Slashdot Mirror
Mom Sues Music Company Over Baby Video Removal
penguin_dance writes "A Pennsylvania mom is fighting back, suing Universal Music Publishing Group for having a home movie taken down off of YouTube. The movie, featuring her 18-month old bouncing to Prince's song, 'Let's Go Crazy,' was cited for removal by the Group for copyright infringement. Mom Stephanie Lenz was first afraid they'd come after her — then she got angry. She got YouTube to put the video back up, she's enlisted the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and she's filed a civil lawsuit (pdf). 'I thought even though I didn't do anything wrong that they might want to file some kind of suit against me, take my house, come after me. And I didn't like feeling afraid ... I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
there's something to be said about these type of stories.
But the only thing I can come up with is "ok". I don't get the significance... or is "I don't want to be sued so I'll sue first" some new tactic in digging an even deeper hole?
Nothing is better than seeing the average person stand up to the injustice of big corporation.
622677120
fair use.
FTFA:
Doesn't the guy have better things to do with his time than to send takedown notices for 29-second video clips?Hey, maybe he'll have to change his name again to avoid being known as the Bozo formerly known as Prince ...
Kevin Smith on Prince
". I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
It's an example of how outdated our copyright and patent system is in the digital age. They need to be modified to accept that people are going to make fan stuff with them and see it as free advertising for that matter.
Printable version: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3777651
A well-placed source directly involved in the situation confirmed to ABC News that Prince was directly involved in seeking the takedown of Lenz's video.
Anyone know how true is this? It seems like he might have better things to do... such as serving us pancakes.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
Something as innocuous as a family video being removed merely because of the presence of copyrighted audio? Where does it stop? Would Universal have let the video go if the music was only incidental? Be honest with yourself here; they wouldn't. It begs the question; how can the executives and lawyers responsible for perpetuating this fascist campaign possibly think that this fosters goodwill amongst the populace, let alone sleep with themselves at night?
An American acting like one. You go girl!
Here is a link to the html file
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
> "Talk to a lawyer before going head-over-heels suing someone like the *AA for taking your video off a site that doesn't even belong to you, ma-am"
If you had bothered to read the article, or even the SUMMARY, you would have known that she did talk to a lawyer. > "Unlike the *AA, you do not have the money, expertise, or political connections to be able to pull something like that."
The EFF is doing the suing for her, because of the principles at stake. Not everything is about money.
If people held the **AAFIA's feet to the fire more often, maybe we would have fewer frivolous takedown notices, and a bit more respect all around.
Kevin Smith on Prince
FTA:
"File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself."
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am of the opinion that this has never been proven conclusively and that what "has devastated a once-booming music industry" is the industry itself.
Also, for the grammar pedantic, should that be "illegal downloading of music"?
To knee jerk reaction guy who didn't read the links:
1. She talked to a lawyer.
2. That lawyer is the EFF.
3. They're pretty experienced in this matter, and they intend to collect when she does.
4. Seeking a declaratory judgment is a pretty reasonable thing to do.
5. Universal doesn't get to trample over fair use just because they're a big company.
6. A company that knowingly tramples your rights should pay a fine.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
If you are blind.
Sorry, but that's probably what's going to happen.
The fact is, that while it is indeed a derivative work, that is not fair use, and she did use a copyrighted work without authorization. We can argue over and over about whether that law is right, but it is what it is.
Her suing over that is colossally stupid and will likely just end in heartache.
I'm all for taking a rpincipled stand. But you need to make sure you're in the right.
(and because some moderators appear to be on crack based on their moderation of some previous comments, let me say that this is neither intended as a troll or flamebait)
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I have to wonder who thought sending Youtube a take-down notice over this video would be a good idea. There are only a few things that almost all online viewers can find amusing or endearing, and one of them is babies doing cute things. The whole idea behind this is so ludicrous that you almost have to think someone sent it to expose the idiocy behind the methods used by the music labels...The only way this could have been a more boneheaded move from a PR standpoint would to have been asking someone to remove a video of a baby playing with a puppy and kitten while creating lolcat pictures while listening to music in the background.
:)
Now, if someone wants to sue the mother for letting her young child dance to Prince, then I am all for that
All the while I am keeping my daughter informed of progress on this, so that when she grows to the point where she will be making choices regarding intellectual property, she will develop an appropriate respect for how the music publishers handle these things.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
You can have a suit filed against you anytime, it doesn't matter if you filed first. You can have a first suit filed against you without doing anything, or have a second suit or a counterclaim filed if you file first. Prince didn't sue her because she's got no money. What would be the point? In fact, you generally want to file suit first, you get to pick the venue. Is 9th circuit (CA) or 2nd Circuit (NY) is friendlier to fair use?
