Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube 'Dancing Baby' Copyright Ruling Sets Pre-Trial Fair Use Guideline

Posted by timothy on from the have-you-read-the-terms-and-conditions dept.

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.)

4 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. A sudden outbreak of Common Sense. by Grog6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:A sudden outbreak of Common Sense. by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're reading that backwards.

      The companies are the ones who need to be checking to see if the content is actually infringing, or is fair use. The problem is in their eyes there is no such thing.

      The court isn't saying parents taking a video of their dancing baby need to do some research to ensure they're not infringing.

      They're saying a 29 second video of a dancing baby with 20 seconds of bad quality audio of a Prince song it's infringing.

      Do you really think they're going to lose sales as people just decide to listen to the bad quality audio to avoid having to buy it? The problem is that the copyright clowns have more or less decided that there is no fair use, and that unless you licensed it in advance you can't use it.

      And, I'm sorry, but that's idiotic on behalf of the copyright clowns.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:A sudden outbreak of Common Sense. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the DMCA's shoot first ask questions later incentives. When a DMCA takedown request is received you HAVE to take down the content. There's no counter process that allows 'due process' to happen while the issue is sorted out. Youtube took down Justin Bieber's ENTIRE CHANNEL over a bogus request, linky.

      If a prank can result in a world-wide multi-million dollar star's content being removed without someone questioning the validity of it. The system is fundamentally flawed.

      Or how about this. Jay Leno sees a video on Youtube and shows it on the Tonight Show. After the show airs, that video is pulled from Youtube. Why? Becuase, amazingly enough, it matched the 'signature' of what was played on the Tonight Show and NBC *automatically* had it pulled. linky

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  2. Four prong test is in section 107 by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    Section 107 specifies four things that should be considered in deciding if the use is fair.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

    1) Is the use commercial, or not?

    The person posting wasn't making money from it, it was non-commercial in terms of suing the person posting it. I'm not sure if Youtube had ads at the time. In a suit against YouTube in it's current form, it would be commercial use.

    2) The nature of the use

    It's a very short video of small children, unlike the product sold by the record company. The subject of the video is the kids, the song is somewhat incidental.

    3) the amount of the original work used, in proportion to the total.
    Only 20 seconds of the song are used.

    4) the degree to which the use affects the value of the original work - does it compete with authorized copies?

    The video contained 20 seconds of low-quality audio. Approximately nobody would listen to the video instead of buying the song. In other words, no harm no foul.

    The video scores quite well on at least three of the four points to be considered fair use. The degree to which it was commercial depends on how YouTube was doing their ads in 2007, and if the label wants to sue Youtube or the person posting it.

    Courts may also consider other factors as well to determine fairness, but they must consider the four factors listed above.