Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
actually you need to read it again it says
that statement is not incompatible with a fair use defense,
if the highlighted portion of the text was missing then yes i would agree with you
however given club setting, the normal liciencing process for playing music in a club and the nature of the shoot. that phrasing is appropriate for the first ammendment/fair use defense.
|
I see what you're getting at, but I'm not so sure the court is going to accept the clubs as meeting the definition of "supplier" here, particularly since the clubs in question do not
own the copyright to the songs they play, and therefor the songs cannot be considered their "property."
Interesting stuff at any rate. If this case doesn't settle without full adjudication... a few years from now we may have our answers. Hehe.