Mom Sues Music Company Over Baby Video Removal 391
penguin_dance writes "A Pennsylvania mom is fighting back, suing Universal Music Publishing Group for having a home movie taken down off of YouTube. The movie, featuring her 18-month old bouncing to Prince's song, 'Let's Go Crazy,' was cited for removal by the Group for copyright infringement. Mom Stephanie Lenz was first afraid they'd come after her — then she got angry. She got YouTube to put the video back up, she's enlisted the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and she's filed a civil lawsuit (pdf). 'I thought even though I didn't do anything wrong that they might want to file some kind of suit against me, take my house, come after me. And I didn't like feeling afraid ... I didn't like feeling that I could get in trouble for something as simple as posting a home video for my friends and family to see.'"
Tag goodforher ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:5, Insightful)
This music group, may FSM have mercy on them... because she won't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since I do so like to be pedantic, I would like to point out that if moms are indeed characterized as tough, then she would in act be quite average due to the large number of moms.
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, I'm not sure this ladies video is fair use. The music is effectively a soundtrack and comprises a large portion of the video's content. If I heard my (CC-BY-SA) music in the background of a video like this, I would at least expect a "music by orgelspieler" somewhere in the video description.
Let's recap fair use and how it applies to this case:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Obviously, the only item this might fail on is the amount. 29 seconds is about 10% of the song. You have to meet all four requirements to count as fair use. This is a great case for the courts to help explain what is and isn't allowed. Or better yet, maybe it will serve as a touchstone for those jerks in Washington to get off their asses and do something about this vast gray area that is diminishing the creative output of the nation. Copyright is supposed encourage creativity, not stifle it.Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just "on teh Intarweb" that people are saying this. This idea is taught in courses on film production, and the reasons are very simple:
1. You can sue anyone for anything, at any time.
2. Copyright is a big stinking swamp filled with alligators and corpses. Nobody knows which way a judge will jump.
Because of these, copyright holders feel free to sue the heck out of anyone using their copyrighted material in any way, even if that way is technically legal -- because who knows? The judge might just side with you and you might get some money. Large corporate holders have plenty of money to burn, so there's no downside to suing for them.
Conversely, users of copyrighted material have a great deal to lose, even if they win. Fighting cases in court costs money, and successfully defending yourself can be Pyrrhic. I suppose if you're a large corporate user, you wouldn't care monetarily if you lose, but it could cause PR issues, I guess.
In any case, the reason people are told to get clearance for everything is that doing so avoids the whole issue. Going back to the stinking swamp analogy, it's clearly best to just go around it. That's why the "myth" of requiring clearance for everything is perpetuated. It's a Pascal's wager.
No, I don't like it either.
--Rob
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And see, that is the thing... youtube makes money off the site, because of the videos people put up to draw traffic to it. So this copyrighted song is being used for a commercial application. If she was posting this on her own non-commercial websi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tag goodforher ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Is there anything in the past behavior of RIAA that supports that claim?
I know little of RIAA, but the Danish equivalent have had no trouble targeting non-commercial use with ridiculous claims.
Have you actually watched the video? (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube recommendations are -1, Offtopic (Score:5, Funny)
* BLONDE AMERICAN SLUT
* Sexy Blonde Shows Off Her Oral Talents.
And no, I'm not making this up.
Re: (Score:3)
I seriously doubt that Google is going to be Slashdotted anytime soon...
If it is, I hope Rob goes public, because I want to buy me some Slashdot stock.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If she was posting this on her own non-commercial website, I doubt anyone would have cared.
But then still her hoster would make money of it, your Internet provider makes money because you pay for the ability to download it, your computer maker makes money of it etc.pp.
Don't fall for the theory that just because someone provided the means he is actually a profiteur or a collaborateur. Otherwise the road authority would be responsible for every criminal fleeing along public roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how about streisandeffect
After all, a LOT more people have seen it now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem I have with this case is the fact that she *is* suing the wrong party here. Her beef lies with YouTube for their knee jerk reaction in pulling the video on unsubstantiated copyright claims. That is the hazard of the DMCA. For all we know, the label being sued could be "Joe Jobbed" in this. All it takes for some places (YouTube being one of those places) is an email claiming copyright infringement and POOF! There goes your content. The DMCA was purposely setup this way.
