Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Censorship News

Warner Music Forces Lessig Presentation Offline 196

Posted by timothy
from the streisand-times-one-million dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Larry Lessig, known (hopefully) to everyone around here as a defender of all things having to do with consumer rights and fair use rights when it comes to copyright, is now on the receiving end of a DMCA takedown notice from Warner Music, who apparently claimed that one of Lessig's famous presentations violated on their copyright. Lessig has said that he's absolutely planning on fighting this, and has asked someone to send Warner Music a copy of US copyright law that deals with 'fair use.'" Reader daemonburrito notes that the (rehosted) "video remains available at the time of this submission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warner Music Forces Lessig Presentation Offline

Comments Filter:
  • by gilgongo (57446) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:17PM (#27765195) Homepage Journal

    Lessig is probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to US law on fair use.

    Ooooh they're gonna get creamed. And I will be laughing like a drain!!

  • by UnCivil Liberty (786163) * on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:18PM (#27765213)

    WMG contact form: http://www.wmg.com/contact [wmg.com]
    ----

    Sect. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS Sects. 106, 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    • by Lonewolf666 (259450) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @06:52PM (#27766189)

      According to TFA, the presentation has been reposted here: http://blip.tv/file/1937322 [blip.tv]

      After watching the first three minutes, my impression is that

      (1) Should be clearly in favor of Mr. Lessig. Nonprofit, political speech, should have pretty strong First Amendment protection. One can argue if he really needs the photos (see point 2), but the character of the use doesn't get much more fair.

      (2) He uses photographs that are probably copyrighted as backdrops for his lecture

      (3) Depends on the source(s) - many small samples or all from one source?

      (4) I don't see how the use of some photos in this lecture can substantially hurt the sale of the original collections. Especially since the "subtitles" get in the way of reusing the photos from the lecture elsewhere.

      • (2) He uses photographs that are probably copyrighted as backdrops for his lecture

        I'm no lawyer, but I know that's common practice in academia - to use copyrighted material in lectures. So I guess it's legal, because every prof and assistant prof is doing it.

    • Mr. Lessig's a very clever man, watch the presentation and think about it ;) http://blip.tv/file/1937322 [blip.tv]

         

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:22PM (#27765265) Journal
    He uses a 50 second clip of The Muppet Show's "Ma Na Ma Na" [youtube.com] which is a very short skit track of about 2:29 minutes. He shows it being set to an Anime Music video mash up of Vampire Hunter D Blood Lust. I can't seem to track down who would be the rights holder of this track but I'm guessing it's Warner. I have only seen 15 minutes of his presentation so it's possible there are other violations.

    Larry: Non-free Audio Fair Use for music constitutes 10% or 30 seconds of a song (which ever is shorter) and it must be in a low enough quality (didn't investigate the audio on this video to find out if it satisfied Ogg quality of 0 rule). For the rest of the 15 minutes I saw you looked fine but this stuck out at me. Pick your battles wisely and adhere to this rule next time.
    • by EvanED (569694) <evaned@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:31PM (#27765365)

      Larry: Non-free Audio Fair Use for music constitutes 10% or 30 seconds of a song (which ever is shorter) and it must be in a low enough quality (didn't investigate the audio on this video to find out if it satisfied Ogg quality of 0 rule).

      [Citation needed].

      It's certainly case law if that's even true, and I'm skeptical that it's a universal rule even if true. The statues place no such requirements, and, in fact, there are many times when using an ENTIRE work would be considered fair use.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by eldavojohn (898314) *

        Ugh, very well. They're referred to as "portion limits" and the safe range has always been 10%-ish. Check out what Stanford advises it's students [stanford.edu] (and this is in academia, mind you):

        up to 10% or 1,000 words, whichever is less, of a copyrighted text work. For example, an entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology.

        up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work.

        up to 10% or three minutes, whichever is less, of a copyrighted motion media work (for example, an animation, video or film image).

        a photograph or illustration may be used in its entirety but no more than five images by an artist or photographer may be reproduced. When using photographs and illustrations from a published collective work, no more than 10% or 15 images, whichever is less. Or,

        up to 10% or 2,500 fields or cell entries, whichever is less, from a copyrighted database or data table may be reproduced. A field entry is defined as a specific item of information, such as a name or Social Security number in a record of a database file. A cell entry is defined as the intersection where a row and a column meet on a spreadsheet.

