4 ms·

How is this different from a band performing exclusively live to people who buy tickets and actively disallowing recordings? Or what about a Broadway show that

• kd5bjo 6y ago
  In Audible’s case, they’re already selling access to a recording in perpetuity; your examples are all live performances. There’s a colorable distinction here, and there’s no need to force people to make recordings if they don’t want to. A harder question is where the line between these two regimes should be: movie theaters and television stations are generally treated like performances despite showing recorded content. Netflix acts like a rental company: when you drop your subscription, you lose access to their library.
  • falcor84 6y ago
    Well, stretching the analogy a bit, a lawyer could argue that Netflix's act of streaming a piece of content is a live performance - you're not paying for the video, but rather to access this "Netflix theatre".
• ghaff 6y ago
  >Or what about a Broadway show that doesn't have a recording? I was lamenting (in the context of Hamilton) that relatively few Broadway shows--or, really, theater of any kind--have video versions available, even straightforward one or two camera versions. I expect it's mostly some combination of rights and a desire not to diminish the somewhat exclusive nature of live theater. The main exception I can think of is opera mostly because of The Met Live in HD although there are a few others like The Globe (of course, Shakespeare's plays aren't under copyright).
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]