I know Prince is a scary guy, but this .... (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
Doesn't the guy have better things to do with his time than to send takedown notices for 29-second video clips?Hey, maybe he'll have to change his name again to avoid being known as the Bozo formerly known as Prince ...
Re:I know Prince is a scary guy, but this .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it was Prince himself doing the searching. Prince is plenty rich enough that he is probably paying someone to do the searching.
Having worked for an online kids entertainment company, I can tell you that part of the job responsibility of the 2 full time lawyers was to scour the net looking for any and all references to their company name and images. Also, no surprise this company was owned by a Scientologist, with all upper management being part of the cult too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet the ABC story this morning seemed to indicate that BMI was responsible for the takedown notice. Is that because BMI still controls some of his older stuff?
And they interviewed some paid lackey, who was "scouring the internet". It wasn't clear that Prince was directly involved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the music industry, it's typical for the record label to own the rights to the specific recordings while another entity (ASCAP, BMI) administers rights to performances, sheet music, lyrics, etc., usually in conjunction with a shell company set up by the artist.
Re:I know Prince is a scary guy, but this .... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems far more likely that BMI/Universal actually found the video and are using this tactic to create bad publicity for Prince (without him having done or said anything).
He wouldn't be the first artist/band who had a clause in their contract stating that his publisher could, without contacting him, send takedown requests or enter suit on his behalf, in his name, using his name for those purposes, and attributing the action initiation to him personally. There are actually numerous legal situations where, legally, one person sends letters, does some act, or whatever in the name of another person. Much like numerous business or legal letters never written or signed by the person who's "signature" appears at the bottom (yet still written as if that person personally wrote that letter) and in many cases, that person never reads the letter (which is instead read by their marketing and/or legal staff - and then signed in their name by that same staff or secretary).
It just seems really odd that after all this time, Prince is suddenly interested in tracking down his music online PERSONALLY for music that is "owned" by a record label he despises. I think from all he has said, he'd be thrilled with any of the stuff that the label still controls being out there wherever.
Re: (Score:2)
If in fact Prince was in any way behind this takedown notice, though, then he belongs in the same family as Metallica.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the same one that gave away his last album in the UK as a freebie inside a Sunday paper? Hmm.. What curious values he must have although I guess it may just be that they are artistic rather than financial which is fair enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
whoosh! (Score:2)
Using? (SCO)... (Score:2)
Nope, just a joke, not a troll...
Paul B.
bumper music and royalties (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As some other people have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Prince didn't release it for free - the newspaper bought the copies and gave them to their subscribers as a promotional stunt.
He doesn't need help to look bad - just look at what Kevin Smith [prince.org] has to say about Prince (and he can say it because he forgot to sign the NDA).
dated copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an example of how outdated our copyright and patent system is in the digital age. They need to be modified to accept that people are going to make fan stuff with them and see it as free advertising for that matter.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright law entirely supports her right to do what she did
Agreed.
but it was also updated to provide some rules for how to handle uploads of potentially infringing material
What? Takedown notices are not really governed by any rules, and most companies will drop the "potentially" infringing material like a hot potato without review once one of these extra-constitutional letters are sent. That's a system that dramatically favors content owners who have large legal budgets. If the law supports what she did, then why should it be so easy for some multinational corporation to shut it down without them incurring any penalty?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We get a take down notice for some free hosting bits all we have is an email.
We forward it and they respond with a funny/fake counter notice. Since it's the first time we get legal involved and they say forward it back and do not question it.
We forward it to the original requester and keep the content up.
They sued and got a summary judgment after 6 months we got the order from the court and removed it and hand over any records
Prince? (Score:5, Funny)
A well-placed source directly involved in the situation confirmed to ABC News that Prince was directly involved in seeking the takedown of Lenz's video.
Anyone know how true is this? It seems like he might have better things to do... such as serving us pancakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Inspiring... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean fIling frivolous lawsuits?
Those who hate pdf files (Score:2)
Uncorroborated claims newsworthy (Score:5, Insightful)
"File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself."
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am of the opinion that this has never been proven conclusively and that what "has devastated a once-booming music industry" is the industry itself.
Also, for the grammar pedantic, should that be "illegal downloading of music"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you really think that sounds ok? (Score:3, Insightful)
that sure is the way to earn some goodwill... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if someone wants to sue the mother for letting her young child dance to Prince, then I am all for that
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article, Prince apparently thought it was a good idea.
