MCLEOD

I think the copyright laws are ridiculous in reference to the circumstances in which they are enforced. I do not think that certain groups in some instances (like the girl scouts) should have to purchase a performance license just because they are singing a song to an audience. This is ridiculous because the girl scouts are not making much money off of their performances and they do not give performances for a living. I understand that the people who own the copyrights want to make money for the creativity and work they did (although the article makes it clear that the people who did the work do not necessarily hold the copyright or were original in their work), but to charge a nonprofit organization that does not intend to profit from singing songs at camp is crazy. Performance laws in general are crazy, limiting the square footage, number of TVs, and number of loud speakers. And of course the government is excluded. I am going to go back to “I understand that the people who own the copyrights want to make money for the creativity and work they did.”


I am going back to this because this matters. If it is about making a dollar because of a quick little add in, that’s sad. If the copyright lawsuit is about brand image or the hard, creative work I wrote about earlier then fine. I do not appreciate the unnecessary lawsuits that we have become accustomed to. Sue over copyright for the right reasons (and not poor girl scouts). This phenomenon is also something I see as ludicrous; people suing people for the wrong reasons. With copyright laws this seems to be common.


Oh- I am going to sing Happy Birthday at my daughter’s Birthday party and I think I will invite a bunch of people that are not family members to sing it with me!! Sorry, the Birthday Song thing frustrates me too.