You can file a suit without even having a takedown notice. If you have reason to believe that someone will sue you for infringement, you can initiate a suit for declaratory judgment, where you get to pick the venue and circumstances.
She went to the EFF because they'll handle her case for free. Yeah, she's doing it to make a point, but the EFF can get legal fees out of the copyright holders if they win, and she may get damages. The RIAA may pay her off just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years.
And yes, I am an IP/patent attorney.
I have seen so many WoW pvp clips or boss fights on youtube that are accompanied by some song.
Why arent these forced down?
"Grunge" (real, organic stuff... like original Nirvana, TAD, Mudhoney, Green River, etc - not the made-for-market Pearl Jam) was an outgrowth of American "Hard Core" punk - bands like Black Flag, Murphy's Law, DRI, et cetera. Nirvana often fancied themselves a punk band, and frankly, their first record (Bleach) especially, they were way more bad-ass than the likes of Greenday ever could be. They did later branch out and try other things, much the way that John Lydon did with Public Image Ltd. after the Sex Pistols, when he got into Dub and other things, or, more to the point, The Clash.
Nirvana is closer to punk than what passes as punk these days.
>"just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years."
Maybe she should try to copyright the precedent so it will last her lifetime + 50 (or whatever it is nowadays)
(for the humor-impaired ... its a JOKE!!!)
Kevin Smith on Prince
never mind.
We at slashdot are scientists, specialists and kernel hackers. Your FUD will be found out.
The fact is, that while it is indeed a derivative work, that is not fair use, and she did use a copyrighted work without authorization.
True, the fact that the work is derivative doesn't mean it is a fair use of the original work. But I'm curious why you think her use of Prince's song in this particular video wouldn't withstand a fair use affirmative defense?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Yes, she can afford it.
Maybe I'm missing the point of the mom filing suit, but to those of us who don't understand this legalese, could someone explain to me what right she had to use the song in the video?
"How can u upload my music?
How can u pirate my song? (Yeah *my* song!)
Maybe I'm just 2 demanding,
Maybe the clip's only 30 seconds long,
Maybe u're just that kid's mother
He's never satisfied (Now he likes Nevermind)
Why do we takedown each other?
This is what it sounds like
When suits fly."
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
My middle finger is waving at you. You got to be fucking kidding me. Don't you ass holes have something better to do? Like oh I don't know, publish better music? How many more company's am I NOT going to buy music CD's and DVD's from. But, just like normal you have to send bull shit take down notices for things that are clearly FAIR USE family videos. Get a FUCKING clue would you, because these 'take down notices' for irreverent things are getting way beyond old.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
She's probably going to lose if this goes to trial. The defense here against copyright infringment is fair use, and they will probably try to argue that it was in the category of a "significantly transformative" use. There's several factors to take into account when determining fair use, 1) the amount and nature of the portion taken, 2) the nature of the use, 3) the nature of the work and 4) the impairment of the copyright holder's ability to profit/control their work. see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html for more info.
Without giving any actual legal advice on this case, I'd point out that the fact that she wasn't charging money for the video has NO effect. And the song itself wasn't changed or transformed, it was used to supplement a video work.
". I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
You didn't make a video for your friends and family, you freaking put it on YOUTUBE for the WHOLE PLANET. Sheesh. If all you wanted was for friends and family to see it, email it JUST TO THEM.
And yes, I am an IP/patent attorney.
:-)
Yeah, the nick does kinda blow your cover
What?
So, Nirvana is punk now?
To a mom that puts up videos to youtube of her kid writhing around to music, yes.
I believe "illegally downloading of music" is the correct term. Downloading is used the verb form, so the adverb "illegally" modifies and answers the "how?" of the action of downloading. The entire phrase is a noun. "X and Y has devastated..." where Y = "illegally downloading of music".
Weather or not this is covered under fair use, at least someone, even if its just a few, are firing back at the MAFIAA.
Even though this case might not matter, the PR from it might just wake up a few congress critters that just taking the money from the MIFIAA might not be a good idea to stay elected if enough angrey moms vote then out.
Maybe she should try to copyright the precedent so it will last her lifetime + 50
Nahh, you can only patent those.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"I'd point out that the fact that she wasn't charging money for the video has NO effect"
The link you point to says otherwise:
This whole thing is de minimus,or at least it shold have been, if Prince didn't spend his days surfing the net looking for such minor "infringements". And yes, the article makes it clear that it was Prince who found the clip, and who was the one pushing for the DMCA notice.
Kevin Smith on Prince
More like AB-using...
