Two quick questions with regard to copyright infringement

[jv1597]

I don't think you can blame the legal system for the difficulties you are having with your app.

You just need to develop an app that does not infringe on the rights of others. I know this can be done because it is done with some frequency.

Again, review your app plans with a professional in your area to see what of your original idea can be salvaged and what needs to be reworked and revised to make it less vulnerable to a lawsuit.

Good luck.

quincy,
Thanks for the advice. I was just looking up some licensing info at http://www.mplc.org/, and found that they do umbrella licensing for borrowed streams. So I'll be doing some more research to see what I can find out.

I did have a couple of questions... I was wondering if the license is purchased by the consumer at the time of sale of the copyrighted material to the consumer. Does the consumer acquire a license for personal use? Does this mean that the user can use his/her personally purchased license to stream freely across the internet to one person at a time?

Thanks.

 

[quincy]

quincy,
Thanks for the advice. I was just looking up some licensing info at http://www.mplc.org/, and found that they do umbrella licensing for borrowed streams. So I'll be doing some more research to see what I can find out.

I did have a couple of questions... I was wondering if the license is purchased by the consumer at the time of sale of the copyrighted material to the consumer. Does the consumer acquire a license for personal use? Does this mean that the user can use his/her personally purchased license to stream freely across the internet to one person at a time?

Thanks.

Personal use does not include the streaming or sharing of copyrighted material.

You need to carefully read (and understand) what a license is granting you in the way of rights.

Because I fear you are misunderstanding a lot of what you are reading online, I strongly recommend you sit down with an IP attorney in your area to discuss your wants and your needs, and for a reading and clarification of the licensing agreement terms of any license you are considering, prior to signing the agreement.

 

[jv1597]

Personal use does not include the streaming or sharing of copyrighted material.

You need to carefully read (and understand) what a license is granting you in the way of rights.

Because I fear you are misunderstanding a lot of what you are reading online, I strongly recommend you sit down with an IP attorney in your area to discuss your wants and your needs, and for a reading and clarification of the licensing agreement terms of any license you are considering, prior to signing the agreement.

Sorry to bother you again, I was just looking over the source for "Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright", and although it seems to cover it really well, it seems to imply that there is some leniency in the case of performances/displays that are recited, rendered, played, danced, acted, or shown to any singular person in a place open to the public.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where 1a) a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, 2a) whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance
or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times.

Wouldn't lines 1a, and 2a normally indicate more than one person as the spectator of a performance/display, or a receiver of a transmission of a performance/display?
Would that mean that a singular transmission of a performance/display at any given point in time is legal?

 

[Zigner]

I really don't know why you have so much trouble understanding the concept of retaining an attorney. You've been told several times that you need to do it.

 

[quincy]

Sorry to bother you again, I was just looking over the source for "Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright", and although it seems to cover it really well, it seems to imply that there is some leniency in the case of performances/displays that are recited, rendered, played, danced, acted, or shown to any singular person in a place open to the public.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where 1a) a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, 2a) whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance
or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times.

Wouldn't lines 1a, and 2a normally indicate more than one person as the spectator of a performance/display, or a receiver of a transmission of a performance/display?
Would that mean that a singular transmission of a performance/display at any given point in time is legal?

Essentially, and for an example, you can purchase a legal copy of a DVD and invite a few friends over to view the film with you. You cannot charge for the viewing. You cannot make your film available to the public for viewing or for copying and you cannot transmit the film to others. These latter uses exceed the personal use allowed.

And, of course, it is more complex than my examples show. That said, most people will understand what "personal use" means (especially with films, as the warnings are clearly stated before the film start). Most people will not infringe on the rights of the copyright holders.

Again, instead of trying to locate online a loophole in the law that could permit you to do what you want to do with others' rights protected material, sit down with an IP attorney in your area for a personal review of your app idea.

Good luck.

 

[jv1597]

Essentially, and for an example, you can purchase a legal copy of a DVD and invite a few friends over to view the film with you. You cannot charge for the viewing. You cannot make your film available to the public for viewing or for copying and you cannot transmit the film to others. These latter uses exceed the personal use allowed.

And, of course, it is more complex than my examples show. That said, most people will understand what "personal use" means (especially with films, as the warnings are clearly stated before the film start). Most people will not infringe on the rights of the copyright holders.

Again, instead of trying to locate online a loophole in the law that could permit you to do what you want to do with others' rights protected material, sit down with an IP attorney in your area for a personal review of your app idea.

