Two quick questions with regard to copyright infringement

[jv1597]

Can piracy be accomplished without paid use, and distribution of the copyrighted work?

Can copyright infringement be accomplished without full-length reproduction of the copyrighted work?

 

[quincy]

Can piracy be accomplished without paid use, and distribution of the copyrighted work?

Can copyright infringement be accomplished without full-length reproduction of the copyrighted work?

What is the name of your state or, if not in the US, what is the name of your country?

Piracy is the term used to describe the illegal activities of infringers who knowingly and willfully infringe.

The answer to your questions is "yes."

 

[jv1597]

What is the name of your state or, if not in the US, what is the name of your country?

Piracy is the term used to describe the illegal activities of infringers who knowingly and willfully infringe.

The answer to your questions is "yes."

Can you answer the first question with respect to how piracy can be accomplished?

 

[quincy]

Can you answer the first question with respect to how piracy can be accomplished?

Yes, I can answer that. Can you answer the question about your state name or country name if you are not in the US?

 

[jv1597]

Yes, I can answer that. Can you answer the question about your state name or country name if you are not in the US?

What I meant in my last post was, can you answer my first question with respect to how piracy can be accomplished with out paid use, or distribution of any form?

I'm in Dallas, Texas, USA.

By the way, did some research on this, and found the following:

A bit on what a work is considered to be:
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

A bit on movie media content:
“Audiovisual works” are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied.

Or, in more intelligible terms:
An “Audiovisual work” is a work that consists of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the work (as a whole) is embodied.

A bit on reproductive use:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

A bit on what a fixed work is considered to be:
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

Conclusion:
So copyright law protects copyrighted works in their entirety (whole copyrighted works), not in part.

A bit on display, and performance of a work:
So to “display” a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show individual images nonsequentially.

To “perform” a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.

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 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, 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.

Conclusion:
To "display a work (in its entirety) means to show a copy of it... (the whole work)
To “perform” a work (in its entirety) means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, etc..., 'the whole work'
To perform or display a work (in its entirety) “publicly” means— 'to perform or display the whole work'

So theoretically, if a 'display' is consisting of show of a copy, etc... of the images in an audiovisual work in it's entirety, then the work performed to accomplish the display, as defined by the law, is what determines the bound of what is deemed to be a 'display' of the work. So if an audiovisual work (a copyrighted movie/song) is spliced for sampling, and processed non-contiguously, for 'display' (or 'performance'), by means of an algorithm, then the processing required to perform the display of the work in part is paralleledly analogous to the bound deemed to be a 'display' of the work as defined by copyright law.

So in conclusion, I figure that copyrighted material is not covered 'in part' by copyright law, and free streaming of media content is a lawful activity, in consideration of the lexical integrity of the law with respect to modern-day commercial enterprise infrastructure (internet commerce).

 

[FlyingRon]

Your conclusions are WRONG. The entire work is protected by copyright which includes any portion. There are times that you can use portions for review or parody (fair use) but in the general case copying one chapter of a book or one song off an album will get you in as much trouble as if you did the entire thing.

Same for performance/display.

 

[quincy]

What I meant in my last post was, can you answer my first question with respect to how piracy can be accomplished with out paid use, or distribution of any form?

I'm in Dallas, Texas, USA.

By the way, did some research on this, and found the following:

A bit on what a work is considered to be:
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

A bit on movie media content:
“Audiovisual works” are works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied.

Or, in more intelligible terms:
An “Audiovisual work” is a work that consists of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the work (as a whole) is embodied.

A bit on reproductive use:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

A bit on what a fixed work is considered to be:
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

Conclusion:
So copyright law protects copyrighted works in their entirety (whole copyrighted works), not in part.

A bit on display, and performance of a work:
So to “display” a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show individual images nonsequentially.

To “perform” a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.

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 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, 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.

Conclusion:
To "display a work (in its entirety) means to show a copy of it... (the whole work)
To “perform” a work (in its entirety) means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, etc..., 'the whole work'
To perform or display a work (in its entirety) “publicly” means— 'to perform or display the whole work'

So theoretically, if a 'display' is consisting of show of a copy, etc... of the images in an audiovisual work in it's entirety, then the work performed to accomplish the display, as defined by the law, is what determines the bound of what is deemed to be a 'display' of the work. So if an audiovisual work (a copyrighted movie/song) is spliced for sampling, and processed non-contiguously, for 'display' (or 'performance'), by means of an algorithm, then the processing required to perform the display of the work in part is paralleledly analogous to the bound deemed to be a 'display' of the work as defined by copyright law.

So in conclusion, I figure that copyrighted material is not covered 'in part' by copyright law, and free streaming of media content is a lawful activity, in consideration of the lexical integrity of the law with respect to modern-day commercial enterprise infrastructure (internet commerce).

Please cite your source(s) for the information you have provided. It is copyright infringement to copy the written works of others without authorization of the copyright holder and proper attribution.