Nope, just a joke, not a troll...
Paul B.
Does that mean you can go right in and hold em up for cash?
Actually, as a matter of fact, it does. Else the EFF wouldn't have taken the case. The EFF may not be perfect, but they damn sure aren't going around wasting cash.
P.S.: Seriously, RTFA.
Three words:
Small man's syndrome.
which she is likely to lose even more certainly than Jammie Thomas lost her case.
the copyright owner isn't going to know or care if you privately distribute a home video to a handful of friends and family members. but post the video to a site accessible to tens of millions and there is going be trouble.
this stretches the meaning of fair use beyond anything a judge is likely to find credible. there is a very real risk that fair use will be much more stringently defined if the EFF takes cases like these into court and loses.
There must be a certain number of seconds or a fraction of a song that you legally can sample from without breaking the copyright laws. Anyone know the limits? Musicians are constantly sampling from other artist's songs.
... it *was* copyright violation. Plain and simple. This doesn't come close to fitting the criteria for fair use (a lot of /.ers think anything short of selling it for cash is "fair use" but that's not true at all, not by US law anyway). They didn't sue her, they didn't threaten her (she just assumed that part), they just made her stop distributing Prince's IP. She's totally wrong, she got off with a warning, and now *she's* complaining?
And worst of all, she thinks Nirvana is punk?!
Fair use allows short clips. IANAExpert, but I think this clip is longer than the legal definition of "fair use". There may be other factors that exempt it, btu that's a big one. AMVs are not fair use, either. Fair use allows you to comment on the song itself--not to use it for your own purposes.
What would be the scenario if she had bought the CD of the album having the song. She can listen to it anytime she pleases. If uploading the song to YouTube (for others to listen) would be a violation, so would blasting the song on BOSE speakers at her home so that the neighbours would listen in. Oh, itz Prince. Nobody gives a damn about him anyways. Enlighten me please.
I know the EFF have good intentions, and do a great job of drawing people's attention to the crazy things that go on in the world, but they don't have a great history as far as winning in court goes. I honestly hope she doesn't land in a bigger hole, but my gut tells me she doesn't have much of a chance.
Hence she now owns the copyright to the derivative work. Fair use, indeed.
They waste cash all the time:
See: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc vs. BnetD Project
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
EFF Victories
With their pretty long list of cases listed here perhaps you could go through and point out out the hundreds listed, which ones they lost. If they have a track record of losing, I'm sure it won't take long to point out a few dozen cases the lost out of the hundred+ listed. I'd love to be more informed, but I suspect you probably have a couple headlines stuck in your head and are overgeneralizing.
I wish there was a fscking blue pill
She ought to write "slave" on one cheek and "owned by big biz" on the other until this is resolved. And maybe hang out around prince's multi-million dollar residence for a few days, collecting publicity photos. That should harsh his mellow a bit. Talk about hypocrisy!? WTF! This must be a new low.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
There ain't any, none. Them harassing her is crap. Radio stations all over play 30 second and under bumper music clips for *free*. Been like that for a long long time. She got a 29 second clip, she can tell them to go pound sand. The judge will, too. I certainly hope they file notice with those bozo lawyer's bar association, she might have some serious damages coming and they could even be disbarred, because if IP law is their specialty, they will have known this in advance. She's gonna pwn them greedsters.
Company should?
I think the individual initiating this action should be found, put on a podestal on NY Times Square and publicly shamed for 12 hours!
Corporation/Company eggheads in their cubicles won't change anytime soon otherwise - would they?
Even if she added her video to somebody else's music. Its fine for her to use it for her use, and show privately. Its not hers to distribute.
So while she shouldn't be sued for it, she's still not authorized to distribute it, whether or not its for profit.
Last time I checked, music was audio and could not be seen with the eyes. Video is a visual medium that cannot be heard with the ears. A combination of the two senses certainly is transformative from the original. If the visual element was removed, would the video be as compelling?
If you really think that phrase is grammatically correct English, I'd love to know if English is your native language and if so, where you come from. Seriously. I'm interested in syntactic variation and change and I've never encountered a variety of English in which that'd be ok, prescriptively or otherwise.
Well, if you think about it she never asked for permission to use a song in a video. Some may think that because it is a derivitive work and should fall under fair use, it does not. It does not because the original song was used she didn't modify it in anyway so it is not a derivitive work. Overall, I think that she is probably going to lose this case in court because 1st she never lost any money over the work being removed from youtube and the RIAA along with Universal Music Group is going to stay that this is not a derivate work because the song was never modified. Always remember that copyright law was designed to allow the creator/holder of a work to make and destribute copies of works either original or derivated works. Before putting a video on youtube or any site make sure that it doesn't contain any music or artwork that is the poster doesn't own the copyrights to. Some of you may think that some of the copyright laws are stupid but they do serve a purpose. I think that lady suing Universal Music Group is going to lose the case and the owners, Universal Music Group, will probably countersue for copyright infringement. I am suprise they haven't done this already!
