3 ms·

Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video. Regardless, you simply don't know a

Well it wasn't with the express intent of having others listen to it. It was to stop them from being able to see the video. Regardless, you simply don't know anything about IP law if you think this to be the case. There needs to be a harmed party, and that needs to be the copyright owner.

pseudalopex 5y ago
His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public. The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there. Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is. "The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights." They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html "Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread." Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case. What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry." I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any. There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already. I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      This discusses the concept a bit. This UK case was a bit different because it wasn't just a few seconds of a song, it was continued over the course of years, and customers of the business could hear it, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre to me that anyone here thinks it would be reasonable to pursue this. From the article (which says exactly what I'm saying): "The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
      - 5y ago

pseudalopex 5y ago

His plan to stop YouTube users from seeing the video expressly involved playing a copyrighted song for gathered members of the public. The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights. You said in other comments they have to show it affected the market for the original work. But that's just 1 element of fair use. And fair use just means the harm to the copyright holder was justified.

robbrown451 5y ago
Gathered members of the public had nothing to do with it. The cop could have used the tactic if it was only himself and the person filming. In fact, according to the article, there is no mention of anyone else being there. Regardless, do you know anything about copyright law and how it actually works in court? I do. Anyone who does knows how absurd this is. "The copyright holder is harmed in the eyes of the law by the violation of their exclusive rights." They are not harmed financially unless it cuts into their sales because people are substituting this for listening to a purchased or otherwise monetized version. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html "Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread." Seriously, you should ask an attorney who works in the field. The copyright owner is really not a party to this case, they'd have a huge uphill battle trying to even get a court to take such a case, and if they did, they'd lose. And why would they bother? They don't have a dog in this race, as they say.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case. What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry." I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any. There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already. I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    This discusses the concept a bit. This UK case was a bit different because it wasn't just a few seconds of a song, it was continued over the course of years, and customers of the business could hear it, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre to me that anyone here thinks it would be reasonable to pursue this. From the article (which says exactly what I'm saying): "The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
    - 5y ago