Hacker News Reader

Comment by delinka | Hacker News Reader

Let's step back into reality for a moment. Do they actually have a claim? Once I've bought the album, can't I torture my acquaintances to my heart's content without paying royalties? A small enough group isn't a "public performance," I'm not broadcasting it to the entire town.

Further, aren't there exemptions for the federal government with respect to use of copyrighted works? Sure, you'd probably have a case against a federal agency who acquired your album only to provide copies freely to its employees, but if they stick a track in a presentation to a small group (or several small groups ... or many small groups) I'm pretty sure the courts would just throw out your case.

OK, enough armchair lawyering, is there someone with a professional opinion on this?

View on HN

I don't think fair use includes business presentations to small groups.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.aspx

A public performance is one that occurs "in 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." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.

Are the people I work with not "social acquaintances?" Perhaps not the entire company of 500, but certainly the group of a dozen or so I work with daily.

no, they are "professional acquaintances". I'm mostly being facetious here of course, but it certainly sounds to me like an argument a lawyer would make.

So if my mom tortured me by blaring Skinny Puppy music for 12 hours straight they couldn't sue her?

No, not for copyright infringement, and for any other kind of case they'd have no standing (i.e. they're not an affected party).

Sure, the people you work with might be. But the person being tortured? I don't think they are "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances".

Certainly in England the PRS (performing right society) will attempt to collect money to licence music if you're a small business playing music only to employees.

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...

Especially http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/Pag...

> Workers/colleagues and/or customers/clients have been recognised by the courts as falling within the composer's ‘public’. Any person wishing either to play or to authorise the playing of our music to such individuals in the workplace - wherever that workplace is situated - should therefore obtain a music licence.

No, they are colleagues. You didn't become acquainted with them socially, you became acquainted with them through work, and at work the reason for your continued acquaintance is commercial in nature.

No, because the actual phrase was "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". The people you work with are not part of your family's normal social aquaintances (ok, a handful of them may be).

It's pretty clear that this phrase means your family and usual circle of friends who visit your family (semi-) regularly, i.e. normally. It does not mean the office party.

Ask yourself this: if you quit your job, would your collegues still be normal aquaintances of your family? If not, then they are not social acquaintances.

No professional opinion is needed: The copyright warnings at the beginning of DVDs often state that it is forbidden to perform the work in "restaurants, prisons, ..." (sometimes they even mention oil rigs).

Copyright warnings at the start of a DVD are not Legal Advice and cannot revoke rights assigned by copyright law to the purchaser/licenser. Besides, that's DVDs and not music; they're licensed differently.

Thus, indeed a professional opinion is "needed."

This is a silly discussion that distracts from the real issue (humans being tortured), but here you go:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-20...

"2.1 Showing films on DVD or video to groups of prisoners or staff, either in communal areas or via in cell television systems, is considered to be a public performance for which a licence is required."

This is the UK version, be my guest to search for the U.S. equivalent before making any further claims.

No, the entire discussion is about an album that was played "without a license." I'm curious if they have a leg to stand on with their attempt to bill.

And again, movie licensing in the US is codified differently into law than music licensing. These licensing issues are not compatible.

No, your rights to use copyrighted content under the law are zero (excluding fair use). There are seven basic rights which are recognised, unless the copyright holder grants you one or more of these, then you are not permitted to use their content. They may add any additional terms to the license which they like, as long as they are legally sound.

One dirty trick which is used is to include something like "absolutely no copying" including for "education or personal use", which is not really true, because fair use permits limited copying. So that's an example of a non-legally sound clause.

The right to perform a work publicly and restrictions on those public places (e.g. as a studio I could license a work to be played publicly in a specific movie theatre) is one of the seven rights which are built-in to copyright law, so such restrictions are, in fact, sound.

> No, your rights to use copyrighted content under the law are zero (excluding fair use). No, your rights to use copyrighted content under the law are zero (excluding fair use).

No. You can "perform" the work as long as the performance is not "public." For instance, watching a DVD on your laptop by yourself at home is a "performance," but it's not public. This is a perfectly valid use of copyrighted content.

Bars and retail stores count as "public performance" for purposes of song royalties. So the group in question can be quite small.

But the people in bars and retail stores are not the acquaintances of the manager (or whomever chose the music to play.)

Texas agrees with you:

> Do I need a license to play music in my establishment?

> Yes! When you purchase a CD, MP3 or similar product, you are granted the right to non-public performance of the material, such as at home or in your car. [...] Although you may have paid for a copy of the music, or are paying a DJ or live band to perform copyrighted music, you are still required by U.S. Copyright Law to obtain the proper licenses for the playback of the songs. [...]

http://governor.state.tx.us/music/guides/music_in_venues

It goes on to state that ASCAP does not have licensing information available on their website (as of the last update in 2009), but BMI does. Here's their license for "Local Governmental Entities": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/lge.pdf and for completeness, "Eating and Drinking Establishments": http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf

Another article from The Guardian also reports that in 2010, prisons in the UK had to enforce rules to prevent music from being played in the open because licensing costs were becoming too expensive: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/19/prison-music-...

ASCAP's own page is strangely silent on the topic of jails; the closest I could find were 'Endurance Events' - http://www.ascap.com/licensing/types/endurance-marathon-tria...

See the complete list here: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensefinder

There's a good euphemism

That's because they are open to the public. Jails are not, in general - they're more like invite-only parties.

I've got John Yoo on the phone for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo)

Copyright law defines a public performance as one which occurs outside of a family and it's normal social circle. So any performance at an invite-only party is regarded as a public performance. For this reason, although a jail is not a public place, any performance there would be considered a public performance.

This makes sense when you think about it: an invite-only party could be held in a fancy hotel and have many hundreds of guests, or it may be a business event.

INAL, but it depends. If your business is based on offering tortures, and their music makes you perform your work better, get better results from EITs and as a result, make more money, and they can prove it in court then its irrelevant that its been a "torture"; whats relevant is that you used in in a commercial way to gain something.

And that "something" would be very important to the court. In vast majority of cases, companies want to make more money. In case of Gov, CIA would argue that they dont make any money thanks to using your music. Heck, they could even claim non-profit status because AFAIK they do not produce monetary value; they produce intelligence.

Besides, in a light of recent developmentS that many important influencial people claim the entire program is illegal and some agents should be even in jail, some small claim suit from a tiny band is a peanuts to the CIA. And Im sure the Puppet knows this.

I feel its a PR stunt, because it takes a specific group of people listenning to dark music like this (other example Marlin Manson). So in this very busy and competitive business, I cannot imagine a better free advertise than "hey did you hear about Puppet?? Their music is soo cool they even torture people at Guantamo with it! We got to get their album asap!!"

i think the publicity is probably a bigger factor than the actual money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com