Libraries urged to embrace ICT to stay relevant

There is another news article relating to information literacy coming out of Brunei. The Borneo Bulletin has an article titled Libraries urged to embrace ICT to stay relevant by P. Marilyn. In it Marilyn writes about The Permanent Secretary (Higher Education) at the Ministry of Education, Awang Haji Daud bin Haji Mahmud, yesterday called for a change in the traditional role of librarians or information officers.

Here is some of what he said during the speech:

"He said the role of libraries in an academic enterprise is dedicated to maintaining the importance and relevance of the academic library as a place of intellectual stimulation and a centre of activity on campus."

"Though access to information is increasingly decentralised, and computer labs now compete with libraries as campus gathering points, librarians must demonstrate to the campus community that the library remains central to the academic process."

"Information literacy skills and user education should be integrated across the curriculum and into appropriate courses with special attention given to information evaluation, critical thinking, intellectual property, copyright and plagiarism."

"As the profession becomes progressively challenging, we have to ensure professional education of new librarians and re-educating existing librarians with skills and knowledge to support new roles in a Digital Information Age, especially roles involving teaching and library promotion."

A Fair(y) Use Tale

This Disney parody is an explanation of Copyright Law and Fair Use and it is a blast! It is by Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University and it provides a humorous, yet informative, review of copyright principles. I will be using it in my library credit course this fall. I will also be using the thought provoking and very easy to deconstruct pro-copyright forever article A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?

Napster offers limited free songs on revamped Web site

Napster offers limited free songs on revamped Web site. OK, Napster is giving away songs for free again. Isn't this what got them in trouble in the first place?

The article notes, "Napster Inc. launched a revamped music Web site Monday that allows limited free, on-demand access to more than two million songs. Visitors to the site can listen to many songs five times before having to buy a copy for 99 cents or subscribe to Napster's premium service."

Yes, it is a little different from before but...

That which is old is new again. I am going to have to revise my example in my lesson plan on copyright for my LIB 197 class. I always used to ask, "Remember when Napster was free? Why do you think copyright holders objected to having their intellectual property given away without compensation?"

The world is changing and information is transmitted differently than it was in the past. Even the economic models are changing. I am OK with that but these changes are making it harder and harder to get across the concept of intellectual property rights and the importance of copyright to college students.

Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part Three

This is the third of three posts relating my observations on the Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference (better known as the Google Library Symposium) which was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 10th and 11th, 2006. This post will have my remarks regarding the speakers on March 11th.

Please note that I am doing my best to report what the speakers said. However, quotes might be slightly different than what the speaker actually said due to the fact I had to write it down while the speaker went on talking. Feel free to post and correct me if you are being quoted here incorrectly.

Ron Milne, Acting Director of University Library Services & Bodley's Librarian at Oxford, noted that the faculty at Oxford University are big supporters of digitizing collections. Indeed, members of the faculty are lobbying for which part of the collection to scan next. In regards to publishers and digitization, he said "Publishers will stay in business but their business model will have to change."

Paul Courant, Professor at the University of Michigan, talked about scale and digitization. He noted that digitization makes a local good a global good. Once scanned, it costs nothing to add new readers. He said that it no longer makes sense for most libraries to buy everything. Instead, librarians should concentrate on more specialized library specific collecting. He also noted that one consequence of digitization is that non-digitized materials will not be used by most patrons.

Hal Varien, Professor at UC Berkeley, talked about the value in what is being scanned. Most specifically, he claims the greatest value lies in digitizing out-of-print books which are still covered under copyright. He feels that the scanning of books fits the fair use test in the US based on his interpretations of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003). He ended by strongly arguing that the opt-in model for publisher inclusion in Google Books is unrealistic. He notes that up to 22% of requests for permission are never answered by publishers. This is because publishers are often unsure of the legal status of a work and because many other works have been orphaned and the rights may be split amongst multiple heirs who are not even aware of their legal rights to the work.

I was disappointed with the presentation of Karl Pohrt who is the owner of Shaman Drum Bookshop in Ann Arbor. Rather than describe it briefly, I have a more extensive post titled Most Disappointing Google Library Symposium Speaker.

