4 ms·

He didn't play it for himself.

robbrown451 5y ago
He played it in the normal way you play music, where others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  > He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Just the opposite. The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material. There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself. This thread is full of absurd arguments.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  The recording isn't what made it public performance. The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd. The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Replace enjoyment with listening if you like. Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
      - robbrown451 5y ago
        So why isn't Taylor Swift and her record company suing everyone who is listening to music in a public place, such as a park? They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        It would be impractical and bad for business. They would have to hang out in parks waiting for someone to infringe. Then identify them. They would get a reputation for suing people who just wanted to listen to music in the park. And courts would be sympathetic to fair use claims in such cases.
jollybean 5y ago
He was playing it for himself, and those in his immediate surrounding, and there's almost no chance that's going to be considered some kind of violation. He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make it public performance.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    That's not a public performance. Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal. Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance. Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance. If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it. So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1] None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
    - otterley 5y ago
      Radios are exempt because the broadcasting station has already received a license for public performance. The station is conducting the public performance and not the equipment holder. OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
      - jollybean 5y ago

He played it in the normal way you play music, where others can hear it. He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. That said, he should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright. It is an obnoxious attempt to avoid accountability.

chipotle_coyote 5y ago
> He isn't responsible for the fact that it is being filmed and shown more widely. IANAL, but I think this would be a tenuous claim. If I see you with a camera and do something while you are pointing the camera at me -- with the express stated intent of having you film me doing it, no less -- I don't think I would get to (credibly) claim "hey, not my responsibility, I just happened to be doing that thing and you happened to catch me doing it on camera."
- jollybean 5y ago
  Just the opposite. The cop has no clue whether or not the person is actually filming or not, no clue what the person intends to do with the video or audio, and most importantly - has no involvement or control in either the recording, editing, licensing or distribution of the material. There's no way in high heaven that someone's going to be construed to be in violation of the 'distribution' artifact of copyright law if they have no participation or really even awareness of the distribution itself. This thread is full of absurd arguments.
pseudalopex 5y ago
The recording isn't what made it public performance. The normal way you play music is for your own enjoyment. It's incidental if other people overhear. He said that wasn't what he did.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  That doesn't make it a public performance. Are you saying that a court cares whether or not you are enjoying it? Really? This is so absurd. The harmed party needs to be the owner of the copyright, because people listen to this instead of paying them.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Replace enjoyment with listening if you like. Unauthorized public performance is a violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Market effect is only 1 of several factors examined together for a fair use defense.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      So why isn't Taylor Swift and her record company suing everyone who is listening to music in a public place, such as a park? They have no reason to sue this guy that doesn't apply to millions of other cases that happen every day.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        It would be impractical and bad for business. They would have to hang out in parks waiting for someone to infringe. Then identify them. They would get a reputation for suing people who just wanted to listen to music in the park. And courts would be sympathetic to fair use claims in such cases.

jollybean 5y ago

He was playing it for himself, and those in his immediate surrounding, and there's almost no chance that's going to be considered some kind of violation. He's not making a public production or broadcasting either - the person doing the filming is doing that.

pseudalopex 5y ago
He said he didn't play it for himself. His immediate surrounding and those in it are exactly what would make it public performance.
- jollybean 5y ago
  That's not a public performance. Otherwise using a radio would basically be illegal. Playing music for people waiting in the lobby at the station, or restaurant patrons, DJ at a club or event -> public performance. Playing music at your desk/office/car/workspace/radio for yourself and whoever you happen to be working with at the moment -> not a public performance. If you want to make a more eccentric claim, you should try to find some examples of case law to support it. So here is the relevant case law from the Supreme Court back to the 19th century [1] None of it really comes close to establishing that someone playing a radio for themselves and those in front of them would be tantamount to public performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...
  - otterley 5y ago
    Radios are exempt because the broadcasting station has already received a license for public performance. The station is conducting the public performance and not the equipment holder. OTOH, when you purchase (technically, receive a license for) a song from, say, iTunes or Spotify, that license doesn't include a public performance right. That's the difference.
    - jollybean 5y ago