Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 23, 2011 @12:24AM from the gang-fight-gang-fight dept.

Joren writes "Bad Lip Reading is an independent producer known for anonymously parodying music and political videos by redubbing them with his humorous attempts at lip-reading, such as Everybody Poops (Black Eyed Peas) and Gang Fight (Rebecca Black). According to an interview in Rolling Stone, he creates entirely new music from scratch consisting of his bad lip readings, and then sets them to the original video, often altering the video for humorous effect and always posting a link to the original off which it is based. Although his efforts have won the respect of parody targets Michael Bublé and Michelle Bachman, not everyone has been pleased. Two days ago, Universal Music Group succeeded in getting his parody Dirty Spaceman taken down from YouTube, and despite BLR's efforts to appeal, in his words, 'UMG essentially said "We don't care if you think it's fair use, we want it down."' And YouTube killed it. So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use? And if so, what recourse if any is available for artists who are caught in this situation?"

56 of 298 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's only fair use if you go to court... by Darkon · 2011-10-23 00:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.
Got to love the legal system.
1. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Seumas · 2011-10-23 00:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sadly, that's absolutely right.
  I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.
  Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.
2. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by purpledinoz · 2011-10-23 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Everyone has to face that the fact that in the US, legal rights are only available to those who can afford to hire a good lawyer.
3. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by LordLucless · 2011-10-23 01:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Or if you're responding to a DMCA notice.
  As I understand it, if someone complains about your work under the DMCA, the hosting provider is supposed to forward the complaint to you, and immediately pull your work. If you respond to the DMCA asserting you have the rights to the work (for whatever reason, including fair use), the host is supposed to put it back up, and let you and the complainant duke it out in court.
  Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
4. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by todrules · 2011-10-23 01:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
5. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Ihmhi · 2011-10-23 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "We... settled out of court. The way the system appeared to work to me was... Lady Justice had the scales, and you piled cash on the scales. And the one that piled the most cash on the scales and hired the most experts and the ones most willing to tell the biggest lies... that was the winner. That's... that seems to be how our justice system functions now. It's terrible. It's terrible. How can a farmer defend himself against a multinational corporation like Monsanto?" -Troy Roush, Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association, commenting on how Monsanto uses legal action to bully farmers into settling when they are accused of "stealing" Monsanto's IP (genetically modified seeds). From "Food Inc."
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
6. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Rockoon · 2011-10-23 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
  ..and by no reason you mean that Google doesnt have a large revenue stream associated with advertising RIAA music on a large percentage of its youtube video collection, and Google also isnt in the process of making a deal with the RIAA for direct music purchasing through Google...
  
  Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
7. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by 1u3hr · 2011-10-23 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?
  So, you believe there should be no right to parody without the source's permission? If not, what is your point?
8. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by mitgib · 2011-10-23 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Uh except that you could go to court yourself. And if you are accused of a crime you get a free lawyer if you can't afford one.
  Which has no bearing on this topic
  
  --
  Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
9. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by The+Creator · 2011-10-23 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?
  We could make sure no music is borrowed or stolen by having a music cast. Each member of this cast would have to grow up in a complete music void, and start from scratch (banging two sticks together or whatever). Sure, we would no longer have a culture and all music would sound like perfect shit, but hey, a small price to pay for making sure all music is original!
  
  --
  
  FRA: STFU GTFO
10. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Joce640k · 2011-10-23 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure ... so long as you remake the video as well as the audio, eg. Mad Al Yankovitch.
  As it is he's using somebody else's video for profit (direct or indirect)
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by bondsbw · 2011-10-23 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The need for lawyers who have studied for years or decades indicates that our legal system is too complex. There are so many laws, there exist laws that even the best lawyers are unaware of. There is a huge amount of case law that many times, but not always, provides direction in cases that are ambiguous in the law. We have laws from 2011 that override some part of laws from 2003 that override some part of laws from 1987 that override some part of laws from 1972, etc. to the beginning of time. I don't know the solution to all of this, but I think there has to be one.
  And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
12. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Qzukk · 2011-10-23 01:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And if you are accused of a crime
  Violating copyright isn't a criminal case in most cases. And you don't get a free lawyer for civil court cases.
  
