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.'"
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It's an example of how outdated our copyright and patent system is in the digital age.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)
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?
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
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.
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.
It doesn't matter - it takes money to defend from lawsuits, and that is less money the publisher has to START lawsuits. It's her dime, but more people should be doing this.
Also, the situation is ridiculous. OK yes if we stick to the letter of the law, it's not "fair use". But make sure you keep your car windows rolled up because if anyone hears the music you are playing from the sidewalk that's a "public performance" and you will owe royalties. Don't hum any catchy tunes, either. Copyright law is too vague and covers/prohibits too much. More sensible countries have a clause in there that specifically prohibits commercial gain and everything else is fine. Which is as it should be.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And yes, I am an IP/patent attorney.
:-)
Yeah, the nick does kinda blow your cover
What?
Oh, I quite agree. Copyright law is way too broad and applied way too much against things it really shouldn't be.
:-)
But I really don't hold out much hope of that changing anytime soon. The powerful people are too entrenched and many of the judges seem to favor the broadest interpretations of the law possible.
I'm only referring to the way things are, not as they should be. I'm a pragmatist.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
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.
... 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?!
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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?
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.
There was a case a couple of years ago where they found that the entire basis for a song was three notes(orchestra "hits") from another work. The infringing song was from the 1970s if I remember correctly. The court decided that it was indeed a copyright infringement.
The sample in question was indeed direct and then frequency shifted to produce different "notes" during the song. Regardless of the changes applied, apparently even samples less than two seconds can cost you quite a bit... That being said, I am sure that the profits they made far outweighed the cost of the judgement against them. Still, that's appropriate since the sample was not the ONLY thing in the new piece of music.
> 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....
And musicians who do so are paying for the use of those samples. Those who don't get sued, and then end up paying even more for those samples.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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.
Wow that was like a Bizarro Mary Worth.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
uh, you are so sure of yourself, yet your argument is non-legal nonsense. Here are the tests of fair use:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
The four factors judges consider are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
in this case:
1. clearly transformative, new work - she wins
2. not factual stuff, yet hugely public - a wash
3. it's a small fraction of the work, yet non-trivial - a wash
4. none, not for sale - clearly she wins this one
in short, whether you agree w/ *my* analysis or not, anyone can agree you made no fair use analysis AT ALL, instead tossing out pseudo-legal terms to confuse others, and prop yourself up. which makes it ridiculous to claim "she will lose."
no, not ridiculous:
TROLL.
The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.
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.
correct me if I'm wrong, but every time a review to video game uses a screenshot it's legal because of fair use. Isn't that just as public as her youtube video?
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
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.
You're not wrong, but in the US, fair use it based on four relatively generic criteria, which basically come down to:
Other jurisdictions have similar laws, but as far as I'm aware, the US has the most liberal in terms of allowing use of copyright material.
The fact that the material is potentially distributed to a wide audience here isn't the important thing, it's the contribution that makes to the four factors of fair use that matters. In the case of a screenshot in a game review, it's only a tiny part of the game, being used for critical purposes, and unlikely to be something people will use instead of the original. In the case of copying a whole song for a YouTube clip, even if it's just background music, none of those things necessarily applies.
Now, I haven't bothered downloading the video in this case, so I have no opinion on this specific instance of copying music, but in general the law seems to say that you can't just use music being in the background of something else as an excuse for copying and redistributing it. FWIW, in other countries there are central licensing organisations to deal with precisely this type of use (among others). People producing things like TV programmes have to deal with it all the time.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
No, the full-stop goes outside.
More sensible countries have a clause in there that specifically prohibits commercial gain and everything else is fine. Which is as it should be.
You were making a decent case until that point, but this position is unrealistic. Taken to its logical conclusion, it still means that one person can buy a work at a knock-down price and then the whole world can have a copy while the original artist gets compensated only once. If the work were being sold on that basis, the original asking price would surely have been higher.
The same argument applies to the idea that copying is OK as long as it's only for personal friends. Apply the six degrees of separation principle, and you've just given the work to anyone in the entire world who wants it (and, in the Internet age, you could have done it within a matter of hours).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Uploading (for the sake of discussion, I have no idea how large the video was) 5mb on 56k is gonna take you at least 20 minutes or so. Also, you're gonna send a raw video file? You'd probably need to use a codec to encode it. Now, your family/friends need said codec/player to play it.
It makes more sense to upload it once through an easy upload system, have it stored in a format that most people can play (Flash video), and link it around, no?
Also, most people don't enjoy attachments anyways, especially not in the multiple MBs.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea if Youtube has a 'private' flag you can toggle for videos. If it does, please disregard this post)
Peace sells, but who's buying?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Great post.
Peace sells, but who's buying?
No, it depends on if you are British or American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop
In other words, it really doesn't matter.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
This isn't about "sue me first. sue you first" this is about the fact that due to RIAA's litigation-happy activities, she was essentially terrorized and intimidated. She was very. very afraid. Who is to blame for that fear and intimidation? The RIAA. Now, for that baseless fear and intimidation, she is going to sue for damages caused.
