Is sharing a movie copyright infringement?

[Fried Kitten]

APPROACH WITH CAUTION

If the film has been copyrighted and you show it to others [broadcast it]
without permission from the copyright holder then you are breaking the
law while conducting an ‘unauthorized broadcast’.

It is irrelevant if you do or do not profit.

With that being said, it is unlikely that anybody shall sue you if, indeed,
you are not making a profit.

You are not even allowed to have others over to your home to watch a
DVD that you bought. This is also an unauthorized broadcast.

You may make a copy of a DVD that you bought and you can watch it
yourself at multiple locations.

I know that all of this sounds ridiculous because nobody is ever
prosecuted for these (minor) violations.

If you are a teacher in a college and you are planning on projecting
this movie on school grounds you may want to think twice. You are
now representing an institution. If the copyright holder comes after
that institution then the head of that institution (the college) is going
to be pretty mad at you.

(Call the US Copyright Office.)


-- ADDITIONAL DETAILS --


KOJAK,
As BCNU pointed out to you, the issue of profit is irrelevant.

As I pointed out, and as you ignored, it is indeed unlikely that
people would be prosecuted for these offenses. This reality
does not, nonetheless, legalize otherwise illegal activities.

When you file-share a copy of copyrighted material, without
having first obtained permission from the copyright holder,
you can be charged with copyright infringement, period. (This
is the same as “playing your DVD for your friends”.) [BCNU]

The RIAA sued many individuals (not commercial entities) for
uploading and for downloading without permission from the
copyright holder. (Uploading for no profit is the same as
“playing your DVD for your friends”.) While most of these
cases were settled (around 2007) out of court for $3000 per
individual some cases went to trial and the fines amounted
to ridiculously high awards to the RIAA in the tune of a few
hundred thousand dollars. Ultimately, the individuals declared
bankruptcy and the RIAA didn’t collect.

The RIAA has mostly given up on pursuing such cases though
they are back in the ring with SOPA.


BCNU,
Your posting poses a dichotomy.

You declare that one can broadcast a copyrighted movie in an
educational setting.

You continue further down to declare that one can not broadcast
[in an educational setting?] a copyrighted movie from HULU.

So what is the difference between a copyrighted DVD and a
copyrighted movie on HULU?

The copyright holder loses his rights because he wasn’t picked
up by HULU?


MIESHA,
Like I said, contact the US Copyright Office.
You can do so anonymously.


-- ADDITIONAL DETAILS (2) --

KOJAK
It is incredible how much space you feel justified in wasting by repeating the same thing over and over even while we have all agreed upon it which is that, infringement usually isn’t prosecuted because it isn’t cost-effective to do so when profit is a non-factor. Congratulations for being verbose.

As to your creative writing, they weren’t convicted for any conspiracy or under RICO or anything that complicated. Just being a bit creative myself here if you don’t mind. They were not prosecuted for ‘networking & profiting’. They were prosecuted for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Additionally for the downloading of copyrighted material. You are trying to frame it as if an attorney convinced a judge that by uploading they entered into an implied contract to download for free which could constitute profiteering. This was never the argument.

And you shouldn’t be suggesting to the asker that he/she is free and clear. The RIAA may decide to go after an institution just to set an example. If the asker is a teacher he/she may run into problems with his/her employer.