3 ms·

> Copyright law governs both the creation of copies, and their distribution. This is an interesting idea that I haven't heard before. In what ways has copyrig

by decode 14y ago

> Copyright law governs both the creation of copies, and their distribution. This is an interesting idea that I haven't heard before. In what ways has copyright law governed the distribution of objects when no copying is involved?

tedunangst 14y ago
The distributed object is a copy. This court case does not apply to the sole copy of a manuscript.
alexqgb 14y ago
"This DVD is licensed only for private, non-commercial use." That's backed up by copyright law. If you build a theater, charge people to enter, and program runs of classic movies, you will get sued for violating the commercial-distribution aspects of copyright law, even if you bought the DVD you were charging others to see.
- decode 14y ago
  "you will get sued for violating the commercial-distribution aspects of copyright law" I think that's incorrect. I think this would be infringement due to it being considered a public performance, not commercial distribution. As the copyright act says, "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." The MPAA also describes the situation as a public performance issue: http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law Do you know of any cases where a public performance was prosecuted as a commercial distribution case?
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    I'm a producer, not a lawyer, so I can't quote you legal chapter and verse. But as your own link makes clear "But suppose you took the same movie or TV episode and showed it to patrons at a club or bar that you happen to manage. In that case, you have infringed the copyright in the video work." Whether a public performance constitutes legal publication is, of course, a separate issue. The point I was making is that copyright law governs both duplication and distribution, not duplication only.

by decode 14y ago

tedunangst 14y ago

The distributed object is a copy. This court case does not apply to the sole copy of a manuscript.

alexqgb 14y ago

"This DVD is licensed only for private, non-commercial use." That's backed up by copyright law. If you build a theater, charge people to enter, and program runs of classic movies, you will get sued for violating the commercial-distribution aspects of copyright law, even if you bought the DVD you were charging others to see.

decode 14y ago
"you will get sued for violating the commercial-distribution aspects of copyright law" I think that's incorrect. I think this would be infringement due to it being considered a public performance, not commercial distribution. As the copyright act says, "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." The MPAA also describes the situation as a public performance issue: http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law Do you know of any cases where a public performance was prosecuted as a commercial distribution case?
- alexqgb 14y ago
  I'm a producer, not a lawyer, so I can't quote you legal chapter and verse. But as your own link makes clear "But suppose you took the same movie or TV episode and showed it to patrons at a club or bar that you happen to manage. In that case, you have infringed the copyright in the video work." Whether a public performance constitutes legal publication is, of course, a separate issue. The point I was making is that copyright law governs both duplication and distribution, not duplication only.