There are likely to be many precedents where unfounded fear and intimidation had resulted in damages being awarded by the courts. Her fears are not unwarranted and I believe the will be victorious in this case.
Nirvana is punk now?
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...
"Now, I haven't bothered downloading the video . . . "
Download it.
The clip is short.
The music isn't the focus of the video, it isn't even the loudest sound in the background.
I couldn't even recognize the song, not that I know any Prince songs.
The video is definitely about the baby, not the song.
If you can use video as a means of pirating the music, you should patent your methods.
It is very reasonable to assume that this is fair use.
IANAL, YMMV, etc., etc.
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.
The same argument applies to the idea that copying is OK as long as it's only for personal friends. Apply the six degrees of separation principle
Come now, do you think that "piracy" can get worse than it is today? People still buy DVD's and CD's and games. Yes there's some infringment, but you can still make a buck.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
Come now, do you think that "piracy" can get worse than it is today?
Piracy might not get much worse, but today the majority of people do obtain their music, movies, software, etc. legally. If you make it legal for them to copy it from someone else rather than pay for it, you are effectively inviting them to do so rather than buying it. That's not to say that it would necessarily get worse for artists in the long term, because secondary effects like advertising might mess up the "obvious" conclusions, but certainly if you go down that path you might as well give up with copyright altogether.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Ah, the thought police! welcome to our discussion. You'll find you job of punishing certain thoughts exceedingly easy here, as there are exceedingly few of them to start with.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
no, dickwad. It's called fair use! look it up.
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.
I've several people say this and I have to respond... Like Flikr Youtube serves two different puposes. One is the social sharing of media. The other is free bandwidth and hosting of content. In all likelihood the second is what she was doing. Not everyone has their own site to host stuff like this on. And if a friend or family member sent me an email with a video attached they'd get a stern lecture from me about appropriate email etiquette. There are a lot of people who upload to sites like YouTube and Flikr because it's an easy way to show other people their photo's or home-videos. Making any kind of judgement about her motives based on the fact she uploaded it to youtube shows a bias you probably don't want advertised on slashdot. So you might want to think before posting next time.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
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
Yeah, I'm sure about it.
The copyright holder owns the rights to derivative works.
The music wasn't being "quoted" for classroom instruction or critical review. The video was given unrestricted distribution through the commercial service which is YouTube.
Prince didn't demand damages, he simply asked for a take down of the video, and that is well within bounds.
The video is cute --- but an American court is not going to gut copyright law by accepting the argument that mixing a copyrighted music track into your home video makes an unlicensed distribution legal.
These issues have been litigated in the U.S. since the founding of ASCAP in 1914.
The simplest solution for amateur productions is and always has been for the profit-making host to negotiate a license with the rights holders and pay the contracted or statutory fees.
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/
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.
this is about the fact that due to RIAA's litigation-happy activities, she was essentially terrorized and intimidated. She was very. very afraid. Who is to blame for that fear and intimidation? The RIAA.
Thankfully, we have already declared a war on terrorism. The military will invade the RIAA soon.
she was essentially terrorized and intimidated.
:)
Would this make the RIAA a terrorist organization? For once, the War on Terror (tm) may be a Good Thing (tm).
~jaraxle
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 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
> when she could have just as easily sent a copy to her friends/family privately she chose to post it on a public high volume internet video site like youtube that in all likliness will be seen by thousands of people at the least.
What if she put it on GeoCities? On a personally owned web site? That the video is on YouTube is pretty much meaningless. Sure, it's AVAILABLE for viewing, but so is everything you do in your front yard. How many people will ever look? do you browse YouTube for "cute baby pictures"? Do you know anyone who would? The value of kid video isn't in the work, but the subject matter. If you don't know the kids, the video is worthless filler eating YouTube's disk space. With the sheer volume on YouTube, merely posting isn't the same as explicit general public publishing. While "available" the video is safely considered mostly anonymous unless there's substantial objective merit (usually comic) to make the video spread.
In the case of screenshots, it's explicit fair use to document that which you are discussing. If you want to say a game looks great, or horrible, you are allowed to prove it. You aren't allowed to take a bunch of screenshots and make a book out of the cutscenes of the latest Final Fantasy, but if you are going to say a game looks like ****, you'd better have some proof posted so they can't sue you for making up nonsense about their game.
The video on it's own... I'm not sure where that stands, but if you were to make a documentary of the compulsive need of some parents to record and push out every little thing a child does, you'd probably be within your rights to include a few seconds of this video.
Rather, it depends if you're in one of the vast number of english speaking countries - or an american.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
A CD playing in the background, recorded with a camcorder, has very little left of the original recodring by the time you watch it on YouTube. IMO, this is clearly a trivial fraction of the work, and very different from, say, a 29-second lossless sample.
I lost my sig.
Stop trying to use lynx.
I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.