The way that article makes it sound, he's got a bug the size of his platform shoes up his ass about people using his (sub-par IMO) music in any way without his consent, in triplicate, written in the blood of someone taller than 4'3.
How to get permission (Score:5, Funny)
All the while I am keeping my daughter informed of progress on this, so that when she grows to the point where she will be making choices regarding intellectual property, she will develop an appropriate respect for how the music publishers handle these things.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I had mod points this morning, but now they're gone. I want to mod you up, though. This seems like a profoundly good idea and a good way to educate your child about intellectual property laws. It's one thing to decide you want to shoot from the hip, use the music without permission, and hope your use will be covered by fair use; but it's quite another thing to teach your child (through your actions) that such is the way to proceed. So kudos to you.
Not that it's right for the companies to go around for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not that it's right for the companies to go around forcing takedowns of harmless uses of their copyrights, but it also says something that nobody even tries to secure permission before putting soundtracks in their youtube videos.
The thing is you ought not have to, to use a clip. In most places in the west except the US you don't have to. In fact it's most likely the same in the US. A clip is fair use and a clip in a another work is derivative works. The GP is basically teaching them the law as the records companies dearly want. Not the law as it is. So the GP is in effect either being ironic or teaching his/her child to give up rights. The common view of copyright is severely skewed. Copyright is not the content creator graciously
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How to get permission (Score:5, Interesting)
Brilliant. One thing you should add, however, is a willingness to pay a small fee for the permission. Surely that's reasonable.
Of course, if they decide they don't want to take your money because you're small potatoes, it's obviously ironic if they decide to pay a ton of money to lawyers, to sue people over equally small potatoes. But it'd be nice if there were a way to codify that irony into law. That is... unless there's a reasonable means for people to request and receive permission to use copyrighted works, then the RIAA can't sue those small potatoes either. Of course, current copyright law says that it's well within a copyright holder's right to withhold their work for any reason. However, copyright is hopefully shifting towards somewhat more permissive rules these days. And if it does shift that way, hopefully one of the first things to shift would be that if a copyright holder distributes tens of millions of copies of a work, that they can hardly expect the teeming masses to not want to at least minimally interact with that work, and that such a proposal might be reasonable for widely-distributed works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, if they decide they don't want to take your money because you're small potatoes, it's obviously ironic if they decide to pay a ton of money to lawyers, to sue people over equally small potatoes.
What the hell are you talking about suing for small potatoes. A jury recently decided blatant infringement like this cost the music industry $9,000 per song infringed. If you ask them they'll tell you it cost them billions a year and they're paying about that much to the congress critters to pass laws so they get that much every time they sue anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can u pirate my song? (Yeah *my* song!)
Maybe I'm just 2 demanding,
Maybe the clip's only 30 seconds long,
Maybe u're just that kid's mother
He's never satisfied (Now he likes Nevermind)
Why do we takedown each other?
This is what it sounds like
When suits fly."
Hey Universal (Score:4, Funny)
Go MOM! (Score:3, Insightful)
Weather or not this is covered under fair use, at least someone, even if its just a few, are firing back at the MAFIAA.
Even though this case might not matter, the PR from it might just wake up a few congress critters that just taking the money from the MIFIAA might not be a good idea to stay elected if enough angrey moms vote then out.
I say, (Score:3, Funny)
Singing / Humming Songs (Score:2, Interesting)
Sheesh- okay not trolling... (Score:2)
I'm sorry but I think those all apply here.
Written in 1984, it is only 24 years old- so even by the original jeffersonian copyright rules which I prefer & support the song should have another four years to go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If she is using someone else's copyrighted material and anyone is earning money off of it besides the creators without their permission, then she is infringing.
I'm sorry but I think those all apply here.
Written in 1984, it is only 24 years old- so even by the original jeffersonian copyright rules which I prefer & support the song should have another four years to go.
It's not so cut and dry... you know there are so many one noted replies that seem like "golly the bad lady hurt the poor starving artist. clearly she needs ot be punished". Either the US has given up on asserting fair use and has rolled over and let the corprate interests rape them, or there is a significant number of astroturfers on slashdot.
A copyright grants a limited monopoly on distribution on certain content. Fair use exempts certain forms of distribution as allowable. The idea is that a artist/creat
Amazing how many /.ers think they are lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the story then it seems as if this mother went to the EFF and they are representing her. The EFF ain't a commercial organization, this isn't a lawyer who is going to get his money wether he wins or loses.
Yet many will spout that she doesn't stand a chance. Yeah, because the EFF lawyers are NOT leaders in their field with a long history of winning.
This is a video with music playing in the background. Imagine if that was illegal, does the same go for images? BAM, you just destroyed all visual media taken in say Disney land. Disney owns the image rights to their park. Hell, simply picture on the street is likely to have lots of copyrighted advertising signs. Your clothes? Owned by the designer. Could you only make homemovies in a sterile white room with naked people? Might get a bit boring.
You could barely film/photograph anything without showing something that infringes on a copyright.
I am not going to watch a video of a baby, but the music was playing in the background, it was NOT a soundtrack added to the video. If we make it illegal to film normal live we have really bend over to far to the music industry.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Talk to a lawyer. A good one. Who does his work because he believes in a cause and does it without saying "win or lose, you own me". IANAL but the EFF is.
Reasonably simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)
The moral of the story here is that if you're selecting artists to listen to, it might actually be a good idea to try and find out what their individual stance on enforcement is. Some are going to be like Prince, or Metallica. Others are going to be like Trent Reznor. Most, I suspect, will fall somewhere in between, in the sense that while they won't mind fair use to a degree similar to what has traditionally existed with radio, they will still, in the end, quite rightfully expect people to buy CDs of their music. However, I also believe that enforcement needs to be the responsibility of the artist themselves, and not middlemen organisations like the RIAA...because very often the middlemen organisations hold views which are not representative of everyone that they claim to represent.
One other thing I'd actually like to see some acts offering is the possibility of legal indemnity to individuals who can be proven to have bought copies of their music. In other words, if you buy a copy of a given artist's music, for a contract to exist between you and said artist specifying exactly what it is that you are or are not legally allowed to do with the music you've bought, and as long as you operate within those guidelines, you won't get sued. Different artists are going to have different perspectives on that, so said contracts would actually need to be extremely individual in nature. I'm also not talking about something exactly the same as a software license here, either. I would want to see something where people actually had to provide individual signatures that were recorded along with the date of purchase; not something clickthrough that is untraceable, unenforceable, and can thus be brushed off.
Someone like Prince would obviously be fairly strict; private, individual listening/viewing only, with no reproduction or secondary performance allowed of any kind whatsoever. At the other end of the spectrum you'd likely get people who'd be willing, once you've paid them, to let you do whatever you wanted, up to and including the creation of derivative works.
By the numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
"File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself."
Last time I checked, the industry's profits were still pretty comfortably in the gaziliions range. If by "devastated" they mean "somewhat less outrageous than before," and "our poor execs are having to get by on salaries and bonuses only 30 times as big as the average workingman's salary instead of 50 times as much" then perhaps it's an accurate statement. It's all a matter of proportion -- the more you make, the more you expect. It's like a baseball player making $20 mil a year, then getting insulted because his team wants to pay him "only" $15 mil this year. Corporations and their royalty seem to think that they have a "right" to consistently make as much or more than they did the previous year. I think Average Joe has little sympathy for them (as do I).
The RIAA's new moto (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:5, Insightful)
> "Talk to a lawyer before going head-over-heels suing someone like the *AA for taking your video off a site that doesn't even belong to you, ma-am"
If you had bothered to read the article, or even the SUMMARY, you would have known that she did talk to a lawyer. > "Unlike the *AA, you do not have the money, expertise, or political connections to be able to pull something like that."
The EFF is doing the suing for her, because of the principles at stake. Not everything is about money.
If people held the **AAFIA's feet to the fire more often, maybe we would have fewer frivolous takedown notices, and a bit more respect all around.
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:5, Informative)
1. She talked to a lawyer.
2. That lawyer is the EFF.
3. They're pretty experienced in this matter, and they intend to collect when she does.
4. Seeking a declaratory judgment is a pretty reasonable thing to do.
5. Universal doesn't get to trample over fair use just because they're a big company.
6. A company that knowingly tramples your rights should pay a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:4, Interesting)
With their pretty long list of cases listed here [eff.org] perhaps you could go through and point out out the hundreds listed, which ones they lost. If they have a track record of losing, I'm sure it won't take long to point out a few dozen cases the lost out of the hundred+ listed. I'd love to be more informed, but I suspect you probably have a couple headlines stuck in your head and are overgeneralizing.
