This, absolutely this. Defending against even the most frivolous lawsuits costs money, and there’s lately been a disturbing trend in the courts handing down judgments for utterly ridiculous copyright claims, such as “Down Under” vs. the Kookaburra Song which ultimately lead to one band member’s suicide. 
It’s not a new thing. The plagiarism claim against Joe Meek for the song ‘Telstar’ was rejected three weeks after his suicide, and was likely to have been a major contributory factor.
I don’t believe for a minute that copyright decisions are a cause of suicide. That’s trivializing mental illness.
As for the Kooksburra decision, while you might disagree with it, there’s nothing ridiculous about it – COMPARE! Men At Work sued over DOWN UNDER Kookaburra Girl Guides - YouTube
It’s ridiculous because (a) the Kookaburra snippet in “Down Under” barely lasts for a few seconds, and (b) Greg Ham (R.I.P.) added that part to his flute solo as a tribute to the song which he believed, as the general public did, was in the public domain. Not to mention that it was over thirty years before anyone complained about it (whatever happened to the statute of limitations?) and the current copyright holder has no relation whatsoever with the original songwriter, who died decades ago.
And FYI, not all suicides are triggered by “mental illness”, which you so ineptly attempt to trivialize. :mad:
Although Joe Meek was rather highly strung and a heavy user of amphetamines, I’ve not read about him being mentally ill. The pressure of dealing with a frivolous case from an obscure French composer, preventing him from receiving the royalties from a worldwide hit would have been very frustrating, to say the least.
To suggest that everyone who commits suicide is mentally ill is trivializing mental illness.
On another note, more related to the OP…
If somebody had made original works and recorded them, and not joined any performing rights or mechanical copyright organization, what’s the deal with radio stations / YouTube / anyone else who plays them in public?
That is taken into account when assigning liability and calculating damages. However, the absolute length is not always the most important factor. It took one of the most recognizable and characteristic portions of the original and used it in a very significant, repeated manner in “Down Under.” It basically swiped the heart of one song and used it as the heart of another.
It’s his burden to make sure that it is in the public domain when he uses it. Ignorance is not an excuse.
The statute if limitations applies to past infringement. In these kinds if cases the infringement is ongoing. So, when damages are calculated, there will be no recovery for the portion if the infringement that took place beyond the statute of limitations.
Property rights don’t disappear when they are sold or transferred.
No, I don’t attempt to trivialize mental illness. You are using it as a dishonest appeal to emotion.
But perhaps there are other reasons for suicide. Shall I look to the Four Noble Truths for them?
I don’t know which case this is referring to, but the facts and outcome of the “Down Under” case show that it was not trivial.
The plaintiff was awarded 5 percent of the royalties dating back to 2002 (statute of limitations, see). This seems more than reasonable.
It’s the radio station’s burden to ensure that they have paid the appropriate licenses. Music is generally prominently labeled if it is covered by a blanket license from a PRO. If it doesn’t say ASCAP or BMI or Sesac, then the radio station would be advised to check before playing it.
No. All your posts are copyright in your name as soon as you put them in tangible form. You give the Chicago Reader a non-exclusive license to reuse your posts.
Not an exception. We all agree that it is an infringement.
Thank you for reminding people that intellectual property is property.
That’s counter to my interpretation of this:
I don’t know whether it would be considered infringement or not. My understanding was that a certain amount of “quoting” is allowed. That seems to be contradicted by the Kukaberra issue, but in that case, the “quote” happens to include the whole work since it’s such a small work (or perhaps half of it, or 3/4 since the first stanza is repeated, or some other fraction depending on how you do the math.) Definitely an odd case.
My guess is “probably not, but maybe,” which could justify a lawyer being conservative and advising changing the line in the TV show.
Regarding Kukaberra, the Happy Birthday song, and “My Sweet Lord” – all these are IMHO cases where someone benefited from copyrights while the original creator of the copyright did not (significantly) and where there are good reasons to question the outcomes.
The thing is, they’re exceptional cases to a system that provides substantial benefits. Any system of policies or laws will have examples where the ostensible intent of the law isn’t served, but it’s better to uphold the letter of the law than to torpedo the system, or even to start making lots of funky exceptions that end up making the laws far less objective. (There’s a lot of that already; no argument there. In patent law, the biggest subjective question is “obviousness”. A certain amount of subjectivity is very hard to avoid.)
In the case of MSL, I think the judge just plain goofed, and that happens all the time, but it’s better to have a fallible system than no system. [He didn’t goof in terms of rendering the judgment itself, but rather, in calculating the awards.]