What media can be played legally ?
Forum: Multimedia
Topic: What media can be played legally ?
started by: manishsadh
Posted by manishsadh on Feb. 15 2007,08:28
Hi Forum friends,I would like to know if it is possible to build media services around dsl and actually start a business legally.
for example
can i play mp3 files using mpg321 ? if i can why is mp3 considered a copyrighted format ?
how about
xmms - cd
mplayer - vcd
mplayer - dvd (all the version of it)
mplayer - mpeg1 ,2,3 and 4
mplayer - avi
adobe player/ firefox plugin - flash
xmms - streaming mp3
thanks you very much.
Posted by mikshaw on Feb. 15 2007,12:57
Everything is copyrighted, as soon as the author puts his name to it. I think you're referring to the "patent" issue of the mp3 format, where numerous parties have (had?) claimed patent rights to it. This issue can theretically be applied to any software, since there is always the possibility that someone somewhere will make a claim to it, typically for financial gain. Therefore the legality of anything could potentially come into question at some point. Fortunately there are formats that have been developed under free license terms, which are less likely to suffer patent trolling.As far as being able to play mp3 files, I don't think there is any major issue. The main problem is the files themselves...what is the source of the file (who actually owns it, was it pirated) and what software was used to create the file.
As far as I know, the biggest issue among those you mentioned is DVD, specifically encrypted DVD. If you live in the USA, I understand you can't legally play encrypted disks using libdvdcss because it is not an authorized decrypter (authorized by Hollywood, I assume).
Posted by lucky13 on Feb. 15 2007,13:41
| Quote (mikshaw @ Feb. 15 2007,07:57) |
| As far as being able to play mp3 files, I don't think there is any major issue. The main problem is the files themselves...what is the source of the file (who actually owns it, was it pirated) and what software was used to create the file. |
It would also depend how the music was being used. You can't go buy a copy of a Beatles CD and then use their music in an advertising campaign. Alas, you also can't broadcast their music without owing them royalties. The definition of broadcasting extends to background music in a business, podcasts, radio broadcasts, etc.
< This article > would cause me to think twice about whose music I played in a podcast, on a radio station, in a diner or coffeehouse. ASCAP/BMI control and collect the royalties for copyrighted music in the US.< BMI's position > is that one doesn't own a right to use their artists' music except for personal use. From one of their FAQs:
| Quote |
| Q: Is a tape or CD my personal property to play where and when I like? No. Although, most people buy tapes and CDs thinking they are now their property, there is a distinction in the law between owning a copy of the CD and owning the songs on the CD. There is also a difference between a private performance of copyrighted music and a public performance. Most people recognize that purchasing a CD doesn't give them the right to make copies of it to give or sell to others. The record company and music publishers retain those rights. Similarly, the music on the CDs and tapes still belongs to the songwriter, composer or music publisher of the work. When you buy a tape or CD, the purchase price covers only your private listening use, similar to the "home" use of "home" videos. Once you decide to play these tapes or CDs in your restaurant or nightclub it becomes a public performance. Songwriters, composers, and music publishers have the exclusive right of public performance of their musical works under the U.S. copyright law. Therefore, any public performance, whether live or recorded, requires permission from the copyright owner - or BMI - if it is BMI-affiliated music. With a BMI Music License, you can publicly perform all BMI-affiliated music. |
Their position extends to other businesses. If the music is from an ASCAP/BMI artist, there are legal issues and there will be certain hurdles to clear. That includes licensing and royalty agreements. There are also "less evil" sources for music like < Magnatune > who encourage people to share and use their artists' music.
Posted by WDef on Feb. 15 2007,16:37
As I understand it the potential patent infringement with mp3 concerns only encoders, not decoders. Players are ok.Any installation of mp3 encoding software binaries (like lame) could theoretically be subject to a fee imposed by the alleged patent holder (Fraunhoffer) depending on which country you live in. Also it could be technically illegal to download such software (again, depending on the country). However, this issue is very unpopular, and the mp3 format so widespread .. A lot of repos, distros and websites etc are distributing lame binaries and similar so the threat can't be all that real.
AFAIKT no action over libdvdcss has ever been taken in any court anywhere and the issue seems to be a fizzle. There's a good wikepedia entry. It's not about copy protection as people assume - it's that encrypted DVD players and software is supposed to be licensed by the DVD Forum. I suspect the DVD Forum doesn't sue anybody because they don't want the FSF, EFF etc ganging up and challenging their patent in the courts - but I'm not a lawyer and that's just a guess.
Posted by manishsadh on Feb. 16 2007,07:12
Hi folks,That was informative. thanks.
i guess i can play mp3 files without any problems may be in a kiosk used by an organization. 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.
if i want to rip my own purchased cds i would rip them into oggs.
i suppose flash wont be a problem either.
is there a stand alone flash player for dsl by the way ?
thank u.
Posted by ron on Feb. 16 2007,16:42
| 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.
Posted by lucky13 on Feb. 16 2007,18:41
| 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.