  --
  If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
13. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by kholburn · 2011-10-23 01:45 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Name some of them who have successfully taken Monsanto to court and won.
14. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by EnergyScholar · 2011-10-23 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  How would this protect you? If a large corporation initiates legal action against an individual, it DOES NOT MATTER whether or not the individual in breach of any law. Had this act of parody involved totally original video and audio (e.g. Weird Al's approach) , and had some large corporation taken offense and initiated legal action to take it down, do you think this story would have a different outcome? Why, or why not?
15. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 02:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You believe this to be true because...
  A lawyer who routinely does court-appointed work will have represented hundreds or thousands of defendants in front of each judge in that courthouse. The lawyer will know what strategies work or don't, the judge's pet peeves, and what sort of sentence the judge prefers to impose. For anything routine, a public defender will have more relevant experience and will be able to get an issue more quickly and effectively than anyone else. There is no punitive impact from using a public defender, but the opposite could very well be true. If you hire someone the judge doesn't like or who missteps during court, you have a problem. And, if the judge assumes you are more able to pay a fine, you're looking at the real possibility of a stiffer penalty.
16. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 02:30 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Sadly, that's absolutely right.
  I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.
  Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.
  That's okay! It was nature's way of sparing you the members who are so stupid they can't distinguish between two domains. Since you weren't bringing a product to a mass market where everyone's money is as green as everyone else's, you really didn't want those idiots anyway. They'd just waste your time and bog you down with stupid support questions that they wouldn't ask if they could RTFM.
  
  Did you know I have never accidentally gone to "goggle.com" to try to search the web? Yeah that's because only an idiot would confuse it with "google.com". Same thing. The easily confused are only around because modern civilization has totally defeated natural selection. If it were up to nature, they'd have never survived infancy and their parents would have never lived long enough to meet.
  
