![]() The less expansive the license, the less expensive.” Like their coaxial brethren, Netflix, Hulu, and Apple all specifically only permit private, noncommercial use.Īs GigaOm points out, this is as much a practical concern as a philosophical one: “Netflix and Apple have to pay the content provider for a license so that they can serve the content to their subscribers. Well, the future it might be, but new techs play by old rules. ![]() But what about internet media? It’s the future now, right? Sure, cable and satellite companies don’t play along. Of course, GigaOm is tech-focused, so they’re thinking about the future. Which, let’s be honest, there’s a pretty good chance they haven’t done. If your local watering hole uses cable, satellite, or fiber - as many do - then they aren’t allowed to show big-screen content without first securing permits. The exception in the law was a particular concession to the restaurant and food/beverage industries, which benefit tremendously from it.īut the homestyle exception specifically applies to broadcasts. That exception allows certain kinds of places to be considered, basically, home-like and not participating in public performance when they show live broadcast TV. But it was the 1998 extension, as GigaOm explains, that expanded the “Homestyle Exception.” literally zero works - would enter public domain until at least 2019. The most recent round of copyright extensions guaranteed that nothing in the U.S. It’s all thanks to particular concessions in a 1998 copyright extension bill. So what makes a bar of 3700 square feet (but not of 3800) different? We saw earlier this year that the entire idea of “public performance” under the Copyright Act eventually doomed Aereo. If those restrictions seem weirdly specific, well, they are.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |