Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down 298
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?"
It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.
Got to love the legal system.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
actually I just tried, for the hell of it, www.gogle.com and it took me to google. Unfortunately goggle takes you to some bullshit site giving away things like free iphones. I suppose they figure if you can't figure out how to spell google and then can't tell you didn't get to the right place you're ripe for pickin'. :)
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Interesting)
Name some of them who have successfully taken Monsanto to court and won.
Re: (Score:3)
Name some of them who have successfully taken Monsanto to court and won.
There was a grain washer that was sued by Monsanto for tortuous interference. He lost in court, because he was inducing people to violate their contracts with Monsanto. Monsanto primarily declined to actually sue any of the farmers the grain washer induced to breach contract on condition that they would tell Monsanto who washed their grain.
To date, Monsanto has only had 9 trials that have gone on to a full jury trial suit. And each of those were decided in Monsanto's favor, because--I'll repeat this again--
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
He had an invasion (not illegal), wiped out all his legal crops leaving only the crops he knew to be patent protected, and then used the patent protected crops to almost exclusively plant his next year's crops. He knew he was breaking patent law.
He was breaking the law? So fucking what? I seriously hope you don't actually believe that seeds should be protected as trade secrets, let alone controlled to the extent that Monsanto does. If anything, you just helped to illustrate exactly why no one trusts Monsanto. They want to control something as simple as food and create a Soylent Green-esque future of poverty-stricken riots and rations.
Re: (Score:2)
While I sympathize with your feelings in this, the fact is he was breaking the law. The law needs to be changed but frankly, if you can't do the time, or pay the legal costs, don't do the crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Monsanto, or their licensees, violated his property rights by contaminating it with genetically modified pollen. This contaminates corn that is supposed to be not-GMO, and causes problems for farmers who DO reuse their corn and don't want to "do business" with Monsanto. In addition, because weeds have demonstrated the ability to evolve resistance to glyphosate, the mere fact that corn happens to be resistant to glyphosate is not proof that it must have been acquired from patented genes. If Monsanto cares
Re: (Score:3)
While I sympathize with your feelings in this, the fact is he was breaking the law. The law needs to be changed but frankly, if you can't do the time, or pay the legal costs, don't do the crime.
Actually, this is how you get laws changed.
He broke a stupid law, and is making noise about it. Other people are making noise about it. I didn't know anything about it, and if I didn't hear about this guy's problem, i wouldn't know about it.
Now that I know about it, I can write my senator and complain that this sort of stuff isn't right. I can go protest if I like, I can tell others.
And I can do all this because this dude broke a stupid fucking law and made a stink about it.
I don't know, maybe it's be
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Interesting)
So what you're saying is that no one else is allowed to produce a Round-Up-resistant crop?
The only way to develop a resistant crop without genetic engineering is to hit your crop with Round-Up and see which plants die. Thus, experimentally killing off your crops is a valid way to develop a Round-Up-resistant strain. Different plants will have different levels of resistance. Cross-breed the plants that lived, and you'll get crops that are progressively more and more resistant.
In effect, if Round-Up won that battle, unless they proved that the farmer was aware that a neighbor was using a patented Round-Up-resistant strain, the court ruling effectively says that Monsanto has a right not only to their particular gene sequence, but every possible Round-Up-resistant strain, regardless of how it was derived. That's just not what the law says, so either the farmer's lawyers were incompetent or the judge was crooked. You pretty much can't have it any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.
Re: (Score:2)
Both of those deals are supposedly as advantageous for RIAA as they are for Google (otherwise I highly doubt that RIAA would enter into those agreements with Google at the first place), so I don't think they are going to back out of those deals because of this one video.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the RIAA will gladly cut off its nose to spite it's face.
I'm pretty sure they did the nose a while ago, now they're working on the major organ groups.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:3)
Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?
So, you believe there should be no right to parody without the source's permission? If not, what is your point?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure ... so long as you remake the video as well as the audio, eg. Mad Al Yankovitch.
As it is he's using somebody else's video for profit (direct or indirect)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We could make sure no music is borrowed or stolen by having a music cast. Each member of this cast would have to grow up in a complete music void, and start from scratch (banging two sticks together or whatever). Sure, we would no longer have a culture and all music would sound like perfect shit, but hey, a small price to pay for making sure all music is original!