The conclusions you have drawn from your readings are incorrect. I can go into more detail when I have more time.

To answer the question you asked, it can be infringement (piracy, as a note, is not a legal term) even if there is no payment involved or any distribution. If you make copyrighted material available for copying by others (by providing a link to an illegal copy, for example) or if you exceed the limits of a license to use copyrighted material. Peer to peer networks can enable unauthorized and illegal transfers of copyrighted works.

I have more examples and I can provide cases for you to review later.

 

[jv1597]

Please cite your source(s) for the information you have provided. It is copyright infringement to copy the written works of others without authorization of the copyright holder and proper attribution.

The conclusions you have drawn from your readings are incorrect. I can go into more detail when I have more time.

To answer the question you asked, it can be infringement (piracy, as a note, is not a legal term) even if there is no payment involved or any distribution. If you make copyrighted material available for copying by others (by providing a link to an illegal copy, for example) or if you exceed the limits of a license to use copyrighted material. Peer to peer networks can enable unauthorized and illegal transfers of copyrighted works.

I have more examples and I can provide cases for you to review later.

quincy,

You can find the source I used at https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf.

In response to your comment with respect to copying of written works, the project I was inquiring for entails streaming of media content, without copying, uploading, downloading, recording, or distribution of any form.

I didn't understand what you meant by "piracy, as a note, is not a legal term", please elaborate.

I've inquired on other forums, and to this day, noone has answered as to exactly how copyright infringement is possible, without copying, paid use, or distribution of any form. Please elaborate at your earliest convenience.


Please post any links you have consisting of copyright law information.
Thanks

 

[quincy]

quincy,

You can find the source I used at https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf.

In response to your comment with respect to copying of written works, the project I was inquiring for entails streaming of media content, without copying, uploading, downloading, recording, or distribution of any form.

I didn't understand what you meant by "piracy, as a note, is not a legal term", please elaborate.

I've inquired on other forums, and to this day, noone has answered as to exactly how copyright infringement is possible, without copying, paid use, or distribution of any form. Please elaborate at your earliest convenience.


Please post any links you have consisting of copyright law information.
Thanks

Thank you for the source. It did sound familiar. Quotes should always be attributed, even when you are quoting from government sources.

Streaming is distributing. You are making rights protected material available to others, depriving the content owner of the exclusive rights to the content.

For peer-to-peer case examples, see: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 US 913, 2005, and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 9th Cir., 2013.

If you are thinking that because live content has not been "fixed in tangible form" so streaming would not be infringement, you are ignoring the other exclusive rights held by the creator/owner of the content. For example: A network will pay a sports organization for the exclusive right to broadcast a game. These broadcast rights are licensed to the network (generally at high cost) by the sports organization. If you attend the game and stream it live, you are infringing on the licensed broadcast rights of the network and the rights of the sports organization to license rights (and profit from their investment in a team).

There are legitimate arguments made that videotaping a live event is not copyright infringement, if this is the area of the law that is confusing you. But you cannot ignore other rights.

Piracy is a term that has been adopted to describe criminal copyright infringement but the legal term for piracy is infringement.

What is your interest in this?

 

[jv1597]

Your conclusions are WRONG. The entire work is protected by copyright which includes any portion. There are times that you can use portions for review or parody (fair use) but in the general case copying one chapter of a book or one song off an album will get you in as much trouble as if you did the entire thing.

Same for performance/display.

Can you be more specific as to which of my conclusions are incorrect?

Can you please cite the source you used in determining that any single portion of a copyrighted work is protected just as well as an whole work?

My source reads as follows:
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

My conclusion is, as mentioned above, "the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time". So that if any portion in particular is protected under copyright law, then the particular portion in question should be copyrighted as a whole. So as mentioned above, "A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time;". So, technically, with movie media, a frame might constitute a portion, but that portion would have to be "fixed in a copy or phonorecord" individually, and copyrighted in particular as a whole work for it to be protected.

I got some more information on fair use from https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html...

I don't think streaming of movie/music/image media content qualifies for consideration as fair use. So display would be the issue. Would this mean that a section for fair display in copyright is called for, for the fair display of streaming media content?

Thanks.

 

[jv1597]

Thank you for the source. It did sound familiar. Quotes should always be attributed, even when you are quoting from government source.

Streaming is distributing. You are making rights protected material available to others, depriving the content owner of the exclusive rights to the content.

See: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 US 913, 2005, and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 9th Cir., 2013.

Piracy is a term that has been adopted to describe criminal copyright infringement but the legal term for piracy is infringement.

What is your interest in this?

Thanks for elaborating, got it.

What if the app interface used for streaming is tamper-proof, and restricts copying/recording of any form?

I'm inquiring with regard to a media streaming app idea, that would allow users of the app to share their personal media content freely with anyone else that has access by means of the app. The only issue I'm seeing with this app is a "display" issue, and whether the display of copyrighted material is covered as a whole work, or in part as well.

