6 ms·

Will your big-screen Super Bowl party violate copyright law?

29 points by theandym 17y ago

elblanco 17y ago
The bigger question is that does having a bunch of friends over to watch anything on your big-screen tv violate copyright law?
- brk 17y ago
  And the even BIGGER question then that is who will rehash this age-old topic around this time next year?
- mrkurt 17y ago
  The article answers that: > The rest of exemption five lays out a host of limitations to the exemption (yes, it's a bit confusing), but they all apply to "an establishment"—a public gathering place, not a home. The rules get remarkably specific, apply differently to small and large venues, and come with restrictions on how many TVs or radios can be used in a place of business without running into trouble.
  - ComputerGuru 17y ago
    OK, so what about that tiny TV at your favorite pub?
    - mrkurt 17y ago
      Also covered. ;) > The "55 inch" language applies to large establishments of more than a few thousand square feet. Such places can show the big game on a TV set, but only if they don't use "more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space."
- Raphael 17y ago
  The possibility that having a bunch of people watching decoded radio signals could be illegal is just bizarre.
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    It's really not any more bizarre than having copies of strings of characters be illegal. Or copies of sound patterns, vocal pitches, etc.
MrSartorial 17y ago
This is just bad jurisprudence. It's the reason why legal language is supposed to be intentionally vague; so that there aren't potential legal issues with doing something that a completely rational person might do. Obviously there is no intention for the law to be interfering with any super bowl parties you might want to have at home and no prosecutor would relish pursuing someone who did. This whole thing is pretty much a moot point unless you own a sports bar. That's what happens when lobbyists get to the lawmakers though...
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Obviously there is no intention for the law to be interfering with any super bowl parties As more and more aspects of life are affected by automation, "I didn't mean to" is less and less a useful excuse. Rules should specify what is and is not within the rules, and if that's very difficult, perhaps it's a sign that the rule is ill-considered.
  - MrSartorial 17y ago
    I agree 100%, but there is precedent for lawyers to follow, so that is considered when pursuing each new case. Much like "I didn't mean to" is not an excuse, it is stated in law that ignorance of the law is not an excuse either. It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. What is needed is clear and concise law that does not bog down the process and micromanage what should be left open for interpretation. I stand by the fact that the aspects of law mentioned in the article are simply very poor jurisprudence.
    - roc 17y ago
      > It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. You seem to have a faith in the intent of a law and reasonableness of its enforcement that just isn't backed up by fact. There is no shortage of cases where minors are facing child pornography charges for sexting other minors. It seems a week can't even pass by without yet-another poor kid having his life ruined by adults ignoring intent and enforcing the precise language of a law.
ComputerGuru 17y ago
I think this is covered by the "we don't want to discuss this issue, don't want to revamp a bad system, don't want to make a decision that will piss anyone off" law .... also known as "Don't ask, don't tell"
siculars 17y ago
Dovetails nicely with the 'i break the law...' conversation here, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1091814 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1091814. This is actually a concern as I've been invited to a superbowl party via facebook, no less. What happens when these invites are discoverable and suits decide to start filing lawsuits? Good times.
chrischen 17y ago
This type of legislation is equivalent to hard coding in a compiled language. I'm wondering though, if I deflect the electromagnetic waves off of my house, would that constitute as rebroadcasting?
lurkinggrue 17y ago
Strange new usage of the word copyright that I was previously unaware of.

29 points by theandym 17y ago

The bigger question is that does having a bunch of friends over to watch anything on your big-screen tv violate copyright law?

brk 17y ago
And the even BIGGER question then that is who will rehash this age-old topic around this time next year?
mrkurt 17y ago
The article answers that: > The rest of exemption five lays out a host of limitations to the exemption (yes, it's a bit confusing), but they all apply to "an establishment"—a public gathering place, not a home. The rules get remarkably specific, apply differently to small and large venues, and come with restrictions on how many TVs or radios can be used in a place of business without running into trouble.
- ComputerGuru 17y ago
  OK, so what about that tiny TV at your favorite pub?
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    Also covered. ;) > The "55 inch" language applies to large establishments of more than a few thousand square feet. Such places can show the big game on a TV set, but only if they don't use "more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space."
Raphael 17y ago
The possibility that having a bunch of people watching decoded radio signals could be illegal is just bizarre.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  It's really not any more bizarre than having copies of strings of characters be illegal. Or copies of sound patterns, vocal pitches, etc.

MrSartorial 17y ago

This is just bad jurisprudence. It's the reason why legal language is supposed to be intentionally vague; so that there aren't potential legal issues with doing something that a completely rational person might do. Obviously there is no intention for the law to be interfering with any super bowl parties you might want to have at home and no prosecutor would relish pursuing someone who did. This whole thing is pretty much a moot point unless you own a sports bar. That's what happens when lobbyists get to the lawmakers though...

randallsquared 17y ago
Obviously there is no intention for the law to be interfering with any super bowl parties As more and more aspects of life are affected by automation, "I didn't mean to" is less and less a useful excuse. Rules should specify what is and is not within the rules, and if that's very difficult, perhaps it's a sign that the rule is ill-considered.
- MrSartorial 17y ago
  I agree 100%, but there is precedent for lawyers to follow, so that is considered when pursuing each new case. Much like "I didn't mean to" is not an excuse, it is stated in law that ignorance of the law is not an excuse either. It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. What is needed is clear and concise law that does not bog down the process and micromanage what should be left open for interpretation. I stand by the fact that the aspects of law mentioned in the article are simply very poor jurisprudence.
  - roc 17y ago
    > It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't. You seem to have a faith in the intent of a law and reasonableness of its enforcement that just isn't backed up by fact. There is no shortage of cases where minors are facing child pornography charges for sexting other minors. It seems a week can't even pass by without yet-another poor kid having his life ruined by adults ignoring intent and enforcing the precise language of a law.

ComputerGuru 17y ago

I think this is covered by the "we don't want to discuss this issue, don't want to revamp a bad system, don't want to make a decision that will piss anyone off" law .... also known as "Don't ask, don't tell"

siculars 17y ago

Dovetails nicely with the 'i break the law...' conversation here, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1091814 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1091814. This is actually a concern as I've been invited to a superbowl party via facebook, no less. What happens when these invites are discoverable and suits decide to start filing lawsuits? Good times.

chrischen 17y ago

This type of legislation is equivalent to hard coding in a compiled language. I'm wondering though, if I deflect the electromagnetic waves off of my house, would that constitute as rebroadcasting?

lurkinggrue 17y ago

Strange new usage of the word copyright that I was previously unaware of.