X-Git-Url: https://projects.mako.cc/source/unhappybirthday/blobdiff_plain/7eea21aa7057b0d70517516cb83b5c8d2fafb12c..35a594d2ab8c75214a4c7f8a4cc53f2cba9af831:/index.html

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 2caf2cf..5af5cdb 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -1,9 +1,8 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
-   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
+<!DOCTYPE html>
 
-<html xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<html>
   <head>
+    <meta charset="UTF-8">
     <title>Unhappy Birthday</title>
     <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css" />
   </head>
@@ -21,6 +20,19 @@ alt="logo" align="center"/>
 
 <div class="bodybox">
 
+  <div class="splash">
+    <h2>Notice!</h2>
+
+    <p>Unfortunately, a series of recent legal rulings have forced us to suspend our campaign. In 2015, Time Warner's copyright claim to âHappy Birthdayâ was  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/media/happy-birthday-copyright-invalidated-by-judge.html">declared invalid</a>. In 2016, a settlement was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/business/media/details-of-happy-birthday-copyright-settlement-revealed.html">announced</a> that calls for a judge to officially declare that the song is public domain.</p>
+
+    <p>This is horrible news for the future of music. It is horrible news for anybody who cares that creators, their heirs, etc., are fairly remunerated when their work is performed. What incentive will there be for anybody to pen the next âHappy Birthdayâ knowing that less than a century after their deaths â their estates and the large multinationals that buy their estates â might not be able to reap the financial rewards from their hard work and creativity?</p>
+
+    <p>We are currently planning a campaign to push for a retroactive extension of copyright law to place âHappy Birthday,â and other works, back into the private domain where they belong! We believe this is a winnable fight. After all, copyright has been <a href="http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/shrinking">retroactively extended</a> before! Stay tuned! In the meantime, we'll keep this page here for historical purposes.</p>
+
+    <p style="text-align: right;">ââCopyrighteousâ Benjamin Mako Hill (2016-02-11)</p>
+
+  </div>
+  
 <div class="warning">
 <p>Did you know <cite>Happy Birthday</cite> is copyrighted and the copyright is
 currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner?</p>
@@ -30,7 +42,7 @@ currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner?</p>
 ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends<br />
 You are involved in a public performance of that work?</p>
 
-<p>Did you know an unauthorized public performance is a form of
+<p>Did you know an unauthorized public performance is often a form of
 <em>copyright infringement</em>?</p>
 
 </div>
@@ -74,8 +86,8 @@ copyright status, check out these resources:</p>
 <li><a href="http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm">Snopes'
 article on the legal status of <cite>Happy Birthday</cite></a></li>
 
-<li><a href="http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/15999">Boycott-RIAA's
-article on <cite>Happy Birthday</cite> and copyright</a></li>
+<li><a href="http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/15999">Great
+article on <cite>Happy Birthday</cite> and copyright by Kembrew McLeod</a></li>
 
 <li><a
 href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/7/5/112441/6280">Kuro5hin's
@@ -84,6 +96,16 @@ hear.</a></li>
 
 </ul>
 
+<p><strong>Update:</strong> <a
+href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624">This
+article</a> by law professor Robert Brauneis has raised some important
+questions about the history of Happy Birthday. That said, copyright in
+the song continues to be enforced and Warner Brothers continues to
+collect more than $2 million each year in royalties. Until we hear a
+judge rule on Brauneis's suggestions, we'll continue to give Warner and
+the market the benefit of the doubt.</p>
+
+
 <h2>Is Singing <cite>Happy Birthday</cite> in Public Really Copyright
 Infringement?</h2>
 
@@ -100,11 +122,20 @@ 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."</p>
 
-<p>This means that if you sing <cite>Happy Birthday</cite> to your family at
-home, you're probably not committing copyright infringment. However, if you
-do it in an restaurant &mdash; and if the restaurant hasn't already worked
-out a deal with ASCAP &mdash; you may be engaging in <em>copyright
-infringement</em>.</p>
+<p>Additionally, United States Code Title 17, Â§110(4) states that
+singing the song among a group of people "without any direct or indirect
+commercial advantage" will not constitute infringement either. But keep
+in mind: "indirect commercial advantage" is very broad. Courts have
+found that restaurants, camps, and other venues benefit indirectly from
+performances of songs like Happy Birthday. Unless the song has been
+licensed in these situations, it's infringement.</p>
+
+
+<p>This means that if you sing <cite>Happy Birthday</cite> to your
+family at home, you're probably not committing copyright infringment.
+However, if you do it in an restaurant &mdash; and if the restaurant
+hasn't already worked out a deal with ASCAP &mdash; you may be engaging
+in <em>copyright infringement</em>.</p>
 
 <h2>How Can I Help Stop Infringement?</h2>
 
@@ -212,9 +243,9 @@ Birthday</cite>.</p>
 href="http://www.cafepress.com/unhappybirthday">official Unhappy
 Birthday store</a>.</p>
 
-<p>You can get in contact with our leadership by emailing our
-copyrighteous spokesman &mdash; Benjamin Mako Hill &mdash; at <a
-href="mailto:mako@atdot.cc">mako@atdot.cc</a> </p>
+<p>Our president is Raymond Ty. You can get in contact with our
+leadership by emailing our copyrighteous spokesman &mdash; Benjamin Mako
+Hill &mdash; at <a href="mailto:mako@atdot.cc">mako@atdot.cc</a> </p>
 
 </div>
 
