|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/08/07 07:35
"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:45cace63$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:MAwyh.59462$wc5.55193@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
>> news:45ca8bd8$1@clear.net.nz...
>
>>> Are there any recorded instances of individuals being sued for keeping
>>> recordings of TV shows for too long, or for copying them from tapes to
>>> DVDs?
>>
>> I have no idea. Why is that relevant to this discussion?
>
> The original poster (OP) asked whether he could legally copy a client's
> tape to DVD of a TV show,
And he got his answer.
> and whether he could do this "without fear of lawsuit from the copyright
> holder".
And he got that answer as well.
> What the OP is doing here is carrying out a risk assessment of the
> likelihood of being sued if he does this job for his client. Now if there
> aren't any known instances of people being sued for copying old tapes of
> TV shows to DVDs, then the OP might conclude that the risk of getting into
> trouble if he copies the tape to the DVD is so low that it's well worth
> the risk involved to do this sort of work for his clients.
It doesn't work that way. Not all lawsuits are reported (in fact most
aren't) -- only the interesting ones get published in the official
reporters. Not all cease-and-desist letters result in law suits -- most
result in compliance, which can include payment of damages.
Whether I know of any instances is irrelevant -- what I know of or doesn't
know shouldn't form the basis for his risk assessment. In any event, he's
not my client, and I certainly won't give him any advice in that regard -- I
couldn't, even if I was so inclined, as neither my firm nor my malpractice
carrier would permit me.
> Risk assessment is a basic part of making most business decisions, so
> that's why I completely agree with the logic of the OP for asking this
> question and I consider it's absolutely relevant to a discussion on
> copyright.
No one here can give him a qualified response.
>
> Now let's apply this risk assessment principle to the illegal posting of
> copyrighted items on a site such as Youtube. Because there are
> (apparently) few (if any) instances of uploaders to Youtube being sued,
> thousands of people have decided it's worth the risk to keep on uploading
> items without first getting copyright clearance.
People uploading to youtube aren't commercial violators. However, the same
kind of logic was used by all the downloaders in the RIAA cases.
> But if uploaders knew that it was very likely that they would get caught
> and be fined thousands of dollars for each illegal item posted, then
> Youtube's copyright problems would vanish quickly. The law is one thing,
> but it's the enforcement of the law that really counts, and no law is of
> much use if it isn't enforced, not even a copyright law!
Copyright law is enforced. That's not what you're asking. You're asking
what's the likelihood of his getting caught.
>
> Now here's a thought, the OP could explain the applicable copyright law to
> his clients and ask them to sign a written agreement which states that
> they are required to take the full risk if legal action should be taken as
> a result of his copying a tape to a DVD.
And that's why laypeople have no business giving legal advice. Such a
document would do nothing to shield the OP if he got sued for infringement.
You can't contract out liability. If he was sued, the document is no defense
whatsoever.
> The agreement could also state that the DVDs must be entirely for personal
> use.
Irrelevant. The OP is making the copy for profit.
Don't give legal advice -- you don't know the law. What you've written
above would get the OP into a lot of trouble if he followed it.
> However, the OP would no doubt refuse entirely to copy tapes to DVDs if he
> thought that the clients were going to sell the DVDs at a profit.
As I said, completely irrelevant. The law is not what you think it is, and
you shouldn't advise others about the consequences of violating it.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|