Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:KVylc.3656$8S1.1743@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c76bvb$a7bn$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "James McIninch" <james.mcininch@comcast.net.spam> wrote in message
> > news:f5ylc.22081$0H1.2132413@attbi_s54...
> > > Laugh while you can, monkey boy.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't think FLY135 was trying to mock me, per se. I've engaged
in
> > Usenet discussion with him before, and, though we've sometimes
disagreed,
> > he's always been civil and reasonable. "Monkey boy" is really uncalled
> for.
>
> You give me too much credit
. Actually I hit the send button before I
> finished. I didn't add... "It's for fun," is actually a defense in the
> criminal code. If it's not for profit (i.e. "It's for fun," ) then there
is
> a dollar amount and time frame that allows copying without a criminal
> offense.
>
> While it is true that you could be tried in civil court, I really doubt
that
> the RIAA is serious about people who snip some music for personal videos.
> This would be inconsistant with everything I've seen reported where there
> are primarily going after music pirates.
With respect to the RIAA, that's true. However, a couple of points. First,
it's not just the RIAA that is implicated here. Syncing music to video
results in creation of a derivative work. That's a reserved right and,
probably, not necessarily licensed to RIAA members. Accordingly, it's quite
possible that there are two potential plaintiffs, not one. Next, as I
always tell my clients, infringement actions aren't brought to recover
money, but to protect intellectual property rights, i.e. they're not profit
centers. If an IP owner wants to send a message to potential and actual
infringers, they'll sue someone and, probably, pick a defendant least able
to afford to maintain a defense. High schools have been sued for putting on
plays without rights, church choirs have been sued for making copies of
hymns, etc. This topic comes up most often in the context of wedding videos
("Can I put the bride's favorite song on the video?").
As I said, I'm not venturing an opinion one way or another about the
likelihood of being sued. I always tell wedding videographers this: It's a
business risk. The downside of being a defendant is a huge expenditure for
defense which, if unsuccessful, can also mean extensive civil liability. I
don't evaluate business risk -- that's a decision which is the perogative of
the business owner.
>
> > I haven't ventured an opinion on the likelihood of the OP being sued for
> > infringement. It may be quite low though, as you've noted, lots of
> > relatively de minimus infringers are finding themselves sued as of late.
> > The point though, isn't whether the OP will be caught (perhaps so,
perhaps
> > not), but whether what the OP proposes is legal. It isn't.
>
> Technically it isn't legal, but it's not necessarily criminal. Which puts
> it back in the civil arena.
Oh, sure. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's most likely not criminal
(though criminal defense is outside my area of expertise). However, as the
RIAA defendants are finding, even if they think they have a valid fair use
defense (and they might), in fact, even if they're completely innocent, it's
a lot cheaper to settle for $5,000 than to pay the $100,000 plus it takes to
defend an infringement action in federal court. And, of course, if they
should lose, they're looking at potential civil liability up to $150,000,
plus potential liability for the plaintiff's attorneys fees.
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram