Intellectual Property - Ethics for the Information Age - page 168

Previous Year Became Purchase

Artist Work Rental Fee Public Domain Price

Ravel Daphnis et Chloe Suite no. 1 $450.00 1987 $155.00

Ravel Mother Goose Suite 540.00 1988 70.00

Ravel Daphnis et Chloe Suite no. 2 540.00 1989 265.00

Griffes The White Peacock 335.00 1993 42.00

Puccini O Mio Babbino Caro 252.00 1994 26.00

Respighi Fountains of Rome 441.00 1994 140.00

Ravel Le Tombeau de Couperin 510.00 1995 86.00

Respighi Ancient Aires and Dances Suite no. 1 441.00 1996 85.00

Elgar Cello Concerto 550.00 1997 140.00

Holst The Planets 815.00 1997 300.00

Ravel Alborada Del Gracioso 360.00 1999 105.00

TABLE 4.1 Once a piece of classical music enters the public domain, it may be purchased for
much less than it cost simply to rent the same piece of music for two performances when
it was still under copyright protection. These prices assume the orchestra has an annual
budget of $150,000 or less [12]. (Table from “Letter to The Honorable Senator Spencer Abraham,”
by Randolph P. Luck from Luck's Music Library. Copyright © 1996 by Randolph P. Luck. Reprinted
with permission.)

only for a limited period of time. (Note: Rights to a piece of intellectual property pro-
duced by an employee in the normal course of his or her duties belong to the employer.)
At the end of that time period, the intellectual property enters the public domain. While
creators have control over the distribution of their properties, use of the properties is
more expensive, and the creators are rewarded. After properties enter the public do-
main, using them becomes less expensive, and everyone has the opportunity to produce
derivative works from them.
Consider a community orchestra that wishes to perform a piece of classical music.
It may purchase a piece of music from the public domain for far less money than it
cost simply to rent the same piece of music while it was still protected by copyright
(Table 4.1).
The question is, what is a reasonable length of time to grant authors and inventors
exclusive rights to their creative works? Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer [13],
Kembrew McLeod [14], and Lawrence Lessig [15] have used “Happy Birthday to You”
as evidence that copyright protections are excessive.
“Happy Birthday to You” is the most popular song in the world. Have you ever won-
dered why you almost never hear it sung on television? The reason is that the music
publisher Clayton F. Summy Company (now a subsidiary of Time Warner) copyrighted
the song in 1935, and television networks must pay Time Warner to air it. Time Warner
collects about $2 million in royalties each year for public performances of “Happy Birth-
day to You” [16]. Under the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the song will remain
copyrighted until at least 2030.