Slashdot Mirror
Dance Copyright Enforced by DMCA
goombah99 writes "The "creator" of the Dance move known as the electric slide has filed a DMCA based takedown notice for videos he deems to infringe and because they show "bad dancing". He is also seeking compensation from the use of the dance move at a wedding celebration shown on the Ellen Degeneres Show. Next up, the Funky Chicken, the moonwalk, and the Hustle? More seriously, does the DMCA have any limit on its scope?"
Has anyone else noticed that he is using that clip of copyrighted characters on his website doing line dancing. How much do you want to bet he doesn't have permission from the copyright holders to show that. Also, the music he has on line, the video he has on-line and THE VIDEO HE IS SELLING all contain the song The Electric Slide which he is NOT the copyright holder for.
One quick call to the RIAA and he is done for. Fight fire with Fire.
The only sad part is that I find myself defending line-dancing of any kind.
Not the tune, just the lyrics. That's why Futurama sang a different variant in the episode with Nibbler's Birthday.
One of these days, I may very well be able to post on slashdot without citing Futurama. That day is not today.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Actually this is a problem with the DMCA qua DMCA. Anyone can *claim* to own a copyright on any crazy thing, and send a DMCA notice, and effectively reverse the burden of proof for the price of 30 seconds typing.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
And there's the problem. Similar situation with tort law; you club someone with a lawsuit and it would cost more for them to comply or settle than fight it, regardless of how frivolous the claim is. Something is broken somewhere.
Oddly enough, this is a problem best solved by another law/tort: frivolous prosecution. You can sue for not only the actual damages (that is, your court costs) but punative damages (money on top to get the other guy to never do it again.)
(Unless, of course, you really MEANT your grammatical mess-up, and intended to say that going along with legal thuggery is less expensive than standing up for your rights -- in which case, WTF?)