Actually because internal distribution at companies is generally considered to not be distribution because it's the legal entity that is the company that's using it. The internal employees actually watching/changing the content are simply acting as the agents of that legal entity.
Therefore only the legal entity that is the company needs to have rights to the content, not the employees.
For instance, you can install windows on computers at work (which definitely is distribution), without the rights to do so. Only the company needs said rights.
That's why "the rules are different" for companies. They're not different, they just apply to different legal entities.
> Actually because internal distribution at companies is generally considered to not be distribution
This is not true. Copying material internally to a company is distribution. If you (person or company) don’t have the rights to copy, then it is illegal. If you do have a license, then it's legal distribution.
It seems like you’re conflating copyright rules with licenses. The copyright rules are not different for companies than for individuals; without the right to copy, no entity, person or company, other than the copyright holder and license holders, can do so legally. It’s fairly simple.
> That's why "the rules are different" for companies. They're not different, they just apply to different legal entities.
Also not true. Copyrights belong to the author/creator of a work, they protect the author, they grant the author exclusive right to copy the work. This protection does not differentiate or change based on who wants to copy the work.
Licenses are what apply differently to different legal entities.
> The internal employees actually watching/changing the content are simply acting as the agents of that legal entity.
That’s only true when the content has been licensed to the company for company-wide internal use. If the content was licensed to an individual and then distributed internally to a company, co-workers might not be allowed to consume that content, depending on the license. Furthermore, some content can be licensed to an individual at a company, such that the same individual is not allowed to use that content outside of work, and no other individuals at the company can use it either.
> This is not true. Copying material internally to a company is distribution. If you (person or company) don’t have the rights to copy, then it is illegal. If you do have a license, then it's legal distribution.
It's only distribution if access changes from one (legal) person to another. If a company gives access to employees acting as agents for that company, that's not distribution.
But yes, one would hope that there was a license for the thing being distributed, to the company, before this happened.
> That’s only true when the content has been ...
In the sense that licenses are contracts, and can contain any restrictions you want. On the other hand, if you buy a boxed copy of software at a store, and then regularly let whatever employee happens to be available actually use it (e.g. letting a copy of word get used by whichever secretary the temp agency sent this week) is perfectly legal, and very, very, very common.
> It’s only distribution if access changes from one (legal) person to another. If a company gives access to employees acting as agents for that company, that’s not distribution.
Again, the only way what you said is true is after the company is licensed to copy, and specifically for company wide use. Before the company is licensed, copying anything internally to any other employees, even agents of the company, is distribution, and illegal, always.
People are legal entities from the copyright law perspective, and the right to copy belongs to the author. So, it doesn’t matter if a person in a company is an agent or not, it’s a copyright violation when anyone else makes a copy of the work without permission, and it’s distribution and a copyright violation if that person shares with any other people inside their company. Being an agent of the company is irrelevant to a company that doesn’t have permission to copy.
> if you buy a boxed copy of software at a store, and then regularly let whatever employee happens to be available actually use it is perfectly legal
No, that’s not necessarily legal unless the software’s license explicitly allows sharing. If the software is copied to the other person’s computer, and multiple people use it simultaneously, then it is illegal. If you copy it to the network and let anyone use it any time, then it’s illegal. If you let someone use your copy on your computer, then that’s legal. If you loan it to someone else, and erase it off your own computer while they have the software, then it’s legal.
> and very, very, very common.
That might be true, has no bearing on the legality. Sharing of music and movies and software is incredibly common, and also illegal.
You're just repeating yourself so I'm not going to respond point for point, just allow me to state that you're confusing copyright law, first sale doctrine, and contract law (which is what governs licenses, NOT copyright law).
You should go through your claims, determine what they fall under, and how they are enabled (and limited) by the domain of law they fall under.
I’ll give you one last upvote for the discussion and a great attempt at backpedaling.
Since you requested it, I’ll oblige. Here are all the claims in this thread so far, and which of those three domains they fall under:
- Philip Bloom claims Google copied his films without having obtained a license, thus violating copyright law.
- @mankash666 claims internal distribution of material without a license is legal and does not violate copyright. Not true, falls under copyright law.
- I claim internal distribution of material without a license is illegal. I claim distribution of unlicensed music to extended family is illegal. Both of those are covered by copyright law.
- You claim that internal distribution is not distribution because people in a company are agents, so copying from one person to the next isn’t copying because it’s all one legal entity, the company. This is not true, and it falls under copyright law when the company is not licensed, and contract law when the company is licensed. It is not true that company agents are a single person for the purposes of determining copyright when the right to copy has not been attained. You also claimed incorrectly that only the company entity needs to attain a license, which depends entirely on the license, and is far from always true. You've confused both copyright law and contract law here.
May I add at this late stage you’ve also played fast and loose with the idea of legal entities and agents of a company. Employees of a company are not normally legal agents of the company. No people are ever equivalent to the company, but some may act on behalf of the company. There are different kinds of agents, but the kind of agent status you're talking about is usually reserved for lawyers and C-level managers, and may require a contract, registration with the state, power of attorney, etc.. Thus, your argument about distribution not applying to employees fails almost always, even when the company is licensed to copy some material. This is well beyond the scope of either copyright or contract law.
- I claim that copyrights belong to the author of a work, and they don’t differentiate between any kinds of legal entities, they grant rights to the author and deny rights to all other legal entities. This falls under copyright law.
- You claim that distribution is only distribution when the legal entity changes, not the person. That doesn't fall under any law because it's not true. You claim (again) that internal distribution is not distribution under copyright law. You confused copyrights with contracts here. Internal company copying is distribution under copyright, but under a license it may be legal to distribute. You claim that sharing boxed software is always legal, without specifying what kinds of use you’re talking about. This falls under both copyright and contract.
- I claim that agent status is irrelevant to copyright law, it only applies to contract law. I claim that copying boxed software internally to a company is not always legal. The first sale doctrine allows me to erase my copy and give the box to someone else, which I said above. The license may allow me to make a 2nd copy to share with someone else, that would fall under the license, or contract law. If the license doesn’t allow sharing, then sharing copies of the boxed software falls under copyright law, and it’s illegal both inside and outside of companies.
If you meant in any of your examples above that you intended “copying” to mean transferring software under the right of first sale, then I agree that’s legal. I didn’t see that anywhere. And having reviewed the entire thread, I can’t see a single claim you’ve made that is generally true, without needing qualification or assumption. Feel free to do the same exercise yourself and point out specifically where you think I confused copyright & first sale & contract. It’s entirely possible I’m wrong somewhere, but I don’t see it, and I’m not convinced.
How about I'll bite once more also. The terms of use of Youtube, which Philip Bloom must have agreed to to upload his videos in the first place, famously give all companies in the Alphabet group a license to do with his content, if he uploads it, as they wish, including even distributing it for profit. [1]
That's again, contract law, not copyright law, but oh well. I find it very hard to believe that what was done violates that incredibly broad license that Mr. Bloom granted them, because, well, it allows them to do pretty much whatever they want.
Let me add to the legal concepts you might want to look up: legal personhood, and perhaps incorporation laws (that a company defines a legal entity that counts as a person in all places in law that don't explicitly refer to a "natural" person)
Therefore only the legal entity that is the company needs to have rights to the content, not the employees.
For instance, you can install windows on computers at work (which definitely is distribution), without the rights to do so. Only the company needs said rights.
That's why "the rules are different" for companies. They're not different, they just apply to different legal entities.