Compulsory Licenses allow third parties to copy, perform, or distribute certain types of works without the copyright owners permission, in exchange for which the third parties must pay a predetermined royalty amount.
In relation to filesharing, Title 17 of the US Code requires that a compulsory license be obtained only if the primary purpose in making
the phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use. It is not available for phonorecords intended for use in background music systems, jukeboxes, broadcasting,
or any other public use.
What argument could Google make to get such a license under the current law which limits the granting of a compulsory license to such few circumstances? It seems that Google would have to obtain a negotiated license from ASCAP/BMI/SOCAN and similar agencies, in order to to be the first company to legally succeed in legitimate filesharing of copyrighted works. If other broadcast mediums had to obtain these license why can't filesharing companies negotiate them????
The P2P companies should still be liable, absent a contract from the main distributor granting the P2Ps rights to diplay the movies before the theatrical release date. It's much easier to monitor the obvious infringers and seek injunctive relief against them then it would be to find the untrustworthy insider. Moreover, there would be no infringement from leaks if there were no illegal venues seeking illegal rights and access to the movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Compulsory Licenses allow third parties to copy, perform, or distribute certain types of works without the copyright owners permission, in exchange for which the third parties must pay a predetermined royalty amount. In relation to filesharing, Title 17 of the US Code requires that a compulsory license be obtained only if the primary purpose in making the phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use. It is not available for phonorecords intended for use in background music systems, jukeboxes, broadcasting, or any other public use. What argument could Google make to get such a license under the current law which limits the granting of a compulsory license to such few circumstances? It seems that Google would have to obtain a negotiated license from ASCAP/BMI/SOCAN and similar agencies, in order to to be the first company to legally succeed in legitimate filesharing of copyrighted works. If other broadcast mediums had to obtain these license why can't filesharing companies negotiate them????
The P2P companies should still be liable, absent a contract from the main distributor granting the P2Ps rights to diplay the movies before the theatrical release date. It's much easier to monitor the obvious infringers and seek injunctive relief against them then it would be to find the untrustworthy insider. Moreover, there would be no infringement from leaks if there were no illegal venues seeking illegal rights and access to the movies.