The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting Pieces Together
ACTA Guide, Part 1: The Talks To-Date
ACTA Guide, Part 2: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
ACTA Guide, Part 3: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy
RCMP Lays Charges Over Karaoke Copyright Infringement |
| Print | |
|
Thursday July 27, 2006
|
|||||||
|
And they actually thought it warranted a press release.
Comments (4)
a guest
said:
|
|||||||
|
... You'd better warn your dentist's office, if they play cds or offer magazines to read in the office. Do you travel in taxis? Please start phoning the police every time one of those criminal plays a cd or turns on the radio. Or worse yet, do you listen to your own cds on your own headphones, so other people can't even hear you, but on the subway, or in the park? Those uses are causing copyrighted works to be performed or exhibited in public. Clearly criminal. It doesn't matter that teeth cleaning and transportation and enjoying yourself on the subway or in the park are coincidental. Shouldn't the law be the law and be applied without prejudice? Or are those uses on one side of a line, while the karaoke club's uses reside on the other? Where's that line drawn in the law? The connection between karaoke clubs being primarily about singing, so special dispensation must be afforded works sung in those establishments by patrons? But such clubs are more than about singing or musical performance: how is this different from restaurants playing music while patrons are eating? Profit motive? The dentist profits from keeping customers happy and relaxed. Personal space? The rooms the karaoke club rents out have some privacy for their users. Maybe more so than the taxi cab or the subway, and maybe less so that the dentist's office. |
|
... That's me below. I just found out I do live in an orwellian paradise. Pardon my language but F*** me. http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/resources/tariffs.jsp |
|
Parody Google 2 Live Crew on Parody of song "Pretty Woman". They made money too, The US Supremm court said it was mostlikely fair use and remanded it back to the lower court. Money is not the only determing factor, in fact in some cases it can carry no weight. Public benefitis first abouve all. 2 Live Crew v Acuff Rose |
Subscribe to this comment's feed