  Oh how I dream of a world filled with people who can think for themselves...this one requires far too much micromanagement of daily life and too many large governments to carry that out. It is so top-heavy it's about to topple over.
17. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by king+neckbeard · 2011-10-23 02:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This guy seems to be creating original music and lyrics, and the basis for it is bad lip reading, so a new video would miss the entire point. That's actually more original than Weird Al's parodies. He's using the video, but even Hitler understands that fair use can use existing video and audio.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
18. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by king+neckbeard · 2011-10-23 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except the RIAA will gladly cut off its nose to spite it's face.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
19. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by snowgirl · 2011-10-23 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  Name some of them who have successfully taken Monsanto to court and won.
  There was a grain washer that was sued by Monsanto for tortuous interference. He lost in court, because he was inducing people to violate their contracts with Monsanto. Monsanto primarily declined to actually sue any of the farmers the grain washer induced to breach contract on condition that they would tell Monsanto who washed their grain.
  To date, Monsanto has only had 9 trials that have gone on to a full jury trial suit. And each of those were decided in Monsanto's favor, because--I'll repeat this again--the farmers signed a contract saying that they would not reuse seed.
  One of those was Percy Schmeiser who claims that Round-Up Ready plants ended up on his property (not his fault), and suspecting this, he then sprayed his entire crop with Round-Up, which would have killed all the non Round-Up Ready plants. Now, knowing full well that he had Monsanto patented seed growing on his property, he saved THOSE seeds and then replanted them, having planted nearly 95~98% Round-Up Ready plants in his fields the year AFTER they invaded his property. Now, get all the facts there, and even based on his own stories... he had an invasion (not illegal), wiped out all his legal crops leaving only the crops he knew to be patent protected, and then used the patent protected crops to almost exclusively plant his next year's crops. He knew he was breaking patent law.
  "Blah blah blah, all this stuff is coming from Monsanto you can't trust them!" And you can trust the people who Monsanto sued at face value without considering the other side? Of course, since Monsanto is an evil corporation that makes genetically-modified freak plants, it's ok to rag on them, and deny everything they say...
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
20. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by snowgirl · 2011-10-23 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.
  Lawyers are expected to provide some amount of pro bono work as a public good in order to remain in good standing with the bar. Of course, I will grant you that they rarely can invest the time that they would invest in a pay-for case, but eh... In fact, actually of the three lawyers I dealt with for a ex-boyfriend's family: two were downtown high-rise lawyers with powerful law firms, and the third was a sole-working lawyer, who had affordable prices. Guess which one(s) we paid for.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
21. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by gstrickler · 2011-10-23 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  YouTube doesn't have to evaluate his counter-notice, in fact, they shouldn't. Simply making a counterclaim with an affidavit that you believe you have the rights to use the material gets YouTube off the hook. If they're evaluating the validity of the claims and counterclaims, they're opening themselves up to additional liability. Under DMCA, a provider must take down material when they receive a DMCA takedown notice, and the must restore it after counter-notice. If they're doing anything to evaluate the validity (as opposed to the statutory compliance) of the notices, they're not following the law and have compromised their safe harbor protection.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
22. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by morari · 2011-10-23 03:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  He had an invasion (not illegal), wiped out all his legal crops leaving only the crops he knew to be patent protected, and then used the patent protected crops to almost exclusively plant his next year's crops. He knew he was breaking patent law.
  He was breaking the law? So fucking what? I seriously hope you don't actually believe that seeds should be protected as trade secrets, let alone controlled to the extent that Monsanto does. If anything, you just helped to illustrate exactly why no one trusts Monsanto. They want to control something as simple as food and create a Soylent Green-esque future of poverty-stricken riots and rations.
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
23. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by morari · 2011-10-23 04:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Sure, we would no longer have a culture and all music would sound like perfect shit, but hey, a small price to pay for making sure all music is original!
  This plan must have already been put into action, since we currently have no culture and all modern music sounds like perfect shit. :)
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
24. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by erroneus · 2011-10-23 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but then you get to sue for damages when you know you're right.
  What someone or a group of someones should do (and especially BLR) should put their stuff up, declare that it is parody and protected speech, sprinkle some ads in there, then sue for damages when it's taken down.
  By declaring that it is protected speech, you are making them aware of your argument before they decide to have it taken down. This may make them liable for extra damages as they are doing so knowingly and wilfully. The damages can be nearly whatever they want them to be since they are "getting income" from their viewing.
  I'm sure there's plenty wrong with this idea somehow, but I'm sure there are ways to iron out the details to make it work. These jackholes need to get baited into tripping all over themselves and wind up paying more in damages than they might cost the defending parties in legal fees to defend themselves otherwise.
  In short, UMG is stupid. Someone needs to find a way to make a lot of money suing their asses for being abusive assholes.
25. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by amiga3D · 2011-10-23 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  actually I just tried, for the hell of it, www.gogle.com and it took me to google. Unfortunately goggle takes you to some bullshit site giving away things like free iphones. I suppose they figure if you can't figure out how to spell google and then can't tell you didn't get to the right place you're ripe for pickin'. :)
26. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by dr2chase · 2011-10-23 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  Monsanto, or their licensees, violated his property rights by contaminating it with genetically modified pollen. This contaminates corn that is supposed to be not-GMO, and causes problems for farmers who DO reuse their corn and don't want to "do business" with Monsanto. In addition, because weeds have demonstrated the ability to evolve resistance to glyphosate, the mere fact that corn happens to be resistant to glyphosate is not proof that it must have been acquired from patented genes. If Monsanto cares about this, they should take steps to control the spread of pollen containing their intellectual property.
  As a general rule, I think "real property" trumps "intellectual property". And yeah, it's not practical to control the spread of corn pollen -- that's the whole point.
27. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by hairyfeet · 2011-10-23 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  Riiiight, so the words 'public pretender' are just a myth, correct? I live down the street for our courthouse and have sat there and watched public pretenders in action. down to a man they always make their clients plead guilty and since their clients are uneducated and poor they listen to "their' lawyer and get fucked. the best example i can describe is what i saw happen to a guy I went to HS with. he got busted for selling a bag of weed, his parents scraped up enough to get a lawyer who said "No problem, we'll get you off" but they ran out of money before trial. So what happens? they assign him the very same lawyer as a public pretender only now that he isn't getting paid the tune has changed. suddenly he won't do shit or say anything but "plead guilty" which Mr uneducated dumbass does, he gets 3 years.
  The moral of the story boys and girls? if YOU are paying the lawyer he is working FOR YOU. if the STATE pays the lawyer he is working for THE STATE, end of story. While there may be one or two good apples out there I can honestly say that after sitting in that courtroom every chance I could get to see how our 'justice" system worked I can't think of a SINGLE time that the public pretender didn't have his client plead guilty, not one. They simply won't expend the effort if they ain't getting paid friend, just won't do the work.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
28. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by dgatwood · 2011-10-23 10:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So what you're saying is that no one else is allowed to produce a Round-Up-resistant crop?
  The only way to develop a resistant crop without genetic engineering is to hit your crop with Round-Up and see which plants die. Thus, experimentally killing off your crops is a valid way to develop a Round-Up-resistant strain. Different plants will have different levels of resistance. Cross-breed the plants that lived, and you'll get crops that are progressively more and more resistant.
  In effect, if Round-Up won that battle, unless they proved that the farmer was aware that a neighbor was using a patented Round-Up-resistant strain, the court ruling effectively says that Monsanto has a right not only to their particular gene sequence, but every possible Round-Up-resistant strain, regardless of how it was derived. That's just not what the law says, so either the farmer's lawyers were incompetent or the judge was crooked. You pretty much can't have it any other way.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
29. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Nyder · 2011-10-23 23:40 · Score: 2
  
  While I sympathize with your feelings in this, the fact is he was breaking the law. The law needs to be changed but frankly, if you can't do the time, or pay the legal costs, don't do the crime.
  Actually, this is how you get laws changed.
  He broke a stupid law, and is making noise about it. Other people are making noise about it. I didn't know anything about it, and if I didn't hear about this guy's problem, i wouldn't know about it.
  Now that I know about it, I can write my senator and complain that this sort of stuff isn't right. I can go protest if I like, I can tell others.
  And I can do all this because this dude broke a stupid fucking law and made a stink about it.
  I don't know, maybe it's because I don't trust corporations, or because I see the worse in things, but I can very much see a very very very crappy future for mankind if we let shit like what Monsanto is doing to go on.
  But people always say I'm optimistic, so i hate to think how shit will really end up if this keeps continuing.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
Fucking hell. by Seumas · 2011-10-23 00:31 · Score: 2

They invoked the "we don't care what you think" and everyone knows that the founding fathers added that clause to the Constitution, so that all of your rights and all of the land's laws could be circumvented with that clever dismissive phrase.
1. Re:Fucking hell. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 00:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The solution is to elect people who understand and respect our founding principles instead of people who promise us all kinds of new shiny stuff. We're supposed to be electing representatives, and instead we vote for people who rape us.
2. Re:Fucking hell. by Dunbal · 2011-10-23 00:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Closer to the truth than you think. The federal government has ignored quite a few laws recently, effectively invoking this "we don't care" clause, with absolutely no reaction from anyone.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
3. Re:Fucking hell. by v1 · 2011-10-23 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The solution is to elect people who understand and respect our founding principles instead of people who promise us all kinds of new shiny stuff.
  That's both the solution, and the problem. Yes we in theory can elect people that will fix the system, but no, we as a people are greedy, short-sighted, narrow-minded voters that will vote in anyone that promises free lollipops after the election, issues be damned, until it gets really bad. That's why our elected officials are voted back and forth on seesaw elections. One election they vote in a candidate for all the shiny stuff he promises because the last guy was too busy trying to solve issues and spending money where it needed to be spent. Then next election they vote the first guy back in because the second one undid all the fixes from the first guy. Rinse and repeat.
  I don't blame the politicians or the corporations, I blame the voters. Unfortunately, big business has sat quietly on the sidelines slipping dollars into pockets and actually getting laws passed that serve their good.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Bought congress by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

These are the kinds of laws we get when we let companies (via their lobbyists) write their own legislation.
Re:Kickstarter that badboy. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 00:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

This shouldn't be necessary. Since Google owns YouTube, they should know all about 'freedom' right? Surely they know parody is protected? Surely they aren't the same as every other corporation out there?
Hello? Is this thing on?
Streisand the hell out of it! by Progman3K · 2011-10-23 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

This must not stand!
Repost the video!