A site cowboyneal will like http://www.freewebs.com/atpa/
That means simply singing or humming his songs would result in us violating copyright protection! There are better artistes elsewhere who will appreciate us appreciating their music.
If she is using someone else's copyrighted material and anyone is earning money off of it besides the creators without their permission, then she is infringing.
I'm sorry but I think those all apply here.
Written in 1984, it is only 24 years old- so even by the original jeffersonian copyright rules which I prefer & support the song should have another four years to go.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
> If she was posting this on her own non-commercial website, I doubt anyone would have cared.
Is there anything in the past behavior of RIAA that supports that claim?
I know little of RIAA, but the Danish equivalent have had no trouble targeting non-commercial use with ridiculous claims.
don't feel TOO bad, it's a pretty long list.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
For a minute I thought the article was referring to this: http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/10/rightwing_bloggers.html
Have you even seen the video in question? There is no way any judge or jury anywhere is going to rule that this mom is infringing copyright. Period. This is open and shut. UMG is going to have their ass handed to them in court.
Who do you think knows the law better, the people of the EFF who are handling the case OR some idiot with a slashdot account?
She didn't hire some ambulance chaser who is going to get his money anyway, she went to the EFF and they took on her case. That is smarts. The EFF doesn't exactly have a long history of losing. The content industry may be able to hire lots of lawyers but the EFF seems to get the smart ones.
Will she win? Wrong question, will the EFF win on HER behalve.
Also this will play extremely badly for Prince. I doubt he wishes to be known as the artists that sues moms. You can bet your ass that the press will have a field day because of his former name. THey LOVE pun headlines. If you have them a choice between a pun headline about a kitten or the outbreak of WW3, they choose the kitten.
No my friend, I will take the legal opinion of the EFF any time over yours. To many people on slashdot think they are lawyers. I listen to the ones who really are AND have a track record of being any good at it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Here it is. UMG doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Kind of makes you wonder why we've yet to hear anything about clips such as World of Warcraft boss kill videos that more often than not double as music videos.
If you read the story then it seems as if this mother went to the EFF and they are representing her. The EFF ain't a commercial organization, this isn't a lawyer who is going to get his money wether he wins or loses.
Yet many will spout that she doesn't stand a chance. Yeah, because the EFF lawyers are NOT leaders in their field with a long history of winning.
This is a video with music playing in the background. Imagine if that was illegal, does the same go for images? BAM, you just destroyed all visual media taken in say Disney land. Disney owns the image rights to their park. Hell, simply picture on the street is likely to have lots of copyrighted advertising signs. Your clothes? Owned by the designer. Could you only make homemovies in a sterile white room with naked people? Might get a bit boring.
You could barely film/photograph anything without showing something that infringes on a copyright.
I am not going to watch a video of a baby, but the music was playing in the background, it was NOT a soundtrack added to the video. If we make it illegal to film normal live we have really bend over to far to the music industry.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Talk to a lawyer. A good one. Who does his work because he believes in a cause and does it without saying "win or lose, you own me". IANAL but the EFF is.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You're high. The video is "significantly transformative" in the sense that princes song appears to have been playing on a staticy radio in her laundry room while her screaming kids push toy shopping carts through. You can briefly make out Princes voice, kinda-sorta.
If my neighbor cranks up something on his boombox, do any home videos taken in the area become copyright infringement?
Without giving any actual legal advice, put the crack pipe down now.
Shouldn't that period be inside the closing quotation mark?
Give me a fucking break. She posted a video of her kid with something that I couldn't even distinguish playing in the background. Whatever she used the video for, any noise in the background is incidental. If you really think this in any way, shape or form is effecting {symbol}'s (the moron formally known as prince) ability to make money forever for a few days work he did who knows how long ago, you're a moron also. And while you're at it explain why the are there laws enforcing the fact that just because some asshole can make a little music their little bit of work should be preserved for the exclusive purpose of making money for both them and their relatives for 90 years after they are dead. Strangely enough there are no laws forcing people to keep paying me until 90 years after I'm dead for the work I do every day.
Who is John Galt?
Maybe we should coin a new phrase. Rather than "Ambulance Chasers" we could have "YouTube Trawlers"?
