Last night i was at a friend's dorm and we had rented the new DVD Star wars, we played it with his laptop on the big screen in a common room. we had about a half hour left when the RA came in to tell us that we weren't allowed to watch it because of Copyright laws and it being a public place. But they are allowed to show movies in classrooms, or auditoriums if they don't charge admission. What do you think about this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's technically true under some interpretations of the law. Very annoying, though, especially to make you stop in the middle of the movie.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's just an example of CYA -- cover your butt.
Thye don't need to understand copyright laws. They just need to make sure they err on the side of the copyright holders, because they are the ones with the lawyers.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Unless you were charging admission, there's no grounds for it. It's a non-profit, private showing, the same as having friends over to watch a movie in your home.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, but where's the liability for them? Especially since I doubt the companies would actually mind assuming it's a normal size college dorm common room. They hold, what, 20 people? That's not much bigger than what you can screen in a living room.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Technically it is a public showing, since the person showing the movie had no control over who entered the space. You do not have to charge admission to violate copyright.
Dagonee
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
There were six of us, and maybe 10 other people sat down behind us to watch because it was on and cool. Very similar to a living room, I mean many more people could have been there but there weren't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There doesn't have to be an actual liability for them to CYA and make sure that there is no liablity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's the statute at issue:
quote:To perform or display a work or video 'publicly' means (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered. Federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101.
It's likely a common room would be considered "Open to the public" because you can't kick people out.
A public performance requires the permission of the copyright holder.
Dagonee
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
thanks dag, just wanted to see if they were right.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Because George Lucas will come and beat you up if you show it.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
When we showed Pirates of the Caribbean as a YA program at my library, we had to pay about $125 for the right to hold a public screening.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
When my sophemore roommate was an RA he talked about how the powers that be kept on bringing up how they need to cut out people watching movies in the common room. it really was just cover your ass. i dont think he ever asked why, he just sort of said ok and bitched at a few people on various floors and made them go into one of their rooms to resume...
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: Last night i was at a friend's dorm and we had rented the new DVD Star wars, we played it with his laptop on the big screen in a common room .
emphasis mine
Dorms/residence halls are not open to the public. I was an RA at one time at a public university. Though, I must admit we qualified hallways and lobbies as public under certain rules to guarantee all residents equal access. The truth is, not just anyone can walk into a dorm/residence hall. You were an invited guest. I'm guessing everyone else either lived there or was in a similar situation?
Now, something I can legitimately see happening would be another resident complained about noise or the use of the common room. Maybe someone else wanted to use the room for another purpose? Our university did indicate that everyone had access to the common rooms and that no one person or group could deprive residents of that.
quote: Technically it is a public showing, since the person showing the movie had no control over who entered the space. You do not have to charge admission to violate copyright.
I don't agree with this, but I can't for the life of me figure out why. Maybe I lack the words to express it. Just doesn't seem right. Most theatres have control over who enters the movie theatre, does that make a movie showing "private"? If I take a movie over to a friends house, and his family has other people over as guests, outside of our control, does that qualify as "public," because we lack control?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I appear to be a rambling moron with no grammatical consistency. If I'm not logical, it's because I need sleep. Oh, and the right to a consistant train of thought that lasts more than 3 minutes without rude interruption (think, work).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Most theatres have control over who enters the movie theatre, does that make a movie showing "private"?
No, because there's more to the definition than that, as I posted above. Listing one criteria that makes it a public showing doesn't mean there aren't others. The statute lists two: one based on the attributes of the location, and one based on the attributes of the audience. The common room likely fails both.
Also, in most places, movie theaters can't keep someone out who's willing and able (and does) pay the ticket price. They are public accomodations.
A dorm room is a private area - the occupants exert control and have an expectation of privacy in that space.
The common room is NOT private - any residence of the dorm can enter with guests, and no one can keep anybody out of it. It's not quite "open to the public," but it is open to a large segment of the public unkown to the person showing the movie.
This is fairly well established doctrine, and almost every college has rules on it, at least with respect to library materials. Many have the rules for showings of rentals and owned DVDs as well.
quote:If I take a movie over to a friends house, and his family has other people over as guests, outside of our control, does that qualify as "public," because we lack control?
In that case, it would likely be interpreted as you having lent the movie to the host (which is perfectly legal) and the host is the person showing it. This example underscores the difference between the two scenarios, in fact.
Dagonee
[ September 27, 2004, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Most of the groups at my high school used to show movies in the auditorium as fundraisers. They couldn't charge admission but they sold refreshments. Isn't this pretty much the same thing?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Just another example of why copyright laws really need to be changed....
(Incidently, you didn't listen to your RA, did you? )
[ September 27, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
blacwolve - Yep, and equally illegal, unless permission were asked of the copyright holder/manager.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
BTW, when I was at college, which was a state school, when the campus center would show movies they always had to pay for the right to do so or face possible litigation.
And I worked there at the time, and was on the Board of Governers, so i saw the budget...I don't remember how much it was, but we had to budget for it each year, that much I remember.
So they ARE right, as they have been able to force even state run (and notoriously cheap) coleges to pay fees associated with it.
Kwea
[ September 28, 2004, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I used to think, like many people, that you were fine as long as you did not charge admission.
Not true. If it's a public place, you don't have to charge admission for there to be a violation of the law.
A friend of mine who ran a daycare, once got in trouble for showing movies to the kids. She called Disney and asked what to do to be able to play the movies for the kids legally, and was told she could buy a special license or something for $500. Because Disney doesn't make enough money, as we all know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Eek!]](eek.gif)