Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

tptacek

A very good source on fair use:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...

Note the "four factors" in fair use:

* The extent to which the use transforms the original work

* The nature of the work being used

* The amount and substantiality of the use

* The effect of the use on the market

I'm pretty sure soundtracking your resume with almost the entirety of a signed band's most popular track flunks all these tests --- charming though that resume is.

I'm actually not at all concerned about musical resumes --- seriously, does Britt Daniel care about resumes? Of course he doesn't --- so much as the mentality at startups that this stuff is always going to be kosher. Not so. HN just got finished shellacking a different YC company over this exact issue.

Be careful about music, is all I'm really saying.

View on HN

You're correct that this would fail a fair-use test. Once it went up on a blog it's akin to a public performance, and use of the master recording should be licensed.

It is improbable that someone is going to issue a DMCA letter because of this, but it does (to your point) outline a couple of problems in S.V., one of which is the misconception that "It's not stealing if you attribute the artist" is widespread. And incorrect, at least for anything (c)All Rights Reserved.

If in doubt, it's a good idea for startups to consult their attorney (and not the PM, or lead engineer, or friend-in-a-band) when in doubt when using music, art, or what-have-you in public fora.

So am I crazy or did whoever this person talk to at Sliderocket give her ludicrously bad advice?

tonecluser responded to the wrong person, but you're both right - that was very bad advice. There are definite copyright problems here.

Even if they could win this in court (which they probably couldn't), it's certainly not so cut and dry that anyone would just say 'nope, no problems, carry on' and be done with it.

Isn't that weird? Don't you guys have performance rights separate from copy rights?

I mean... yeah, using the music means that a payment should be made, but why is it copyright rather than performance rights?

This is just a general question. I used to work in the industry and only reading this do I see how weird it is.

We had the MCPS and PRS. One does physical copies of recordings, and the other does performances of a recording.

Performing rights are what should be applied here, no copy is being offered, it's simply a broadcast.

That being so... why would copyright apply? And if that is the case, then surely all of the fair use doesn't apply because that's related to fair use of copyrights, not performance rights.

Example: If I made a video and had the Beatles on as a sound track. Then I need to make sure I have performance rights (usually by a blanket fee), and don't need to consider copyright at all.

PRS music fees are covered here: http://www.prsformusic.com/users/broadcastandonline/onlinemo...

Obviously this all has a UK slant, it's what I know... just curious as to why a similar thing doesn't apply here and it's considered copyright (MCPS equivalent) when no copy is being made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com