Prince represents one fairly extreme (and minority, it should also be said) end of the spectrum as far as intellectual property is concerned. At the other end you've got people like Trent Reznor with the comments he made at his concert recently, literally telling people to pirate his music.
The moral of the story here is that if you're selecting artists to listen to, it might actually be a good idea to try and find out what their individual stance on enforcement is. Some are going to be like Prince, or Metallica. Others are going to be like Trent Reznor. Most, I suspect, will fall somewhere in between, in the sense that while they won't mind fair use to a degree similar to what has traditionally existed with radio, they will still, in the end, quite rightfully expect people to buy CDs of their music. However, I also believe that enforcement needs to be the responsibility of the artist themselves, and not middlemen organisations like the RIAA...because very often the middlemen organisations hold views which are not representative of everyone that they claim to represent.
One other thing I'd actually like to see some acts offering is the possibility of legal indemnity to individuals who can be proven to have bought copies of their music. In other words, if you buy a copy of a given artist's music, for a contract to exist between you and said artist specifying exactly what it is that you are or are not legally allowed to do with the music you've bought, and as long as you operate within those guidelines, you won't get sued. Different artists are going to have different perspectives on that, so said contracts would actually need to be extremely individual in nature. I'm also not talking about something exactly the same as a software license here, either. I would want to see something where people actually had to provide individual signatures that were recorded along with the date of purchase; not something clickthrough that is untraceable, unenforceable, and can thus be brushed off.
Someone like Prince would obviously be fairly strict; private, individual listening/viewing only, with no reproduction or secondary performance allowed of any kind whatsoever. At the other end of the spectrum you'd likely get people who'd be willing, once you've paid them, to let you do whatever you wanted, up to and including the creation of derivative works.
The RIAA may pay her off just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years.
... the RIAA will live 50 more years? I doubt. Their members' business model is dyeing, and so is the RIAA. The very reason behind the existence of RIAA is what is/will cause the collapse of the big labels. the only discographic houses that will exist in the future: not associated with anything RIAA-like, probably small in size, probably owned by the band. Still engaged in promoting the band and the music.
I agree with you, but
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
However, the Olympics has gotten special laws passed just for it by many countries. This wouldn't be the case for other copyrights or trademarks.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Your attempt to sound informed on the subject by googling some relevant keywords and summarizing the resultant "i'm feeling lucky" link is quite laughable. Watch the goddamn video and tell me that the 30 seconds of garbled prince in the background with children screaming over it has any relevant effect on prince's ability to control/profit... man I am cracking up even trying to respond to you.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
"File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself."
Last time I checked, the industry's profits were still pretty comfortably in the gaziliions range. If by "devastated" they mean "somewhat less outrageous than before," and "our poor execs are having to get by on salaries and bonuses only 30 times as big as the average workingman's salary instead of 50 times as much" then perhaps it's an accurate statement. It's all a matter of proportion -- the more you make, the more you expect. It's like a baseball player making $20 mil a year, then getting insulted because his team wants to pay him "only" $15 mil this year. Corporations and their royalty seem to think that they have a "right" to consistently make as much or more than they did the previous year. I think Average Joe has little sympathy for them (as do I).
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
The use of the music is as a Historical Document. Her baby is "dancing crazy" to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy". It doesn't appear PLANNED. It appears ad libbed. How is this any different than if a news camera interviewed a fan at a music festival as copyrighted music was heard playing in the background? Should the news crew be forced to censor the audio? Should sporting leagues like the NFL be required to get signed contract permission from cheering fans appearing on broadcasts? If you were to argue there is an implicit contract, then so too must there be an implicit contract of people reacting to sound waves beamed out all over the place in all manner of delivery mechanisms, including radio.
/raises Sword +3
Must you turn the television and radio OFF to film yourself commenting upon the content being heard and seen ala Beevis and Butthead, ala Mystery Science Theater? Her video is original content. Those corporate shills have no right to dare demand a take down notice, even if she used the whole "Let's Go Crazy" song. The focus is her baby's reaction to the song "Let's Go Crazy". This is not *just* FAIR USE, but FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TRUTH. Nobody can see or hear the real FACTUAL reaction of the baby to "Let's Go Crazy"? To prohibit this is censorship. To prohibit this is to prohibit free expression. To prohibit this is to violate the First Amendment.
The song is not used to "supplement a video work". The video work is a reaction to a specific song. Use of the song is ESSENTIAL to the video work reaction. To deny the use of the song is to deny the meaning of the video. And that is nothing less than an attempt to bury FACT, an attempt to bury HISTORY. Prince and his copyright holder minions had their chance, had their right to remain silent. Just because somebody utters something does not give them the right to cut off or prohibit the use of another's ears. Copyright be damned! No news station is prohibited from filming fact. And they dare claim copyright on those broadcasts of fact? They don't own peoples' reactions. They don't own peoples' creative responses to prior art. And this woman has a RIGHT to share her crazy dancing baby reacting to any song ever played. If some artist doesn't like it, too bloody bad. Enough of artists freely "stealing" public domain ideas like words and inserting them to abuse and falsely claim copyright on derivative works.
