Talk:Performing rights

Music only?[edit]

Agreed with below. Article should be renamed "Public Performance Rights" and deal with the public performance of any copyrighted work (U.S. legal focused). International laws may differ and need their own article. R.M.McKernan (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article addresses only music. Performance is a right of the copyright holder, and copyright applies to media other than music. The article seems overly narrow in coverage. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

qawsedrftgyhjukiolpöolikujyhtgrfedwser4t5yhuiol,kmnhbgvfcdewsdcfvgbhnjkkoiu7y6t5r4e3e234567890påpoiuytrewqwsdfghjklöl,mnbvcxzxcvbnkhgfdsghåpoiuyyr 85.188.154.103 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that performing a copyrighted work in public requires permission or license by the owner of the copyright. The theory is that the C. owner suffers loss of income if no license is obtained, while the performer benefits (gets paid) for the performance. But what if the performance is given for free? This may be a moot point. If there is no income, there are no damages. But it may still be a violation of C. in any case. I'd like to know what the law is. It would be easy to supplement this post to add the information. M.W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallgwg (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Public to title?[edit]

Since you can perform anything you please in private, Title 17 is speaking only about "Public Performance Rights" and yes, it does encompass much more than just music and the article should be edited to reflect that. R.M.McKernan (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US bias[edit]

Over half the main text and external references are specific to the USA. Can some more general information be added? 80.189.57.67 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ḑẳ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.236.231 (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]