Skip to main content

An Oddity of Copyright Law

Image result for clipart copyright


I'm working (too slowly) on a review of a book that takes an international comparative approach to copyright law.

I'll record a point here that intrigues me, but that probably won't get into my review.

In the European Union, it seems there is now a significant difference at law between the music that is playing in the dentist's office when patients are in the chair undergoing the rigors of examination or repair work on the one hand, and the screening of television programs in the waiting room of a rehab facility as a diversion for patients.

I had never given any thought to copyright in either context before, so this is all new to me. It is not so much that there IS a difference that interests me, but how that difference is justified. 

As EU directives put the point, a copyright owner has a right to control when his/her/its property will be "communicated to the public." Although this is not the sole consideration, a court is more likely to find a communication to be a "communication" in the relevant sense if it is profit making than if it isn't. So: is the dentist making a profit by playing Bono's music for his patients?

Apparently, no. According to one finding cited in the book under review, a court decided that the use of one musician's or music label's work over another's does not increase the attractiveness of the dental practice, so it is not a profit making  concern. Thus, Bono might lose that one.
\
But, according to another finding the screening of a TV program in the rehab center's waiting room as a diversion does increase the attractiveness of the overall package of services the center offers, thereby helping the cause of the broadcaster, production company or whomever against the rehab center if the latter tried to screen the program for free.

Sounds like an arbitrary bit of line drawing: no? 
Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryFebruary 16, 2018 at 7:22 AM

    Showing a TV program in a waiting room DECREASES the attractiveness of the overall package of services, as the drivel that is shown interferes with the waiting patient's ability to read a book. It is wrong to impose it on a captive audience. The same is true of music played in train stations. Being forced to listen to music in a train station has led me to consider whether I could win a lawsuit claiming that such imposed speech violates the First Amendment, assuming that the train station is owned by the government. Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more