jjeffeory Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) Now this is actually quite interesting. I am inclined to agree with you that if I am able to videorecord a performance from my property, or from a public location, then I am free to post it, or even to sell it. There was a case here in Cleveland where a photographer took a picture of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame from a public sidewalk and sold it as a print. The RRHOF sued, claming they owned the unique design of their building, but they lost. Then again, a musical performance is not an architectural design. Well, the issue isn't black and white. At the end of the day, there's the supreme court around to interpret the law that Congress wrote. There are litigators aka attorney's around to help with that. If they're really good, they can sway judges. Again, I'm not against copyright holders, but it's not always about what's written in the law. It's pretty interesting. Well, I thought it was, but I see how some people would be upset with me. Edited May 5, 2016 by jjeffeory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 This is a re-statement of what I previously posted that addresses your issues here concerning why DCI and the Corps should police Copyright Infringement issues on YouTube: (Corps cannot Copyright anything unless they are the original creators of the music in use. Corps have a Privilege, not a Right, to use the music which is owned by the Copyright Holder; and since they were granted that Privilege they need to take it upon themselves to help honor that Privilege by protecting what the Copyright Owner has placed into their trust. Moreover, If Corps do not engage in their own policing of non-authorized videoing/posting they are likely to have a hard time securing future arranging permissions granted from Copyright Holders. And if DCI did not stay on top of policing non-authorized videoing/posting they would also likely lose future sync permissions granted from Copyright Holders. That's where the "fear" comment I made comes in. At the end of the day, DCI still has no legal right to police works owned by the copyright holders. It IS in their best interest to try and make us think that they do though, and it is awfully nice of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Its just a #### shame that Lawyers gotta mess this up for kids & niche organizations who need all the publicity they can get. There are too many dam Lawyers I tell ya... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 ...there's the supreme court around to interpret the law that Congress wrote... We could likely go a few rounds on whether or not 'interpretation' of law was the duty our Founding Fathers intended for the Supreme court, or if it was strictly supposed to be a court that determined if a law created by Congress was grounded in the Constitution. But that is a different topic and not DCI related. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Its just a #### shame that Lawyers gotta mess this up for kids & niche organizations who need all the publicity they can get. There are too many dam Lawyers I tell ya... While there are lawyers out there who are unscrupulous and unethical, it is the job of all lawyers to stand for the rule of law. But what you are advocating is that for the sake of the kids and the niche activity lawyers should actually be unscrupulous and unethical by just looking the other way when people steal other people’s intellectual property. What does that teach kids about honor, justice, and character? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 We could likely go a few rounds on whether or not 'interpretation' of law was the duty our Founding Fathers intended for the Supreme court, or if it was strictly supposed to be a court that determined if a law created by Congress was grounded in the Constitution. But that is a different topic and not DCI related. Well, my experience has been that judges can be swayed, and interpretation is one of their powers. ( Yes, I've had to sit in court a bit in many jurisdictions over the years to help with cases from the administrative side) ...and it's scary depending on where you live. Some states have some clueless judges who go against case law. They get appealed quite a bit. Fortunately, or unfortunately, copyright issues would be handled by federal judges, and they a lot more "with it" than the state judges. lol So, yea, maybe I'm bad, but I like to go at discussions from different angles to see what comes of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 That's where the "fear" comment I made comes in. At the end of the day, DCI still has no legal right to police works owned by the copyright holders. It IS in their best interest to try and make us think that they do though, and it is awfully nice of them. It is more than just being nice. Again, it is in the best interest of DCI and the Corps to help protect the entity which granted them the Privilege of using the music owned by that entity; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) Everyone in my household either is an attorney, or works at a IP law firm. Here is how the Supreme Court would likely 'interpret' that statement: "Everyone in your house is either a dancing bear, or works at a circus". All kidding aside, I have deep respect for ethical people who engage within the legal profession. Edited May 5, 2016 by Stu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 (edited) Well, my experience has been that judges can be swayed... That I agree with, judges are human. ... and interpretation is one of their powers. Hmmmm... I have yet to see in the Constitution where the power of 'interpretation' is granted to Federal Judges. The Supreme Court declared that for themselves which lead to judicial review, which in turn lead to 'interpreting' based on case law. And that is why we now have ended up with huge discrepancies within the legal system viewing something that is stated very simply in the Constitution such as the exclusive rights of an artist to own his/her work. The only thing Congress and the Supreme Court should deal with should be how long that ownership should be exclusive along with what consequences should occur if that exclusivity is violated; and that has nothing to do with 'interpretation' of law but with just simply upholding the Constitution. Edited May 5, 2016 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Bottom line is who wants the hassles of litigation? So the best policy for an organization is usually taking the path of least resistance - ie no litigation with rights holders. This means that DCI, and maybe some people on this board, feels that they need to police the interwebs so that they "avoid any problems" with the rights holders. The rights holders are probably very happy about that too, as it's less work for them. The problem is "the policing" is the job of the right's holder. It's not the job of one of the many right's licensees, except for possibly where the licensees controls the venue. There they can be nice and keep the right's holder happy. Other places? Nah.... It's not their business. Remember that both songs and recordings have applicable copyrights. DCI is not the rights holder of the songs, but they are the rights holder for their recordings. 1 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.