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.'"

Comments

Tag goodforher !

[ynososiduts]

Nothing is better than seeing the average person stand up to the injustice of big corporation.

Re:Tag goodforher !

[Anonymous Coward]

She's not average. It's been my experience that moms are the toughest f*$king people on the planet, not to be trifled with.

This music group, may FSM have mercy on them... because she won't.

Re:I know Prince is a scary guy, but this ....

[deesine]

>Doesn't the guy have better things to do with his time than to send takedown notices for 29-second video clips?

I doubt it was Prince himself doing the searching. Prince is plenty rich enough that he is probably paying someone to do the searching.

Having worked for an online kids entertainment company, I can tell you that part of the job responsibility of the 2 full time lawyers was to scour the net looking for any and all references to their company name and images. Also, no surprise this company was owned by a Scientologist, with all upper management being part of the cult too.

Uncorroborated claims newsworthy

[LoadWB]

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"?

Re:Offense is the best defence?

[sharkb8]

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.

To paraphrase....

[MrKevvy]

"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."