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
1. Re:Streisand the hell out of it! by Co0Ps · 2011-10-23 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't work. YouTube has automated copyright infringement detection. Basically the music/movie company uploads all their shit and YouTube will scan trough all uploaded content and match it. Then they can choose to take it down, add advertising etc. This is probably how the copyright claimer was notified of the video in the first place. No YouTube staff where probably ever involved in taking it down.
2. Re:Streisand the hell out of it! by amiga3D · 2011-10-23 05:38 · Score: 2
  
  Someone post it on pirate bay. See how they like that.
Counter notice? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-23 00:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?
1. Re:Counter notice? by ShakaUVM · 2011-10-23 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  >>Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?
  No. Youtube will take down the video. I've gone through this before, with music that I had permission to use, but still got Takedowned.
  They do not care if it is "fair use", or if you have permission, etc., only if even a single frame of video or music is from a copyrighted source.
Streisand effect by asdf7890 · 2011-10-23 00:57 · Score: 2

Sometimes I'm not sure if these people are just ignorant to the Streisand effect, or are actively trying to use it to gain publicity for themselves generally or whatever the parody is using as inspiration or source material.
The Video is not Down by Fantom42 · 2011-10-23 01:07 · Score: 2

The videos don't seem to be down. I just watched it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading#p/c/48076365A788CC3F/6/bQOJwDMZMXw
1. Re:The Video is not Down by julesh · 2011-10-23 01:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It seems another youtube user who had downloaded a copy reposted it, and the original author added it to his playlist. See: http://www.facebook.com/badlipreading/posts/296640680348638
Their youtube site is up by sproketboy · 2011-10-23 01:09 · Score: 3, Informative

I just checked it. http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading
It's really funny but not as funny as Day Job Orchestra.
Re:Blame the right entity by jpapon · 2011-10-23 01:19 · Score: 2

YouTube is required to reinstate the content

I don't think this is true; YouTube can host/takedown any content whenever they damn well please. There is no law that obligates them to host something they don't want to.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:Things you can do. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-10-23 01:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Fourth amendment?
In this case, no, the fourth amendment doesn't hold, it's data sitting on Google's servers that's being yanked down by Google, not the Government.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:Is it a parody? by Deus.1.01 · 2011-10-23 01:35 · Score: 2

MAD sometimes use stillshots from movies and adds their humorous quip onto them.
F.eks...
A stillshot of Sam Gamji holding the Star-glass and a sword looking menacing, while saying: "I'll show Gandalf how many Hobbits it takes to screw in a lightbulb!"
So....if that works for MAD...

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:no recourse by TheRaven64 · 2011-10-23 01:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, it's not quite so simple. If you post anything people upload, then you are covered by the Safe Harbour provisions of the DMCA. If someone files a take-down notice, then you are obliged to remove it, until the original poster produces a counter notice. If you then restore it, then the copyright owner has to get a court to agree that it is infringement (by suing the original poster). If you don't, then you may be deemed to be taking an active role in copyright enforcement and lose your safe harbour status. In short, not restoring it can open Google up to more liability than restoring it.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Kickstarter that badboy. by icebraining · 2011-10-23 01:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google has no right to decide whether it's a parody or not. That's up to the courts. If they receive a DMCA complaint, they have to take it down. If they didn't, Youtube wouldn't exist by now.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
YouTube DMCA takedowns by drew30319 · 2011-10-23 02:12 · Score: 2

Has YouTube changed their procedures for dealing with DMCA takedowns? I had this same experience with a video for my nonprofit and once I asserted my willingness to be sued YouTube restored the video. Their position at the time (and apparently still their position per their site) was that it was up to the rights holder to sue under DMCA --- not for a contributor to sue to have content restored. The process I followed is here: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_counter and although my video was down for a few months it was put back up and is still up years later. This is the way that I believe DMCA was designed to work and YouTube does a pretty good job of balancing this process. YouTube does not make any determination about if the content is "fair use" or not - they instead put the onus on the one asserting infringement to take legal action. Seems reasonable to me - and at least in my case - their process worked.

IANAL but did graduate from law school a few months ago.