        I'm sorry but what Mr. Lessig did from 11:00-11:49 was in my mind a ballsy use of a song ... about 35% of that song was used. That's a big warning bell to me.

        Good luck to him, I hope there aren't other infractions later on. Wikipedia uses the 10% rule, that's how I know about it. I'm not a lawyer and I'll punch you if

        • by random coward (527722) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:45PM (#27765521)
          In this section we discuss academic use guidelines that have been discussed and proposed, but have never been formally approved.

          PROPOSED Academic guidelines from Stanford University are not the Law of this land. Good thing you're not a lawyer. If you were your clients would be suing you for malpractice.

          I still have my soul, IANAL, etc...
        • by sqlrob (173498) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @06:00PM (#27765649)

          Very good catch. Maybe Lessig should Talk with this Stanford law professor [stanford.edu] about the rules and get some clarification.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          That's nothing more than a safe harbor. To really find out whether something is fair use, you have to evaluate all four factors.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org]

          Only one of the elements is how much was taken.

          I'm not going to do a full analysis. Indeed, even if I did, a court's analysis would probably look much different.

          The truth is that most people cannot afford to pay the lawyers to go to court and make the fair use argument to find out whether something is fair use or not.

          So most people stick with

        • up to 10% or 1,000 words, whichever is less, of a copyrighted text work. For example, an entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology.

          up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work.

          What if that song is Freebird?

        • by langelgjm (860756)

          Percentage has no necessary relation to the "amount and substantiality" analysis of fair use. That's why it's amount _and_ substantiality. If you copy the "heart" of a work, even if it makes up only 1% of the entire work, your use can be found infringing.

          There is case law on this; the one that comes to mind is something about a newspaper that had published the really juicy bits of a forthcoming book. I don't remember the name off the top of my head, and I've no time to look it up. Use your googling skills.

    • by flaming error (1041742) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:31PM (#27765383) Journal

      "Ma na ma na" is one of those songs that just really stick in your head. It plays and re-plays, over and over again. Probably by the time this Warner stooge finished thinking about Lessig's presentation he had already listened to it in his head for at least 30 minutes. That's an unlicensed full-length (and then some) copy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Pick your battles wisely and adhere to this rule next time.

      What rule? The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107 makes no mention of any kind of 30 second rule.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:36PM (#27765435)

      Firstly, IANAL.

      However,
      From my own analsys of the codified fair use doctrine, the proportion of the copyrighted work that is used for a fair use purpose is not explicitly stated excepting that it must not be in it's entierety, and should therefor satisfy as long as the proportion is not "In it's entierety"- Since the copyrighted work is a clip from the original muppet show, and the muppet show episode being longer than 2:29 minutes, I fail to see the reason why this is not fair use.

      Additionally,
      There is not a qualifier for quality in the codified body concerning fair use, thus the quality argument is insubstantiated as far as I can tell.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DragonWriter (970822)

        From my own analsys of the codified fair use doctrine, the proportion of the copyrighted work that is used for a fair use purpose is not explicitly stated excepting that it must not be in it's entierety

        It doesn't say that either. It says that the portion used is a factor to be considered in determining fair use, it doesn't say, in the statute, which way that factor weighs. Which makes sense; there are circumstances where using the whole work would probably weigh in favor of fair use, where using selected po

      • by Ironica (124657)

        Since the copyrighted work is a clip from the original muppet show, and the muppet show episode being longer than 2:29 minutes, I fail to see the reason why this is not fair use.

        Exactly. The sketch was a component of a half-hour television show, and was never created as a standalone work. Songs that are individual tracks on a CD or released as singles certainly are intended to be performed as a standalone work, but back in 1976 or whenever, I doubt Jim Henson and his crew thought of the show as a compilation of independent works.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          At some point they did.
          The Muppet Show: Music, Mayhem, and More! - The 25th Anniversary Collection
          http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00006IZP8

          Track Listings
          1. The Muppet Show Theme - featuring The Muppets
          2. Mahna Mahna/Lullaby Of Birdland - featuring Mahna Mahna & The Two Snowths
          3. There's A New Sound - featuring Scooter ...