 

[jv1597]

Thank you for the source. It did sound familiar. Quotes should always be attributed, even when you are quoting from government sources.

Streaming is distributing. You are making rights protected material available to others, depriving the content owner of the exclusive rights to the content.

For peer-to-peer case examples, see: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 US 913, 2005, and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020, 9th Cir., 2013.

If you are thinking that because live content has not been "fixed in tangible form" so streaming would not be infringement, you are ignoring the other exclusive rights held by the creator/owner of the content. For example: A network will pay a sports organization for the exclusive right to broadcast a game. These broadcast rights are licensed to the network (generally at high cost) by the sports organization. If you attend the game and stream it live, you are infringing on the licensed broadcast rights of the network and the rights of the sports organization to license rights (and profit from their investment in a team).

There are legitimate arguments made that videotaping a live event is not copyright infringement, if this is the area of the law that is confusing you. But you cannot ignore other rights.

Piracy is a term that has been adopted to describe criminal copyright infringement but the legal term for piracy is infringement.

What is your interest in this?

In response to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.:
"a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of [...] lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony."

In response to Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung:
"services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works."

I'm not sure if I wen't over what I meant by streaming. By streaming I meant data transmission, without uploading, downloading, or copying, so there wouldn't be any distribution of copies of copyrighted work. So the data is transmitted to the corresponding port the app uses for the particular type of media content (movie/music/etc...), and played-back by the app's tamper-proof interface, without allowing for copying, recording, downloading, etc.., of the media content. So as far as I can tell, there is no infringement of copyright, being that one user is merely streaming content in part for display.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for elaborating, got it.

What if the app interface used for streaming is tamper-proof, and restricts copying/recording of any form?

I'm inquiring with regard to a media streaming app idea, that would allow users of the app to share their personal media content freely with anyone else that has access by means of the app. The only issue I'm seeing with this app is a "display" issue, and whether the display of copyrighted material is covered as a whole work, or in part as well.

First, using parts of rights protected material can be as infringing as using the whole of a work - but here you get into fact-specifics. The "fair use" factors of purpose and character of use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality used in relation to the work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the market for or value of the work all must be considered and weighed.

It appears from what you say that you are looking at creating an app that allows for real time streaming of personal, YouTube-style content. If this is the case, there are a whole assortment of areas of the law that are involved and that must be addressed. The app can be a legal mine field and IP rights are only part of the legal risks for you as app-creator and for those who use the app. There are privacy rights, publicity rights and defamation laws, to name some of the areas of concern.

In other words, you need the personal assistance of an attorney in your area. The legal help you need goes beyond what internet research or an Internet forum can provide.

 

[jv1597]

First, using parts of rights protected material can be as infringing as using the whole of a work - but here you get into fact-specifics. The "fair use" factors of purpose and character of use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality used in relation to the work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the market for or value of the work all must be considered and weighed.

It appears from what you say that you are looking at creating an app that allows for real time streaming of personal, YouTube-style content. If this is the case, there are a whole assortment of areas of the law that are involved and that must be addressed. The app can be a legal mine field and IP rights are only part of the legal risks for you as app-creator and for those who use the app. There are privacy rights, publicity rights and defamation laws, to name some of the areas of concern.

In other words, you need the personal assistance of an attorney in your area. The legal help you need goes beyond what internet research or an Internet forum can provide.

Thanks for your input.

I don't think the case falls under the fair use category.

The app isn't necessarily a YouTube-style content app. It would basically, allow a user to share a folder, by merely clicking it, and sharing it through the app. The content to be streamed would only be copyrighted material. So I think that takes privacy rights, publicity rights, and defamation laws out of the picture.

I think it's probably a class act issue, being that the case is mainly consisting of display, and market issues. I figure the display/performance of copyrighted material without distribution, or induced compromise to the rights of the owner of the copyright, in part is legal, and the effect on the market is irrelevant being that the media content is not displayed in whole. So the streaming of media content without reproduction, duplication, performance, paid use, or distribution is merely the sampling of media content for viewing/hearing between connected parties.

Thanks.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for your input.

I don't think the case falls under the fair use category.

The app isn't necessarily a YouTube-style content app. It would basically, allow a user to share a folder, by merely clicking it, and sharing it through the app. The content to be streamed would only be copyrighted material. So I think that takes privacy rights, publicity rights, and defamation laws out of the picture.

I think it's probably a class act issue, being that the case is mainly consisting of display, and market issues. I figure the display/performance of copyrighted material without distribution, or induced compromise to the rights of the owner of the copyright, in part is legal, and the effect on the market is irrelevant being that the media content is not displayed in whole. So the streaming of media content without reproduction, duplication, performance, paid use, or distribution is merely the sampling of media content for viewing/hearing between connected parties.

Thanks.

Again, the conclusions you are drawing from what you are reading are wrong. I strongly recommend you consult with an attorney in your area who can go over with you all the reasons why you are wrong, this prior to developing and marketing your app.

Good luck.