Copyright enforcement?
- Thread starterSayen
- Start date
I agree. Not only did I find the arguments presented rather weak and unsubstantiated but I also found the suggestion of turning copyright into a form of income for the government interesting as I don't recall that being in the Constitution nor do I see how more money for the government for some undefined purpose relates to furthering the arts or sciences that is supposedly the cornerstone of the argument for any changes. Overall that paper seems to me to possibly be more about creating a new form of income for the government while trying to justify it as a public service, something that is probably going to become more commonplace.
It might not stand up in court but it seems like a good idea and worth getting a lawyer to advise you on how to properly word it. The music company is going to come after you the venue but that doesn't mean you can't then go after the renter afterward to get your money back. The only problem is you have a multi-million dollar asset in the form of a theater building, Jane's school of dance rent's a room in the strip mall. The probably don't have the money to hire a lawyer to defend themself against you, and you are likely to get very little back, even if you do have an air tight case against them. Thus, it's best to deal with it by simply having good policies and enforcing them.
I'm not an attorney or copyright expert but my conversations with attorneys and rights prepresentatives is that might not stand up. You could possibly iinclude language making the renter responsible for procuring rights beyond public performance rights, but in the end it probably comes down to what was the venue's role and did they benefit from any violation?
In speaking with those experts I got the impression that for a number of reasons the venue will almost always be a prime target when addressing any copyright violation related to a public performance. In fact because they can choose who to pursue in relation to any alleged violations and because it has advantages for them, some of the rights groups seem to automatically pursue the venue first, for example even stating that they consider the venue responsible for procuring public performance rights.
Sayen
Active Member
From what I've read outside this thread, most places do have that clause, and in most cases the clause will still not protect you. The venue has liability, and in most cases you can't really sign away liability.
Sort of like extreme sport activities that make you sign promising not to sue if you are injured, or employers who force you to sign agreeing to arbitration for disputes rather than a suit. My understanding is that those things look nice on paper, but you can't sign away your rights and liability.
Umm...I'm definitely not a lawyer, that just seems to be the majority of what I've read on this. Our rental contract does include a clause similar to the one above.
Sort of like extreme sport activities that make you sign promising not to sue if you are injured, or employers who force you to sign agreeing to arbitration for disputes rather than a suit. My understanding is that those things look nice on paper, but you can't sign away your rights and liability.
Umm...I'm definitely not a lawyer, that just seems to be the majority of what I've read on this. Our rental contract does include a clause similar to the one above.
I didn't make my point well so I'll try again in simpler terms.
The person with the licensing rights is going to sue anyone and everyone they feel they can get money out of. This means the venue is target number one because you have a very large asset. No contract is going to keep them from suing you. So, it would be wise for everyone to have some phrasing in their contract that says the renter will be responsible for repaying the venue for any fines that result from the renter's illegal copy write activities. It might help, although you will probably face more fines than the renter has money to repay.
The person with the licensing rights is going to sue anyone and everyone they feel they can get money out of. This means the venue is target number one because you have a very large asset. No contract is going to keep them from suing you. So, it would be wise for everyone to have some phrasing in their contract that says the renter will be responsible for repaying the venue for any fines that result from the renter's illegal copy write activities. It might help, although you will probably face more fines than the renter has money to repay.
To riterate Gaff's point, copyright is addressing civil rather than criminal law and if ASCAP/BMI/SESAC or any rightsholder believes a violation has occurred then they get to choose whether to pursue it and who to pursue. From their perspective it may not always make sense to pursue the parties that are most directly responsible but rather the parties that will require the least effort to pursue, that represent the least negative PR and from whom they are most likely to actually get anything. And that often means the venue will be one of the parties, if not the only party, pursued.
At the same time, US copyright law addresses all parties who benefit from any violation so parties other than the venue cannot assume they are without risk. Thus the best bet is probably not to try to assign liability but to work together to limit everyone's liability.
The language noted does not seem to address actually protecting you from any action related to copyright allegations or fees, fines, penalties, etc. but rather simply provides some basis for subsequently trying to recover any resulting damages from the other parties involved. However, if the rightsholder or their representative did not pursue action against that party in the first place then that may work against you or at least be a sign that action against them may be more trouble than it is worth.
At the same time, US copyright law addresses all parties who benefit from any violation so parties other than the venue cannot assume they are without risk. Thus the best bet is probably not to try to assign liability but to work together to limit everyone's liability.
The language noted does not seem to address actually protecting you from any action related to copyright allegations or fees, fines, penalties, etc. but rather simply provides some basis for subsequently trying to recover any resulting damages from the other parties involved. However, if the rightsholder or their representative did not pursue action against that party in the first place then that may work against you or at least be a sign that action against them may be more trouble than it is worth.