Sound the horns.
"Chhhhaaaaarrrrggggeee!!!!!!" [Insert Hollywood frontal assault here.]
This is just the sort of outrageously anal action that helps to paint the industry in a very negative light. Yeah, while in any big city you can easily find pirated CDs and DVDs with ease from mass commercial infringers who remain relatively untouched, they are really on the ball when it comes to quashing an innocent little home video of someone's kid. This reminds me of the time Disney sued some day care center because they had the audacity to paint Mickey and Donald and friends on the walls for the kiddies. (As I recall, after the hoopla, Hanna-Barbera stepped in and allowed them to use their characters instead.) We need more of this sort of idiocy to turn public opinion against them.
I expect next they will have a video of teenagers goofing around at some public event (a street fair, carnival, whatever) pulled because there happens to be a band there playing some copyrighted work that can be heard in the background. Or of someone walking down the street and absent-mindedly whistling a few bars of a tune that they have not paid royalties to whistle. What about a video in which someone is wearing a t-shirt with a band's logo? "Free publicity, my ass -- it's trademark infringement, that's what it is!!"
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Probably not fair use
What people are missing here is the crucial difference in the size of the distribution. Distributing that video to a few friends and family is one thing. Distributing that video to the whole internet (which is potentially what could happen with YouTube) is a whole different ball game. That is quite enough for a court to distinguish a case on the facts and rule this not fair use.
However ultimately we won't know until the court actually rules on the case.
for an artist that was giving away his last album for free with the sunday papers not so long ago. One the one hand he wants his music spread for all but damned if you want to exercise fair use.
All your culture are belong to us
Universal is in the business of selling entertainment. It has distribution channels designed with the specific purposes of delivering films, songs, and video clips to millions of people and collect revenue from them.
The mom used youtube to show a video of her baby to her family and friends, not to millions of people, and she didn't collect any income from that. It's only a side effect of youtube that lets everyone else see that video, but, hey, would you really care to do so?
Do you really want so much to listen to a Prince song? If so, why listen to a crappy recording of just part of that music? If seeing that baby video will make you satisfied, then I doubt very much that you would have paid whatever is the full price that Universal charges for a copy of the song.
Posting something at youtube is the equivalent of dropping a cassette at my friend's porch when she isn't at home. Potentially, anybody living on the earth could walk down that street, pick that cassette and make a copy before my friend got home. Youtube makes it easier to get a copy, but there is no incentive to do so. The single fact that the media industry forgets about youtube is that the vast majority of what's there holds no interest at all to the consuming public.
...set to "Ain't Nothing But Mammals" by the Bloodhound Gang. Would that be considered "fair use?" BTW, by "her" I mean the mom, not the baby. I know this is slashdot so I need to clarify things like that.
Great post.
Peace sells, but who's buying?
You must be 12. No one who lived through the punk era would consider calling Nirvana punk.
Is justice more blind in certain places rather than others?
-S
Nirvana is punk now?
I think there should be a law against posting pictures of your children on the internet. There's no way an 18 month old kid could consent to that - that's way too young to be able to grasp all the implications. Although she (the mom that is) probably didn't ask in the first place. Anyway, it's just wrong. Also, you just know someone on 4chan is sufficiently fucked in the head to fap to it. Just think about it.
So he knows how anyone who's not a fscking robot, and that's about anyone but a corporate lawyer will react seeing this video: aaaawwwwwwwww. Jury members are (supposed to be) people (unlike cops and lawyers).
Plus, I just watched it, and you can't even hear the fucking music, it's all garbled by the shitty mike and the compression.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. She could have many reasons to use this particular method one example being that she is on dial up, maybe she is not as brilliant as you. Whatever the case who cares? The point being IS that her actions are legal and she did not infringe on WHOEVER THIS IDIOT WISHES TO BE KNOW AS.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
What? Takedown notices are not really governed by any rules,
IIRC "takedown notices" as you call them are rather specifically spelled out in the DMCA. They have to include certain information, be sent to the hosting party a certain way, and they basically mean that the sender swears that he is holding or is entitled to representing the copyright. The hosting service then notifies the allegedly infringing user, who can file a counter notice. It must contain specific information, identity and stuff, and it also basically means "I swear I'm soandso, and that I believe that I have the right to post this stuff." If the user files a counter-notice, the hosting service can keep the material online, if not it has to take it down.