        • by adavies42 (746183)

          I doubt Jim Henson and his crew thought of the show as a compilation of independent works.

          isn't that kinda the definition of a variety show?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Twanfox (185252)

      Really, there are set numbers on how much of a work can be used? Because I seem to recall (as noted above) that the law doesn't give specific numbers, but only that whether a use is fair must take into account how much of the work is used. It also includes criteria such as the type of use, how it impacts the market for that work, and whether it is commercial or not. If there is case law that sets precedent for this, you might be well to include those references to back up your numbers.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:39PM (#27765459)

      Wrong.

      What is fair use and what is not fair use is determined based on the facts of each individual case. Something that is fair use in one instanceâ"say a parodyâ"might well not be fair use in another like a movie review.

      There are guidelines, much like the one quoted. However they are only guidelines and are in no way binding on courts unless they have been cited in a superior court case.

    • You sir are an idiot. Lessig is possibly the most knowledgable person on the planet regarding US Copyright law, especially in it's relation to fair use.

      Your lecturing tone, in addressing Lessig, is only showing your ignorance.

      -J

    • by Archfeld (6757) * <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @06:31PM (#27765957) Journal

      FYI... The 'ma na ma na' song IS NOT MUPPETS, or JIM HENSON, but was written in 1968 for an Italian Porn movie and has been in several movies since then. The muppets used it LOOOOONG after its creation, while that does not ensure that Warner doesn't own it now.

      http://www.geocities.com/pieroumiliani/ [geocities.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by drinkypoo (153816)

        written in 1968 for an Italian Porn movie and has been in several movies since then.

        My lady and I recently started renting the occasional muppet show DVD from netfux and occasionally there are some real gems. From memory, Rolf: Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. There's something kind of irresistablish about 'em. We grin and bear it 'cause the nights are long... let's hope that something better comes along! And of course, the classic Muppet rendition of Lydia the Tattooed Lady was mostly lost on me as a child...

        that does not ensure that Warner doesn't own it now.

        The idea that they can own something that has become an indelible par

      • by Ironica (124657)

        If he used the recording made for the Muppet Show, the copyright for that rendition would be held by whoever holds the Muppet Show copyrights (and I'd be surprised if that was Warner Bros.... might be Disney, or Henson's estate, though).

        • The parent post is precisely on target. The grandparent post is mostly accurate (I'm not sure I'd use the word porn for this case, but otherwise on target), but irrelevant. Also, saying that "It's not Muppets" is silly because clearly the Muppets have performed the song. Generally speaking, the Muppet players mostly performed songs written by others (including "Rainbow Connection"). Only a few of the songs they did were written by Muppet writers.

          In this video, Lessig included an Anime Music Video which

      • Geocities is dying, such valuable information would be lost forever if not archived at all...

        This site is the example of what the Internet really is... or was?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cdrudge (68377)

      Thanks for linking to the original video. I hadn't seen or heard that in a while. Kind of ironic how you lecture Larry about what fair use guidelines are (notwithstanding whether you are or are not correct), but you have directly referenced the work in it's entirety that would have even less going towards it regarding fair use. While I understand that you probably didn't post the video, don't you find what you did a little bit hypocritical at some level?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KeithIrwin (243301)

      1) The Muppet Show is owned by Disney at this point, not Warner Music (see note later)

      2) As other commenters have pointed out, there is no bright line test for what constitutes fair use (like 10% or 30 seconds)

      3) You're an idiot to lecture Larry Lessig on the boundaries of fair use. He helped write the copyright law and knows as much about it as pretty well anyone in the country.

      Beyond that, I'm still trying to figure out what Warner Music objected to. I've gotten through the portion of the video with all

      • by dgatwood (11270)

        The recent Inspector Gadget movie was by Disney. The original series was by DIC Entertainment, which these days is also a wholly owned property of Disney. So unless WB managed to weasel a deal for rights to remix it, I think it is pretty safe to say they don't own it.

