Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Courts Your Rights Online

EFF To Ask Judge To Rule That Universal Abused the DMCA 139

xSander writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will urge a federal judge in San Jose, CA to rule that Universal abused the DMCA to take down a video of a toddler dancing to a Prince song. The case in question, whose oral argument will be Tuesday, October 16, is Stephanie Lenz vs. Universal, a case that began back in 2007. Lenz shared a video on YouTube of her son dancing to 'Let's Go Crazy' on a stereo in the background. After Universal took the video down, Lenz filed a suit with help of the EFF to hold Universal accountable for taking down her fair use. The court had already decided that content owners must consider fair use before sending copyright takedown notices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF To Ask Judge To Rule That Universal Abused the DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:1, Insightful)

    by PieMasters ( 2751119 )
    Music industry is dinosaur who doesn't want to go forward with new models and the way people use the internet.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I think you mean the "traditional media cartel" as opposed to the "music industry". Some parts of the music industry are doing quite well and have no ties to any old crufty corporations with obsolete business models. .. Beatport and artists on Beatport, for instance.

    • Posting to undo incorrect mod.
  • Meh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12, 2012 @10:58AM (#41631415)

    Where is the line between this "fair use" and using the song to promote your personal brand? I think this particular case is better dealt with socially by embarassing the shit out of universal for being such tools.

    I'd rather see them go after the automated systems that are sending DMCA notices for things that are clearly NOT their IP in any way shape or form.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:02AM (#41631459) Journal

      If you actually think of yourself as having a 'personal brand', I'd say that existing is all the punishment you could ever require...

      • If you actually think of yourself as having a 'personal brand', I'd say that existing is all the punishment you could ever require...

        Oh, everyone has a "personal brand". Just in a lot of cases, it's Brand X.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:07AM (#41631521) Homepage Journal

      Where is the line between this "fair use" and using the song to promote your personal brand?

      That's what I want to know.

      Capturing incidental background music should be always or never illegal. I vote for never but whatever. These arbitrary standards only postpone a meaningful reckoning. Reckon that's the point...

      • Some opinions on copyright say that all non-commercial use ought to be legal. I am pretty close to this belief, but I think if I thought for a long time I could come up with a counterexample. It's a hard line to draw... like does self promotion = making money? Hard to say.

        • Defining "commercial use" gets to be tricky indeed. For example, most movie theaters make no money selling tickets (all of that goes back to the studios), they make their money on concessions. If they could "get ahold" of a digital copy (which most won't do because showing it would be illegal and easily punished) and then show it legally, for free, open to the general public (ie: non-commercial use) but then have unaffiliated food and beverage sales, they would. And there goes most of the studio's revenu

        • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Defenestrar ( 1773808 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @12:11PM (#41632423)
          I'd suggest a counter example to be duplicating a piece of art to hang on your own wall instead of buying one of the artist's prints. I'd personally view that as a non-commercial infringement which substantially violates a creator's right to pick their own business model.
          • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hazah ( 807503 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @12:34PM (#41632703)
            That business model relies on law, not supply and demand, as such is broken to begin with. The violation is merely perceived, and is non-factual. But hey, why not have an inflated sense of entitlement. It's obviously serving humanity so well...
          • by Anonymous Coward

            I just printed off your comment and put it on my wall. Sue me!

          • Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

            by JesseMcDonald ( 536341 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @01:26PM (#41633309) Homepage

            which substantially violates a creator's right to pick their own business model

            There may be a right to pick your own business model, but there is no right which obligates anyone to make sure that business model succeeds. For example, my business model might be that I expect everyone else to pay me for the privilege of breathing. If so, I should expect that business model to fail. Other people breathing without my permission does not cause me any harm, so there is no legitimate basis for preventing it by force, and no one is going to voluntarily pay me for something they can do on their own for free.

            Like breathing, copyright infringement is an action which harms no one, and a business model predicated on expecting others to voluntarily pay you to make or share copies is just as obviously doomed to failure.