Re: (Score:2)
Company should?
I think the individual initiating this action should be found, put on a podestal on NY Times Square and publicly shamed for 12 hours!
Corporation/Company eggheads in their cubicles won't change anytime soon otherwise - would they?
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can file a suit without even having a takedown notice. If you have reason to believe that someone will sue you for infringement, you can initiate a suit for declaratory judgment, where you get to pick the venue and circumstances.
She went to the EFF because they'll handle her case for free. Yeah, she's doing it to make a point, but the EFF can get legal fees out of the copyright holders if they win, and she may get damages. The RIAA may pay her off just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years.
And yes, I am an IP/patent attorney.
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:4, Funny)
>"just to avoid setting a precedent that they'd have to live with for the next 50 years."
Maybe she should try to copyright the precedent so it will last her lifetime + 50 (or whatever it is nowadays)
(for the humor-impaired ... its a JOKE!!!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"I'd point out that the fact that she wasn't charging money for the video has NO effect"
The link you point to says otherwise:
Re: (Score:2)
Nahh, you can only patent those.
Re:Offense is the best defence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, as a matter of fact, it does. Else the EFF wouldn't have taken the case. The EFF may not be perfect, but they damn sure aren't going around wasting cash.
P.S.: Seriously, RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
See: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc vs. BnetD Project
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
don't feel TOO bad, it's a pretty long list.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you say it's not fair use? (Score:2)
The fact is, that while it is indeed a derivative work, that is not fair use, and she did use a copyrighted work without authorization.
True, the fact that the work is derivative doesn't mean it is a fair use of the original work. But I'm curious why you think her use of Prince's song in this particular video wouldn't withstand a fair use affirmative defense?
Re: (Score:2)
But I still think she's going to lose. That just seems to be how it's going with copyright law and the RIAA. The little person doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
person doesn't matter.
<sarcasm>
Well reasoned logic.
</sarcasm>
The little person does matter when they get a big voice. And this lady has one. And the big guys can't do whatever they want for fear of exactly something like this.
Universal and Prince can't win this suit; if they win they lose. If they lose they lose. So they will do everything in their power to settle. With the EFF
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter - it takes money to defend from lawsuits, and that is less money the publisher has to START lawsuits. It's her dime, but more people should be doing this.
Also, the situation is ridiculous. OK yes if we stick to the letter of the law, it's not "fair use". But make sure you keep your car windows rolled up because if
Re: (Score:2)
But I really don't hold out much hope of that changing anytime soon. The powerful people are too entrenched and many of the judges seem to favor the broadest interpretations of the law possible.
I'm only referring to the way things are, not as they should be. I'm a pragmatist.
Re: (Score:2)
when she could have just as easily sent a copy to her friends/family privately she chose to post it on a public high volume internet video site like youtube that in all likliness will be seen by thousands of people at the least. it almost sounds like she way trying to g
On the one hand, the EFF, on the other a idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you think knows the law better, the people of the EFF who are handling the case OR some idiot with a slashdot account?
She didn't hire some ambulance chaser who is going to get his money anyway, she went to the EFF and they took on her case. That is smarts. The EFF doesn't exactly have a long history of losing. The content industry may be able to hire lots of lawyers but the EFF seems to get the smart ones.
Will she win? Wrong question, will the EFF win on HER behalve.
Also this will play extremely badly for Prince. I doubt he wishes to be known as the artists that sues moms. You can bet your ass that the press will have a field day because of his former name. THey LOVE pun headlines. If you have them a choice between a pun headline about a kitten or the outbreak of WW3, they choose the kitten.
No my friend, I will take the legal opinion of the EFF any time over yours. To many people on slashdot think they are lawyers. I listen to the ones who really are AND have a track record of being any good at it.
