|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/08/07 17:15
"Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message news:45caea37$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:2pAyh.74431$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?
That's what an indemnity does. Copyright infringement suits cost between
$150,000 and $250,000 to defend. Statutory copyright damages can be as
much as $250,000 per infringement and may also result in liability for the
plaintiff's attorney's fees. There may also be issues of trademark
infringement as well.
How much do you think that indemnification is going to be worth?
>
> 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?
Again, you're talking apples and oranges. I've been discussing the nature
of copyright infringement and defenses of fair use. You're talking about
the likelihood that an infringer will get caught.
I've said this previously: content owners don't use infringement law suits
as profit centers. Businesses sue when it makes business sense to do sense.
My clients frequently sue when they think there is too much low-level
infringement of their content. When we sue for this reason, we generally
pick the easiest target.
> 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.
And your opinion is based on what? Are you a corporate content owner? Do
you counsel businesses on when and whether they should sue? Are you a
lawyer?
> 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????
Copying to iPods is authorized under the AHRA. Video copying is not. Once
again, don't give legal advice -- you don't know th elaw.
>
> 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.
Why should he waste time paying his lawyer to answer questions that have no
validity? Sorry, you're simply wrong on multiple points, and your
"opinion," both as to what is the law and how it is enforced is not of value
to anyone because it is completely uninformed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|