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.
Settlements do not set a precedent.
Which is why the corporations prefer them to losing in court.
No sig today...
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.
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