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Re:what recourse? by drew30319 · 2011-10-23 02:17 · Score: 2

Although hiring an attorney is not a bad idea, the rest of this is not accurate. DMCA is a large unwieldy tool but YouTube's approach is pretty fair. If you assert your willingness to be identified and sued by the rights holder (through a counter-notification) they will put your content back online. Only if the rights holder then takes legal action do they remove the content.

Although "the media giants" may abuse DMCA, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for not taking the time to learn what our own rights are and how we can assert them; and asserting them doesn't have to cost us anything other than investing a little time in the process.

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Copyright is as out of control as ever by FyberOptic · 2011-10-23 03:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

I still have a bad mark on my Youtube account from making a short parody video of something once which was flagged as a copyright violation by somebody. The only way to get this off of my record is to send some DMCA formal counter notice to the original owner, which is wayyyy more effort than a lot of the Youtube videos that get marked are worth fooling with, and also requires you to give your real name and everything. Besides, in my case, that person is not only long gone, but obviously is not going to give a crap about me having a bad mark on my account in the first place since I bet they're responsible for it being there.
Youtube makes it way too easy for people to be jerks. They didn't even check the video in my case, or they would have seen it was blatant parody with very little source material. I ended up removing two other videos I had spent a lot of time editing which contained content that could be disputed because I simply can't risk losing my whole account from such bullshit. I can't imagine what kind of crap that people with professional channels must have to deal with on Youtube. And look at how many of them have even had their accounts shut down occasionally from it, even if just temporary. If those people are Youtube partners (which some of them have been), that's costing them money.
And didn't I hear before that some company was filing copyright claims against people for posting video game footage now too? If you go around killing all the Let's Play and video game reviews, then half of Youtube will be gone overnight.
So basically, fuck companies hiding behind the DMCA to protect their image or content or whatever ridiculous excuse they want to use. They only encourage me to want to pirate them out of spite. It's about like what happened to Metallica several years ago. Their music sucks, but a lot of people went and downloaded it for spite to them during the whole Napster debacle. It shows that people tend to react the exact opposite way you want when you start turning into a jerk about something.
You don't have any rights that you can't defend by Vektuz · 2011-10-23 04:35 · Score: 2

Your rights are only worth anything if you have the means to actually defend them. In legal theory this is not the case, your rights are supposed to be intrinsic. But in actual reality, this is exactly the case, since money and power can exert pressure and pressure can remove your ability to fight back or (more likely) make the expenditure involved more than you are willing to expend. So yes, the right to fair use no longer exists practically. Your rights can be overridden by funding. You can be shut up by enough money.
Parody - Most people have no idea what it is by crossmr · 2011-10-23 10:28 · Score: 2

So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use?
IANAL
But, no, the definition of parody for fair use requires that the parody be used to comment on the original work. It does not simply mean taking someone else's work and adding funny words. This is why a lot of Weird Al's music is in fact not parody and why he makes a big deal of seeking permission for each song he releases. Everyone just assumes he'd be covered under parody, but a lot of his songs don't really make any comment on the original work itself.
As far as I can tell BLR does nothing to comment on the original work at all. He's probably lucky that he's gotten away with it thus far, and if he's doing any revenue sharing with youtube he'll be luck if someone doesn't sue him.
Recourse, ever heard of self-publish? by holophrastic · 2011-10-23 11:04 · Score: 2

Contrary to public belief, Youtube is not public. I'm sure youtube says something to the effect of: "if it contains any of your material, adn you want it down, it comes down". The video did contain UMG video, and hence, youtube took it down at UMG request. Makes perfect sense.
It's one video. If you want to post your video, on your site, then UMG can ask you to take it down, and you can refuse, call it fair use, and likely win, 'cause it is.
But you're asking someone else, in this case youtube, to fight your battles. It's your battle. You get to fight it. You get to take the rist. You get to hear from UMG. You get to defend your own turf.
Why are you surprised that no one else is going to defend your rights? Defend them yourself -- you lazy person you.
Alternatively, you can learn to benefit from your own original and innovative creations without basing your work on someone else's hard efforts. You'll find it a lot more difficult to work from essential ingredients, we all do, but you'll have more freedom in doing so.