Good luck.

I might just do that... but before I close this discussion, I just wanted to get this definition posted.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial

Definition of substantial
1 a : consisting of or relating to substance

3 a : possessed of means : well-to-do
b : considerable in quantity : significantly great : earned a substantial wage

Thanks.

 

[jv1597]

I really don't know why you have so much trouble understanding the concept of retaining an attorney. You've been told several times that you need to do it.

Zigner,
Do you think I have something workable, or are you just fed up with this discussion?

 

[quincy]

Zigner,
Do you think I have something workable, or are you just fed up with this discussion?

I think Zigner might find a bit frustrating your seeming inability to understand the oft-repeated advice to "see an IP attorney in your area."

To correct your apparent misunderstanding of "substantial" as it applies to copyright law, here from Black's Law Dictionary is a replacement definition:

Substantial: Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal.

Although courts may resort to dictionary definitions when a word has not been otherwise defined in law, you need generally to look at how courts have used the words in laws and how they have been applied.

When determining infringement, substantial can be judged a single line in a poem, a significant passage in a book, the smile of Mona Lisa.

Any additional "quick questions" to add to your original two that need addressing?

 

[jv1597]

I think Zigner might find a bit frustrating your seeming inability to understand the oft-repeated advice to "see an IP attorney in your area."

To correct your apparent misunderstanding of "substantial" as it applies to copyright law, here from Black's Law Dictionary is a replacement definition:

Substantial: Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal.

Although courts may resort to dictionary definitions when a word has not been otherwise defined in law, you need generally to look at how courts have used the words in laws and how they have been applied.

When determining infringement, substantial can be judged a single line in a poem, a significant passage in a book, the smile of Mona Lisa.

Any additional "quick questions" to add to your original two that need addressing?

That replacement definition doesn't really match up with the context, it being that the context is with respect to the number of persons, rather than the quality, or worth of the persons outside of a normal circle of a family, etc... It's substantially ambiguous to say the least. That tells me I wouldn't get anywhere with this streaming idea.

I figured If I can't get this project done without having to get licensing for unlimited media content streaming, then I'd look around for some good options.

I think that should do it. I'll probably have to drop this app project. With millions, maybe even billions of users accessing media content from all around the world, the licensing costs to cover all of the possible media corporations would be more than I would like to mention.

Thanks for the advice anyway.

 

[quincy]

That replacement definition doesn't really match up with the context, it being that the context is with respect to the number of persons, rather than the quality, or worth of the persons outside of a normal circle of a family, etc... It's substantially ambiguous to say the least. That tells me I wouldn't get anywhere with this streaming idea.

I figured If I can't get this project done without having to get licensing for unlimited media content streaming, then I'd look around for some good options.

I think that should do it. I'll probably have to drop this app project. With millions, maybe even billions of users accessing media content from all around the world, the licensing costs to cover all of the possible media corporations would be more than I would like to mention.

Thanks for the advice anyway.

I am sorry if I discouraged you. I hoped not to do that. I can only see the plans for your app as outlined in a few posts. My assessment, therefore, is not the good one you can get from an IP attorney in your area.

That said, the best ideas are always going to be the original and creative ones, which is why these ideas when developed will be provided the most protection under the law. When you need to rely on the original creations of others to develop your own idea, and obtain a license to do so, it can get awfully costly.

I still recommend you see an attorney in your area for an up-close and personal look at your app idea. Whatever you decide to do, though, I wish you luck with it.

 

[jv1597]

I am sorry if I discouraged you. I hoped not to do that. I can only see the plans for your app as outlined in a few posts. My assessment, therefore, is not the good one you can get from an IP attorney in your area.

That said, the best ideas are always going to be the original and creative ones, which is why these ideas when developed will be provided the most protection under the law. When you need to rely on the original creations of others to develop your own idea, and obtain a license to do so, it can get awfully costly.

I still recommend you see an attorney in your area for an up-close and personal look at your app idea. Whatever you decide to do, though, I wish you luck with it.

I think it's a good idea, its not the most original, but it ok. I would really like to consult with an IP attorney over this streaming application. I was reading on some average licensing costs, and I found some under 1K for backyard theater performances, so I figured the licensing for a billion streams per day would be relatively expensive. So I thought it might be a better idea if Fair Use covered streaming as well. It would be nice if genuinely singular streams, without derivative works, were considered to be fair use of copyrighted media content.

