Slashdot Mirror
YouTube 'Dancing Baby' Copyright Ruling Sets Pre-Trial Fair Use Guideline
Mr. Droopy Drawers writes with news that the famous "Dancing Baby" case will move forward to trial, after a pre-trial ruling Monday that's already unpopular with the copyright holders on one side of the case. The New York Times reports that a three-judge panel has "ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking services like YouTube to remove videos that include material they control. ... [The guideline] "sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech," Corynne McSherry, the legal director for Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement." Mr. Droopy Drawers adds, "Of course, the RIAA is none too happy about the ruling saying, that it puts undue burden on copyright holders. However, the judge countered, 'Even paying "lip service" to the consideration of fair use is not enough, and could expose a copyright holder to liability.'"
(Also covered in an AP story carried by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.)
(Also covered in an AP story carried by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.)
In an Election year, no less.
How much money will the Congress Critters reap off this case?
Many Tons, I'm sure.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Seriously, it's an undue burden to check to make sure the law is actually being broken? Are these fucking morons kidding, or has their ego + sense of undue entitlement really gotten as big as I think it has?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
It's about fscking time we started telling the copyright owners that there are non-infringing uses which are considered fair use and aren't robbing you of revenue. People aren't setting out to do something which is depriving you of income, they're taking cute videos of their damned babies and putting them on YouTube.
Nothing at all about a video like this cuts into their revenue or adversely impacts them ... it's just assholes deciding there is no such thing as fair use. And the labels whining that it puts undue burden on copyright holders
is exactly the fucking point ... as opposed to them placing an undue burden on the entire world to not ever let anything happen unless they've pre-cleared it to copyright holders.
A brief snippet of a baby dancing to a Prince song (with low quality audio and everything) is pretty much the definition of fair use. It sure as hell isn't going to harm Prince in terms of record sales.
The copyright lobby seems to have decided the world operates solely at their sufferance. It's about time they got reminded it doesn't work like that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Sucks for the recording companies that the case got heard in S.F. Liberal city surrounded by tech companies, no wonder the Judges there weren't as eager as their texas counterparts to suckle thoughtlessly on the genitalia of any incorporated entity with an IP claim.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Yeah, well, it's also in the DMCA that companies are making a sworn statement but nobody has every been charged with perjury.
Because when they bought the laws they gave themselves all sorts of exemptions so they could do anything without penalty and just say "oops", while using it as a weapon against everybody else.
And then they got the federal government to be their enforcement arm.
Absolutely NOTHING about the DMCA has EVER held corporations accountable. They can pretty much make any old bullshit up and say "ow, wow, a drunken intern did that, we though it was real" .. even if it's fairly obvious they're lying.
They have never recognized fair use.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There are numerous problems with this notion.
First, there is no particular benefit to the rights holders to do so, nor did I note any penalty for a rights holder that does not. They say that right holders "should" do something, but so what?
Secondly, there's every chance that larger rights holders will still be able to strong arm the average person with bogus claims because the latter aren't as likely to have the money to even try and fight them anyways, so how much consideration fair use was given before making the takedown request will never even be analyzed.
Third, they can say they "considered it" and then progress forward anyways. There is no mechanisms to ensure that the rights holder gives the matter any genuine and sincere consideration before invoking litigation, particularly if they think they will win simply because they have more money to throw at the case, as I mentioned above. The notion that they may expose themselves to liability is probably not going to worry them if the smaller fish is unlikely to have the resources to actively pursue such litigation anyways.
It's a neat idea.... but without teeth, it's worthless.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I miss the old America where people use to create content instead of just ripping it off wholesale and presenting it as their own.
That universe never existed, much less that America. Everything is a remix. That is how progress happens. And not just in entertainment, but in engineering, science and every other aspect of human life. Mixing old things in new ways and a new insight is the creative process.
Imagine a world where the Blues cord progression was covered by IP laws. Rent-seeking greed is hamstringing human creativity. It's a real shame.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.