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."
They did the work "for hire" and don't own the rights, the labels do.
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... if I use multiple fades and ...
Wa-huh?
We're talking US law, right?
Fair Use is covered by Title 17 of the U.S.Code, section 107: "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use". Note that the law does not talk about 30 consecutive seconds of one type of clip or entire lengths for other types of tracks. You are confusing details from a mish-mash cases with the actual law.
Fortunately Lessig is a lawyer, and knows the details of copyright law better than most anyone.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Where does this come from and why can't it ever be debunked once and for all?
When I was studying broadcast, one of the first things they teach when talking about copyright is that fair use is more complex than you can "use 30 seconds of this" or "300 words of that." It's another tricky legal concept defined by "we know it when we see it."
The "300 words" misconception is mentioned directly on the Fair Use wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Common_misunderstandings
And here is a good article about the non-existent 30-second rule (which probably comes directly from someone morphing the 300 words rule) http://studentpressblogs.org/nspa/the-non-existent-30-second-rule/
Exactly it. No matter how much effort you put into music, most labels retain copyright over the works. Smaller indie labels don't tend to do this, but the big players all do it.
Then again, most of these synthetic bands/artists don't write their own music or lyrics, they're just glorified cover bands. Not to say Phoenix is like this, I quite like their music, but I'm not sure how I feel about their label now.
from the fine article:
So, he had video clips of people dancing to underscore the point of the presentation. People dancing in random parts of the world is the original content, and material (hell, the point) to his presentation. The non-profit/no-loss part is COMPLETELY relevant, as it is two of the four tests used in determining if something is fair use:
--United States Copyright Office
finally, you could just watch the presentation and judge for yourself.
I actually have seen a lecture of his from when he released Free Culture back in 06 I believe? I was in high school and went to see him give a speech at a museum. He used a lot of music for his presentation, but every bit of it was a clip to demonstrate a point and served a solid purpose to his discussion.
Where does this come from and why can't it ever be debunked once and for all?
I would call it a Meta Rule. A rule that is not what copyright says; but was proposed once as a guideline, and took on a life of its own through the power of word of mouth -- with various institutions codifying it. With various degrees of strictness --- if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and use 31 seconds of a media recording; I suppose you might get expelled from some school, because you're over the limit.
Examples:
Halldavidson: This copyright chart form was designed to inform teachers what tehy may do under the law
Music: Up to 10% of a copyrighted musical composition may be reproduced, performed and displayed as part of a multimedia program produced by an educator or student for educational purposes. ---- Authorities site a maximum length of 30 seconds. See notes by congressman below.
Temple University: College of Liberal Arts: Fair Use Policy: .... .... Motion Media
Up to 10% or 3 minutes, whichever is less
Educators May use their projects for teaching, for a period of up to two years after the first instructional use with a class.
Music, Lyrics, and Music Video Up to 10% but no more than 30 seconds from any single musical work Any alterations shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work.
WILEY: Permission requirements .... . A single quotation or several shorter quotes from a full-length book, more than 300 words in toto. ..... A single quotation of more than 50 words from a newspaper, magazine, or journal. .... Material which includes all or part of a poem or song lyric (even as little as one line), or the title of a song. ...
The Law of Fair use and the Illusion of Fair use Guidelines
Pikes Peak Community College: Copyright Portion Limits; Rules of the road: Music, lyrics, music video - Up to 10%, but no more than 30 seconds Arlington Independent School District: Copyright: Portion Limitations
CCSJ: Copyright Fair Use: 'Allowable portion for fair use'
Public Schools of North Carolina: Copyright in an Electronic environment:
St. Olaf College: Copyright guidelines
Music, lyrics, music video: up to 10% but in no event more than 30 seconds of an individual work
MolStead Library; North Idaho College The amount of work to be copied is based on the “portion limit” set for that “medium.” [....] In general, you should never use more than 30 seconds or 10 percent of a piece of recorded music. Ball State University, guidelines for educational media:
4.2.3: Music, Lyrics and Music Video : Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual work. No alteration(s) of the music and/or lyrics are allowed.
There are a number of musicians who still get screwed over by the major record labels, even if they haven't made their millions. Sometimes all they do is simply play songs perhaps for a wedding or bar mitzvah and then jam in a local park for fun most of the time.... and they still are required to pay fees to ASCAP or other similar "industry groups" even if they are performing original music they wrote themselves.
Life sucks sometimes, and it is hard to be a musician in America or even most of Europe right now and avoid getting entangled with the music industry at some level.
Untrue in France at least (since the original band is French). In France, the original artist of a piece of art *cannot* sell 100% of the rights on the work of art. They retain a minimum of 50%.
That said, the problem doesn't really change as the label owns 50% of the copyrights and hold the band by the balls anyways.
Write boring code, not shiny code!