            • Re:Meh (Score:4, Funny)

              by Sentrion ( 964745 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @02:33PM (#41633991)

              My business model is similar to breathing, but I don't control what other people choose to breathe. But when they walk by my store and breathe in the aroma of my scented candles and then walk away without paying, how fair is that? People should not expect the government to just hand out entitlements like healthcare, housing, food stamps, disability and SSI, but we do need a system of entitlements for those of us who actually pay taxes to protect our rackets. We have patents, copyrights, and contracts, but that is not enough. It's about time for government to protect our aroma property rights as well. Who's with me?

              • My business model is similar to breathing, but I don't control what other people choose to breathe. But when they walk by my store and breathe in the aroma of my scented candles and then walk away without paying, how fair is that?

                This was covered in a Judge Ooka story. The payment for the smell of your candles shall be the sound of money.

          • Your counter example sounds good, until you start talking with professional artists (painters --- photographers seem to have a different business model) and realize that they mainly make money from people who are only interested in having original/authentic works (partially as an investment). Since the value of a widely-copied original work is only increased by the copying/popularity (assuming the copier for personal use is copying rather than forging), your example is actually totally wrong (for paintings)

            • Sorry - you missed the point which is that a copyright is a time limited monopoly which gives the owner of the copyright control over that monopoly. It's a business thing, and as such they have control over how they want to make money from the monopoly - or how they want to run the business opportunity into the ground.

              You made an argument related to your opinion of how a business model compares to other models, but you didn't address the core issue of the "copy right".

              While you ignored my point, I'll try n

        • A video on youtube IS commercial use. Because youtube makes money with ads.

      • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Elbereth ( 58257 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:46AM (#41632057) Journal

        This whole problem could be resolved easily if the corporations had an automated system wherein people could license copyrighted works for use in personal, noncommercial videos (like YouTube). It wouldn't necessarily have to even cost any money, either. Simply collecting demographics would, I imagine, be valuable to the suits. If they wanted to be complete and utter assholes about it, they could charge 10 cents per license (or maybe have an unlimited subscription service for $5/month, so that you could use any of their hottest singles).

        As it stands, people have no way to ask for permission and thus resort to simply violating copyright. If they at least had the opportunity to follow the law, maybe there wouldn't be so much ill will toward the suits.

        This seems like quite a reasonable compromise to me.

      • Re:Meh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Technician ( 215283 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @01:55PM (#41633631)

        Would playing a stereo too loud in a public place be a copyright violation for making available? Maybe they can use this to outlaw loud car stereos and mandate the use of headphones in cars.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Funny you should say that. There are actually rules in the copyright act about how big a TV you can have in a business and how many speakers you can have, etc.

          But they'd probably go after you for "public performance" rather than "making available." The "making available" is something they made up, while the other is actually part of the law.

        • Yes, and there are organisations that actively police this and exto^H^H^H^Hask for an annual fee for places like cafes and hairdressers to cover their "exploitation" of the material. They do this even for playing a radio, for which the material is already licenced and paid for by the broadcaster to be broadcast to the entire public. Double dippers par excellence

    • Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:25AM (#41631759)

      Where is the line between this "fair use" and using the song to promote your personal brand? I think this particular case is better dealt with socially by embarassing the shit out of universal for being such tools.

      I'd rather see them go after the automated systems that are sending DMCA notices for things that are clearly NOT their IP in any way shape or form.

      Embarrassment only works when the subject has a sense of shame.

    • This lawsuit stems from before there was ever automated systems in wide spread use. If they prevail on any part of it, it should have clear implications for the automated systems. If for instance, they uphold the consideration of fair use, the automated systems will have to forward the complaint to an actual person who makes that determination before any DMCA take down notice is issued.

      On the other hand, it might not have any effect on services like YouTube who employ their own automated systems. But then a

    • Where is the line between this "fair use" and using the song to promote your personal brand? I think this particular case is better dealt with socially by embarassing the shit out of universal for being such tools.

      I'd rather see them go after the automated systems that are sending DMCA notices for things that are clearly NOT their IP in any way shape or form.