Bruce James, CEO of the U. S. Government Printing Office, noted the steadily rising costs of higher education. He asked then why if we have one digital library why every campus needed a library at all? He contends that the growing cost issue in higher education will be dealt with and the closing of some libraries is going to happen as a result. He also strongly stated that the government will not rely on a private company such as Google to assure the authentic long-term access to government documents. However, he will be watching Google Books to learn from Google's mistakes and successes.

James Hilton, Associate Provost for Academic, Information and Instructional Technology Affairs and University Interm University Librarian at the University of Michigan, talked at length about the current state of copyright law in the USA. He noted that more and more protection is being afforded to smaller and smaller ideas. He said in this context, "The pure property view of information undermines the values of the academy."

Clifford Lynch closed the Symposium. He asked, will others be allowed to copy en masse all of the public domain stuff in Google Books? Who will be allowed to copy and rehost the entire public domain collection? If Google refuses this access, it would in essence lead to public domain content being reprivatized. He also noted that, "Digitization and the mass spread of the information is the best insurance for any preservation program."

That concludes my report on this excellent conference. I must say that my brain hurts from all the great ideas I heard during these two days!

Further observations on the conference can be found at the links below.

Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part One
Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part Two

Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part Two

This is the second of three posts relating my observations on the Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference (better known as the Google Library Symposium) which was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 10th and 11th, 2006. This post will have my remarks regarding the afternoon speakers on March 10th.

Please note that I am doing my best to report what the speakers said. However, quotes might be slightly different than what the speaker actually said due to the fact I had to write it down while the speaker went on talking. Feel free to post and correct me if you are being quoted here incorrectly.

Ed Tenner, Professor and author from Princeton University, talked about the failure of search engines including Google to return the best results. He gave an example on search in Google on the search term “world history.” He also showed the Wikipedia article on this topic. He claimed that both failed to actually give the most meaningful results and that most searchers would not dig far enough to actually get the best stuff. He also noted that academic sites on the Web need to practice SEO. This stands for search engine optimization.

I heartily agree with Dr. Tenner. Commercial sites spend tons of time and money trying to trick the search engines into believing their sites are the best. Academic sites do not do this and the result is searches in search engines which are sometimes bad. Why shouldn’t academic sites use some SEO white hat tricks? With the built-in advantage of high Trust Rank of .edu or other domains, a little optimization will go a long way to making search engine results better. And there is little chance of harm for most academic sites for trying some SEO. What are the odds that Google would ban or significantly penalize stanford.edu, msu.edu, harvard.edu, etc. for making an SEO mistake?

Jean-Claude Guedon, Professor at the University of Montreal, discussed what he thought could be a new algorithm for Google or another search engine. He said, “Using the literature review chapters from doctoral dissertations as citation analysis would give a constantly updating view of knowledge.” As dissertations are written in most fields, this is a good idea. It would be virtually impossible for spammers to infiltrate the dissertations so links appearing in these dissertations would be more than likely the best on the Web for the topic at hand. Can you imagine if dissertation link citations from Viagra related dissertations actually determined which Viagra sites were at the top of Google search results? I can just hear the screams from some webmasters now if this was implemented…

Suzanne BeDell, Vice President of ProQuest Information and Learning, presented a different picture. She argued a view some publishers may take. She noted that, “The Google dark digital archive will go live eventually. When this happens, the publishers will lose control of their content. They should be concerned and so should librarians as this will stifle future publishing.”

Adam Smith, who is in charge of Google Scholar and Google Books, finished up the day. He claimed that the media gets the Google library project wrong. Google is not giving away copies of all books and that it fully respects copyright law. He said that Google was trying to figure out, “how to enable, create, and connect a myriad of links that connect online and offline objects.” He also announced a new sales tool that will allow publishers to sell online access to books via Google Books. I am also pleased that I got Adam’s e-mail address. I will e-mail him soon with some questions.

Further observations on the conference can be found at the links below. I will add the links when my posts are ready so if you see this right away they may lack a link.

Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part One
Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part Three

Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part One

This is the first of three posts relating my observations on the Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference (better known as the Google Library Symposium) which was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 10th and 11th, 2006. This post will have my remarks regarding the morning speakers on March 10th.

