Is the copyright restriction the reason they sing those strange songs in restaurants in stead of happy birthday? Or do the servers just get bored of happy birthday?
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at this link:
I would assume that if someone is singing a different song in a restaurant, it’s just for variety’s sake. Copyright law shouldn’t come in to play because you aren’t paying to hear someone sing in the restaurant. You’re paying to eat.
The owners of the copyright can get sufficient money by licensing the song for one or two films.
Hey, how come some other schlub gets credit for asking this question that I asked in this MB a couple months ago? I guess Cecil just doesn’t read these boards…
As far as restaurant workers singing some other song, it could very well be that it’s due to the copyright. I’ve heard of lawyers putting the squeeze on restaurant owners because of their stereo equipment (these guys are worse than loan shark collectors). They could do the same for a capella “Happy Birthday” renditions.
The squeeze being put on the restaurants would likely be the folks from ASCAP, an industry group that exists to enforce copyrights of this sort.
I went into an IHOP once and saw a sticker from ASCAP that certified that all the music there was approved by ASCAP.
Personally, I prefer the Beatles’ version “It’s your birthday”
The primary purpose of ASCAP (and BMI) is to collect performance royalties.
Composers are entitled to compensation every time their song is played for money. Radio stations are probably the primary source, but other broadcast media, and venues for live music (theaters, amphitheaters, clubs, bars, and yes, even restuarants) are also liable. If you are making money and music is part of the experience, even just a bar with a jukebox, you need to buy the lisence.
You buy an ASCAP (or BMI) lisence for a year, I believe. They pool all the money, and skim some off the top (for expenses, of course). The rest is distributed to composers (and I believe publishers) via a variety of highly complex formulae. (Back when I was a lad, word was that the ASCAP formula was tilted somewhat in favor of established composers with long track records, while BMI was a bit better for the newbie just starting out.)
ASCAP and BMI monitor song play (live and broadcast) to make sure they are distributing the cash in a reasonably equitable manner. They also do surprise insepctions at various venues to make sure those places aren’t playing any music without a lisence.
Ah Yes, cole, but what if it isn’t “my birthday, too”?
I’m dredging up this old thread because it doesn’t seem to have a clear answer.
We’ve established that restaurants have to pay ASCAP or BMI for their music (my girlfriend’s a bar manager and has told me about this as well), but does this apply to the birthday song as well?
Is this in fact why they sing those other wacky songs instead?
\
As Cecil said in his column
So, yes, they have to pay. As to whether establishments choose to use an alternative song(instead of paying royalties), you could always ask the management of the various establishments. It might vary from place to place. I doubt that the royalties would be a killer.
Actually, there’s nothing in Cecil’s answer, from my reading, that indicates they do have to pay. Do waiters singing extemporaneously constitute a “commercial performance”? IANAL but I am in the entertainment industry and am not familiar with a citation to that effect.
How about “Michael Jackson’s” Lisa, it’s Your Birthday from The Simpsons?
From the Musical Law Offices of one Michael P. McCready, Attorney at Law we find the following assertment.
It’s ALL about copyright.
Fred Waring and His Pennsylvanians had an alternative version of a birthday song they tried to push as a Green Giant tie-in decades ago.
365 Days, 2nd Half of December
"Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians- Fo Fum Fi Fee and
New Happy Birthday Song/Happy Birthday Song
Not satisfied with being known as “The Man Who Taught America to Sing” or for having improved and marketed the first consumer mixer, the Waring Blendor, bandleader and choralist Fred Waring decided that the world needed a New Birthday Song. Luckily the fine folks at Minnesota Valley Canning Company ( Green Giant to you and me) gave ol’ Fred the opportunity with this 1949 ruby-red promotional 6 1/2 inch 78."
It’s worth noting that since this column originally appeared, the copyright has been extended another 20 years, so Happy Birthday to You is currently not slated to enter the public domain until 2031.
I don’t know about the “marketing genius” side, but it’s not musical genius. Although it doesn’t require a fully trained singer, it definitely requires confidence and a modicum of musical ability far beyond that demanded by Happy Birthday to You.
Anyway, The Birthday Dirge isn’t Happy Birthday to You: it’s:
Happy Birthday! <thud!> Happy Birthday! <thud!>
Now you’ve aged another year
Now you know that Death is near
Happy Birthday! <thud!> Happy Birthday! <thud!>
(Various extra verses at [FAQ] Lyrics for The Birthday Dirge)
Crandolph. Please don’t quote such large portions of entire texts from other sites. This is a copyright violation. And that’s what we’re supposedly talking about here.
Quote small portions, judiciously using a portion that supports your point.
The StraightDope doesn’t want people stealing our stuff. Just as we assume other sites don’t want you stealing their intellectual property.
That’s why I edited your post.
samclem GQ moderator.
Sorry! I’m relatively new here. Won’t happen again. 
And I apologize in advance for the complex creature this post has become as a result. :smack: :smack: :smack: There are probably law symposia devoted to this topic, but I’d love it if someone could be a dear and tackle it in a post. :eek:
Complicating matters for all involved, the site I linked to (non-commercial labor of love; I imagine the host loses money), as best as I can determine, is frequently on shaky intellectual property grounds on the content it posts in turn. So much of the material is so bad that it’s unlikely that anyone would pursue legal action because the material was/is so commercially unsuccessful it’s not worth it, and is in fact frequently embarrassing.
There are a good deal of such music sites on the internet who seem to be running on the (correct) assumption that the arcane material they post won’t be claimed by anyone regardless of whether or not the copyright has run out. I assume they aren’t buying BMI or ASCAP licenses, but then they aren’t charging anything for people to hear it and don’t charge for profit to begin with. Does anyone know if this provides these sites with solid legal protections beyond the unpopularity of the songs themselves? (In other words, the government has no jurisdiction over the copyright issues involved in a particular song until a party that owns that song sues and wins… yes? This still doesn’t seem to be enough to make peer-to-peer networks and music blogs get shut down though…)
I’ve been running on the assumption in reading this thread that the music industry is claiming ownership of the performances of the songs as opposed to the copywritten music/lyric (which is owned by the authors or a seperate entity) for purposes of going after Napster et al. Otherwise, if a peer-to-peer network bought a BMI or ASCAP license, and didn’t charge for the software (say it’s open code), downloading for home use should be as actionable as taping off the radio for home use. (Has THAT ever happened? And surely the suit didn’t name the radio station… And who gets damages- the songwriters, the labels or both?)
Do the songwriters have a legal beef against the music labels for using the BMI/ASCAP system then? It seems to do to the songwriter what the music industry claims file sharing does to them. Why is unlimited use of copyrighted material purchased once by the music industry (the song to be performed) ‘better’ than unlimited non-profit repeated use of the performance peer-to-peer (the performance itself; a recording of the finished song)?
I have the sinking feeling that taken together there’s not much logical consistancy here, just an elaborate multi-billion dollar legal attack on the consumer just as technology levelled the playing field for us.
Raising this thread from the dead because of new developments:
Powers &8^]
Churches have to be careful not to violate CR laws. In most cases it is illegal to zerox music in other than very limited situations. Anthems for the choir come with performance licenses. I heard of a church that bought 1 copy each of its anthems and photocopied sufficient. Their fine was something over $100,000. Its $200 a page. There is an annual license that can be obtained, to widen the area of legal copies, that applies to hymns, but does not permit copying anthems.