Multimedia :: What media can be played legally ?



Quote (manishsadh @ Feb. 16 2007,02:12)
ofcourse i am referring to non-copyrighted mp3s downloaded from the web or maybe non-copyrighted ogg files downloaded. i have seen a lot web sites which have non-copyrighted content

Hi Manish

Can you give an example of a site without copyrighted content? I suppose you must mean MP3 music files that are unattributed to any individual or group, because as already mentioned everything is copyrighted.
Quote (ron @ Feb. 16 2007,11:42)
Can you give an example of a site without copyrighted content? I suppose you must mean MP3 music files that are unattributed to any individual or group, because as already mentioned everything is copyrighted.

Legally, lack of attribution doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. It just means it's not attributed. Its copyright could, accordingly, already be violated through such lack of attribution, through mis-attribution, and through unapproved redistribution. Further redistribution would therefore lack compliance with copyright law because of lack of attributions (if required by the copyright holder -- and that's usually required even in the case where redistribution without permission is granted) and redistribution (if not allowed by copyright holder) and/or broadcast.
Quote (lucky13 @ Feb. 16 2007,13:41)
Quote (ron @ Feb. 16 2007,11:42)
Can you give an example of a site without copyrighted content? I suppose you must mean MP3 music files that are unattributed to any individual or group, because as already mentioned everything is copyrighted.

Legally, lack of attribution doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. It just means it's not attributed. Its copyright could, accordingly, already be violated through such lack of attribution, through mis-attribution, and through unapproved redistribution. Further redistribution would therefore lack compliance with copyright law because of lack of attributions (if required by the copyright holder -- and that's usually required even in the case where redistribution without permission is granted) and redistribution (if not allowed by copyright holder) and/or broadcast.

Who's going to come round and enforce their rights under copyright laws if the works are unattributed (and cannot be attributed)? The Queen Mother? Only first-year undergrad law students would even think about such a situation.
On a more serious note, what about unattributed quotations in the English language, and very old records that have been sampled and converted to MP3 and redistributed? The copyright has long expired and everyone's probably dead anyway. As an example, I recently uploaded and distributed samples from a 1960s Deben Bhattacharya record with classical Indian music recording. I don't think there's any historical record of this recording. It would have been a crime not to share it with the world, rather than the other way around.
Quote

Who's going to come round and enforce their rights under copyright laws if the works are unattributed (and cannot be attributed)? The Queen Mother?


The OP suggested creating a business around multimedia and his question asked specifically about copyrighted content. Who'd enforce copyrights under such circumstance where a work was distributed without attribution or without regard for copyright? Anyone represented by ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, or other such bodies that seek to protect their copyright holders.

Quote
Only first-year undergrad law students would even think about such a situation.


Hardly! Just because you get your hands on a particular tune that lacks any information about its origin or its copyright status doesn't give you carte blanche to use it or distribute or even listen to it. You sure as hell couldn't use it in other content like a movie, a remix, an ad, etc., without finding out its origins, who's copyrighted it, and what the reuse of it would require (royalty, permission, attribution, etc.).

Quote
On a more serious note,


Copyright law is a pretty serious issue. Groups like the RIAA and FSF are spending millions of dollars to keep it a pretty serious issue.

Quote
what about unattributed quotations in the English language,


There's a huge distinction between borrowing a line and reprinting or redistributing another's copyrighted work against the terms the copyright holder permits.

Quote
and very old records that have been sampled and converted to MP3 and redistributed?


Under US law?
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html

Quote
The copyright has long expired and everyone's probably dead anyway.


There's no controlling authority if the copyright has expired; many "classics" are republished without royalties to an estate because the copyrights have expired. Death of a copyright holder doesn't terminate rights. Those are usually held in trust, by an estate, or transferred to heirs.

Quote
As an example, I recently uploaded and distributed samples from a 1960s Deben Bhattacharya record with classical Indian music recording. I don't think there's any historical record of this recording. It would have been a crime not to share it with the world, rather than the other way around.

That's according to your judgment. If it's a copyrighted work, that's not your decision to make. You may think you're doing a service while a copyright holder may think you're stealing or otherwise diminishing the value of his or her work. The courts go along with case law. Digital reproduction, size, age, etc., doesn't change anything: copyrights are still copyrights. And ignorance of the law isn't an exculpatory excuse.
Lucky13, your "analysis" is childish beyond belief.

I have a good (UK) law degree, and a decade ago I also went on to the required professional accreditation course (LPC).

How can a theoretical copyright holder "who cannot be attributed" to a particular work, be "represented by ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, or other such bodies that seek to protect their copyright holders."?

Don't answer me, because doubtlessly you will pretend that I've gone on to say that digital reproduction, size and age make a difference to whether the material is protected, and that I've said "ignorance of the law is my excuse". In fact, bone-headed ignorance of the law seems to be your game, going by the your revolting attitude "all that I see is mine" and your assumption that the United States encompasses the entire world including the entire internet.

If you're anything other than a barking dog, what about my admitted re-release of Deben Bhattacharya material? Do something about it..
Next Page...
original here.