Slashdot Mirror
Newest YouTube User To Fight a Takedown: Lawrence Lessig
onehitwonder writes "Lawrence Lessig has teamed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to sue Liberation Music, which recently demanded that YouTube take down a lecture Lessig had posted that features clips from the song 'Lisztomania' by the French band Phoenix (on Liberation Music's label). Liberation claimed copyright infringement as the reason it demanded the takedown, but in his countersuit, Lessig is claiming Liberation's 'overly aggressive takedown violates the DMCA and that it should be made to pay damages,' according to Ars Technica."
(Rhetorical question ahead)
Why do we never hear what the artists, the ones who actually made the song or tune, have to say about this "infringements"?
on the contrary. Those who post overly aggressive takedown notices should be jailed. No fines are needed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I had Warner Media try to takedown a video that was a conference/lecture at Duke on Fair Use by an artist that had been sued by U2; all because it contained a song that was at the center of the dispute, which was what that section of the lecture was about. I have rarely had as much fun as handing them their ass simply by pointing out that it was a *lecture*........about Fair Use..... in regards to *that* song. They never tried again.
Lawrence Lessig laments Liberation's 'Lisztomania' limitations. Litigation likely.
I obviously can't speak for the band Phoenix, but I enjoy their music and based on my personal interpretation of the "spirit" of their work, I find it hard to believe they would have ever endorsed this action. Of course they themselves didn't, it was certainly yet another of these industry lawyers at the ironically-named "Liberation Music" who is responsible. I'm only saying this because I imagine it has to be terribly frustrating for a group of musicians to potentially have their reputation and name damaged because of such a ridiculous abuse of the DMCA.
When a li'l old professor made fair use of a small clip of a band's music, maybe giving them free PR in the process, the band's label turned into Big, Bad Bullies and slapped a Big, Legalistic Testosterone-Fueled DMCA Notice to said professor.
Well. It so happens, that the l'il old professor is an expert in Internet Copyright Law at Harvard Law School. And according to his complaint:
17. Professor Lessig has been named one of Scientific American's Top 50 Visionaries
So, said professor turned into a Big, Bad Bully and slapped a Big, Legalistic Testosterone-Fueled Civil Complaint Seeking Damages against the band's record label.
Remember... we're the good guys here!
I'm not as convinced his case is as strong as he's making out.
As it's not clear how long the clip was or how it was used (was it the subject of the lecture? was it background music? Was it intro music?) we're probably missing the most important facts. Fair use doesn't mean you get free backing or intro music, for it to be fair use, there has to be original content involving that song.
The non-profit / no loss to the record label doesn't seem relevant. That could protect you against damages or criminal prosecution but not against a takedown. It would also be trivial to argue that even if he didn't make any money from the lecture and putting it on youtube, it serves as a valuable bit of self promotion that could help him make money. The educational aspect is another dead end avenue, all the record label would have to show is that they've licensed out their music to educational material in the past.
Ultimately, it's just going to come down to the length of the clips and/or if they're used properly which is something we can't tell.
Fair Use is pretty well defined, in a nutshell you can use 30 consecutive seconds of audio before it becomes an infringement, or the entire track in the case of a narrative or analysis of the track. Clips? This is where it gets interesting; if I use multiple fades and play a track through, am I infringing? I would say not, others might disagree.
On the other hand, I've used a track with no fades, from the first bar to the last, as a theme for a Youtube video. UMG put in a DMCA complaint, my response was that as far as I was concerned, the only person who had any right to complain if he felt the need was Scott Stapp, the individual who wrote the song. I contacted Scott Stapp through his agent, he wrote back himself and pretty much said "I've seen the video, I like it, you go for it."
Big label publishers can go fuck themselves. I'll engage with the artist, not the museum.
Oh, little tip for anyone wanting to use an instrumental background: The KLF back catalogue is all Public Domain, has been since 1993. Some great stuff in there, and you can use any DMCA notices that come as a result to lay harassment charges against the labels.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Oh boy! I can't wait for Lessig to lose this case too, thereby setting a precedent that even further increases copyright holder's powers over "their" works!
