Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Wins Fair Use Case
just_another_sean writes "An Australian record label that threatened to sue one of the world's most famous copyright attorneys for infringement has reached a settlement with him. The settlement includes an admission that Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor, had the right to use a song by the band Phoenix. From the article: 'In a statement, Liberation Music admitted Lessig's use of the song was protected by fair use — a legal doctrine that allows copyrighted material to be used for education, satire and a few other exceptions. Liberation Music says it will also pay Lessig for the harm it caused. The amount is confidential under the terms of the agreement, but it will be dedicated to supporting work by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil rights group, to work on causes that were important to Lessig's friend Aaron Swartz, a technologist and activist who committed suicide last year.'"
Settlements do not set a precedent. Or not of the legal variety, so far as I understand it. But actually having them agree to *admit* that his use qualified as Fair Use is pretty significant. Usually civil settlements avoid admitting anything about the validity of whatever claim was settled. Such an admission could serve as a basis for additional pressure on them from others who use music in any related circumstance. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and assert that anything I say on the matter is merely half-assed guessing based on what little common sense I've accrued over the years.
... as full lossless tracks for their fans to remix anyway?
Settlements do not set a precedent.
Which is why the corporations prefer them to losing in court.
No sig today...
I congratulate Mr. Lessig on his victory. This current trend of copyright possessors to lock up humanity's legacy for decades or more has to be stopped. In essence they are given to legal ability to restrict what a person can hear and see for up to a century or more. That is an awesome power that they don't seem to have the ability to weild wisely.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Australian labels are generally allied under the ARIA organisation, which has cordial relations with the RIAA. They're closely aligned in intent.
The other interesting thing is, Australian copyright law is much stricter about "fair dealing" (our version of the US' "Fair Use" clause), with exemptions only for very specific use cases. For instance, transcoding a CD to MP3 is not legal in AU. Nor would be using a jingle in a powerpoint for a highschool project, unless the jingle itself was the object of study. ARIA has said they will not sue for personal use such as this, which was taken as justification for not building in additional consumer protections and fair deal exclusions during the most recent revision of AU copyright law.
It's fortunate that this issue occurred and the case was tried in US jurisdiction.
For instance, transcoding a CD to MP3 is not legal in AU.
Yes it is - format shifting was specifically permitted in the amendments made in 2006, except where DRM or other technological protection measures are in place. Ripping a CD is ok, ripping a DVD is not ok.
Shouldn't he had won the actual court battle, to set a precedent?
According to this, Lessig was talking about a remix in one of this lectures, a music matcher downloaded his lecture, found it to contain the song 'owned' by this label, and the label sent out an automated harassment lawsuit threat to Larry.
You have to wonder, at what point did they realise they were taking a copyright case against one of the world's most famous legal authorities on copyright!
'You have to wonder, at what point did they realise they were taking a copyright case against one of the world's most famous legal authorities on copyright!'
After it was waaay too late.
I suspect Mr. Lessig has gone fishing.
First choosing a type of fish. (A copyright holder known to use indiscriminate tactics on YouTube.)
Choose a location to fish. (AU, not sure why here, but I bet there's a reason.)
Choose a bait. (His educational video with a bit of their song for their bots to find.)
Wait for a bite (Their takedown notice to him)
Set the hook so they couldn't get away. (His counter action.)
(They likely figured it out about here.)
Have his way with them. (The settlement requiring them to mend their ways.)
Even if you are the fish, you have to admire his style.
I suspect he was hollering at the program that did the takedown notice without human involvement (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
There are two ways to learn anything.
One way is if you are fortunate to learn from Someone Who Knows Already and is patient and gracious enough to try to explain and share with you what they have already learned. Or perhaps you can learn from simply observing and paying attention of those Wise Folks Who Have Already Learned. (Or you could apply science, but let's not digress)
The other way to learn stuff which works really very well, perhaps even better than the first method, especially if forgetfulness is a variable we should also take into consideration is the method I like to call, 'pain and suffering', is somewhat self-explanatory, and really works well also.
And by all means try to go with the first option if at all available to you when you try to learn stuff, because it is most-preferable for sure. This much I have learned for myself the hard way too many times.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
Quote: "Settlements do not set a precedent. Or not of the legal variety, so far as I understand it. "
That's right. In a U.S. district court decision can be used by another judge but they aren't binding. The judge can ignore it, claim it's irrelevant for some reason, or disagree with it. District court judges are equal. One can't boss another, even in the same district.
The decision of an appeals court, however, is binding on all judges in that district. District court decisions must follow it, although an aggressive judge can find a reason it doesn't apply to the specifics of his case. Appeals courts are higher and can dictate to their district's judges.
At times, appeals courts in different districts will interpret the law differently. Since there's only one federal legal system, it can't tolerate significant differences in the law between districts. It's embarrassing and messy when something that legal in the Ninth Circuit is illegal in the Second. As a result, a case in which the two conflict will need to be fast-tracked for the U.S. Supreme Court, since only it can decide.
While having all these ambiguities can make life messy for everyone involved, it does give our courts the opportunity to disagree long enough for a situation to sort itself out and most of the complications of deciding one way or the other revealed. When there's a conflict in how courts are interpreting the law, Congress can also alter it to settle the dispute one way or the other.
And the harder the lesson, the less likely you are to forget it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I had sympathy for him based on his situation, but then yesterday I read his blogposts.
Talk about liberal left-crazy.
I'm too am socially conservative, but I don't think we should desireothers' deaths just because of strong political differences.
As others have mentioned, there is no need for precedent because once the plaintiff actually started reading the laws, there wasn't much legal ambiguity- Liberation Music was wrong and Lessig was right. I think he got the upper hand here. From TFA:
Being in the right is never enough to avoid being sued or legally threatened, but at least this settlement is an attempt to fix that problem in the context of YouTube. Oh- and all the settlement cash is going to the EFF.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Oh, you wouldn't get busted for the format shift. You'd get busted for circumventing the DRM, which is itself illegal. Note that the permission to format shift is not described as a 'right', either in the post you're responding to or in the linked article section; it is described as an exception to existing law. Similarly, "fair use" is not described as a right in US law; it is an affirmative defense. You have to show that what you're doing is fair use, and if you succeed they get no damages. And similarly, you still can't circumvent the DRM to do so.
Except in general we do need the precedent to remind the litigious bastards that there exist perfectly valid cases of fair-use, and if you start making claims which ignore that, there are consequences.
So often people use this as a bullying tactic, and then settle before a court can rule.
We need more court rulings which reaffirm this, and serve to remind companies that they are under an obligation to understand the law before they make a claim.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.