Re:She's going to lose. (Score:4, Insightful)
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html [stanford.edu]
The four factors judges consider are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
in this case:
1. clearly transformative, new work - she wins
2. not factual stuff, yet hugely public - a wash
3. it's a small fraction of the work, yet non-trivial - a wash
4. none, not for sale - clearly she wins this one
in short, whether you agree w/ *my* analysis or not, anyone can agree you made no fair use analysis AT ALL, instead tossing out pseudo-legal terms to confuse others, and prop yourself up. which makes it ridiculous to claim "she will lose."
no, not ridiculous:
TROLL.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal Precedence? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to suspect you as a troll, but since you phrased it so politely...
The song played in the backround. In Real Life. The baby danced to it. The whole sickening glurge-factor aside (I agree, "for the kids" has no more meaning for "us" than it does for "them"), "documentary" falls well within the bounds of "fair use". And even if it didn't, the scene still happened. You can argue with the law, you can't argue with reality.
So, what right does she have to the song? The same right you or I or anyone has to their own lives, to our own culture, and to hell with the law if someone can twist it to say otherwise. I can tell you my day sucked, and Hoover can go pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
The sample in question was indeed direct and then frequency shifted to produce different "notes" during the song. Regardless of the changes applied, apparently even samples less than two seconds can cost you quite a bit... That being said, I am
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No listen moron Re:Listen, lady (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break. She posted a video of her kid with something that I couldn't even distinguish playing in the background. Whatever she used the video for, any noise in the background is incidental. If you really think this in any way, shape or form is effecting {symbol}'s (the moron formally known as prince) ability to make money forever for a few days work he did who knows how long ago, you're a moron also. And while you're at it explain why the are there laws enforcing the fact that just because some asshole can make a little music their little bit of work should be preserved for the exclusive purpose of making money for both them and their relatives for 90 years after they are dead. Strangely enough there are no laws forcing people to keep paying me until 90 years after I'm dead for the work I do every day.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... it *was* copyright violation. Plain and simple. This doesn't come close to fitting the criteria for fair use (a lot of /.ers think anything short of selling it for cash is "fair use" but that's not true at all, not by US law anyway). They didn't sue her, they didn't threaten her (she just assumed that part), they just made her stop distributing Prince's IP. She's totally wrong, she got off with a warning, and now *she's* complaining?
ahh very clearly the Record companies have won in what ever area you live in. As the US LAW does allow for Fair use and derivative works(a short clip of music in the background is fair use). It is exactly what fair use is. They issues a DMCA take down. She responded as the DMCA outlines. She's trying to secure her rights while you have a very distorted view of what copyright law is. It's not how Media positions it, as "creators graciously allowing you to use their works." but it's "society graciously allo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes I suppose my view of copyright law has been distorted by actually *reading* the law! By all means please tell me how copying Prince's music into her home video is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (17 USC 107). Only for one of those uses do you get to use the other arguments (about commercial vs. nonprofit, nature, substantiality, effect on value). "Me wanty" is not a legally valid justification to infringe on copyrights. Listen, I totally agree that current copyright law has been skewed ridiculously to favor the Disney company & cronies. I can't think of any good reason why the term should be more than 20 years -- if an IP creator hasn't made a decent profit by then, the IP can't have been worth much in the first place, and the whole point of publishing in the first place is to contribute the work to our culture. But that doesn't mean there's no limit. IP creators deserve to be paid for their work just like anyone else. (OK I'm a programmer and my entire livelihood comes from customers giving me money for solving their problems, so I'm biased.) I'm so sick of spoiled whiny brats who think that it's the natural way of the universe that weenies like you can take whatever IP you want and the person who created it is a jerk for thinking you'd ever do anything in return. See, it's their duty to work for free because weenie society has conveniently defined any job that creates IP as being inherently worthless. Meanwhile of course, no one better forget to give you *your* paycheck! Because your work actually matters. I bow down in your saintly presence oh master.
Some one else already responded and addressed how this would qualify as fair use. I too have read the laws and they are being pushed farther and farther away from what they originally were. Your interpretation may be correct very soon however fair use is still broad enough that this woman has done nothing ethically wrong and likely nothing legally wrong. Prince may want his cut, and if the recording was a legitimate CD or radio he already received it. At the moment that is all he legally can command.
IP cre
Re:Normally... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are likely to be many precedents where unfounded fear and intimidation had resulted in damages being awarded by the courts. Her fears are not unwarranted and I believe the will be victorious in this case.