        That said, I think it would be rather funny if it turned out it was an unlicensed remix and Disney filed an amicus brief on the side of Lessig.... :-D

  • Lessig (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:23PM (#27765271)

    Larry Lessig, also known as the guy who defended Obama's vote on the FISA bill, saying, among other things [lessig.org]:

    He voted to strip immunity from the FISA compromise. He has promised to repeal the immunity as president. His vote for the FISA compromise is thus not a vote for immunity. It is a vote that reflects the judgment that securing the amendments to FISA was more important than denying immunity to telcos. Whether you agree with that judgment or not, we should at least recognize (hysteria notwithstanding) what kind of judgment it was. The amendments to FISA were good. Getting a regime that requires the executive to obey the law is important. Whether it is more important than telco immunity is a question upon which sensible people might well differ.

    (emphasis mine)

    I'm afraid I lost a lot of the (considerable) respect I had for the guy up until that point.

  • Lessig is a moderate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:25PM (#27765299) Homepage Journal

    Lessig is not against copyright. He's a fundamental advocate of copyright, "especially in the digital era", he just thinks it is "out of sync" and "needs an update".

    Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting than the deprecated business models that it will finally put to bed.. and because I believe it is fundamentally the right thing to do, from a "you don't tell me what I can and can't do and I'll do the same" sense of what right means.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by oGMo (379)

      Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting than the deprecated business models that it will finally put to bed.. and because I believe it is fundamentally the right thing to do, from a "you don't tell me what I can and can't do and I'll do the same" sense of what right means.

      This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect author

      • by DragonWriter (970822) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @06:10PM (#27765731)

        This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect authors...

        This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright (in the United States) doesn't exist to protect authors, it exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8) To the extent it fails to do that -- or, a fortiori, impedes such progress -- it is because the rules of copyright are poorly crafted from the perspective of the Constitutional basis of Congress's power to grant copyrights in the first place, and need to be reformed to serve that purpose.

        • by VGPowerlord (621254) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @06:34PM (#27765981)

          Copyright might work if the section after the part you quoted was applied ("by securing for limited times").

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Svartalf (2997)

            Indeed. We ought to go back to the timeframes set back in the beginning or to two times that time and leave it alone. 14-28 years should be more than enough for most situations- but we have monied interests such as Disney doing everything they can to protect things like Mickey Mouse and making a mockery of the law as it was intended to be.

            • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @08:51PM (#27767307)

              Why would an amount of time that was deemed sufficient protection over 200 years ago when the printing press was a novel creation be ANYWHERE CLOSE to what protection is needed today?

              Two or three times what it was then? Try 1/3 to 1/10 of the original time. We now have bestsellers that, in their first week, sell into the seven digit numbers - not of profit - but of units. Five years of protection would arguably be too much with modern technology and distribution methods.

              Anything more - ANYTHING - and you're caving into the mindset that the xxAA wants you to be in. Our goal should not be parity with the original length of protection, but significant shortening thereof.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Scrameustache (459504)

          This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect authors...

          This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright (in the United States) doesn't exist to protect authors, it exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8)

          This is fundamental misleading about copyright. You replaced the comma with something to make it seem like that line stopped without mentioning author's rights: "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

          It is about their right, and their right is compatible with the best interest of the nation, hence the preamble.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            It is about their right, and their right is compatible with the best interest of the nation, hence the preamble.

            Their right to exploit it for a limited time, yes. Their right to exploit it for the period of time currently guaranteed by law, not so much.

          • by QuantumG (50515) *

            Authors already have the exclusive right to their writings. They wrote it. All they need do is not distribute it.

            If someone who had never heard of copyright was reading that sentence of the constitution they would think that the founders were trying to say that the government can't bust into your writing room and take your writings. And when you consider that this is exactly what governments were doing before the revolution, it makes a lot of sense.

            And the whole "limited times" part is basically saying,

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by swillden (191260)

            "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

            Read the writings of the authors of that text, and you'll understand that they didn't consider authors to have any sort of inherent rights. The difference is actually visible right in that line, in the choice of the word "securing", rather than "guaranteeing". That word implies that the government is granting or providing the rights in question, whereas the other things we think of as rights were thought by the framers to be God-given, or natural, and which government should preserve or guarantee, never,

          • This is fundamental misleading about copyright. You replaced the comma with something to make it seem like that line stopped without mentioning author's rights: "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

            It is about their right, and their right is compatible with the best interest of the nation, hence the preamble.

            Not at all. It was considered that the public domain is the proper location for those works, and thus everybody has the right to those works. However, since that encourages people to keep trade secrets and to generally not publish their works, then in order to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," congress grants this "exclusive right." Note that this power does not exist prior to congress legislating it, and congress can only legislate such a thing because that power is enumerated in th

        • Can one read the constitution as saying:

          1. copyright is designed to grow the public domain ('...promote the progress of science and useful arts...')
          2. by providing incentives for the creation of new works ('...by securing the creators monopoly on copying...')
          3. that will then pass to the public domain ('...for a limited time...').

          i.e. it's purpose is to grow the public domain, the rest is just mechanism and a choice about how to trade off public good against private good.

          The copyrighteous act like a kid who is hap

      • Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect authors... it's the same thing that keeps you from writing a book (or whatever), changing a few things, and publishing it under their name.

        No, you don't need copyright for that. All you need is anti-fraud laws, because plagiarism is a form of fraud. Abolishing copyright wouldn't suddenly make it legal to lie to your customers.

        Any open source license out there---GPL, BSD, Apache, MPL, CC, etc---are built on copyright.

        Many of us believe that the most useful part of those licenses is the way they use copyright against itself, giving users (and other developers) back the rights that copyright law took away in the first place. Without copyright, there wouldn't be much need for those licenses; if someone didn't give you source code, you co

      • by kimvette (919543)

        Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect authors.

        Incorrect. It protects the interest of public domain by ensuring that in exchange for a TEMPORARY (limited time) duration of a monopoly on distribution of that work, it will become public domain for the public good. It is to protect the public interest by encouraging the continued development of useful arts and sciences.

      • by zotz (3951)

        "It exists to protect authors... it's the same thing that keeps you from writing a book (or whatever), changing a few things, and publishing it under their name."

        You don't need *copyright* law to accomplish this.

        A law against plagiarism and fraud could handle it while still allowing anyone to make copies of anything they lawfully had in their possession. That people use copyright law for this purpose today does not mean that copyright law is needed for this job.

        "But, if you want to tell me that my works mus

    • by grumbel (592662)

      Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting

      What would be these "potential benefits" compared to a moderate copyright law (aka. 10-20 year term, allow non-commercial use)? The only difference I see is that no copyright would make it trivial for cooperations to exploit the authors even more, by taking the authors work, slapping their company name on it, changing it to fit their need, distributing it via their channels and all that without the author ever seeing a dime. I am pretty sure that that would piss of quite a handful of artists and not exactly

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:38PM (#27765451)
    So now we're officially at war -- Copyright vs. Fair Use vs. Piracy or Lobbies vs. People vs. Pirates. Oh boy, this is going to be good. I wish I had popcorn. Free popcorn.
  • Automatic claiming? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by no_opinion (148098) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @05:42PM (#27765499)

    There's a really good chance this resulted from automatic claiming tools that make use of things like acoustic fingerprints. YouTube or a filtering partner will have a catalog of Warner tracks that new uploads are checked against. Warner may not even have known about this until it blew up. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

    • by boyko.at.netqos (1024767) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @08:41PM (#27767241)

      I got hit with that once, doing a documentary on Austin's air-guitar competitions. I thought that 10-15 second clips, recorded through an analog hole - a microphone placed not near the speakers, but near the air guitar stage (I was more interested in capturing the grunting and movement of the performers than a picture-perfect rendition of old 80s tunes) ... point is, I thought that'd be fine.

      Time Warner, as a whole, just doesn't get technology. CNN thinks "holograms" are a great way to tell the news, they want to put caps on broadband, and they are so worried about protecting "their copyrights" that they don't understand how or why people buy music, and what they use it for.

      Every business that they run that has any technological background at all is running itself into the ground because they want to sell you something first, then TELL you how THEY want you to use it, and are willing to go to absurd lengths to make sure that you only use it in the manner that they wanted you to - not the reason you bought it in the first place.

      This is why they'll sue auto repair companies playing CDs for employees to listen to at work, why they'll knock on people doing anime fun conversions, why they'll knock on air guitar guys.

