• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Back-up copy rights questionable

K

krisoto

Golden Member
went to a private preschool for my kids summer day care. I saw a classroom have a dvd player and there, they use a dvd-r that plays peterpan. I ask the director, it's good to use back-up to use rather than using the original copy. As the conversation goes, they made 7 copies of peterpan for 7 classroom from one original disk.
Question is;
nothing wrong with that,right?
I mean, it's there disk and it's a private institution but making 7 copies to be viewed by paid-tuition-students, is that fine?
 
uhh probably not, but maybe they could hide behind fairuse? Peter Pan is umm educational and stuff right? I mean it teaches kids if they run away with strangers a magical fun adventure ensues......plus its ok for boys to wear tights :Q

Screw em I'll sue em, preschools have far to much money anyway :|
 
Originally posted by: Joeyman
uhh probably not, but maybe they could hide behind fairuse? Peter Pan is umm educational and stuff right? I mean it teaches kids if they run away with strangers a magical fun adventure ensues......plus its ok for boys to wear tights :Q

Screw em I'll sue em, preschools have far to much money anyway :|
Click to expand...


hehe
 
I dont think so, especially at a private school because those probably operate similar to universities. Children have to pay to go to that school, thus the school has to pay for the materials it uses to teach them. If it were non-profit it'd be different, so they can't hide behind the fair use clause.
 
Actually they can't even use the orignal copy since they are a for profit company. Disney sued a lot of national day cares. Ever read the fine print that says for PRIVATE viewing ONLY. That means to show it to a audiance that pays, you also have to pay the makers of the movie also.
 
The way you phrased your question, it seems like you already KNOW it's illegal (private institution, paid tuition, etc). Either that, or you have absolutely no understanding of copyright laws. It is most definitely illegal, as is showing it to the kids without permission from the studio. That constitutes a public performance.


Edit: As I post in most copyright-related threads I see, everyone ought to read one of the most famous articles ever published on the Internet.

And Popper, I don't think it matters that they charge tuition, nor does that necessarily mean they are a for-profit institution. Education is education, but this is not for educational purposes.
 
One of the few times the line "For educational purposes only" is actually used for Educational purposes?

😛
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Actually they can't even use the orignal copy since they are a for profit company. Disney sued a lot of national day cares. Ever read the fine print that says for PRIVATE viewing ONLY. That means to show it to a audiance that pays, you also have to pay the makers of the movie also.
Click to expand...

Quite true, it's for private viewing only but how do you justify that
A. it's part of the school material for which tuition include for use
B. no way a public viewing, like university student view a movie for study or educational purpose
C. true, it is a profit making school. so, if they acquire license of 7 copies. can they still do letter B?


 
oic, I was taking this straight out of my business law textbook, but maybe I misunderstood the meaning.

"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by [Section 106 of the Copyright Act], for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholorship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determing whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-"

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

etc. etc.
 
Originally posted by: PoPPeR
oic, I was taking this straight out of my business law textbook, but maybe I misunderstood the meaning.

"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by [Section 106 of the Copyright Act], for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholorship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determing whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-"

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I think what that means is that the use if not for profit, not the institution itself, but I could be wrong.
 
I thought all private education institutions were considered profit organizations, and thus anything done at those schools was considered for profit.

I remember our teacher talking about some girl at a University who's teacher copied and distributed an article out of a textbook that the girls dad wrote that no one in the class had bought, so even though the actual distribution was obviously for educational purposes, since it was done at an institution that was considered a profit one, then they were held liable.
 
Originally posted by: PoPPeR
I thought all private education institutions were considered profit organizations, and thus anything done at those schools was considered for profit. I remember our teacher talking about some girl at a University who's teacher copied and distributed an article out of a textbook that the girls dad wrote that no one in the class had bought, so even though the actual distribution was obviously for educational purposes, since it was done at an institution that was considered a profit one, then they were held liable.
Click to expand...

I think that they are private because they don't get state funding because they don't conform to the school requirements by the state, etc.

No clue really though. Good luck in court!
 
Along this same line, if my child's day care provider pops in a retail copy of Polyanna for the kids to watch, is that legal?

We are paying her to watch our kids.

Slag
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top