Posted by ron on Feb. 16 2007,22:48
| Quote (lucky13 @ Feb. 16 2007,13:41) | ||
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.
Posted by lucky13 on Feb. 16 2007,23:30
| 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.
Posted by ron on Feb. 17 2007,12:57
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..
Posted by lucky13 on Feb. 17 2007,13:45
| Quote (ron @ Feb. 17 2007,07:57) |
| Lucky13, your "analysis" is childish beyond belief. |
plonk
Posted by ron on Feb. 17 2007,13:59
I guess the copyright police aren't coming knocking on my door anytime soon for uploading Deben Bhattacharya's "Evening Ragas" (c. 1960). In the real world we don't care about sharing 1950s BBC Radio recordings, or classical Indian field recordings that are almost 50 years old. We would probably not share anything EMI or Sony is trying to sell right now though. That's how the REAL WORLD works.Incidentally, I am a volunteer "copyright police" admin on a well-known music community website.
Posted by lucky13 on Feb. 17 2007,14:19
| Quote (ron @ Feb. 17 2007,08:59) |
| I guess the copyright police aren't coming knocking on my door anytime soon for uploading Deben Bhattacharya's "Evening Ragas" (c. 1960). In the real world we don't care about sharing 1950s BBC Radio recordings, or classical Indian field recordings that are almost 50 years old. We would probably not share anything EMI or Sony is trying to sell right now though. That's how the REAL WORLD works. |
Berne Convention, WIPO, TRIPS. Guess your "good (UK)" law school overlooked those little treaties, eh? Or did you just miss that day? Haw, haw, haw...
| Quote |
Incidentally, |
You know nothing about copyright law and you've already set yourself up as judge and jury as to when you feel you can break it. For the record, I only brought up US law because it's my jurisdiction and because both our nations are signatories to copyright treaties which respect the prevailing laws of each country with full reciprocity. Childish? No. First year law school? Hardly. Real world? See the treaties, not the scofflaws. Here's your final lesson on the matter, "counselor" (and I use the term very loosely):
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html >
< http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ >
Etc.
Prediction: you'll continue with more name-calling, aspersions and allusions about "America doesn't own the world" (I never said it did, but our copyright laws are respected and enforced internationally by treaty just as yours are), and the like instead of addressing matters of law as I've done throughout the thread.
Posted by ron on Feb. 17 2007,14:35
| Quote (lucky13 @ Feb. 17 2007,09:19) | ||||
Berne Convention, WIPO, TRIPS. Guess your "good (UK)" law school overlooked those little treaties, eh? Or did you just miss that day? Haw, haw, haw...
You know nothing about copyright law and you've already set yourself up as judge and jury as to when you feel you can break it. For the record, I only brought up US law because it's my jurisdiction and because both our nations are signatories to copyright treaties which respect the prevailing laws of each country with full reciprocity. Childish? No. First year law school? Hardly. Real world? See the treaties, not the scofflaws. Here's your final lesson on the matter, "counselor" (and I use the term very loosely): < http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html > < http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ > Etc. Prediction: you'll continue with more name-calling, aspersions and allusions about "America doesn't own the world" (I never said it did, but our copyright laws are respected and enforced internationally by treaty just as yours are), and the like instead of addressing matters of law as I've done throughout the thread. |
This is the whole problem with people like you. You're all talk, AND you lack discipline.
| Quote |
plonk |
Your egotistical delusions are so convoluted, it appears that there's no helping you (and I AM trying to help you). The whole point is not to become ensnared in this Net, especially when you're trying to use it to ensnare others :LOL:. When you're ready to learn about how the real world works in real life, go after me for the "Evening Ragas".
And no, at law school we didn't cover meaningless scraps of paper like international conventions and treaties (treaties are ten a penny), and neither did we cover your meaningless US constitution (another all-bark-and-no-bite exercise in grandstanding). We did cover the intellectual property law of England and Wales.
But hey, keep this up and maybe you'll make it to President of the DSL forum! One thing you won't do is stop anyone doing what they want.
Posted by lucky13 on Feb. 17 2007,15:00
| Quote (ron @ Feb. 17 2007,09:35) |
Your egotistical delusions are so convoluted, it appears that there's no helping you (and I AM trying to help you).... |
I've discussed matters of fact in law in this thread; you're hellbent instead to cast aspersions, display your vile and reflexive contempt for other nations and their laws and citizens, and engage in other forms of ad hominem attacks. Raise your standards if you wish to continue, because I refuse to lower mine.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on Feb. 17 2007,18:14
Guys, please play nice... (or take it elsewhere)| Quote |
| is there a stand alone flash player for dsl by the way ? |
I think the best way would be for the topic starter to seek legal advice from wherever he is located.
Posted by manishsadh on Feb. 21 2007,02:40
Hi Guys,please take it easy. i will seek legal advise locally when i am ready. but for now i will be happy with a flash plugin that works , feh for picture slideshows and mpg321 and ogg commandline players.
thanks a lot.