bawker Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 http://www.dci.org/about/legal/copyright.cfmIt says, and I quote: (bolding and italicizing mine) "Pay-Per-View" means exactly what it says. Pay once, view once. Period. It does not mean pay once, record and keep for your repeated viewing enjoyment because you don't make a lot of money. Stef Oh, well. Plenty of people do otherwise. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euphomism Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I suppose just remembering an event that you were at and telling another about said event is illegal too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartyount Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 DCI disallows the practice of ripping the stream. DCI disallows the audio or video recording of performances at live shows. It's really black and white. I'm not so sure about this. Just because DCI has it written down doesn't mean that it would necessarily be upheld by law. Now, I may be wrong on this, but I believe that it is lawful to time-shift (record) material that is broadcast as long as you are not breaking an encryption to do so. I don't remember the details of it, but there was a lawsuit back in the 80's over whether recording programs on a VCR was legal due to the copyrights of television shows, etc. The legal ruling was that recording (time-shifting) was legal as long as the recordings were for personal use (not sold or re-broadcast etc). Based on that, I believe that recording the stream is legal (regardless of what DCI says) as long as the stream was not encrypted and the person that recorded the stream is using it for personal use. But again - I'm not a lawyer and I could be wrong on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribeToo Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Umm.. yeah. Read the part about all the property on the site (images and audio included) being protected by US Copyright Law. If they wanted to bring charges, they could. As I said before, failure to enforce it or make greater efforts to prevent it than they have (notice is enough, by US Copyright Law and they give that) is not grounds enough to turn the law against them. They and their intellectual property are protected. Stef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartyount Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) Umm.. yeah. Read the part about all the property on the site (images and audio included) being protected by US Copyright Law.If they wanted to bring charges, they could. As I said before, failure to enforce it or make greater efforts to prevent it than they have (notice is enough, by US Copyright Law and they give that) is not grounds enough to turn the law against them. They and their intellectual property are protected. Sure they can bring charges. Anybody can bring charges on anyone for anything. That doesn't mean that the law will side with the person bringing the charges. The question is to what extent is the property protected by law? Television shows are protected by copyright, yet I have the legal right to record them for my personal use. Based on this, I believe that right probably extends to streaming internet broadcasts as well. (edit for grammar) Edited July 24, 2007 by bartyount Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Wow, the people that wrote the app to record .flv video from embedded sources (YouTube, PutFile, etc) are dead meat, then. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribeToo Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Sure they can bring charges. Anybody can bring charges on anyone for anything. That doesn't mean that the law will side with the person bringing the charges. The question is to what extent is the property protected by law? Television shows are protected by copyright, yet I have the legal right to record them for my personal use. Based on this, I believe that right probably extends to streaming internet broadcasts as well. (edit for grammar) quite true. I'd be very interested to find someone who has more copyright law expertise to comment on the extent of the protection DCI has. It doesn't change the fact that when you purchase something as "pay-per-view" you pay once, you view once. That's not implied, it's in writing right there in the name.. and recording that one-time view opportunity (particularly when the repeat view product is subsequently offered for sale by the owner) is theft. The extend of their rights to press charges notwithstanding, it is still theft. Stef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartyount Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 It doesn't change the fact that when you purchase something as "pay-per-view" you pay once, you view once. That's not implied, it's in writing right there in the name.. and recording that one-time view opportunity (particularly when the repeat view product is subsequently offered for sale by the owner) is theft. The extend of their rights to press charges notwithstanding, it is still theft. So this is why it's a gray area. I suppose technically, it is theft due to the intent of the provider being that the customer is paying for only one live viewing. But if my assumption is correct, it is not *legally* theft and no one could be prosecuted for it, regardless of what DCI has in writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScribeToo Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) So this is why it's a gray area. I suppose technically, it is theft due to the intent of the provider being that the customer is paying for only one live viewing. But if my assumption is correct, it is not *legally* theft and no one could be prosecuted for it, regardless of what DCI has in writing. Theft is not a gray area. The seriousness or prosecutability of the crime is gray but that has no bearing on whether a crime was committed -- only if it can be proved sufficiently. Pay-per-view. It's not subjective in any way. Pay each time you view. Edited July 24, 2007 by ScribeToo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 As far as drum corps videos and such go I've never downloaded anything I would have bought otherwise. My downloading hasn't negatively effected DCI in any way because the money the videos cost was money they were never going to see anyway. I have however showed shows to people who were otherwise not interested and sparked interest in the activity that will benefit DCI in the long run. DCI should be sending me a pay check :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.