The copyright law is very clear on how people should use the copyrighted products. It is justified that that no one should use a copyright piece of work by any artist or author for commercial purpose (Nimmer & Philips, 1995). In this case, Bobby is liable for the offence because he is using someone else piece of work for commercial purpose.
Bobby’s case does not fall under any of the categories of the limitation of the copyright. It is a show of ignorance on his side to say that people like the song, and in any case, it is slightly different from the original. In section 110 paragraph (10), the copyright law only allows the copyright work to be performed in public social occasions that are non-commercial (Copyright Law of the United States, 2009). Whether he changed the words or not, the work he did has a substantial foundation on the Happy Birthday song, which is not his original.
According to the copyright law, section 106A paragraph 3 clearly prevents the misrepresentation, disfigurement or any adjustment to the authors work piece of work. Bobby is not only found to have the mistake of using a copyright work but also distorting the authors original. In this case, he is liable of an extra penalty. The exception given in chapter 106, paragraphs3 subsection C will not apply to Bobby’s case. This is because he is primarily doing the changes for getting money and not preservation of the piece of work or public presentation (Copyright Law of the United States, 2009).
To sum up, Bobby should pay the damages done to the piece of work. He should pay the fine lawfully imposed on him for using the song without the consent of Johnny Singstealer, the owner of the copyright work. He should do this because the copyright law section 106A (d) provides for the conferment of these rights by inheritance (Copyright Law of the United States, 2009). This stays in place for as long as the person is still alive. The ruling therefore is in favor of Johnny.