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, we would no longer have a culture and all music would sound like perfect shit, but hey, a small price to pay for making sure all music is original!
This plan must have already been put into action, since we currently have no culture and all modern music sounds like perfect shit. :)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?"
So you don't think that say...Weird Al should be allowed to parody people's songs? (I know he seeks permission, but legally he doesn't have to, he's just being polite. See the dust-up with Coolio over "Amish Paradise")
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger problem here is the reverse onus, Universal should have to prove infringement, Bad Lip Reading shouldn't have to prove fair use. Unfortunately DMCA is one of a multitude of laws specifically designed to change "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven guilty" (They pretty much dropped the innocent part altogether, as they generally assume that anyone who has had any allegation made against them must be guilty)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the problem with your argument. The DMCA allows this type of legal abuse to occur. In criminal cases such as rape, the charges get filtered through police and then a district attorney and then a grand jury before it leads to an indictment. We call that due process... something the DMCA removes from copyright cases such as these.
But now that you mention it, your first sarcastic argument is often closer to the truth than you know.
Fucking hell. (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Bought congress (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the kinds of laws we get when we let companies (via their lobbyists) write their own legislation.
Blame the right entity (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Streisand the hell out of it! (Score:5, Insightful)
This must not stand!
Repost the video!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone post it on pirate bay. See how they like that.
Looks like the assholes are winning (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
>>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.
Streisand effect (Score:3)
The Video is not Down (Score:2)
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]
Re:The Video is not Down (Score:5, Informative)
It seems another youtube user who had downloaded a copy reposted it, and the original author added it to his playlist. See: http://www.facebook.com/badlipreading/posts/296640680348638 [facebook.com]
Their youtube site is up (Score:3, Informative)
I just checked it. http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading [youtube.com]
It's really funny but not as funny as Day Job Orchestra.
Sadly enough, UMC is right on legally (Score:2)
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
what recourse? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
YouTube DMCA takedowns (Score:3)
IANAL but did graduate from law school a few months ago.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
DMCA Counter Notice (Score:2)
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
I see no problem in what Universal doing! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA Counter notice didn't work in this case? (Score:2)
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
Copyright is as out of control as ever (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
You don't have any rights that you can't defend (Score:2)
recourse (Score:2)
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.
Parody - Most people have no idea what it is (Score:3)
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.
Recourse, ever heard of self-publish? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This shouldn't be necessary. Since Google owns YouTube, they should know all about 'freedom' right? Surely they know parody is protected? Surely they aren't the same as every other corporation out there?
Hello? Is this thing on?
Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has no right to decide whether it's a parody or not. That's up to the courts. If they receive a DMCA complaint, they have to take it down. If they didn't, Youtube wouldn't exist by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the content must be put back regardless of whether the claimant files a lawsuit. Once they receive a proper counter-notice, they must put it back (unless it violates their TOS) until they receive a court order to take it down. They are not to make any attempt to determine the validity of the claim/counter-claim, only to follow the procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
Well gee I bet they'd be really sorry about raiding my home and confiscating my computer equipment without a warrant then.
Re:Things you can do. (Score:4, Informative)
Fourth amendment?
In this case, no, the fourth amendment doesn't hold, it's data sitting on Google's servers that's being yanked down by Google, not the Government.
Re: (Score:2)
make a joke about other things
As near as I can tell, it's not making fun of anything but the original song's lyrics. The only difference between this and Weird Al, is that Weird Al makes awesome music videos, while this is just scribbling on the original video.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not up to YouTube to decide, that's for the courts to decide. YouTube is simply to take it down when they receive a compliant DMCA takedown notice, and restore it when they receive a compliant counter-notice. Everything else it to be settled by the parties in negotiations or on court.
Re: (Score:2)
MAD sometimes use stillshots from movies and adds their humorous quip onto them.
F.eks...
A stillshot of Sam Gamji holding the Star-glass and a sword looking menacing, while saying: "I'll show Gandalf how many Hobbits it takes to screw in a lightbulb!"
So....if that works for MAD...
Re:no recourse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is America's Pirate Party? I wish to vote for them.
Here [pirate.is], but it seems that only Florida Pirate Party [pirate.is] and Washington Pirate Party [pirate.is] are active. Don't expect a federal Pirate Party anytime soon, though. It wouldn't work very well in the winner-takes-it-all two party system of the US.