Copyright Discussion (Moved from Video Share Forum)

[chton]

If you could purchase an art book with text and beautiful photos of the artwork, or one with just the text, which would you choose? Yes, it's a no-brainer. People will always pay more to get more content. I don't think that proves what you think it proves though What you have to determine is, would someone buy this picture book without the text, if they could get a book that includes that text? Again, they are getting more content. I submit that they would always buy the book that has both text and pictures!

Blue

Fine ,we can agree to disagree about what it proves, but I can't see how it can be argued that what drives subscription is the clips, and while you believe you are entitled to their use, I think it questionable and they are the apparent revenue driver. I really don't see how it can be argued but that's just professional pride.
Anyways, my real point was made simply by the obvious choices made, people can take what they will from that.

[Geno]

Site A gives you the review and site B gives you the review and the clip. I humbly submit that site B would have more subscribers. My original example posits site A has reviews only and site B has clips only, which of these do you think would have more subscriptions? Again not to devalue the reviews, but do you think people would pay the same for reviews only?

I missed your question. I am little late but, to answer you question. Site B that provide the video clips without the review would most definitely get the most pay suscribers assume the prices where the same for both sites. You are right about that. Sort of buying the book, with both the text and picture. It just goes to show you that men are more visually dependant than women, also. They have to see the pictures and the images to get maximum satisfaction.

[Templar]

With all due respect, I don't see how G-Man, Cash, Big-O style video clip posting would be considered "fair use". To begin with, "Fair Use" is a legal defense, not a right. If MGM sees that you're posting clips of their movies - especially clips where characters are killed (spoilers) they can sue you - simple as that. NOW you have the option to use the defense of "Fair Use" in court while you're spending thousands on legal fees... just NOT my idea of fun!

Personally I see the whole "movie review" defense as assuming a judge with an IQ in the lower double digits. In fact if you bring this up as your defense he may be offended that you would even attempt it and tell you to stop insulting his intelligence. The site is set up as a paysite. People pay to see the clips - all the ads for the site display the clips as the reason to purchase membership. I can just imagine a lawyer from Paramount or Universal being completely flustered by this defense... No, I see them laughing at it! And I see a Judge completely sympathetic to someone selling Hollywood clips for the purpose of Death Fetish masturbation... No, if you're lucky you WON'T get a religious Judge looking to give everything you have to the studio and putting you in jail.

Common myths and misconceptions on Fair Use:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html
http://www.llrx.com/features/bloggersbeware.htm

Example:

3. Since I'm only using a small portion of the original work, I don't need permission.

While "fair use" can't be defined with mathematical precision, courts have consistently held that "you cannot escape liability by showing how much of [a] work you did not take." Based on the particular facts of a given case, courts will weight the following factors to determine whether a particular use is a fair use: (i) the purpose of the use, including whether the use is primarily for commercial or noncommercial purposes; (ii) the nature of the work; (iii) the amount and importance of the portions used in relation to the whole of the original work; and (iv) the effect of the use on the potential market, or value of the original. Accordingly, even if what you copy is quantitatively small, it may be qualitatively important, and therefore an infringing use.

Sorry for the harsh tone - I wish you all the best and don't want to see you in trouble.

[Geno]

I will agree that sometimes you have to get use a tough tone with Bluestone. If you don't, he will become too passive and complacent. I'm on his case right now about slacking off on his stance on anti-piracy we he has a good audience now. If you think he is endangering himself legally, then by all means you should bring it to his attention. Right or wrong, Bluestone has to be exposed to all the serious, possible, suggestions.

Now with that said, a person can just can't quote a rule of law and use it in bare form, effectively. You have to look at it's practical enforcement also. You can usually find that in "case law" (actual court cases where the law and actually been applied and ruling made)

G-Man reported 8 years ago, that his lawyer looked over the legal parameters of his proposal to start a paysite, which he would call a "review site", and post small portions of selected mainsteam movies clips. That lawyer told him it would alright, and he went ahead and created Femmegore. That's what G-Man is doing right now, and has been doing for more than eight years now, after getting that advice from his lawyer.

The first website on Templar's link, was very interesting, however, it fails to quote and quantify actual court cases where the law has been applied as it would relate to the internet.

It's not like G-Man is copying entire movies and selling on the internet, when he surely does not own the copyrights. The point being is that G-Man has tested the law for over 8 years, (7 years) and has not ran into any legal trouble.

Geno