      It's also why they'll offer broadband but put in caps so people can't use it, why they'll offer news programs but only present one or two sides of a multifaceted issue...

      What can I say? They're crappy.

  • by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @06:53PM (#27766221) Homepage Journal

    I learned a long time ago there are two types of people at a bar:

    Those you can fuck with.
    Those you don't fuck with.

    Now I am no genius, I admit that, but I have gotten pretty good at sizing up people. There are just some people you don't fuck with. For instance fat guys with tattoos of cartoon characters. THERE IS A REASON THEY HAVEN'T HAD THEIR ASS BEAT AT THE BAR AND YOU DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT WHY!

    They just fucked with the wrong guy. So I am going to discretely walk out of the bar and go to my car because when the fight starts, its never the two guy that are fighting that concerns me, its the stupid shit their friends do.

    And I can clearly say, I am a hell of a lot more afraid of Lessig supports then I am of the Media Mafia. Lessig has waaaay more supporters and waaay more "digital firepower." This calls for a "Don't you know who I am" moment?

    Needless to say, they went after the wrong guy on this. It's like going up and punching baby Jesus in the face... you're just gonna piss everyone off doing that no matter who they are. You just don't punch baby Jesusessss...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991)
      Needless to say, they went after the wrong guy on this.

      If I was a lawyer for Warner, and my boss said I should try to legally stop Lessig from talking, my reaction would be "COOL! I get to go up against Lessig." It is entirely possible they knew exactly who they were going against, and wanted to make a public example. Do you know how cutthroat the music industry is? Do you think these guys are easily intimidated?
  • The bits that may have caused them to go apeshit probably starts at 9:07 in the video [blip.tv] under the heading "Remix"

    It starts with a clip from The Grey Album and then moves onto various other remixes

  • -1 Redundant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Wednesday April 29, 2009 @07:50PM (#27766833) Homepage

    Reader daemonburrito notes that the (rehosted) "video remains available at the time of this submission."

    What I'm about to say is, I'm sure, redundant. I'm saying it anyway:

    Warner,

    I am pulling a copy right now. It's going in my mystical hidden repository of stuff fools think they can stop me from seeing.

    Here's how this rule works: You try to suppress it, I will get it, and I will keep it forever. That is possible because we are better at this than you are. We will always be better at this than you are. The best among us will never work for you, so you will always epic fail. You cannot stop us. Every time you try to kick us, you are going to get a couple broken toes, and we will just get more ornery.

    You know, I don't violate copyright because I haven't made up my mind about it yet. I gotta tell you though, it gets more tempting every time you pull some shit like this.

    And if you think you can stop me (let alone the next generation of tech naturals) from watching whatever we want, whenever we want, on whatever platform we want, well, you are really stupid. The more you fight, the more practice we get, and the harder we laugh when we pee on your leg.

    Try being nice to your customers some time. It might not do you much good, but it won't do you as much harm as what you're doing now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cjfs (1253208)

      Try being nice to your customers some time. It might not do you much good, but it won't do you as much harm as what you're doing now.

      Makes sense, unless you view every illegal download as a lost sale. Once you have an entrenched view that says more downloads equals more lost profit, it's hard to break free. Which VP is going to stick his neck out for this issue? If sales go up by 20% but copyright-infringing downloads go up by 40% guess how they'll view it?

      Don't support corporations that use these type of tactics, but don't expect them to change either. Raising awareness and ensuring your government doesn't continue to erode your rights

  • ... take no prisoners. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Do not deal out of court. Get that judgment and force them to lose their way all the way to SCOTUS.

  • Ah, the perils of broad brush litigation..

    This is a risk implied in doing things in volume, it is statistically a given that you will eventually hit someone you should really, REALLY avoided in your legal abuse. Small aside question: has anyone heard of a judge being sued yet? No? Given the "quality" of their research I think there must be *some* sort of end filtering taking place. Anyway, back on topic.

    I think this mistake is akin to jumping in shark infested waters while bleeding from an over-vigorous

  • by Vapula (14703) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @03:41AM (#27769725)

    His presentation may be willingfully at the fringe between Fair Use and Copyright violation.
    He may want to have this case brought to court and use the opportunity to show his whole presentation to the court in order to educate the judges.

Can't open /usr/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.

Working...