Streaming seems to be different from other uses mentioned in the copyright subject matter. I figure consumers like it, so there must be something to it, and they probably prefer to be able to stream freely, without having to pay a subscription fee to do it. That's why I came up with this new app idea. It consists of a more responsible infrastructure than Kodi, for example, and it's easier to use. So that's why I wanted to get it going.

I doubt I'll get anywhere with an IP attorney, as the Fair Use doctrine would have to be changed, in order to make billions of streams a day affordable enough for any app company to provide the means for it to consumers.

 

[quincy]

I think it's a good idea, its not the most original, but it ok. I would really like to consult with an IP attorney over this streaming application. I was reading on some average licensing costs, and I found some under 1K for backyard theater performances, so I figured the licensing for a billion streams per day would be relatively expensive. So I thought it might be a better idea if Fair Use covered streaming as well. It would be nice if genuinely singular streams, without derivative works, were considered to be fair use of copyrighted media content.

Streaming seems to be different from other uses mentioned in the copyright subject matter. I figure consumers like it, so there must be something to it, and they probably prefer to be able to stream freely, without having to pay a subscription fee to do it. That's why I came up with this new app idea. It consists of a more responsible infrastructure than Kodi, for example, and it's easier to use. So that's why I wanted to get it going.

I doubt I'll get anywhere with an IP attorney, as the Fair Use doctrine would have to be changed, in order to make billions of streams a day affordable enough for any app company to provide the means for it to consumers.

If an idea is good enough, it is often worth investing in - and the best investment tends to be legal support at the start. Nothing can ruin the development of a good idea faster than a lawsuit.

I think a lot of people start off with thoughts of providing creative content to others for free until they find their own costs to do so are overwhelming.

I think you should continue to explore additional options for your app and consult with an attorney in your area when you feel you are running into legal issues that must be resolved before you can move ahead.

Good luck.

 

[jv1597]

If an idea is good enough, it is often worth investing in - and the best investment tends to be legal support at the start. Nothing can ruin the development of a good idea faster than a lawsuit.

I think a lot of people start off with thoughts of providing creative content to others for free until they find their own costs to do so are overwhelming.

I think you should continue to explore additional options for your app and consult with an attorney in your area when you feel you are running into legal issues that must be resolved before you can move ahead.

Good luck.

I just found some information ... that might help in determining some of the cost involved in licensing for this streaming application. I figured if there are multiple units of media content of the same title, then streaming of the sum of those titles in total would constitute one showing. So this might help.

IE:
50M users
250K identical titles

It would take 250K streams of the same title to equal to one showing at a rate of $10,000 per showing, for example. So that's not too bad. There might be some hope for this app after all.

 

[quincy]

I just found some information ... that might help in determining some of the cost involved in licensing for this streaming application. I figured if there are multiple units of media content of the same title, then streaming of the sum of those titles in total would constitute one showing. So this might help.

IE:
50M users
250K identical titles

It would take 250K streams of the same title to equal to one showing at a rate of $10,000 per showing, for example. So that's not too bad. There might be some hope for this app after all.

I would not believe everything you read online. Again, see an attorney in your area for a personal review.

Good luck.

 

[jv1597]

I would not believe everything you read online. Again, see an attorney in your area for a personal review.

Good luck.

Copyright grants exclusive rights to the licensor to reproduce, duplicate, perform, display, and distribute the work in whole.

Copyright grants the licensor with exclusive priority for fair use of the inherently intrinsic subject matter, and scope of the copyrighted work.

Copyright protection does not subsist in accordance with laws which pertain to the protection of intellectual property, and therefore, does not grant exclusive rights to the licensor to demand compensation for infringement upon intellectual ideas, concepts, and principles.

"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure,
process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Copyrights grant the licensor the right to prohibit the reproduction, restrict the duplication, remove the performance, delete the display, or confiscate the distributed copyrighted material from sources which infringe upon the subject matter, and scope of the copyrighted work.

In conclusion, as with a display that infringes upon the subject matter and scope of a copyrighted work, a stream that infringes upon the subject matter and scope of a copyrighted work can only be prohibited respectively of reproduction, restricted respectively of duplication, removed respectively of performance, deleted respectively of display, or confiscated respectively of distribution.

So in the case of streaming of media content, the consumer, is the owner of the purchased license, and the holder of the licensed work, which is not reproduced, duplicated, performed, displayed, nor distributed. So there is no work to be prohibited, restricted, removed, deleted, or confiscated from the media content streaming corporation.

Per se.