      Interesting theory, except that universal most likely does not give a shit. The majority of the world already holds record and movie companies in very low regard.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Fair use should be "I bought it, now I get to use it in any manner I damned well please"

      If I made a full blown music video using the song, according to the DMCA they'd have a right to take it down. If were waring Levi Jeans in that video, Levi wouldn't have any right to take it down. What the hell is the difference?
      • by Shagg ( 99693 )

        The difference is that the RIAA has spent a lot more money bribing politicians than Levi has.

      • Fair use is fairly well defined and does NOT equate to "I get to use it any manner I choose" Levi Jeans doesn't own a copyright on their jeans so they can't take it down.
  • by BMOC ( 2478408 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:00AM (#41631445)
    do not constitute prior-restraint when it comes to free speech. Is it because the government isn't doing the takedown?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      First of all, take down notices come after "publication," so even if the government was doing it, it wouldn't be prior-restraint. Second, it's handled entirely through private groups, generally on both ends.

      • by BMOC ( 2478408 )

        You have to demonstrate that something being expressed can legally be censured before you can squelch it, as far as I understand the definition of prior restraint. BIANAL. Takedowns of videos are done BEFORE a judge is even involved, meaning no one has proven anything to anyone.

        If the law did not work this way, I would imagine a sufficiently skilled/powerful/connected staff of lawyers could simply stop negative news reports before they happened.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:16AM (#41631637)
      I think the idea is that the DMCA is supposedly only invoked in good faith, and that it would only be used in cases where their is a clear copyright violation. If this were the case, then I think most people would consider the DMCA a relatively fair and benign method of copyright protection. The problem is that it is not being used in good faith. Rather, it is being thrown at virtually everything to see what it sticks on, and it's so sticky it sticks to everything. So, to answer your question, I don't think it was intended (except, of course, by it's industry backers) to be used this way.
      • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:26AM (#41631773) Homepage Journal

        As it is often pointed out here, by clear case law corporations are supposed to get the most for their stockholders. They're basically mandated by caselaw to push the envelope. Therefore you can't trust corporations to do the right thing... ever. Any law that expects a corporation to work in good faith is flawed. The only way you can call them on it is to take them to court, then it turns out to be the usual "my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer" crap.

        They shouldn't have the power to take something down on their own say so. It's a violation of both due process and free speech. But, heh, they can afford a better lawyer than I can. That's america.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Always blaming shareholders is silly, and they are not "mandated by caselaw to push the envelope," any more than a dictator is mandated by natural law to kill any and all resistance. Why don't we just say that those particular people are dirtbags, and not diffuse the blame because "they are forced to do so."

          • by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @12:15PM (#41632469)

            Glad to see somebody trying to set the record straight. Corporations are not required to take any steps that, in their management's judgement, might be contrary to law. There are several areas of law where the exact opposite is the case. (Just try to claim in a U.S. court, that your corporation was compelled to bribe local officials in a non U.S. locale because "it's the way that culture works" and you would have been remiss to not use bribery to maximise shareholder value. You'll find out that there are international treaties supporting the U.S. penalizing your corp for something it did off of US soil.). In addition, it's usually possible for a board to 'beat the rap' by simply claiming they were avoiding negative publicity for such actions, i..e. by claiming they feared triggering a boycott movement.

            The problem starts when somebody finds out that shareholders have sued because a board of directors 'failed to maximise value'. The correct way to look at that is that somebody has sued NASA because a kid on a playground broke their window with a baseball. Just because somebody files a lawsuit doesn't mean it is at all reasonable nor that they have any chance of winning. Somebody might sue you for breathing their air, now do you go through life using that to justify your every action? There have been a few reasonable claims that a board was failing in its duties, but many more unreasonable ones, and the chance anyone will win a suit against a board of directors over shareholder value is pretty slim overall.

            Here's the sort of situation where a shareholder value claim can win: The board appears to be taking steps that are generally devaluing the company, or at least making it perform at far under anticipated projections. Judicial review shows these steps may have helped another company profit, and part of the board consists of members who have some sort of 'less than arms length' relation with that company.

        • by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @12:42PM (#41632779)

          No, they are bound by case law to work towards fulfilling the goals that were laid out to their shareholders. Those goals are very, very rarely "make as much money as possible". They range from "maximize shareholder value" (which isn't the same thing as maximizing short term profit) to "uphold traditional christian values". No one ever said that selling stock of your company meant you had to run said company like a sociopath.

