Internet movie streaming

[derek veazey]

Jurisdiction

Nevada

I am having a debate with a friend regarding movie copyright law. She is a musician on a website on which she has paying subscribers. She is streaming movies using OBS (open broadcast software) without a license to her subscribers on a weekly basis for entertainment purposes. I am wondering if I am right in thinking this is a public showing and therefore constitutes violation of movie copyright law.

 

[mightymoose]

Your friend is breaking the law.

 

[derek veazey]

Your friend is breaking the law.

That's what I thought, thanks for your response

 

[welkin]

She is streaming movies using OBS (open broadcast software) without a license to her subscribers on a weekly basis for entertainment purposes.

You have to explain this. What movies is she streaming while playing? Are they movies that she doesn't have a license to use?

Why do you think she needs a license to her subscribers? She would need a license from the copyright holder of the movies she is streaming not her subscribers.

 

[Zigner]

You have to explain this. What movies is she streaming while playing? Are they movies that she doesn't have a license to use?

The OP literally answered your question in the same sentence that you quoted.

Why do you think she needs a license to her subscribers? She would need a license from the copyright holder of the movies she is streaming not her subscribers.

I agree that the sentence construction wasn't optimal, but the intent was clear.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The OP literally answered your question in the same sentence that you quoted.

I don't agree. OBS is Free and open source software for video recording and live streaming. That is how the friend is streaming not what is being streamed.

That said, there is little doubt that whatever she is streaming is a copyright violation.

 

[Zigner]

I don't agree. OBS is Free and open source software for video recording and live streaming. That is how the friend is streaming not what is being streamed.

That said, there is little doubt that whatever she is streaming is a copyright violation.

I was referring to the "without a license" part

ETA: Of course, as I said, the sentence construction/lack of punctuation makes it all ambiguous.

 

[Zigner]

She is streaming movies without a license (using OBS [open broadcast software]) to her subscribers on a weekly basis for entertainment purposes.

This would been a better way to state it to avoid the ambiguity that arose.
Another alternative would have been:

She is using OBS (open broadcast software) to stream movies (without a license) to her subscribers on a weekly basis for entertainment purposes.

Or:

She is using OBS (open broadcast software) to stream unlicensed movies to her subscribers on a weekly basis for entertainment purposes.

 

[zddoodah]

You are correct.

Section 106 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. section 106) gives "the owner of copyright under this title . . . the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of" several listed acts, including, "in the case of . . . motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly."

Section 101 (17 U.S.C. section 101) states that, "[t]o 'perform' a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible." Section 101 also states that, "[t]o perform or display a work 'publicly' means—

. . .

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place [open to the public or where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered] or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

Your friend is a wholesale copyright infringer, who could be liable for a whole host of nasty stuff under Chapter 5 of the Copyright Act, including damages between $750 and $30,000 per act of infringement.