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.)
The ruling is that copyright holders must consider fair use being issuing a DMCA request. But copyright holders no longer use DMCA requests to have content removed on Youtube. Hence the statement that copyright holders must consider fair use before having content removed from Youtube is wrong.
The entire industry is centers around the idea of continued profit without effort. Any challenge to that is not just an undue burden, it borderlines blasphemy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
There is a common misconception about DMCA complaints that they are sworn under penalty of perjury. Like most misconceptions there is an element of truth to it. In this case, it is a matter of the *scope* of what is being attested to under penalty of perjury. Specifically, that the person filing the complaint is in fact a duly authorized agent of the copyright holder for the work that is claimed to being infringed.
This allows the absurdity of filing a complaint for infringement against ... oh, I don't know, one of the Star Wars movies ... against an image of Mickey Mouse. As long as the filer is, in fact, a duly authorized representative of Disney (current owner of the Star Wars franchise) then the claim is good. There is *no* standard for the claim of infringement.
My "favorite" cases are where someone gets a complaint (or lawsuit) because they gave credit to a person or work as inspiration. Perhaps the most famous one (which was settled privately) was over the twenty six seconds of silence (or whatever length it was). But I've personally seen it as well. The lesson? Never give credit to anyone for anything unless you are paying them a previously agreed on amount. Which is horrible, IMO.