      • In theory, a DMCA takedown is supposed to be "under penalty of perjury". The penalty rarely happens, but it is possible. This lawyer website has some examples: [].

        Lenz vs. Universal may become another such example.

        • Unfortunately, it's not perjury to send a fake dmca notice, only perjury to misrepresent the copyright holder.

          It is, however, perjury to falsely challenge a dmca notice.

          Very one sided, and I think it such an obvious mismatch that whoever wrote the law designed it that way on purpose.

          And I said wrote, not passed.

      • The DMCA is not intended as a method of copyright protection, it is intended as a tool to facilitate the right holder's claims against something copyrighted while offering protections for the service provider or network carrier from becoming liable in the process.

        The DMCA has been widely abused in this regard and it is on the surface or in appearance, a method of enforcing a copyright. However, it was supposed to only be a shelter for innocent third parties from liability while a copyright owner and accused

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:51AM (#41632115)

      In short, yes:

      From the abstract of "Free Speech Unmoored in Copyright’s Safe Harbor: Chilling Effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment" by Wendy Seltzer []

      If this takedown procedure took place through the courts, it would trigger First Amendment scrutiny as a prior restraint, silencing speech before an adjudication of lawfulness. Because DMCA takedowns are privately administered through ISPs, however, they have not received such constitutional scrutiny, despite their high risk of error.

      The actual article argues that although the takedown notices are carried out by private entities, they are being done "in the shadow of the law". However, until a court accepts this, prior restraint does not apply.

  • by srobert ( 4099 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:07AM (#41631533)

    Universal?. Hmm. Most all of my childhood memories are owned by Disney and Time-Warner.

  • (WIL) = who is lawyer.

    Remember to ask for the judge's dismissal! Based on age, stupidity, wreckless endangerment of humanity.

    Only way the legal system will learn.
  • EFF is stretching it (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Dishwasha ( 125561 )

    The toddler/family was conducting neither criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research with the Prince music. In addition, the woman published to a public forum where others besides her family could view the video. People really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop using children and the "awww, cmon...." mentality as defense for their lack of judgement.

    • People really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop using children and the "awww, cmon...." mentality as defense for their lack of judgement

      Awww ... Cmon!

    • "de minimis non curat lex"

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You are infringing a speech I made to myself on the can last night.
      By the power of the DMCA, you are here by found guilty and sentenced (accused, found guilty and sentenced by myself and my lawyers) to a fine of $5 per every view of your post for spreading ideas that vaguely resemble my own.
      You have no legal recourse for this, respond to devnull@localhost with appropriate forms.
      If you believe this is unfair - send the forms (I won't tell you which ones and I'm sure you'll get the wrong ones) within 10 minut

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's incidental use. The video is of the toddler dance, the presence of a prince song is incidental to the toddler. If there were a coke can in the background, coke couldn't send a takedown even though their IP was included in the video.

    • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:32AM (#41631845) Homepage Journal

      But what harm came to the copyright holder? At worst it was $0. It might be negative harm since someone might have seen it and went and bought a prince album. Maybe it could of used the YouTube model and provide a link to buy the music.

      Sorry... it's asinine. It's using the copyright law as a sword instead of a shield. If you care about a tight interpretation of the Constitution it's pretty obvious that copyright is well beyond its stated intent. It's funny how strict constitutionalists change their tune when their corporate buddies are involved.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        This is actually where I am all for Universal asserting copyright over the song -- but only for making money off the ads on that page. If the owner of the video wants to make money, let them check a box to split it with Universal, have the option to remove the video, or claim that this is fair use and not allow any monetization. (and allow it to go one more level too - allow universal to then check a box saying no, I won't split it it - remove video or no adds allowed).

        If the person want's to share the vide

      • But what harm came to the copyright holder? At worst it was $0.

        Well, the way the IP folks have been arguing this is that since they didn't get paid at all, the damage is what they would have charged you if you had asked to license the track.