Please note that I am doing my best to report what the speakers said. However, quotes might be slightly different than what the speaker actually said due to the fact I had to write it down while the speaker went on talking. Feel free to post and correct me if you are being quoted here incorrectly.

Also note that there is a blog dedicated to this symposium at http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/sltsymposium/.

Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan, opened the symposium. She said that the idea of putting all of the University of Michigan books online was a long desired goal and that “We believed in this forever.” She also said though that the U of M believed in copyright laws and that “Students will not be reading Harry Potter online in their dorms.”

Barbara Allen, Director of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, talked about how researchers use online versus print resources. She noted as an example the use of an old set of economic journals that were used 692 times in print but over twelve thousand times online. She also invoked the image of the Great Library of Alexandria by saying that the Google library initiative could build the “greatest library the world has ever known.”

Michael Keller, University Librarian at Stanford University, talked about the financial reason that should encourage publishers to embrace the Google library initiative. He said, “The sale of books increases when there are book excerpts online. It is to the benefit of the publishers to digitize books.” He also called for librarians to “defend fair use as it lifts old books.”

Karin Wittenberg, University Librarian at the University of Virginia, noted that the cooperation of the publishers was not necessarily needed as that “mere digitization does not violate copyright.” She claimed that “Google digitization is one of the most important developments of my career. This will change everything.” She also said that she was “irked by the opposition of some librarians, publishers, and authors” to the Google endeavor.

One interesting comment came from a member of the audience who asked about dedigitization. What do we do with online only material? Will Wikipedia be available 1000 years from now? How about online only publications like blogs and some government documents? What if there is a disaster (or simply changing technology) that makes all this material inaccessible? Are libraries making print backups?

Finally, Tim O’Reilly (founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media), talked about the need to get publisher buy-in for the Google project. He said, “There is a need to give a financial incentive to encourage online publication because most people will not buy a physical book.” (To which I reply, have you not heard of Google Adsense? Slap the code on any page and Google does all the work of getting relevant advertisers. Content can and will generate cash without ever even printing a book.) He also talked about a neat project his company was doing called Rough Cuts which allowed subscribers to read a book as it was being written.

Further observations on the conference can be found at the links below. I will add the links when my posts are ready so if you see this right away they may lack a link.

Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part Two
Scholarship and Libraries in Transition Conference, Part Three

Group: Online content cannot remain free

Group: Online content cannot remain free. This is another in a seemingly endless number of articles about publishers complaining that Google Books is violating copyright.

Note this quote from the report by Francisco Pinto Balsemao, "It is fascinating to see how these companies 'help themselves' to copyright-protected material, build up their own business models around what they have collected, and parasitically, earn advertising revenue off the back of other people's content," he said. "This is unlikely to be sustainable for publishers in the longer term."

But, isn't that how Google (and other search engines) operate in general? They send out spiders, make electronic copies of copyrighted websites, and then make cached versions available to anyone who wants it? The default is opt in and a site owner literally has to put up text in the robots file telling spiders to stay away if the owner does not like it.

As almost all of these publishers have allowed virtually unlimited access to Google on their websites, it may be hard for them to argue that scanning of books and making small portions available online is a problem. After all, if this is a big deal, why have they made no effort to protect the copyright of their websites by ordering Google and other search engine not to copy their online content? By definition, this business practice would be just as parasitic, if not more so.

Hat tip to David Ginsburg for the article link.

Copyright Issues for the Electronic Age

Copyright Issues for the Electronic Age. This is an ERIC Digest that takes a look at some copyright issues. It is a short read and it makes some good points.

There is a section for questiosn and answers. Many of the questions are focused on libraries. For example one questions is, "May a library scan and store its reserve works into a database to reproduce copies on demand or store them on a network for students to access electronically?? The answer is, "Not in all cases. If approval is obtained, original works by instructors such as syllabi, sample tests, etc. could be scanned and stored. However, course readings could not be stored without permission, licensing, or royalty fees. "

From the site:

Because information is now so freely available, particularly in electronic form, does that mean we are free to use that information in any way we want? Current copyright law was adopted in 1976 and went into effect in 1978. It is difficult to imagine how the authors of the 1976 Copyright Act could have foreseen so many new technologies. However, they did attempt to cover all of the bases by using language which was intended to be somewhat elastic in Section 102 (a) of the law:

"Copyright protection subsists...in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

Authors Hit Google With Copyright Lawsuit

Authors Hit Google With Copyright Lawsuit. And let the fun begin! Google's attempt to make print books accessible to Web searchers has finally resulted in a copyright battle in the courts.

