I have some questions with regard to media sharing

Started by jv1597, 04-25-17 at 09:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jv1597

I did have a couple of questions... I was wondering if the license is purchased by the consumer at the time of sale of the copyrighted material to the consumer. Does the consumer acquire a license for personal use? Does this mean that the user can use his/her personally purchased license to stream freely across the internet to one person at a time?

Thanks.

MYK

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-25-17 at 09:46 PM
I did have a couple of questions... I was wondering if the license is purchased by the consumer at the time of sale of the copyrighted material to the consumer. Does the consumer acquire a license for personal use?
Usually yes, but it depends on the terms of the license.  You would have to read the license agreement to know what it specifies.

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-25-17 at 09:46 PM
Does this mean that the user can use his/her personally purchased license to stream freely across the internet to one person at a time?
Almost never (unless you specifically purchased a license for that), but it depends on the terms of the license.  You would have to read the license agreement to know what it specifies.

There ARE licenses available for purchase that allow streaming, remixing, using the audio as the soundtrack for a video, and so on.  Almost always, you will KNOW when you have purchased one of these sorts of licenses, because it will be specifically for that purpose and you will have paid a hell of a lot more for it than you would for just buying a song off iTunes.
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.

jv1597

I just found some information at the quora website entitled "What do major film studios charge for streaming licenses of their movies" that might help in determining some of the cost involved in licensing for this streaming application.  I figured if there are multiple units of media content of the same title, then streaming of the sum of those titles in total would constitute one showing.  So this might help.

IE:
50M users
250K identical titles

It would take 250K streams of the same title to equal to one showing at a rate of $10,000 per showing, for example.

jv1597

Copyright grants exclusive rights to the licensor to reproduce, duplicate, perform, display, and distribute the work in whole.

Copyright grants the licensor with exclusive priority for fair use of the inherently intrinsic subject matter, and scope of the copyrighted work.

Copyright protection does not subsist in accordance with laws which pertain to the protection of intellectual property, and therefore, does not grant exclusive rights to the licensor to demand compensation for infringement upon intellectual ideas, concepts, and principles.

"(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure,
process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Copyrights grant the licensor the right to prohibit the reproduction, restrict the duplication, remove the performance, delete the display, or confiscate the distributed copyrighted material from sources which infringe upon the subject matter, and scope of the copyrighted work.


In conclusion, as with a display that infringes upon the subject matter and scope of a copyrighted work, a stream that infringes upon the subject matter and scope of a copyrighted work can only be prohibited respectively of reproduction, restricted respectively of duplication, removed respectively of performance, deleted respectively of display, or confiscated respectively of distribution.

So in the case of streaming of media content, the consumer, is the owner of the purchased license, and the holder of the licensed work, which is not reproduced, duplicated, performed, displayed, nor distributed.  So there is no work to be prohibited, restricted, removed, deleted, or confiscated from the media content streaming corporation.

Per se. :-X

MYK

I have no idea what you're trying to argue with that mess, but if you're trying to pretend that buying a license to play the song on your iPod is a license to stream, you're wrong and will eventually get sued into oblivion.
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.

jv1597

It's not an argument.  I just noticed that a license is purchased along with the copyrighted material that is purchased.  The license allows for a backup copy of the consumer's copyrighted material, which is insignificant in this case.

A license is not the same thing as a copyright.  A copyright grants exclusive rights to the licensor, whereas a license only allows for one, or more backup copies of the consumer's purchased copyrighted material for personal use, not for distribution.  Copyright is just what the term implies, rights with respect to copying, not intellectual infringement, as with intellectual property.  So you can't sue anyone for money, for having used a phrase in your novel on a liquor advertisement.  All the copyright owner can do is have it removed, etc..., without compensation for financial damages, unless there is some form of distribution involved.

So streaming might fall under copyright jurisdiction at this point in time, but it isn't as lexically sound as it seems with respect to popular franchise inherent in modern-day commercial enterprise, with respect to free media streaming without distribution.

Being that the streaming app is a non-profit media streaming solution, there is no legal basis for law suit other than in/by the "Opinion of the Court", which is a form of extortion.  The profit comes from the app, being a utility product (intellectual property), but the consumer is not charged for streaming of media content.

That's all I was trying to say. :D

MYK

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-29-17 at 08:07 PM
It's not an argument.
Well, actually, apparently you don't understand simple English words, because it is, and so is the rest of your last post.

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-29-17 at 08:07 PM
All the copyright owner can do is have it removed, etc..., without compensation for financial damages, unless there is some form of distribution involved.
Wrong, they can seek financial damages too.

Also wrong, streaming is a form of distribution.

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-29-17 at 08:07 PM
So streaming might fall under copyright jurisdiction at this point in time, but it isn't as lexically sound as it seems with respect to popular franchise inherent in modern-day commercial enterprise, with respect to free media streaming without distribution.
Bizarre, unsupported, and wrong.

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-29-17 at 08:07 PM
Being that the streaming app is a non-profit media streaming solution, there is no legal basis for law suit other than in/by the "Opinion of the Court", which is a form of extortion.  The profit comes from the app, being a utility product (intellectual property), but the consumer is not charged for streaming of media content.
Wrong, you'll still get sued for willful unauthorized distribution, and risk being liable for statutory damages up to $150,000, and deservedly so.

Quote from: jv1597 on 04-29-17 at 08:07 PM
That's all I was trying to say. :D
Say no more!
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.



www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com