idk man, but i still think im right about this one.. i just found that time warner owns the rights for the song, and even if a restaruant were to sing the song, they are supposed to pay royalties to tw.. heres a link i just found in about a two seceond search..
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5413561&page=1
No, no, no, after reading that, it reinstates what I was saying, please be aware of the trickery the media uses while writing articles in order to make them sound more "scary" if used.
#1 "Use it for any commercial purpose, and you are supposed to pay up, says George Washington University School of Law professor Robert Brauneis."
-Nowhere did they they say that it was
illegal did they? They simply stated a "Law Professor's" opinion on the matter. Other law professors can agree or disagree with that opinion. It's like when the news get a guest & says "We have expert biologist Mr. Shorts on today to discuss global warming." Shorts might give recommendations & opinions on how we can
possibly save by doing this or that, but ultimately, it's his opinion only, usually the news has 2 guests from the same profession & resume or background schooling to debate.
Also notice, it says you must pay for
commercial use not for public use. There is a fine line between the two... commercial is profit, public is not. Therefore, there is a grey line allowing restaurants to use it & 10/10 times if sued, the restaurant will win with fair use act & because it is not being used for commercial purposes.
#2 "The Girl Scouts once were warned they would have to pay a fee if campers sang it. Even restaurants are supposed to pay, which is why some chains have their waiters sing alternative birthday songs that require no rights payments."
-Again, notice the wording. Even restaurants are
suppose to pay...
suppose to, meaning they are not
required to. You can say, your not
suppose to smoke cigarettes in front of babies, because of health issues, but that doesn't mean you can't.
#3 "But if you want to use it in a television show, a movie, or a television commercial, you'll pay anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 for those rights."
-Like stated, they must pay because they are using it for
commercial purposes & for profits, they didn't use any examples of restaurants paying anywhere from $5-30 grand now did they? Because a restaurant has never had to.
#4 "Warner Brothers continues to collect more than $2 million each year in royalties"
-Again, the trickery. They collect more than $2 million in
royalties not in won cases. Royalties is just an agency paying for the use of the song for broadcast, so I'd imagine they do get $2 million. But that's nothing as apposed to how much the song is actually played throughout a years span, it is probably played 2 million times per day.
#5 "You may be engaging in
copyright infringement."
-Trickery, trickery, trickery... notice it says
"You may be" it doesn't say
"You are".
The chances of a representative from the copyright agency eating a meal in your restaurant at the sametime as a birthday guest(s) & at the exact moment of the song being performed, then wanting to sue is less likely then winning the lottery twice in the same day... literally.
The reason they tweak the song is because it gives that particular restaurant they're own "thing". Many restaurants do this to be different, so when customers hear the song in a new light, it doesn't sound like the same old boring Birthday melody. They want customers around to hear
they're version & leave the restaurant saying,
"Let's bring Andy here for his birthday I liked El Rosel's adaptation of the song..." it's a marketing strategy by the restaurant not a copyright evading strategy.
Not to mention, by reenacting the song, you are using your right to
freedom of speech because you are speaking the song, you are not presenting the song as a product. So think about that, a good lawyer (Like myself) will argue the fact with the
freedom of speech act.
Like I said, I could be wrong, lol.