In essence, the authors bringing the lawsuit are correct. Google has no right to copy their works (by making an online version) without getting their permission first. Google can not put an opt-out option for the scanning project. Instead, Google needs an opt-in mechanism for those who want to participate.

However, Google is morally in the right. They are not stealing anything and will not be giving these books away for free online. Only portions of copyrighted works would be available to searchers. In many cases, this would help the authors if searchers decide to buy copies of the books they would have never known about if Google hadn't digitized them in the first place.

Perhaps what we need here is a major re-write of copyright laws to bring the laws into check with the reality of the online world?

From the site:

An organization of more than 8,000 authors accused Google Inc. Tuesday of "massive copyright infringement," saying the powerful Internet search engine cannot put its books in the public domain for commercial use without permission.

"The authors' works are contained in certain public and university libraries and have not been licensed for commercial use," The Author's Guild Inc. said in the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The lawsuit asked the court to block Google from copying the books so the authors would not suffer irreparable harm by being deprived of the right to control reproduction of their works. It sought class-action status on behalf of anyone or any entity with a copyright to a literary work at the University of Michigan library.

Libraries in Today's Digital Age: The Copyright Controversy. Yes, copyright is confusing for librarians. This essay looks at many of the issues which arise from copyright and new digital formats.

From the site:

In recent years, a copyright legislative battle has ensued between copyright holders (primarily represented by the publishing, entertainment, and software business industries) and those who wish to use or have access to copyright materials (primarily represented by library, educational, and public interest communities). Copyright holders argue that they will not make their copyrighted works available to the public in digital formats unless the law is revised to prevent piracy and protect the marketplace for intellectual property by controlling access and use. Libraries argue that users rights to information should be upheld regardless of technological innovation and digital formats. The big question: Can copyright law continue to balance the interests of both copyright holders and users in the digital environment?

In an attempt to update the law to encompass new digital environments and to allay copyright holders' fears of widespread piracy, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), an amendment to the copyright law that has been the source of much controversy. Interestingly, the DMCA has not sufficiently addressed the digital environment, because digital technologies continue to evolve at a rapid pace. For example, Congress did not anticipate the development and popularity of file sharing technologies, like Napster. At the same time, the DMCA has furthered a trend to erode the "balance" of copyright law by awarding more rights to copyright holders while restricting the rights of public who wish to enjoy the same user rights to digital information resources as were enjoyed in the print environment. Thus, copyright law and its adaptability in the digital environment continues to be fraught with uncertainty. This ERIC Digest will focus on the continuing ambiguities libraries and their users face in dealing with copyright in the digital environment.

Online Encyclopedia - LoveToKnow This is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It has been put online at this site. As it is pre-1923, it is in the public domain.

However, the following note appears on each page:

"The Contents (see License Agreement for definitions) of this site are licensed only for the personal, household, educational use by a single individual. Although linking to this site is encouraged, reproducing Contents on another site or redistributing Contents is forbidden. Taking Contents from this site and editing it and posting it on another site is forbidden and will result in swift legal action. You may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Contents of this site in whole or in part."

Sorry, but as a librarian I know you can not claim a copyright on this work. Perhaps they can claim a copyright on the page design and layout but the underlying information is public domain.

Either the site owner is ignorant of copyright law or (more likely) he/she is just trying to scare away potential competition. It is unlikely that "swift legal action" would ever occur. I just can't see a case. This edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain!

MSNBC - All Eyes on Google This is the full-text of this article which has appeared in the new issue of Newsweek. It is a nice write up about what many librarians (myself included) consider to be the best search engine out there.

One quote caught my eye though. Google Engineering VP Wayne Rosing said, ""It might take a decade or two to put all the world's information into Google and do things with it but it's an achievable goal."