        Since you didn't license it, then clearly the damage is the ridiculous statutory damages of eleventy-trillion dollars.

        Remember, someone out there still bristles at the idea that someone could sing Happy Birthday in a restaurant and not getting paid.

        And I'm sure studio ex

      • If you care about a tight interpretation of the Constitution it's pretty obvious that copyright is well beyond its stated intent.

        Exactly. Originally copyright was 7 years. Think about this for a minute. If you published a creative work, be it a book, painting, play, piece of music, in 1776, exactly how much distribution could you expect to get in a mere 7 years. It took 2 months just to cross the Atlantic. I mean, with today's global digital distribution, that equates to like 3 minutes. :P

        • But, conversely, publishing was not as profitable in 1776, thus insufficient lobbying funds were available to draft appropriate legislation. Now that publishing is much more profitable, much more effective legislation has been procured from the profits generated. And now with even more profits protected and secured, there will be even more lobbying money available in the near future to come up with even more innovative legislation.

          Everybody wins! Don't you feel more secure knowing that the IP you purchas

      • For every person that decides to buy the album because they heard the song on that video, someone else decided not to buy the album and just listen to the video.
        But I fail to see how copyright is well beyond its stated intent (based on this issue)
    • by Hatta ( 162192 )

      You're right, it fails many of the tests for fair use, and is yet still clearly fair use. What we should conclude for this is that rightfully fair use is broader than has been traditionally considered.

    • Did you see the video? It's only 29 seconds long, and the song is barely recognizable. If you didn't already know the song, it would be hard to identify even with tools like Shazam. The usage in the video would have no effect on the value [] of the work. I cannot imagine why this video should be an example of a work to be taken down. If it is, then anybody with a radio or ipod speakers could walk into a public place and turn it into a 'no video' zone.
    • We need to send this "toddler" to jail. No more excuses!

    • Really, I see it fitting all categories listed.

      criticism - A commentary on the complexity of Prince's music. It's so simple a child can dance to it.
      comment - Similar to criticism so while Prince's music is so simple even a baby can dance to it, it is musical enough to be enjoyed.
      News Reporting - OMG Mom, look at the baby dancing, this is the first time I've ever seen that before.
      Teaching - Hey kids, look how easy it is to dance to a Prince tune. just stand and try it...very good!
      Research - H

      • I agree that Universal is getting rather extreme with this, but I could understand the concern on their part that anybody could record a newly released top hit in high fidelity, and add just enough content to suggest that the music was "incidental" when in reality the true intent was to freely distribute the music to a worldwide audience.

        That said, I am beginning to believe that patents and copyrights are just a corporate entitlement that leads to bigger government. Big government is bad, so maybe we're al

    • Sufficiency is not necessity [], so listing a few examples of unrelated potential fair uses isn't much of an argument. And nobody here is using children as a defense - the EFF is suing Universal, not the other way around. Universal is being accused of abusing the DMCA takedown process, and the defense is that one of their songs happened to appear incidentally in the background to a 29-second video of a baby acting cute.

    • by suutar ( 1860506 )
      as it happens the law does not restrict fair use to only those purposes, but uses them as examples. Given how common such things probably are on Youtube, getting a court ruling seems like a good idea. (Maybe if the automatic systems are required to get a human to agree, news stations will stop taking down NASA footage.)
    • Read the Law (Score:4, Informative)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:57AM (#41632219)

      None of the things you mentioned are criteria for determining whether something is fair use. They are examples given in the law, and were never intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of instances of fair use:

      ... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

      The real criteria for fair use follows that introductory paragraph:

      In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
      (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
      (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
      (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
      (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

      This video easily passes those criteria.

    • That music was broadcast over sound waves and is recorded without intention by anyone nearby with recording devices or even ears. Maybe Universal needs to take responsibility for their actions. Either stop broadcasting their music, or accept that it will end up being recorded.
    • by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @01:37PM (#41633417)

      Here's an interesting counterexample very fresh in my memory.
      Two days ago I watched the "Cat watches Slayer" video posted on ( I remembered how much I loved Slayer when I was 16-18 and all I could find was a couple of cassette tapes which I couldn't play anymore (yeah, I got rid of my cassette player) so I immediately went and bought their albums online. Yes, all of them, because I could afford this one purchase.
      So, paradoxically, a video of a cat watching Slayer boosted some Slayer sales. Go figure.

