This weeks class discussion focused on copyright and ownership, particularly focused on the use of intellectual property in the modern era. According to the assigned articles to read for this week we are rapidly approaching a time when we will be charged or sued for singing the words to “Happy Birthday” due to intellectual property laws. Devices such as the iPhone and Alexa have the ability to be used as recording monitors in order to enforce these laws and charge individuals.

“Is Singing Happy Birthday in Public Really Copyright Infringement?

Yes.

According to United States copyright law in United States Code, Title 17 §106, authors of works such as musical compositions have the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly.” In United States Code, Title 17 §101, the law defines publicly performing a work as “to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.”” (Benjamin Mako Hill, 2016 ).

The discussion opened with the question how can you stake a moral claim for property without using force, which (skipping over manifest destiny and the mention of colonization) led to the conclusion that this could be done through purchasing or ownership. Intellectual property is divided into three sub-sections, patents, trademarks, and copyright, all of which protect the ideas produced by an individual. This concept seems to be inherently classist, since there are those who cannot afford to copyright their ideas or pay to use intellectual property, which limits the information access and potential of low-income populations. That contributes to the claim made in class that copyrights hinder the potential for innovation. Additionally intellectual property and copyrights can be owned by entities such as cooperations, essentially giving more rights to a disembodied idea than the average individual. This tied into the discussion for the following class regarding sampling, referring to repurposing a small piece of music, and copyright. While there a some cases of copyright such as similar melodies (Sam Smith and Tom Petty) or similar sound and lyrics (Robin Thicke and Marvin Gaye), there are also cases where small snippets of music are implemented into songs. While many popular artists continue to do this and are able to afford to pay their source of inspiration, many artists such as those who create mixes and use devices such as turntables may not be able to. In this way creative culture gets enclosed and limited by copyright, and ordinary people can’t afford to license or repurpose popular music. Again this hinders innovation and potential of those attempting to create something new. As someone who has lived in the New York/New Jersey area my entire life, I am very familiar with the concept of sampling for it is a primary source of innovating new sounds and music. Not only is this method of creation implemented for parties and clubs, it is also implemented by many “sound artists” who use various sounds and songs to create something typically accompanied by an instillation/art piece creating an immersive and surreal experience for the audience. Without the access to this music, again it is hindering creative potential and limiting those who can’t afford it.