Re: Streaming video and public performance

[deg farrelly <deg.farrelly@xxxxxxx>]

I guess I am somehow missing the argument here.

The position that I was attempting to make was the the copyright holder has
the right to dictate some limitations of public performance.

For example, PBS used to sell their educational videos (I don't know what
the current arrangements are) for classroom use, with public performance
rights.... BUT, if you wanted to use a cable system to deliver to the
classroom there were different licenses and charges involved.

Similarly, a title might be sold with public performance rights if admission
is not charged.  But there is no PPR if admission is charged.

Such limitations are completely within the purview of the copyright holder.

One cannot assume that because one has PPR in one setting/use, PPR
automatically applies to another.
-- 
 deg




> From: John Mitchell <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Deg misstates my position. Of course, purchasing a copy does not carry with
> it the right to stream (or to perform it publicly).

<snip>
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but I generally agree with all Deg says except for his
> mischaracterization of what I said. When I referred to no separate right to
> stream it, I am referring to a right separate from the right of public
> performance. I am not suggesting at all that ownership gives the right to
> perform it publicly, but there is only one right of public performance.