Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yoko Ono/EMI Suit Exposes Fair Use Flaw

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-hope-someday-you'll-sue-us dept.

Ian Lamont writes "Yoko Ono and EMI Records have backed down from their suit against the makers of a documentary film who used a 15-second fragment of a John Lennon song — but only after a Stanford Law School group got involved. Even though the use of the clip was clearly Fair Use, the case exposed a huge problem with the doctrine: It's becoming too expensive for people to actually take advantage of what is supposed to be a guaranteed right. Ironically, the song in question was Imagine."

6 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. The film is rubbish by Improv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it wern't for Yoko's history, I'd wonder if this was more about stopping that terrible film from being associated with Lennon than any real copyright concern.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    1. Re:The film is rubbish by mjhacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've seen the terrible film, and I can confirm it's terrible.

      The reason science is "elitist" and denies intelligent design as a theory is because IT ISN'T ONE. It is not a valid scientific theory, so why should it be taught along with valid ones? Science is not a democracy; what the majority of people think sounds good doesn't get to be a theory, and wanting something to be true really badly has no impact on reality.

      Scientists are more than welcome to have independent thought and scientists change their minds on closely held theories all the time. The fact is that there is no evidence for a "god," so why should scientists try to include one? A god would have to be infinitely complex, and everything we know about the universe shows that you have to start with simple and work your way to complex. An infinitely complex entity with no origin, other creator, or evolutionary development is nothing more than an untestable, untenable hypothesis.

      If the ID people had a valid scientific theory, they would be published in the peer reviewed literature like everyone else. But they don't.

  2. Fool as a client? by kieran · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would it really be unfeasible or inadvisable, in cases as clear-cut as this, to turn up to court yourself, sans lawyer, and say "This clearly falls under fair use. Can I go home now?"

  3. Re:So sue to recover the losses by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except McCain and the Republicans are just as liberal as the Democrats these days. Conservatism is all but dead, replace with the bogus neocons who think that you can get the benefits of capitalism under a welfare-state system. Check out this very interesting article on the subject:

    The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism

  4. Re:So sue to recover the losses by rssrss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The answer is no. In England and Canada, the loser pays the other side's legal fees. In the US, that is not the rule. And, yes it is a serious problem.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
  5. Re:Why can't we sue the lawyers? by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The overall effect? Poor people with legitimate legal claims get fucked.

    When did you last see a poor person suing someone to intimidate, send a political statement, or to put someone out of business?