copyright warning

Richard Alvarez · March 27th, 2004, 09:40 AM

Mathew,

As someone who is married to an IP attorney, who went head to head with RIAA, I can assure you - the RIAA knows its happening and will get around to it eventually. Time is on their side. All they have to do is pick a couple of violators and start making examples of them.

Rick Spilman · March 27th, 2004, 09:51 AM

Given that at least one industry source is saying that what most wedding videographers do is within the law, I suspect that the RIAA will continue beating up on the real hardened criminals - teenagers and grandmothers who download.

Mathew Evan · March 27th, 2004, 11:32 AM

Richard, you missed my point. The reason the RIAA is making such a big stink about song sharing is not about artist's rights (yeah right) but because teenagers and others are swapping songs instead of buying them. Wedding videos don't cost them anything in sales.

Who the heck is going to care if the RIAA chases after Joe Smoe Video Productions in Wichita Kansas about using a Celine Dion song on a wedding video? At best it would make the Drudge Report. But that's besides the point....

Let me re-state: Wedding Videographers cost the record companies zilch in sales. They in no way would waste expensive lawyer fees going after those hardened criminals, your friendly wedding videographers.

Jeff Donald · March 27th, 2004, 03:32 PM

Don't kid yourself, like Richard said, if there's money involved they'll get around to it eventually. A few years back, maybe 10 years ago, ASCAP sued a nursing home and won the case. The nursing home was playing recorded music (tapes) and it was considered a public performance. ASCAP didn't really enforce the judgment and settled to avoid too much bad publicity. But it got the point across and nursing homes started paying the licensing fees.

Mathew Evan · March 27th, 2004, 04:43 PM

Again you're missing my point (and evidently unable to). Yes if we or the brides were selling the wedding videos to the general public then yes we would be raising a red flag. However as it is there is very little reason for the ASCAP or whatever to chase them down.

If they haven't gotten around to it yet then I doubt they have intentions to. Except if one of you guys decided to tattle tale (which it sounds like a few of you would).

You're mistaking public use for private use. Maybe there is no difference by law but there is on a subjective level.
Don't get me wrong. I understand the legal issues at hand. It's just that you guys are making it out like wedding videographers are thieves who should be tried by the law for their crimes. Their services go far beyond just putting copyrighted music on wedding videos. Trust me that the work most put into their videos far exceeds any compensation (none) they get for using copyrighted music.

Richard Alvarez · March 27th, 2004, 06:04 PM

Mathew,

You seem to be missing my point.

Using the music in wedding videos is illegal.

The attorneys are on staff at RIAA/BMI/ASCAP and they get paid the same whether they are litigating or not. (Believe me, corporate lawyers are paid a lot of money whether or not they are litigating)

These corporations WILL hunt down churches, old folks homes, ma and pa video production houses and anyone who BLATANTLY flaunts their illegal activities. (My wife has had to represent such folks for thinking "We are just a tiny operation, who cares what we are doing.)

Its one of the reasons I would never advocate breaking the law on-line. I think it's a bad idea.

Can you get away with it? Sure you can. I am sure there are people on this board who get away with it twenty times a day, every day of the week. I am just speaking from personal knowledge here, I KNOW of small time "infringers" who have been sued.

It's not about how much money the particular infringement costs them... it's about letting someone get away with it... its about setting precedent. Failure to enforce rights can lead to loss of rights. But I'll let Paul explain the details.

Rick Spilman · March 27th, 2004, 06:34 PM

"Using the music in wedding videos is illegal."

No. You hear that sort of thing a lot around around here, but it isn't a demonstrated fact. It has never been established in court and industry representatives say exactly the opposite.

If you read the thread you will find that a rep at the Harry Fox agency is of the opinion that for private use it is perfectly legal. The folks at the Harry Fox Agency should know. They hang their hat on the provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. It is possible that their view might not stand up in court but it is not by any means clear cut.

Sure, corporations are perfectly capable of suing anybody for anything. We have seen real thuggishness on the part of the RIAA of late. The likelihood of any given record company finding a copy of a wedding video and deciding it was worth their while to test in court whether the AHRA applies or not is definately not zero but I would hestitate to attempt to assign a probabilty to it too much higher than that.

I also question the suggestion that wedding videographers are "getting away with it" when it has not been established that what they are doing is in any way illegal.

Jeff Donald · March 27th, 2004, 07:02 PM

Nothing new is being added here, as far as relevant content, and members are getting personal in their arguments, this thread is closed. If anyone needs an explanation for this consult the DV Info FAQ or email me, Chris Hurd or Ken Tanaka.

