Will your big-screen Super Bowl party violate copyright law?
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
This is actually a concern as I've been invited to a superbowl party via facebook, no less. What happens when these invites are discoverable and suits decide to start filing lawsuits? Good times.
> The rest of exemption five lays out a host of limitations to the exemption (yes, it's a bit confusing), but they all apply to "an establishment"—a public gathering place, not a home. The rules get remarkably specific, apply differently to small and large venues, and come with restrictions on how many TVs or radios can be used in a place of business without running into trouble.
> The "55 inch" language applies to large establishments of more than a few thousand square feet. Such places can show the big game on a TV set, but only if they don't use "more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space."
I'm wondering though, if I deflect the electromagnetic waves off of my house, would that constitute as rebroadcasting?
As more and more aspects of life are affected by automation, "I didn't mean to" is less and less a useful excuse. Rules should specify what is and is not within the rules, and if that's very difficult, perhaps it's a sign that the rule is ill-considered.
It's the same that no one will prosecute a minor for sexting another minor even though it may be considered "child pornography", or at least they shouldn't.
What is needed is clear and concise law that does not bog down the process and micromanage what should be left open for interpretation. I stand by the fact that the aspects of law mentioned in the article are simply very poor jurisprudence.
You seem to have a faith in the intent of a law and reasonableness of its enforcement that just isn't backed up by fact.
There is no shortage of cases where minors are facing child pornography charges for sexting other minors. It seems a week can't even pass by without yet-another poor kid having his life ruined by adults ignoring intent and enforcing the precise language of a law.
I don't think that works.
In a legal system based on precedent the more that is left open to interpretation the more big cases one needs to decide what the locus of the law is.
Then it's not a case of getting your lawyer to read the law in order to understand the majority of what's allowed but instead they can only know a minority of the law from the statute and have to infer the majority from the caselaw.
When the law is drafted perhaps a book of usecases should be created such that those that draft the law can agree on a list of common uses and whether those things are intended to be allowed or not.
It sounds like a simple, reasonable thing to determine. Something that would never ensnare honest people who inadvertently walked across a line you imagine is well-delineated. But it really isn't.
Are most personal parties in the clear, despite size of TV? Sure. Does that mean all of them are or that you'll clearly know when you cross that line? Case law says "no" on both counts.