It's too bad librians couldn't muster the mettle to pull a DMCA type of user-based accountability. I'm serious about this, as Fair Use does have significant implications when performed in an institutional setting, but by the use of individuals, it becomes much more easy to circumnavigate. One of the greatest misconceptions is the extent to which Fair Use applies - showing an entire video? That's not Fair Use except perhaps in a Film Studies class by a vetted Professor. Showing a snippet of a video as a point within a broader presentation or lesson? That's the goal of Fair Use.

Showing videos as a general rule is a Performance Right issue, not Fair Use. The DMVs in my part of the world routinely broke the law by showing Disney VHS tapes in the lobby. I'm talking for years, not just an isolated incident. That's not a Fair Use issue in the least, and lawyers, with respect to the law, could reasonably pursue compensation.

Are you familiar with "independent coffee shops" coming under fire from ASCAP for hosting open mic nights and/or playing AM/FM/XM/Internet Radio without paying official dues? The poor widdle coffee shop owners claimed it was extortion, or they tried to muddy the water with some kind of Fair Use claim, but they didn't have a case and I have to admit that ASCAP was abiding by their legal rights. Now, coffee shops are more diligent in telling people to play originals, not cover songs.

Overall, my point is that Fair Use is so utterly abused as an argument by people who don't understand Copyright, Performance, and other nuances of (wholly butchered / Disney-lobbied) legal channels that it genuinely hurts those who understand the concept. I routinely have to counter the argument that Weird Al is an example of Fair Use (as a general principle of using other people's music) because it's a very specific issue that he is legally allowed to do - Parody. Showing Bambi or non-Public Domain documentaries in the lobby of your library isn't Parody, nor should it be argued that way. Besides, if librarians can't find enough Public Domain content or educate students enough to assist them researching a project, then the job is effectively wasted space, and should be tossed out of conversation with respect to utility and necessity.

Radio is a public broadcast and people get sued for tuning in. Like the NFL Super Bowl party limitation and screen size of the past. These rules drive me nuts and should be reviewed in my opinion.

So your recommendation to all the street performers? If open mics are "stealing" from the artist then street performers are at a whole new level. We will have no art or performance in our society if we continue these down these roads of copy right and performance.

Only one's that can do anything reflecting to society will be satire and that is only because of the Supreme Court.

As I see it, part of the problem comes from the attitude taken about enforcement when laws are written compared to actual enforcement a decade later. I've had it with statements like, "this is meant for corporations" or "on one would try to enforce this against a private citizen because there's no money in that" because those laws always end up turned against mom & pop operations. Patent and copyright trolls have put the lie to such claims.

IIRC Satire isn't legally protected, just Parody. There's a distinct difference. I think Hustler was a Parody ruling.

What you're failing to recognize is that the coffee shop owners are, for lack of a better term, profiting from the music being played in their establishment. In a more direct case I can speak to, I frequently purchase beer from the places where I've played open mics. They directly profit from hosting the event, and feel that they should be exempt from paying the compositing artist association dues...why?

Now, for street performers, they are providing a service akin to radio, insofar that they are publicising a song, not charging a cover, and further advancing the arts and society's respect for them (putting aside the quality of the performer). That's why my local city has ordinances actively supporting busking - provided no solicitation for compensation is put forward - because it makes life better. In turn, performers are allowed to have a tip jar or accept compensation as they are benefitting society and the arts through the "practice and performance of their craft" as the ordinance describes it.

Satire is a defense to defamation, which was what Falwell sued over, and Edward Norton, playing Larry Flint's attorney, did such a swell job of depicting in the movie, People vs. Larry Flint.

Ah! Nice to have that input. I'm with you in spirit, for sure. That stated, I think we are both on-track with some of the difficulties relating to Speech vs. Fair Use. Freedom of Speech seems to be the tenent by which Flint won against the Defamation charge. However, in Fair Use, where Parody has very clear protections, it seems Satire is not as supported as grounds for Fair Use. The Wikipedia citation regarding Campbell notes that Satire may be protected, but yet again, we run into erratic outcomes on the subject. Phew!!

From the American Bar Association:

The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law— Can Satire Ever Be a Fair Use?

Supreme Court also ruled that Satire/Parody is Fair use protected due to their verdict in Campbell v. AcuffRose Music, Inc

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellect...

Someone should make a parody radio broadcast of the NFL:

"And, fatty at the 1 yard line taken down by bad-teeth"

Why do you think the Fair Use section is so poorly written? I'm inclined to agree with you that it doesn't provide as much protection as some people might think, but I don't know about "zero" protection.