March 27th, 2004, 03:32 PM	#64
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Don't kid yourself, like Richard said, if there's money involved they'll get around to it eventually. A few years back, maybe 10 years ago, ASCAP sued a nursing home and won the case. The nursing home was playing recorded music (tapes) and it was considered a public performance. ASCAP didn't really enforce the judgment and settled to avoid too much bad publicity. But it got the point across and nursing homes started paying the licensing fees. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 27th, 2004, 07:02 PM	#68
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Nothing new is being added here, as far as relevant content, and members are getting personal in their arguments, this thread is closed. If anyone needs an explanation for this consult the DV Info FAQ or email me, Chris Hurd or Ken Tanaka. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 27th, 2004, 09:40 AM	#61
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Mathew, As someone who is married to an IP attorney, who went head to head with RIAA, I can assure you - the RIAA knows its happening and will get around to it eventually. Time is on their side. All they have to do is pick a couple of violators and start making examples of them.

March 27th, 2004, 09:51 AM	#62
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	Given that at least one industry source is saying that what most wedding videographers do is within the law, I suspect that the RIAA will continue beating up on the real hardened criminals - teenagers and grandmothers who download.

March 27th, 2004, 11:32 AM	#63
Mathew Evan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: United States Posts: 53	Richard, you missed my point. The reason the RIAA is making such a big stink about song sharing is not about artist's rights (yeah right) but because teenagers and others are swapping songs instead of buying them. Wedding videos don't cost them anything in sales. Who the heck is going to care if the RIAA chases after Joe Smoe Video Productions in Wichita Kansas about using a Celine Dion song on a wedding video? At best it would make the Drudge Report. But that's besides the point.... Let me re-state: Wedding Videographers cost the record companies zilch in sales. They in no way would waste expensive lawyer fees going after those hardened criminals, your friendly wedding videographers.

March 27th, 2004, 04:43 PM	#65
Mathew Evan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: United States Posts: 53	Again you're missing my point (and evidently unable to). Yes if we or the brides were selling the wedding videos to the general public then yes we would be raising a red flag. However as it is there is very little reason for the ASCAP or whatever to chase them down. If they haven't gotten around to it yet then I doubt they have intentions to. Except if one of you guys decided to tattle tale (which it sounds like a few of you would). You're mistaking public use for private use. Maybe there is no difference by law but there is on a subjective level. Don't get me wrong. I understand the legal issues at hand. It's just that you guys are making it out like wedding videographers are thieves who should be tried by the law for their crimes. Their services go far beyond just putting copyrighted music on wedding videos. Trust me that the work most put into their videos far exceeds any compensation (none) they get for using copyrighted music.

March 27th, 2004, 06:04 PM	#66
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Mathew, You seem to be missing my point. Using the music in wedding videos is illegal. The attorneys are on staff at RIAA/BMI/ASCAP and they get paid the same whether they are litigating or not. (Believe me, corporate lawyers are paid a lot of money whether or not they are litigating) These corporations WILL hunt down churches, old folks homes, ma and pa video production houses and anyone who BLATANTLY flaunts their illegal activities. (My wife has had to represent such folks for thinking "We are just a tiny operation, who cares what we are doing.) Its one of the reasons I would never advocate breaking the law on-line. I think it's a bad idea. Can you get away with it? Sure you can. I am sure there are people on this board who get away with it twenty times a day, every day of the week. I am just speaking from personal knowledge here, I KNOW of small time "infringers" who have been sued. It's not about how much money the particular infringement costs them... it's about letting someone get away with it... its about setting precedent. Failure to enforce rights can lead to loss of rights. But I'll let Paul explain the details.

March 27th, 2004, 06:34 PM	#67
Rick Spilman Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Jersey City, NJ Posts: 366	"Using the music in wedding videos is illegal." No. You hear that sort of thing a lot around around here, but it isn't a demonstrated fact. It has never been established in court and industry representatives say exactly the opposite. If you read the thread you will find that a rep at the Harry Fox agency is of the opinion that for private use it is perfectly legal. The folks at the Harry Fox Agency should know. They hang their hat on the provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. It is possible that their view might not stand up in court but it is not by any means clear cut. Sure, corporations are perfectly capable of suing anybody for anything. We have seen real thuggishness on the part of the RIAA of late. The likelihood of any given record company finding a copy of a wedding video and deciding it was worth their while to test in court whether the AHRA applies or not is definately not zero but I would hestitate to attempt to assign a probabilty to it too much higher than that. I also question the suggestion that wedding videographers are "getting away with it" when it has not been established that what they are doing is in any way illegal.