Really? So Google really thinks that it can solve all the copyright issues (making sure that copyright holders can get paid for giving their content away on the Web) and make sure that all that pre-1923 public domain content gets scanned and put online? Good luck to them. I am sure that the next several decades will see a lot more content on the Web. But I have my doubts if the vast majority of intellectual content in existence will show up free on Google. Economic realities dictate otherwise.

There is one really neat quote from the article I liked. "The ultimate goal is to have a computer that has the kind of semantic knowledge that a reference librarian has," says Google's director of technology Craig Silverstein. Right on!

Colleges, Code, and Copyright - Call for Papers - UMUC Of possible interest to many librarians and educators out there.

From the call:

Potential authors are encouraged to submit papers that address one of the main topic tracks of the conference. Special attention will be given to those papers focusing on Track II topics. Authors may submit papers on alternative topics provided they are compatible with either of the main track topics listed below:

Track I - Framing the Issues or,
Track II - Possible Solutions

Track I- Framing the Issues:

P2P file sharing: Civil Disobedience or Simple Opportunism

Do Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems have a positive or adverse impact on the dissemination of information within higher education?

What issues do higher education institutions have to consider when implementing DRM systems?

What are the causes of rising textbook and journal costs for students and university libraries?

Does fair use have a future?

Track II- Application and Possible Solutions:

Identifying, implementing, and utilizing effective strategies for dealing with copyright infringement via P2P file sharing on the university campus.

P2P and the library: Case studies on innovative uses

Alternative models for scholarly publishing

Open source software usage in the university community

DRM systems: Are they compatible with the re-uses of information characterized within the higher education community?

Are universal DRM standards attainable or desirable?

Impact of the TEACH Act on the expansion of DRM on campus.

Technological solutions for copyrighted content delivery in the online classroom.

Possible legislative solutions to current copyright concerns.

What are the promises and perils of using peer to peer technology in the university community?

Constituencies

Scholars, librarians, professors, students, publishers, commercial vendors, database administrators, system and network managers, and other authors are all invited to submit papers.

Submission Requirements

To propose a paper for consideration by the 2004 Symposium Abstract Review Committee, please submit:

Abstract (approx. 150 words); or 1-2 page summary of your proposed paper; or
Completed paper (draft acceptable);
Contact information of author(s). name, organization, mailing address including postal code and country, e-mail address, phone and fax numbers; and
Brief biography of the author(s)
Proposals may be sent by mail or as an e-mail attachment. All submissions must be written in English.

E-mail: cip-odell@umuc.edu
Please send your electronic submission in PDF or Word format, with "2004 call for papers" in the subject field.

or send to:

2004 Call for Papers
Center for Intellectual Property, SFSC 3219
University of Maryland University College
Adelphi, Maryland 20783 USA

Respect the public domain.

Respect the public domain. This is one of several sites trying to keep the public domain of copyright free material as large as possible. In particular, it is a response to virtual elimination of new work entering the public domain due to ever increasing copyright extensions.

From the site:

Why should I care about the public domain?

The short answer is: because you've been cheated. The long answer? Because the movie industry wants you to honor your part of a deal, even though they no longer honor their part of the same deal. You see, the public is being admonished to respect copyrights, but the copyright holders have not respected the public domain. Instead, they have lobbied for extension after extension, indefinitely delaying their obligation to release works into the public domain. This runs contrary to the "limited time" restriction in the U.S. Constitution, and has effectively killed off the public domain.

What is the problem?

The problem isn't copyright itself. The founders of the United States had it right, and struck a fine balance. Copyright originally lasted 14 years with 1 option to renew for an extra 14 years. That is long enough for the owner of a copyright to profit from it, but short enough that the public could reclaim their culture while they were still alive to appreciate it. But now, copyrights can last the lifetime of an author plus 70 years. And that's a problem! The end result is that nothing created since 1923 has fallen into the public domain! Some people, such as Jack Valenti and Mary Bono, have urged Congress to extend copyright to forever less one day.¹ This is far, far beyond reasonable. Our society is a human institution. And as such, "limited times" should be viewed from a human perspective. Lengthy and repeated copyright extensions undermine the spirit of the Constitution, and ignore human reality: we die. Limited times that extend beyond our own lives are useless, nothing more than a token gesture. Until corporations and government officials understand that they're dealing with human beings, they will continue to experience failure here.

