Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

Posted by timothy on 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?"

27 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. It's only fair use if you go to court... by Darkon · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

    5. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Ihmhi · · 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 · · 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 mitgib · · 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
    8. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by bondsbw · · 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.
    9. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by Qzukk · · 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.
    10. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by kholburn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Name some of them who have successfully taken Monsanto to court and won.

    11. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by king+neckbeard · · 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.
    12. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by king+neckbeard · · 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.
    13. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by morari · · 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
    14. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by morari · · 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
    15. Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... by dgatwood · · 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.

  2. Re:Fucking hell. by Dunbal · · 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. Bought congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These are the kinds of laws we get when we let companies (via their lobbyists) write their own legislation.

  4. Streisand the hell out of it! by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This must not stand!
    Repost the video!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  5. Counter notice? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  6. Their youtube site is up by sproketboy · · 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.

  7. Re:Things you can do. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · 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.
  8. Re:no recourse by TheRaven64 · · 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
  9. Re:Kickstarter that badboy. by icebraining · · 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
  10. Re:The Video is not Down by julesh · · 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

  11. Re:Fucking hell. by v1 · · 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.
  12. Copyright is as out of control as ever by FyberOptic · · 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.