|
|
Posted by Colin B on 02/08/07 09:15
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:2pAyh.74431$qO4.34209@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
> news:45cace63$1@clear.net.nz...
>> 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.
An indemnity of this nature would surely allow the OP to recover from his
client the cost of any damages that he was required to pay as a result of a
successful legal action against him? It must be better than not having an
indemnity at all?
But let's just be clear about what the OP is dealing with here, he is
talking about making a copy on a DVD from a tape that was legally created
from a TV show. Now this recording could have originally been made on a DVD
anyway. The fact that the recording is shifted from a tape to a DVD may be
illegal, but surely wouldn't be regarded by copyright holders as something
to litigate against? IMHO, the format shift is a mere technicality and I
would be very surprised if a copyright holder would rush to his lawyer about
this. People are copying CDs to Ipods all the time and this situation
doesn't appear to be much different to copying from a tape to a DVD????
Incidentally, the OP made it clear that that "nothing posted here on usenet
should ever be construed as "real" legal advice", and I agree that my humble
thoughts were not intended to be "real" legal advice, but merely things to
check out with his own "real" lawyer.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|