U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: Streaming is a felony

[Bob Maxey]

Since you like hypotheticals, say I own a car company. I spend millions developing a new car. You came in and copy the designs. You then sell it to a competing company. How is that not theft?

Trademark Laws, Copyright Laws, and Patent Laws all likely apply in this particular case. Quite a few laws apply to counterfeit goods and it is a big problem for luxury goods manufacturers.

 

[Bob Maxey]

without throwing out my opinion because I really couldnt care less.... I do find the arguments hilarious though

just a couple of interesting questions for those arguing that the person who actually does the d/l is stealing....... because until recently its been the person who actually offers the d/l who has been considered the criminal

did you ever own and use a tape recorder or the record feature on your vcr??? youre a thief

have you ever gone to someone elses house and watched a dvd or vcr tape???? youre a thief

ever borrowed a dvd or cd??? youre a thief

do you own and use a dvr of any type (tivo, on your satelite box, etc)???? youre a thief

you see those things are no different in any way........ yet I bet not a single one of you think that is stealing

It is definitely not stealing. So gather your friends and watch the latest Justin Beaber (Beiber SP?) video as much as you want. You can't sell tickets however. Or make copies, or host copies on your web site, however.

My local public library lends me videos and this is perfectly legal according to the law.

I recall the government introduced the DAT Tax in 1992.

The DAT Tax

Perhaps you would be well served by reviewing the Public Performances provision of the Copyright Laws. That will help address a few of these issues.

 

[Bob Maxey]

No, you did not suffer actual damages because it cost you nothing for your CD to be copied and distributed on the web. You cannot prove with absoulte certainty that people would have purchased your CD legally otherwise.

If J.K. Rowling decided to write another Harry Potter book, I guess it has no value whatsoever, according to you, because there is no guarantee that people would DL the file. Yeah, right, there is suddenly no more millions of youngsters interested in yet another poor selling HP books.

If she wrote another HP book, it would be worth millions of dollars in book sales, paperback rights, foreign rights, movie rights, and merchandising. The hundreds of millions of dollars she earned had to come from somewhere, so there is value in digital content. And protecting the rights of the creator trumps your "right" to DL some music.

So when I offer PDF files or some other digital version on my web site, and thousands of people downloaded it for free, apparently JK has not lost any money, right? Because, as you seem to believe, there is no loss because there is no guarantee JK would sell her book in physical form in the bookstores, right?

Yes, I am putting words in your mouth and yes, I think your views are naive and if you created something amazing, and I offered it for free to my millions of readers, you would sue me. I guess as long as others loose money and you can get yer free music for free, that's cool, huh?

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'll research this further but from what I know so far, yes. A lot of DJs obviously are not in compliance, though.

Not necessarily, please review the public performance rules in the copyright law.

 

[Dark Jedi]

without throwing out my opinion because I really couldnt care less.... I do find the arguments hilarious though

just a couple of interesting questions for those arguing that the person who actually does the d/l is stealing....... because until recently its been the person who actually offers the d/l who has been considered the criminal.

did you ever own and use a tape recorder or the record feature on your vcr??? youre a thief

you can record over the radio or off a TV station that broadcast. As long as its for your personal use.

have you ever gone to someone elses house and watched a dvd or vcr tape???? youre a thief.

If he isnt charging admission to view the show then its legal. Again its for his personal use.

ever borrowed a dvd or cd??? youre a thief.

only a theif if you make a copy of the item you dont own.

do you own and use a dvr of any type (tivo, on your satelite box, etc)???? youre a thief

Cable/Satellite providers has a legal agreement with the different stations for the whole DVR setup. You use it for your personal use.

 

[Isthmus]

I do have a question with this whole thing. With these club dj's that spin records. They get paid for playing other people music at the club. Now do they have to pay a royalty to the record labels or is there an exemption for them? I always wondered about this?

Funny you should bring that up. Look up The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music International (BMI). They are both Performing rights organizations who make it their business to sue and collect royalties from businesses that play music (such as the background music in restaurants and the music you hear at nightclubs). From what I understand they are extremely successful at what they do.Basically you can't even play the radio (yes over free airwaves) as a part of your business or they will try to extort a fee from you. I once knew a restaurant owner who had these bozos show up at his door looking to collect. he told them to bugger off. he checked with his attorney and found out that they were right. His answer was to take advantage of a loophole. You see he was already paying for cable to show on the bar's TV's. His cable copany offered dozens of music channels that he never used. since he was paying for the cable and the cable company was already paying royalties, he simply turned off the radio and started piping the cable radio into the restaurant. They never bothered him again.

I think DJs fall under the fair use policy in which they take another work of art and modify it into something new, so they can't really be sued for what they do (at least not unless all they do is play records).