Thats gotta be one of the most annoying tunes to have hit the airwaves in the last decade. What on earth was Lawrence thinking when he picked that one? Liberation Music should do humanity a favor takedown the rest of the videos on YouTube featuring that audio in the background.
Of all the youtube videos to hit they accidentally demanded the takedown of one of Lawrence Lessig's lectures!
There's definitely a good Bad luck Brian meme in there.
What's next? A tech conference organiser's decide to ditch paper lecture timetables in favour of timetable.exe blobs to be given to attendees on USB sticks on the very same year that Richard Stallman is invited to speak.
Get here you did when, Yoda?
I do hope they manage to set a precedent with this case and pry open the door to a flood of such awards. even if they're small amounts, it'll at least fool me into believing that maybe the system sometimes works?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This is going to be fun to watch.
(Rhetorical question ahead)
Why do we never hear what the artists, the ones who actually made the song or tune, have to say about this "infringements"?
Google "Lars Ulrich" and "copyright infringement"
I cannot believe that the law didn't say something to the effect, limited in nature and not to exceed "X" amount of years. The non-dissenters argued that as long as the copyrights werent perpetual then that wasnt a problem. What the heck does perpetual even mean? As long as it's not "forever"? That is, as one dissenter stated, virtual perpetual extensions.
Off topic? I don't know. I think the poster's genius just went over the moderator's head.
Wow, that was a tortured vortex. I was losing track of which puppet hand had grabbed the microphone, or if it was just one especially wishy-washy devil's advocate.
If the bar is bad faith, we've got a problem, commonly known as Hanlon's razor:
The party being sued just needs to slit their own throat with Hanlon's razor (duh I'm stoopid) and your case melts away. Unless it takes confessing to a level of stupidity sufficient to get the other party's lawyer disbarred. Then things get interesting.
However, I don't think Hanlon's razor properly belongs in the court room in the first place, where it would more likely be the other way around: never attribute to stupidity, faulty memory, or the dog eating your homework what can adequately be explained by malice, tactical dithering, and premeditation. The line between culpability and incompetence in the courtroom is more gerrymandered than FLA. 5.
Imbalance of Power
By comparison, the dividing line between pornography and naked flesh seemed so obvious that some judge muttered to himself absent-mindedly "I know it when I see it". I suspect that same judge would give his right arm to be able to reliably discern when the defendant protests too much about his own imbecility.
It's an extremely tricky business to write laws which boil down to where having a clue self-incriminates. It's pretty easy to flush clue down the toilet for the duration.
In my opinion, a standard of abuse needs to be set such that ignorance of the law is no excuse, reducing the scope of honest error to where the nuance of the law itself is hark to grok as applied to the relevant circumstance.
Wikipedia informs me of N.C. 12 that `The Wall Street Journal called the district "political pornography."` Note that Democrats holding a huge majority in one seat benefits the Republicans in every other seat they win by a narrow margin.
But your honour, my hand slipped!
Do have medical records to show that you've sought treatment for this dangerous condition?
Uh, no. It only happened just that once.
Fascinating. I've heard that three times already this morning. What I have here (pulls out Hanlon's razor) is a very sharp and heavy blade which you shall hold above your own head for ten minutes. If it slips out of your fingers during that interval, you will receive my sincere apology and a favourable verdict to go along with your stitches.
He clearly forgot to add one of those notes on the YouTube video, like "All rights belong to their respectful owners" or the amazing "Under the copyright act of 1976, this video may stay up (if democracy still exists) as it is for DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY".
Just search for your favourite artist name + "full album" on YouTube for more gems.
They aren't "Work for hire" because that would require a different licensing and the copyrights expire earlier.
They're work for hire in the contract to reduce the artists' rights, but to the label, they aren't work for hire, they're independent artistic works with the license transfer as the payment. In addition to the monetary payment of the loan handed over...
Yes, it's fraud.
It sure isn't turning the other cheek.
Granted, they were the few minority who has spoken out again infringements. Most artists don't care or think that sharing is an actual positive.
This book, write it and I will pirate is so many times!