What is the solution?

First of all, we encourage movie goers to take advantage of the movie industry's guilt-trip trailers: make their platform your soapbox. Boo their ads right in the theater, or shout "respect the public domain!" Don't underestimate the influence even a quick quip can have on a theater full of people getting lectured in the dark.

Napster.com

Napster.com It's back! And it is legal this time. The file sharing pioneer service is back with tunes. Customers can dowload song tracks for .99 cents. This is cheap and affordable. Being able to legally download music for less than a dollar a tune should encourage many users to stop pirating. I downloaded a few songs I wanted. I couldn't find a few others. The Napster library needs to expand.

The fate of Napster will make for some good class discussion points. If it makes it, we can lecture about how copyright and intellectual property are important and are preserved in the new Web world. If Napster goes belly up, we can lecture on how creativity is being stiffled by piracy. Either way and we have a good example to discuss copyright with our students.

FindLaw's Writ - Hamilton: Why Suing College Students for Illegal Music Downloading Is the Right Thing To Do

FindLaw's Writ - Hamilton: Why Suing College Students for Illegal Music Downloading Is the Right Thing To Do I am going to cover copyright today in my LIB 197 class. Since the advent of wide spread music piracy online, teaching about copyright has become a lot easier. I know many of my students steal music and think there is nothing wrong in doing this. Further, many are belligerent towards the music industry. They want MP3 files and they want them for free. Many say they would pay a small fee for the right to do this legally but I am not sure if they really mean it.

From the article, "In a society that enjoys the benefit of a strong, enforceable copyright law, it is too easy to forget what life would be like without it.

While my son went to space camp in Huntsville, Alabama last week, the rest of us went to Nashville, the home of country music and the Country Music Hall of Fame. The museum is excellent at many different levels, but my favorite element was the film of television clips showing country music over the last 50 years. Now, my mother is from Wyoming and my father from Kentucky, so I was destined to be a country-western music fan. The film brought back a million childhood memories; it also reminded me why copyright is such an absolute necessity.

Were it not for copyright's ability to build fences around intangible goods like lyrics and melodies, a performer like Loretta Lynn would not have been able to leave Butcher Holler, Kentucky, and share her gifts with the world. The list of country music stars that have come from humble beginnings is long, and the best country music never forgets its origins.

The world would have been a lesser place but for copyright's ability to pave the road for these stars to travel from rags to riches, from hillbilly country to the big lights. The Country Music Hall of Fame gives you a real taste of that story as it displays the humble beginnings of some, as well as the gold-plated piano Priscilla Presley gave to Elvis on their first wedding anniversary.

In a culture without copyright, only the rich, or the government-sponsored, could be this culture's full-time creators. Poor artists like Loretta Lynn would have to flip burgers long into their music careers - and might even give up on music entirely.

For these reasons, imagining a world without copyright wouldn't just impoverish the musicians. It would also impoverish the museum, the culture, and music itself.

If the class of creators were winnowed down to the rich and the government-sponsored, and the free market were thus to be replaced by a patronage system, the ability of art to speak to the American people would dwindle precipitously. Artistic works would cater to elites; classical music might survive, but rock and country would encounter grave difficulties.

In the end, then, there is no such thing as cost-free downloading. It may be fiscally free today, but it will cost society dearly in the future." Full article at: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030805.html.

Jazz-Sax.Com | Exposing the Happy Birthday Story

Jazz-Sax.Com Exposing the Happy Birthday Story Did you know that the Happy Birthday song is copyrighted? If you use it in public, you owe the copyright owners money. In this case, there are some who claim the song is in the public domain. This is the point of today's blog entry. The author contends that the melody to Happy Birthday is in fact a public domain tune from the 1880s. It is an interesting claim. (And why doesn't someone sue the copyright holders forcing their hand? Repayments of past "copyright" settlements ought to make it worth it for some lawyer. Maybe this isn't such an easy issue.) Regardless, in a day when our students think nothing of downloading tunes for free from the Web, the whole idea of copyright and music seems quaint. I am going to have a lecture on copyright with my students this fall. This link may be the catalyst I use to introduce the topic. (And happy 5th birthday to my son Calvin.)