  • by v1 ( 525388 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:17AM (#41631645) Homepage Journal

    We need more of these trigger-happy infringement notice filers to be held accountable. I get the impression that at this point they feel they can do no wrong, and will just fire off a takedown notice with no thought to the consequences. They need to learn that we won't stand for their abuse of the system.

    Applying some of the teeth in the anti-abuse clause in the DMCA is the only way to change their attitude. These groups won't stop abusing the system until it starts affecting their bottom line.

    (of all the things I've seen the EFF do lately, this is the one that I appreciate the most)

    • by ender8282 ( 1233032 ) on Friday October 12, 2012 @11:31AM (#41631833)
      Oooh, Oooh how about 3 strikes. The media companies love it so much; what if they got 3 strikes? If they issue 3 DMCA take down requests that get overturned as failing to consider fair use, they loose the right to issue take down requests.

      I predict that a fraction of a second after such a law took affect most companies' bots would issue bad requests. A few months later the courts would rule that 3 of them were in valid, and all of big name rights owners would loose the right to issue take down notices. Then the word becomes a better place and I can watch the Curiosity landing!
      • And then immediately after, they set up hundreds to thousands of shell companies and transfer copyrights around and around whenever they hit that limit and you're back to square one. Oh, and for added fun, you'll get multiple DMCA notices from subsidiaries of the same company when they can't keep track of their own movement and which subsidiary owns what.
        • They wouldn't need to, immediately after they make campaign contributions and get the law overturned.
      • I'd rather the work they claim is infringed upon loses copyright and is put into public domain. Sure, they can issue thousands of fraudulent notices if they hold the copyright to thousands of works. But three notices regarding the same copyrighted work, and the copyright gets taken away.

  • Thanks the Almighty I live in Europe. So far.
  • If all the rights-owner wants is a takedown of the audio track, then the big question is whether it impacts sales. Factors that go into this include how "public" the video is, how much of the work is used, the quality of the work e.g. is it crystal-clear or is it muddled?

    If it's a partial track, if it's muddled, or if it's on a "friends-only" or otherwise-restricted-to-a-small-number-of-people part of the Internet, then any claim of fair use should be taken at face value, particularly if the person who put

    • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      since when is getting someone to sue you because they're stupid abuse of process?

  • You know, after all this cr@p back and forth from these studios, the MPAA/RIAA, et al... I'm so sick of the whole broken system. If there ever comes a time when revolt against these industries and institutions comes about, I'm all on board. Tear it all down and start over.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The big companies have hundreds of blood sucking lawyers on retainer, and because the blood suckers don't want to lose the gig, they are very keen to 'go hard' for the team. Likewise, the companies inform them that they want to see action for their investment in time. As a result, you get triggerhappy litigators who yelp at people like Google to 'Take down that video because it contains a color we have patented'. Facing a legal threat, Google complies. Then, in hindsight, we see that fair use got trampl

  • Economic loss to Mr. Prince Roger Nelson as consequence of the YouTube video: $0
    Economic loss to Mr. Prince Roger Nelson as consequence of former fans like me boycotting him for the greedy, overstepping-the-boundaries foolishness of the takedown: More than $0.

    • I agree with what I presume is your assertion that some of this may be coming from Prince himself. What's weird is that if we went back in time to about 10 years ago, he was thrilled about the internet. I remember hm saying that he sold fewer recordings, but he made a lot more money because he kept 100% of the money from sales instead of most of it going to a label. Then something changed and he became arguably the most anti-internet of major recording artists, going back to the Darth Vader embrace of a
  • I really wish that Anonymous would do something useful and setup an automated system that would issue fake DMCA take down requests against these major media corporations that abuse the process. That would get the attention of the politicians fast. If ALL of their videos were taken offline due to a random request from outside the US and they weren't able to go after anyone due to the law having no bite outside the US..... At the very least, maybe they will remove the provision that says US companies have t

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson