Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music The Media Youtube News Your Rights Online

Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down 298

Posted by timothy
from the gang-fight-gang-fight dept.
Joren writes "Bad Lip Reading is an independent producer known for anonymously parodying music and political videos by redubbing them with his humorous attempts at lip-reading, such as Everybody Poops (Black Eyed Peas) and Gang Fight (Rebecca Black). According to an interview in Rolling Stone, he creates entirely new music from scratch consisting of his bad lip readings, and then sets them to the original video, often altering the video for humorous effect and always posting a link to the original off which it is based. Although his efforts have won the respect of parody targets Michael Bublé and Michelle Bachman, not everyone has been pleased. Two days ago, Universal Music Group succeeded in getting his parody Dirty Spaceman taken down from YouTube, and despite BLR's efforts to appeal, in his words, 'UMG essentially said "We don't care if you think it's fair use, we want it down."' And YouTube killed it. So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use? And if so, what recourse if any is available for artists who are caught in this situation?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

Comments Filter:
  • by Darkon (206829) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:27AM (#37808962)

    ...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.

    Got to love the legal system.

    • by Seumas (6865) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:35AM (#37808990)

      Sadly, that's absolutely right.

      I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.

      Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sadly, that's absolutely right.

        I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.

        Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.

        That's okay! It was nature's way of sparing you the members who are so stupid they can't distinguish between two domains. Since you weren't bringing a product to a mass market where everyone's money is as green as everyone else's, you really didn't want those idiots anyway. They'd just waste your time and bog you down with stupid support questions that they wouldn't ask if they could RTFM.

        Did you know I have never accidentally gone to "goggle.com" to try to search the web? Yeah that's because only an

    • by purpledinoz (573045) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:40AM (#37809008)
      Everyone has to face that the fact that in the US, legal rights are only available to those who can afford to hire a good lawyer.
      • "We... settled out of court. The way the system appeared to work to me was... Lady Justice had the scales, and you piled cash on the scales. And the one that piled the most cash on the scales and hired the most experts and the ones most willing to tell the biggest lies... that was the winner. That's... that seems to be how our justice system functions now. It's terrible. It's terrible. How can a farmer defend himself against a multinational corporation like Monsanto?" -Troy Roush, Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association, commenting on how Monsanto uses legal action to bully farmers into settling when they are accused of "stealing" Monsanto's IP (genetically modified seeds). From "Food Inc."

      • Uh except that you could go to court yourself. And if you are accused of a crime you get a free lawyer if you can't afford one.

        • by mitgib (1156957) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:30AM (#37809158) Homepage Journal

          Uh except that you could go to court yourself. And if you are accused of a crime you get a free lawyer if you can't afford one.

          Which has no bearing on this topic

        • by bondsbw (888959) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:38AM (#37809196)

          The need for lawyers who have studied for years or decades indicates that our legal system is too complex. There are so many laws, there exist laws that even the best lawyers are unaware of. There is a huge amount of case law that many times, but not always, provides direction in cases that are ambiguous in the law. We have laws from 2011 that override some part of laws from 2003 that override some part of laws from 1987 that override some part of laws from 1972, etc. to the beginning of time. I don't know the solution to all of this, but I think there has to be one.

          And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.

          • by NiceGeek (126629)

            "And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector."

            I hate to tell you this, but many of those high-priced lawyers do pro bono work.

            • by hairyfeet (841228)

              Riiiight, so the words 'public pretender' are just a myth, correct? I live down the street for our courthouse and have sat there and watched public pretenders in action. down to a man they always make their clients plead guilty and since their clients are uneducated and poor they listen to "their' lawyer and get fucked. the best example i can describe is what i saw happen to a guy I went to HS with. he got busted for selling a bag of weed, his parents scraped up enough to get a lawyer who said "No problem,

          • by snowgirl (978879)

            And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.

            Lawyers are expected to provide some amount of pro bono work as a public good in order to remain in good standing with the bar. Of course, I will grant you that they rarely can invest the time that they would invest in a pay-for case, but eh... In fact, actually of the three lawyers I dealt with for a ex-boyfriend's family: two were downtown high-rise lawyers with powerful law firms, and the third was a sole-working lawyer, who had affordable prices. Guess which one(s) we paid for.

          • Hopefully given the relatively precise structure of legal documents we'll one day have really good expert systems to help simplify things from the lay persons point of view.

        • by Qzukk (229616) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:38AM (#37809198) Journal

          And if you are accused of a crime

          Violating copyright isn't a criminal case in most cases. And you don't get a free lawyer for civil court cases.

        • Do you have ANY idea how badly it looks to a judge to use a court appointed lawyer? I assure you, going that route will guarantee you receive harsher sentences and far less leniency then with a competent non-court appointed attorney.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            You believe this to be true because...

            A lawyer who routinely does court-appointed work will have represented hundreds or thousands of defendants in front of each judge in that courthouse. The lawyer will know what strategies work or don't, the judge's pet peeves, and what sort of sentence the judge prefers to impose. For anything routine, a public defender will have more relevant experience and will be able to get an issue more quickly and effectively than anyone else. There is no punitive impact from using

            • I believe this to be true because I have experienced it first hand, have you?
      • This is true, and caused by Lawyers creating a situation where only Lawyers can win. Until we get courts that have judges that can perform the righteous judgement by allowing unskilled, non-professionals to make their cases, and have equal esteem before the court, then we're stuck with lawyers in robes protecting lawyers in $3000 suits.

        If Justice has to be bought, it isn't justice. I'd like to see where in civil courts, no lawyers or professionals could present in court. Lawyers have no business in civil co

    • by LordLucless (582312) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:04AM (#37809082)

      Or if you're responding to a DMCA notice.

      As I understand it, if someone complains about your work under the DMCA, the hosting provider is supposed to forward the complaint to you, and immediately pull your work. If you respond to the DMCA asserting you have the rights to the work (for whatever reason, including fair use), the host is supposed to put it back up, and let you and the complainant duke it out in court.

      Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.

      • Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.

        On the other hand, if Universal sends a takedown notice, and the person who put the video up asks Google to restore it, then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.

        • by Rockoon (1252108) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:28AM (#37809150)

          ... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.

          ..and by no reason you mean that Google doesnt have a large revenue stream associated with advertising RIAA music on a large percentage of its youtube video collection, and Google also isnt in the process of making a deal with the RIAA for direct music purchasing through Google...

          Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.

    • by todrules (882424) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:07AM (#37809094) Journal
      Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
    • Of course even if he went to court and won, YouTube could still choose to take it down, due to the request of the record company.

    • False.

      There are counter-notice provisions in the DMCA.
      http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content [citmedialaw.org]

      In his facebook post, he said "I appealed their claim through the official YouTube methods."
      Presumably, this means that BLR filed a counter-notice with YouTube and UMG won.
      Possibly because YouTube didn't buy his fair use arguments.

      While YouTube/Google may have ignored his arguments, BLR is free to find a different host that is more friendly.
      Or he can build his ow

      • YouTube doesn't have to evaluate his counter-notice, in fact, they shouldn't. Simply making a counterclaim with an affidavit that you believe you have the rights to use the material gets YouTube off the hook. If they're evaluating the validity of the claims and counterclaims, they're opening themselves up to additional liability. Under DMCA, a provider must take down material when they receive a DMCA takedown notice, and the must restore it after counter-notice. If they're doing anything to evaluate the val

    • by erroneus (253617)

      Yes, but then you get to sue for damages when you know you're right.

      What someone or a group of someones should do (and especially BLR) should put their stuff up, declare that it is parody and protected speech, sprinkle some ads in there, then sue for damages when it's taken down.

      By declaring that it is protected speech, you are making them aware of your argument before they decide to have it taken down. This may make them liable for extra damages as they are doing so knowingly and wilfully. The damages ca

    • ...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.

      Paging EFF.

      Remember folks, go out and buy lots of Universal products this Christmas to help them prosecute this guy.

  • They invoked the "we don't care what you think" and everyone knows that the founding fathers added that clause to the Constitution, so that all of your rights and all of the land's laws could be circumvented with that clever dismissive phrase.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The solution is to elect people who understand and respect our founding principles instead of people who promise us all kinds of new shiny stuff. We're supposed to be electing representatives, and instead we vote for people who rape us.

      • Re:Fucking hell. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by v1 (525388) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @09:20AM (#37809416) Homepage Journal

        The solution is to elect people who understand and respect our founding principles instead of people who promise us all kinds of new shiny stuff.

        That's both the solution, and the problem. Yes we in theory can elect people that will fix the system, but no, we as a people are greedy, short-sighted, narrow-minded voters that will vote in anyone that promises free lollipops after the election, issues be damned, until it gets really bad. That's why our elected officials are voted back and forth on seesaw elections. One election they vote in a candidate for all the shiny stuff he promises because the last guy was too busy trying to solve issues and spending money where it needed to be spent. Then next election they vote the first guy back in because the second one undid all the fixes from the first guy. Rinse and repeat.

        I don't blame the politicians or the corporations, I blame the voters. Unfortunately, big business has sat quietly on the sidelines slipping dollars into pockets and actually getting laws passed that serve their good.