 

[Bob Maxey]

Funny you should bring that up. Look up The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music International (BMI). They are both Performing rights organizations who make it their business to sue and collect royalties from businesses that play music (such as the background music in restaurants and the music you hear at nightclubs). From what I understand they are extremely successful at what they do.Basically you can't even play the radio (yes over free airwaves) as a part of your business or they will try to extort a fee from you. I once knew a restaurant owner who had these bozos show up at his door looking to collect. he told them to bugger off. he checked with his attorney and found out that they were right. His answer was to take advantage of a loophole. You see he was already paying for cable to show on the bar's TV's. His cable copany offered dozens of music channels that he never used. since he was paying for the cable and the cable company was already paying royalties, he simply turned off the radio and started piping the cable radio into the restaurant. They never bothered him again.

I think DJs fall under the fair use policy in which they take another work of art and modify it into something new, so they can't really be sued for what they do (at least not unless all they do is play records).

This last example is covered under the 'Derivative Works' provisions. then again, your protection and rights might be defined by however the court rules if you were sued.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

​

Parody is also covered and if you saw the movie (Woody Harraldson, Cheers) about Larry Flynt, you would see how SCOTUS ruled when Flynt created a fake ad that upset one of our esteemed religious leaders.


It likely apples to Weird Al and his parodys as well.

 

[BiggestManEver]

Here's a fun refresher for everyone who is using every single term incorrectly (sorry to those who have been using the terms correctly).

 

[lordofthereef]

This last example is covered under the 'Derivative Works' provisions. then again, your protection and rights might be defined by however the court rules if you were sued.

And often the "winner" is the one who has the best lawyer. So, who is likely to have the better lawyer. The DJ who mixes on weekends or Sony Music? This is more a flaw in the court system I guess, but it doesn't make it hurt any less.

I am reminded by the George Hotz versus Sony entertainment. He "jailbroke" the PS3 to run homebrew (and install other OS's, a functionality that Sony initially supported) and was taken to court. Long story short, he was forced to agree not to mess with anything Sony for the rest of his life. - - - this is a slightly different example, but falls roughly into the same category.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Here's a fun refresher for everyone who is using every single term incorrectly (sorry to those who have been using the terms correctly).

Some people need visual aids, apparently.

 

[Bob Maxey]

And often the "winner" is the one who has the best lawyer. So, who is likely to have the better lawyer. The DJ who mixes on weekends or Sony Music? This is more a flaw in the court system I guess, but it doesn't make it hurt any less.

I am reminded by the George Hotz versus Sony entertainment. He "jailbroke" the PS3 to run homebrew (and install other OS's, a functionality that Sony initially supported) and was taken to court. Long story short, he was forced to agree not to mess with anything Sony for the rest of his life. - - - this is a slightly different example, but falls roughly into the same category.

Apple also went to court; their goal was to stop Jailbreaking the iPhone. By the way, Jailbreaking the iPad is still up in the air as far as the legal rulings are concerned. In no way, did the Copyright Office say it applied to all iDevices; the iPad did not exist at the time.

As for winners have better lawyers than losers, I might cite a few quick examples of large uber-corporations that lost in court when they went up against a rather nice lady who was using their legally protected images on products she sold on eBay, and she had no legal experience and no licensing agreements. Ruled legal by the courts.

In each case, it was all about copyright violations and the rights that these corporations asserted that resulted in cases tossed out of court because the lawyers were asserting "rights" they had no (legal) right to assert.

So the little guy can often defeat the giants among us, when the court is reasonable and the facts support you.

Consider . . . this woman created children's clothing featuring images and other IP owned by Major League Baseball, NASCAR, and many of the images of Walt Disney's beloved characters, like Donald and Mickey.

Her cased was based on existing law that says what you can do and cannot do. In this case, it was fabrics licensed to the fabric manufacturer. She made children's clothes and Disney (and others) disagreed and cited IP and copyright violations.

The court disagreed and she won. Several times, in fact.

In my opinion, I think these "David V. Goliath" cases are lost because either you are not prepared, you assume too much, you have an incompetent/inexperienced lawyer, or the law is not on your side. You assume too much and to casual observers, you are seen as the victim; the large corporations are viewed as greedy and heartless.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Some people need visual aids, apparently.

I know I do. Especially the accurate non-biased ones. Buy one should never argue with a little info graphic; they trump everything.

 

[lordofthereef]

As for winners have better lawyers than losers, I might cite a few quick examples of large uber-corporations that lost in court when they went up against a rather nice lady who was using their legally protected images on products she sold on eBay, and she had no legal experience and no licensing agreements. Ruled legal by the courts.

I wasn't trying to imply this was the rule of thumb, but it does happen, far more often than it should. I have no intention of arguing the matter, just wanting to point out that it does happen. Thinking that justice has been done because the legal court has been ruled in such a way is a fallacy in my eyes. The courts have ruled, and will continue to rule, unjustly, and that is just the way it is. Doesn't mean I am ok or happy with it, just means I get to live with it.