This is done so that the hosting remains a third-party and doesn't have to be involved in the conflict, beyond passing on information back and forth, and doesn't have to do police work such as checking its users identities.
Now explain to me how it is possible that the first two recommended videos that show up after this is done playing are:
* BLONDE AMERICAN SLUT
* Sexy Blonde Shows Off Her Oral Talents.
And no, I'm not making this up.
Irregardless of what the law does or doesn't say, mean, or is interperted, when this goes to trial and the jury or judge watches a video of a baby dancing to a low volume, distrorted redition of a Prince song Universal Music Publishing Group/Prince et. al. had better have plenty of anal lube.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
These sort of grammar questions can often be decided by breaking down the phrase as a response to a question...
"illegally downloading music": What are you doing? "Downloading music". How? "Illegally". [1]
and
"illegal downloading of music": What was done? "Illegal downloading". Of what? "Of music".[2]
Both of those are correct, if somewhat different in nuance.
"illegally downloading of music" is clearly quite wrong. What are you doing? "Downloading of music". Oops, that doesn't work. What was done? "Illegally downloading". Bah, that doesn't work either. Shoot the copy-editor.[3]
M>
[1] Well, not right now I'm not
[2] I'm certainly not claiming that the downloading was illegal either. I live in Canada. We're allowed to download music.
[3] No, don't do that, I'm not condoning violence. Laugh, it's funny.
In the case of the OP's dance video the kids are actually dancing in the kitchen to the music, you can't remove the music without removing the entire record of their life that is shown here. Music is part of our culture. So it seems quite reasonable as fair use to me anyway (I Am Not A Lawyer).
However I made a video of my nephews last Christmas, it was my first one but done reasonably well I think on my Mom's new macbook. Maybe 20 scenes, much editing, and stellar performances by two little kids. Now it is a home movie, but I've thought of putting it on youtube (if my sis agrees). It's maybe 5 minutes long and uses bits of a bunch of tracks mixed from an ABBA cd that their Dad loves.
Is this fair use now? I still think so.
But one of the kids wants to be an actor (at least now he does). In fact he's acted on stage. I was thinking it might be cool to release it on youtube for Christmas this year and maybe put adsense or some such ads on, or a paypal donate jar, and if it does it could go to their education or hobbies (the other one likes science).
Now if you put ads on is it still fair use? Not sure. It certainly is a home movie, and they would be just as thrilled if it got a big number of hits and had no ads or any money anyway. Also I want to distribute film commercially in the future so I'd like to do the right thing. I wonder what the best way to go about this is. I can either give up on the ad idea, or maybe get an agreement to pay a few percent to abba somehow if any money came in, what is the general thinking? It's not like a feature film where you would pay for rights up front I think.
File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself.
I cannot stand this automatic assertion that the recording industry is losing money exclusively because of file sharing. Perhaps if they took a moment to stop offering us crap we might actually buy more music. I have to say it, most of what makes it the the stores today is by and large, crap.
And the recording industry isn't hurting as much as they'd have you believe. They never mention that fact.
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup This is UMG's official Youtube site. They have all the latest music videos their trying to promote available here. Let's teach UMG that karma is a real bitch. We should descend on their Youtube channel like a swarm of locusts, and give the minimum possible number of stars to all their music videos. Pass this along to everyone you know who has a bone to pick with UMG. You might be thinking 'it's a waste of time', but the Grand Canyon was formed from a gradual drip of water over a long period of time. If enough individual users do this, it will begin to affect the overall ratings of the videos in question. If we can't do something this basic against the RIAA, we'll never be able to do anything more elaborate. You have to start somewhere.
> "I think that I missed something here, what are you talking about? What CSS code? What Lenz?"
DeCSS - just search for "dvd john".
Kevin Smith on Prince
Why would this mother let her daughter be shown to the whole world dancing to Prince? There's a million other artists in the world, she shouldn't waste her time dealing with some anally retentive musician who feels the world is obviously out to rip him off. Oh no - a mom shows her kid dancing to Prince. I'm sure she can find equally embarrassing artists to have her kid dance to, like Justin Timberlake.
I don't think they expected to lose there.
the original lawsuit was filed back in june, and the amended complaint filed in august. WHY is this on Slashdot's front page?
Zonk is like the employee that spends half his day with his feet on his desk, and the other half doing the bare minimum amount of work required to keep his job. Has he never heard of Google? A quick search would have revealed that.
http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
My Mom is an elementary school teacher and, after she took some courses on multimedia/computer/Internet stuff that also dealt with copyright issues, created a small application for her pupils about trees or somesuch (think interactive powerpoint).