      • But... but.. Obama... "Constitutional Scholar"....

        The problem is that people will take things as written and twist it into their own context to suit their own needs. Not in the context of men standing up to tyranny of government.
    • Re:Fucking hell. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dunbal (464142) * on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:36AM (#37808994)
      Closer to the truth than you think. The federal government has ignored quite a few laws recently, effectively invoking this "we don't care" clause, with absolutely no reaction from anyone.
  • Bought congress (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:38AM (#37809000)

    These are the kinds of laws we get when we let companies (via their lobbyists) write their own legislation.

  • And YouTube killed it

    Yes, but it's not YouTubes fault. They have to take it down by law. Blame your politicians and ridiculous copyright laws - not YouTube.

    • by Entrope (68843)

      Which copyright laws are those? The DMCA's take-down provisions have a corresponding put-back provision, and the law stops there. (Google may have some term of service that lets it censor content; I don't post stuff on YouTube, so I haven't researched that.)

      The take-down: Pretty familiar, although the legal checklist of requirements (to make it a valid take-down notice) is not always as well-known.

      The put-back: After receiving a take-down notice, the person who provided the allegedly infringing content ca

      • by Rockoon (1252108)

        and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.

        I see a lot of you slashdotters make this claim and its flat-out wrong.

        The law does not make the service provider host any content at all.

    • by jonwil (467024)

      Except that the DMCA clearly provides not just a take-down procedure but also a counter-claim procedure where people can say "no, this isn't a violation", the hosting site can put it back and is then legally immune from being sued by whoever alleges copyright claims.

      Did the guy who made the parody video file a proper DMCA section 512(c) put-back notice? If so, YouTube is required to tell Universal of the filed put-back notice and if Universal does not file an appropriate lawsuit against the guy who made the

      • by jpapon (1877296)

        YouTube is required to reinstate the content

        I don't think this is true; YouTube can host/takedown any content whenever they damn well please. There is no law that obligates them to host something they don't want to.

        • If they don't reinstate it, then they put their safe harbour status in jeopardy. If they are not classed as a safe harbour by the DMCA then they, not the original uploaders, are liable for any copyright infringement.
        • While your point is true, it is also irrelevant. They already agreed to host the content, which was how it was there to be DMCA'd in the first place.

          As sibling states, you can't enjoy DMCA safe harbor status if you are trying to say "I'm not going to put this video back up because I decided I don't want to host it anymore, even though I previously agreed to host it." Safe harbors are not to engage in decisions about DMCA validity, they are merely to follow the written procedure for takedown/putbackup.

        • by Fnord666 (889225)
          From the dmca PDF [copyright.gov] on copyright.gov(emphasis mine)

          If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.
          dmca.pdf, page 12

          This document, from copyright.gov, states very clearly that the provider must put the contested material back up. Having said that, I think there is a distinction to be made between google the ISP provider and YouTube the web application. These may well be separate companies with google being the ISP that was served with a takedown notice and YouTube, on behalf of their users, being the content provider. In this case google is notified as an ISP of the alle

      • by drew30319 (828970)
        YouTube's counter-claim procedure clearly laid out here: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_counter [youtube.com]
  • by Progman3K (515744) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:51AM (#37809042)

    This must not stand!
    Repost the video!

    • by Co0Ps (1539395)
      Doesn't work. YouTube has automated copyright infringement detection. Basically the music/movie company uploads all their shit and YouTube will scan trough all uploaded content and match it. Then they can choose to take it down, add advertising etc. This is probably how the copyright claimer was notified of the video in the first place. No YouTube staff where probably ever involved in taking it down.
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      Someone post it on pirate bay. See how they like that.

  • The politically correct ones. Their asshole is where their mouth should be. It's also why it's more politically correct (in the music industry) to kiss their ass then to kiss their mouth, especially after they've been talking shit, which would be rather unpleasant.

    Unfortunately parodies remind them that it's not normal to have an asshole where your mouth should be, unless they are ass kissing, then it's perfectly normal, except they don't like being reminded that they are ass kissing or that they are a wa

  • Counter notice? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:55AM (#37809052)

    Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >>Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?

      No. Youtube will take down the video. I've gone through this before, with music that I had permission to use, but still got Takedowned.

      They do not care if it is "fair use", or if you have permission, etc., only if even a single frame of video or music is from a copyrighted source.

  • by asdf7890 (1518587) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @07:57AM (#37809058)
    Sometimes I'm not sure if these people are just ignorant to the Streisand effect, or are actively trying to use it to gain publicity for themselves generally or whatever the parody is using as inspiration or source material.
  • The videos don't seem to be down. I just watched it.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading#p/c/48076365A788CC3F/6/bQOJwDMZMXw [youtube.com]

  • by sproketboy (608031) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @08:09AM (#37809102)

    I just checked it. http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading [youtube.com]

    It's really funny but not as funny as Day Job Orchestra.

  • You'll probably simply moderate me down for this, but technically UMG is correct, because he is using their video.
    He would be fine if he created his own video.
    The parody defense would probably mean he could use their texts if altered to be a parody, but that's it.

    He could try to strike a deal with UMG, for example "You allow me to use your video, then I allow you to use mine".
    And if UMG refuses, it would be ok to bad-mouth them.

    This isn't even a case of copyright law doing something that it isn't intended t

  • Hire an attorney, spend lots of money getting to court and then winning.

    But by then you have been drained of your measly little life savings and have noting left to show for it except a hollow 'i won'.

    The media giants have won this one They bought the legislation and are going to use it. The only way out is to repeal the DMCA and pave the way for winners in these situations ( and other frivolous suits ) to recoup ALL their losses and a *hefty* fine placed on the industry that goes to the winner.

    Make them be

    • by drew30319 (828970)
      Although hiring an attorney is not a bad idea, the rest of this is not accurate. DMCA is a large unwieldy tool but YouTube's approach is pretty fair. If you assert your willingness to be identified and sued by the rights holder (through a counter-notification) they will put your content back online. Only if the rights holder then takes legal action do they remove the content.

      Although "the media giants" may abuse DMCA, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for not taking the time to learn what our own righ
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Although "the media giants" may abuse DMCA, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for not taking the time to learn what our own rights are and how we can assert them; and asserting them doesn't have to cost us anything other than investing a little time in the process.

        That's true, but by the time the DMCA was passed, it was a little late. The thing never should have come into being. Our forefathers and their forefathers have been asleep at the wheel.

  • by drew30319 (828970) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @09:12AM (#37809368) Homepage Journal
    Has YouTube changed their procedures for dealing with DMCA takedowns? I had this same experience with a video for my nonprofit and once I asserted my willingness to be sued YouTube restored the video. Their position at the time (and apparently still their position per their site) was that it was up to the rights holder to sue under DMCA --- not for a contributor to sue to have content restored. The process I followed is here: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_counter [youtube.com] and although my video was down for a few months it was put back up and is still up years later. This is the way that I believe DMCA was designed to work and YouTube does a pretty good job of balancing this process. YouTube does not make any determination about if the content is "fair use" or not - they instead put the onus on the one asserting infringement to take legal action. Seems reasonable to me - and at least in my case - their process worked.

    IANAL but did graduate from law school a few months ago.
    • by sstamps (39313)

      We've had the same problem on a channel I frequent, and what we learned is that you have to file your counter-notice with the EXACT right person at YouTube, or it goes nowhere. According to the law, YouTube has to restore access to the video in 10 business days. Unfortunately, YouTube seems to have some weird interpretation of "business days", as they said it could take up to 18 calendar days to restore a video, technically putting them in violation of the law.

      We're still waiting to see if they make good on

  • Another of the 1% (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Phoenix666 (184391)

    Add this to the list of problems with the 1% that need to be corrected. The entire issue of intellectual property needs to be overhauled in the Constitution 2.0.

  • File a DMCA Counter Notice.

    This establishes to Google your exact name, filing address, and a statement (notarized, I believe) that you have the right to be doing what you are doing. Fair Use is one of those rights, although the first thing an attorney will tell you is that fair use is extraordinarily vague. Before filing this thing you may wish to consult with an attorney. Defending yourself against a lawsuit, which the DMCA Counter Notice will surely enable them to file, will cost a $15,000 simply to get s

  • So this guy uploads full length parodies (3min+), isn't there a limit on such things like 30 seconds, otherwise it's no longer fair use?

    The most common DMCA problem on Youtube is for people who upload their original video/creation but used copyrighted soundtrack. When found, those videos get taken down. BadLipReading is just doing the opposite: stole copyrighted video frames but is using his own original soundtrack. This is still wrong and I think he is a Youtube partner (adverts next to the video), i.e.
    • No, there is not a limit on the length of a parody. A 30 second limit isn't anywhere in law, but it's a common practice that is usually applied for audio previews, like on iTunes and Amazon.

      And he did not 'stole copyrighted video frames.' For starters, that's not even coherent. Furthermore, he is being accused of copyright infringement, which is not theft, and he most likely isn't actually commiting copyright infringement because he's covered by fair use.
      • by Tasha26 (1613349)
        He didn't make those video frames. They belong to the copyright holders and to use them, you need permission. This case is ripe for DMCA! I don't see why we are even discussing it on Slashdot!?
    • There is no time limit set in stone - anything you see, from what I get, is purely arbitrary and seems to be more the task by various institutions to find those boundaries.
  • I thought that in these situations you can file a DMCA counter notice with the service hosting content. It appears that he did this, but YouTube still removed his content, which is unfortunate. His post is pretty low on details. It really is too bad we mere mortals cannot afford to got to court on these issues. UMG committed perjury here, plain and simple. And it appears that with the DMCA perjury is committed on a regular basis. Very sad indeed. In short, what a mess. Ironic that Michelle Bachmann

  • by FyberOptic (813904) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @10:45AM (#37809830)

    I still have a bad mark on my Youtube account from making a short parody video of something once which was flagged as a copyright violation by somebody. The only way to get this off of my record is to send some DMCA formal counter notice to the original owner, which is wayyyy more effort than a lot of the Youtube videos that get marked are worth fooling with, and also requires you to give your real name and everything. Besides, in my case, that person is not only long gone, but obviously is not going to give a crap about me having a bad mark on my account in the first place since I bet they're responsible for it being there.

    Youtube makes it way too easy for people to be jerks. They didn't even check the video in my case, or they would have seen it was blatant parody with very little source material. I ended up removing two other videos I had spent a lot of time editing which contained content that could be disputed because I simply can't risk losing my whole account from such bullshit. I can't imagine what kind of crap that people with professional channels must have to deal with on Youtube. And look at how many of them have even had their accounts shut down occasionally from it, even if just temporary. If those people are Youtube partners (which some of them have been), that's costing them money.

    And didn't I hear before that some company was filing copyright claims against people for posting video game footage now too? If you go around killing all the Let's Play and video game reviews, then half of Youtube will be gone overnight.

    So basically, fuck companies hiding behind the DMCA to protect their image or content or whatever ridiculous excuse they want to use. They only encourage me to want to pirate them out of spite. It's about like what happened to Metallica several years ago. Their music sucks, but a lot of people went and downloaded it for spite to them during the whole Napster debacle. It shows that people tend to react the exact opposite way you want when you start turning into a jerk about something.

  • Your rights are only worth anything if you have the means to actually defend them. In legal theory this is not the case, your rights are supposed to be intrinsic. But in actual reality, this is exactly the case, since money and power can exert pressure and pressure can remove your ability to fight back or (more likely) make the expenditure involved more than you are willing to expend. So yes, the right to fair use no longer exists practically. Your rights can be overridden by funding. You can be shut u
  • It seems to me that the recourse is to overpower them. Despite youtube taking down the video, I suspect there are many copies in the wild. As a user community, one strategy at our disposal is to leverage our numbers, as we did with the HD encryption string, and make sure it's everywhere. Universal needs to understand that if it's fair use, they will only make matters worse for them by trying to suppress it.

  • by crossmr (957846) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @05:28PM (#37812552) Journal

    So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use?

    IANAL
    But, no, the definition of parody for fair use requires that the parody be used to comment on the original work. It does not simply mean taking someone else's work and adding funny words. This is why a lot of Weird Al's music is in fact not parody and why he makes a big deal of seeking permission for each song he releases. Everyone just assumes he'd be covered under parody, but a lot of his songs don't really make any comment on the original work itself.

    As far as I can tell BLR does nothing to comment on the original work at all. He's probably lucky that he's gotten away with it thus far, and if he's doing any revenue sharing with youtube he'll be luck if someone doesn't sue him.

  • by holophrastic (221104) on Sunday October 23, 2011 @06:04PM (#37812736)

    Contrary to public belief, Youtube is not public. I'm sure youtube says something to the effect of: "if it contains any of your material, adn you want it down, it comes down". The video did contain UMG video, and hence, youtube took it down at UMG request. Makes perfect sense.

    It's one video. If you want to post your video, on your site, then UMG can ask you to take it down, and you can refuse, call it fair use, and likely win, 'cause it is.

    But you're asking someone else, in this case youtube, to fight your battles. It's your battle. You get to fight it. You get to take the rist. You get to hear from UMG. You get to defend your own turf.

    Why are you surprised that no one else is going to defend your rights? Defend them yourself -- you lazy person you.

    Alternatively, you can learn to benefit from your own original and innovative creations without basing your work on someone else's hard efforts. You'll find it a lot more difficult to work from essential ingredients, we all do, but you'll have more freedom in doing so.

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...