/media/happy-birthday-copyright-invalidated-by-judge.html

- - -

Why not just sell a work outright, in lieu of copyright?

Suppose someone composes a symphony or an opera titled "Tongue in Cheek".

Why not sell it to the highest bidder (with a minimum bid specified).
Ownership becomes absolute.

The composer gets cash up front and perhaps also a residual from future
performances.

For example, the BSO could buy it (taking out a loan or paying the composer
in installments), then after peformances offer it for resale. They can
balance the decision based on whether ongoing revenue from repeat
performances over time would be better than an outright sale to someone
else.

Joe

[John W Kennedy]

You have just invented copyright as a replacement for copyright.

--
John W Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naīve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)

[Joe Roberts]

"John W Kennedy" wrote:

> Joe Roberts said:
>>
>> Why not just sell a work outright, in lieu of copyright?
>>
>> Suppose someone composes a symphony or an opera titled "Tongue in Cheek".
>>
>> Why not sell it to the highest bidder (with a minimum bid specified).
>> Ownership becomes absolute.
>>
>> The composer gets cash up front and perhaps also a residual from future
>> performances.
>>
>> For example, the BSO could buy it (taking out a loan or paying the
>> composer in installments), then after peformances offer it for resale.
>> They can balance the decision based on whether ongoing revenue from
>> repeat performances over time would be better than an outright sale to
>> someone else.
>
> You have just invented copyright as a replacement for copyright.

Plus, what would the BSO actually 'own'? The paper and ink? Audio tones?

Regardless of whoever owns a copyright ... if a tone sequence is played by
somebody else, then how many consecutive tones have to match the original
score to constitute an infringement? What if they're transposed up or down
a few pitches, or with a different time signature, or given to another
instrument, or if a major/minor gets converted from the one to the other?

Let's not even talk about an extended series of whole-measure rests in
somebody's new piano score, and 4'33". (Here it is again, with humble
apology to Peter.)

Why not just make it simple and let the composer sell it outright, and let
the performance market and lawyers fight freely over it?

Could be an opera plot.

Joe