4 ms·
I think the idea is not to get hit with a "public performance" charge, but to have the video get automatically taken down on Youtube/Twitch/Instagram once it ge
by filoleg 6y ago
I think the idea is not to get hit with a "public performance" charge, but to have the video get automatically taken down on Youtube/Twitch/Instagram once it gets uploaded (due to the algorithm detecting copyright-infringing material).
And for that purpose, it doesn't matter whether it was a public performance or not. I can make a video of me sitting in a chair with a copyrighted song playing in the background, and it will get taken down. Hardly what I would call a "public performance".
- jedberg 6y agoThe point is people should turn around and try to nail the cops for illegal public performances.
- mgkimsal 6y agothanks - came here to say the same thing. does the police department pay the appropriate BMI license to be able to blast out those tunes in public?
- postalrat 6y agoYou can try. I'm sure the cops will just start playing songs by artists who approve of cops playing but don't approve of the songs appearing in the background of social media posts.
- airhead969 6y agoDo the labels and/or RIAA police that over the objection or permission of the artists?
- filoleg 6y agoDepends on who holds the rights. Whoever holds them decides on the permissions. If the rights are held by a major label, then they don't care a single thing about the artist's permission. For example, a few years ago or so, Madeon's soundcloud account (a big EDM artists) got a bunch of his own songs removed due to the label being the one actually holding the rights. The artist himself was pretty pissed about this. But if the rights are held by the artists or by a small independent label, then they get to give out the permission.
- gowld 6y agoThe point is that it's not a public performance just because someone recorded it in the background.