Qn about copyright laws
 

If a group of friends come together and form some sort of DVD library, where we can watch each other's dvds basically for free, are we breaking any copyright laws?
We're not charging anything, but the end result is that people get to watch movies for free without purchasing the dvd - which doesn't seem all that different from video piracy.

No.

That situation should be covered by the First Sale Doctrine, the same law that lets video stores rent out the DVDs they buy.

We pay income tax. Public libraries get funds from the tax, buy lots of DVDs and loan them out without charge. They ain't breaking any laws ;)

The moment you rip from the DVDs, burn your own DVD+/-R and loan them out to friends, then you are breaking the laws. Loaning out the original DVDs to friends is not against the laws.

I'm curious as to why you're asking? Are you writing a report? Are you afraid the FBI's gonna raid you?

What you described is cool. You are in a sense loaning each other the 1 bought copy of the film. The moment you start making copies for each other you step into danger zone.

You can loan the discs to your friends, but you cannot show the disc's contents on a display to a bunch of friends. Such a situation is considered a "public performance" and is a violation of the copyright law.

So if you just have friends over to your home - no problem. But if you establish a business and let anyone come in off the street and watch the discs you're going to "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison."

Just to add a bit of detail to this, the Copyright Act defines a public performance, in part, as one that occurs "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." Having some friends in your living room would generally count as your normal circle of social acquaintances; showing a DVD at your 300-guest wedding probably would not.

DJ

It depends on how you define "friends."

I mean, technically file swapping is legal among "friends" too - I just happen to have thousands of friends who live all over the globe! ;)

Well, as far as the law is concerned, it actually depends on how you define a "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances."

Quote:

---

I mean, technically file swapping is legal among "friends" too

---

Actually, technically, it isn't. The "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" exception applies to public performances. File swapping isn't a public performance, but rather copying. There is no "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" exception to copying.

DJ

So if I have a library of 500 dvds I can legally rent them? Interesting... In truth, my selection is as good or better than both local rental places.

You might be prevented by various state and local laws that might require licenses to conduct business, collect taxes, etc., but no copyright law would stop you.

DJ

Exactly. Your biggest legal issue would be to make sure that the government gets their cut.

What kind of crappy wedding is it where they show a movie to 300 guests?

Forget about charging money, "rent" them for free to everyone trustworthy at your place of work. Make friends, and stiff the studios/blockbuster of extra sales/rentals.

Keep in mind the name of the type of law you are worried about infringing: "copy"right, i.e. the right to make copies of a product. You are in no way coming close to that, and as discussed in other posts, you are not exhibiting the movies publicly and charging admission. What you're doing is called FUN.

Copying is only one of a number of rights granted by the US Copyright Act. Depending on the type of work at issue, some combination of the following rights are granted to copyright holders: copying, the creation of derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display, and digital transmission. Creators of certain classes of visual works are also given rights of attribution and integrity. The term "copyright" is a blanket one that covers a number of rights, some of which have no resemblance to the act of copying; focussing on the "copy" part of the word is rather misleading.

DJ

That seems wacky to me. If I show a movie to 300 people at a PTA meeting I have likely violated the copyright law. If I rent the same movie to 300 people and actually make money off their comprighted material, I have violated no law. I'm the only one who thinks this is strange?

Do you also find it odd that a teacher can take a single copy of a book and read it aloud to a class and nobody has a problem with that, but if they show a movie to the class the MPAA screams "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION"...

Perhaps someone should read a book aloud in a public place and see if some jackass screams 'copyright violation'... :)

Yeah, I do find that odd. Did this actually happen?

I believe there are often relaxations on copyright protections for solely educational uses. Reading a book in class is not only harmless it's also virtually unstoppable if it were in fact in violation of any copyright statute. The law as written is not always the same as the law as enforced.

DMCA made it harder for educational purposes on digital copies. So you can't really edit, alter, copy a perfect copy of a dvd even for educational purpose.

Still fuzzy on it all, but that's my understanding of it.

Not necessarily so strange. How long does it take to show a two-hour film to a group of people? Two hours. How long would it take you to rent a single DVD to 300 different people? At least a year, if not much more, given how long it generally takes people to watch a movie they've rented. To speed up that time, you would have to purchase multiple copies in order to rent to multiple people simultaneously. If all those people want to see the film tonight, you'd have to buy 300 copies. To satisfy the same group of people via renting with a similar immediacy as with a public performance, you'd have to give a lot more money to the copyright holder.

DJ

Actually, a classroom isn't considered a "public" performance since not anyone can attend. Likewise, offices or clubs with closed memberships may show a film to a group without being in violation.

That's the defense. It's being done for an educational purpose. But the moment you make a perfect copy, alter, edit, or not present the material in the manner it was in originally then it becomes an issue.

According to the law, for use of a film in the classroom to not be considered a public performance its use must be essential to the curriculum. That leaves some gray area and a lot of situations where use of movies in the classroom is a copyright violation.

Many school districts, to avoid any possible violations, pay a license fee to a licensing agency/clearinghouse, that fee allows them to use movies from the major studios in the classroom without any concern about having to prove the movie is essential to the curriculum. They can use them in after-school programs, as part of extra-curricular activities, at "movie nights", to fill time on testing days, in study halls, as part of discipline-reward systems, etc. without concern if they are "licensed" otherwise these types of uses are technically copyright violations...

I do recall, when I was studying for my teaching degree, a case where a teacher ended up being suspended and the school district agreed to pay two years back licensing fees because the teacher had been rewarding students with "movie days". The teacher argued the movie was integral to her curriculum as it encouraged her at-risk students to complete their work, attend class, etc. The school thought it was better to not fight the film industry... That was over 10 years ago, but I'd be surprised if the studios changed their tune...

Completely untrue. The ability of the general public to access the performance has no bearing upon its "public"ness.

There is a rather simple definition of a "public performance" in the Copyright Act:

"[T]o 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."

Emphasis added. Any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered. This would include a school, office, or social club. Whether those places are open to the public is immaterial.

I hope no one takes your advice on copyright law seriously, or they're putting themselves at risk...

DJ

Does this mean that my Mother broke the law when she showed my old videotape I made in 3rd grade to a large group of people even though I was against this? Is this my copyright?

If so, I am suing.


I do remember an old Math teacher who showed us Donald in Math Land (or something like that) in grade school.

He did seem to disappear into the blue just days later.

And that Spanish teacher who showed us Selina.

Last I hear, she is now stuck in a prison on some private Mexican island making tamales.

If you made the film yourself, then yes, you are the copyright holder, and you have the right to dictate how it can be presented, distributed, copied, etc. If your mom did not receive permission to show the work to that large group of people, then technically, she was violating your copyright. Good luck suing her though.

For answers to all your Copyright questions, everyone should check out www.copyright.gov. Have fun reading!

Copyright law makes exceptions for fair use of film in an educational setting. Period. End of story.

Here is the diirect explanation from Section 110(1) of Title 17 of the United States Code.

A teacher can rent or buy a movie, then show it in class if it is part of the curriculum.

My 12th grade Lit/English teacher violated all sorts of laws since they whole year consisted of us watching a movie over the course a few days and then discussing various aspects of the films before starting another movie. We probably watched 30+ films during that year. And yes they were all Hollywood films. I loved that class.

That isn't a copyright violation.