She wanted to use some background forest sounds and - to dot the is and cross the ts - contacted the maker of a CD containing random sound effects (alarm clock, screeching door etc) about adding a 4 second clip of chirping birds.
They wanted to have 50 Euros for that.
While I can't claim to be an attorney, I've worked in the legal industry for the past ten years in a document management role. I DO understand that while you can "sue back" after being sued in the first place, most judges take a dim view of such moves, and will often dismiss the countersuit if it was ONLY initiated by the first suit. That is: if they sue her back for penalties, but wouldn't have done so (or even noticed her) if she hadn't sued first, judges tend to view that as misuse of the courts.
Can the copyright misuse law be applied on this case? I am not a lawyer but I'd like to know
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Well if you have a lot of money, spending some on a suit that you expect to lose (i.e. >50% probability) may still be a good idea if you hope to set some precedent that would further your cause.
Say, if money isn't that important, a 10% chance of having the existing (bad) law reviewed is better than a 100% chance of the existing law standing as is.
Certain circuits tend to favor certain sides. In CA, they like the entertainment industry, in NJ, they like Big Pharm and other Big industry. In MI they favor the auto makers. Even if you're having a jury trial every person on the jury knows someone who is in, or wants to be in, the dominant industry in the area.
27 seconds out of a 3:00 song isn't de minimus, 3 seconds might be. The de minimus exception usually applies to written works, where one lie from a 500 page work would be de minimus. And as for the commercial work, it can be commercial without charging money for the video. For instance, using a copyrighted work as advertising, where you charge for other goods/services is still a commercial use. Or using a copyrighted work on a website where you sell advertising, but don't charge for the content is a commercial use.
I can understand Prince's situation. After listening to 29 seconds I wouldn't buy his music. If the video was taken down, I would have listened to 0 and I would be unaware of its poorness so therefore I might buy it.
I don't consider that a waste of money, though. I think their lawyers know their chances in this case, and I think it's better than 0%, so it's not a waste. At least, not to me.
to put major record companies, RIAA, etc. (read as any multimillion dollar company that sues an individual for trifles) out of business if 15 million independent lawsuits suddenly appeared naming them? Mom might be on to something here.
The Admin and the Engineer
Its certainly de minimus. This whole thing is a mountain out of a molehole, a trifle, and, to quote the English judge whose ruling was the basis for the theory of de minimus - "the law does not concern itself with trifles."
The offense is a trifle. The injury, if any, is also a trifle. Prince is a total jerk. Prince really must like the whole Streisand effect.
Kevin Smith on Prince
Don't know the song, and how repetitious it is - but there's been an awful lot of music on the charts when 29 s could represent the entire unique creative content.
Maybe the concern isn't commercial. Maybe with all the touchiness and protectiveness around children, someone in the legal team decided there were unacceptable risks to tacitly allowing the use of the music in videos involving kids that are released openly on the Internet.
All it says is "Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.". There isn't even a video here.
Those aren't THE tests of fair use.
They are some of the tests of fair use.
There are several court decisions (including, IIRC, a Supreme Court opinion) holding that the list of fair uses within the federal copyright statute IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE. It is only representative - a sampling - of some examples.
If I was at work right now, I'd grab you the case citations, but I'm not. But trust me, the statute just has a small list of fair use exceptions - those aren't the only exceptions. Judges can - and have - consider more than those four factors.
I can't understand how copyright has gotten this far away from its original purpose.
The purpose of copyright is to take rights concerning a creative work that the public will not miss or use anyway and give them exclusively to the creator for a set period of time in order to encourage them to make more creative works.
How long is enough? I'm pretty such after the creator is dead the chance of him/her putting out more (even considering unfinished works) drops pretty steeply. I'm up for the suggestion I heard of 5 years from point of creation-- 10 years tops. I'm pretty sure whether or not the creator will creating more or not will have been decided by then.
What's more, the "rights that the public will not miss or use anyway" is no longer correct. With digital technology, the whole game has changed. People can exercise rights such as copying content now (in many cases it's not intentional, it's the way the technology works) and some may wish to. In fact, I think that's why Fair Use exists-- to give some of those rights back to the public. With the way things are, though, it would seem Big Business (or in this case, Big Out-Of-Touch-With-Reality Star) would prefer Fair Use to just go away.
I'm afraid for the future. We really need total copyright reform if this is to be fixed. (We really need total patent reform too, but that's a whole different discussion.)
My two cents.
--Dave Romig, Jr.
how's the krusade doing willy? pretty good?