Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Sony Youtube Your Rights Online

Copyright Professor's Lecture Removed From YouTube Over Sony Content-ID Claim (torrentfreak.com) 157

ShaunC writes: William Fisher, a professor of intellectual property law at Harvard, posted to YouTube a lecture titled "The Subject Matter of Copyright: Music." In discussing the complexities of music licensing and cover songs, Fisher played several short clips of music by Hendrix, Santana, and others. Sony responded by having the lecture removed from YouTube, ignoring any fair use protection in excerpting works for educational purposes. While the video was restored after public backlash, most YouTube users don't have Harvard Law School backing them up. Once again, a company has issued overreaching copyright claims with no penalty or consequence for harming an innocent party.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Professor's Lecture Removed From YouTube Over Sony Content-ID Claim

Comments Filter:
  • by 0xdeaddead ( 797696 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:48PM (#51531661) Homepage Journal

    and yes PEOPLE, not corporations, but the people making these false claims the system will remain the same.

    hail corporate!

    • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:59PM (#51531719) Homepage
      Youtube has a bit of a larger problem. Nobody gets punished for false claims. You don't even need a person, because Youtube will automate it for you. And while people can file claims as quickly as they'd like, instantly taking videos down or stealing ad revenue, it can take months to go through the review process of putting a video back up. It's a crazily one-sided system. Nostalgia Critic, a long-time movie reviewer, talks about it [youtube.com] in a recent video.
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        On the other hand, the nostalgia critic pretty much puts the whole movie in his "review" videos while contributing not much more than making funny faces and pretending to be upset. His content is terrible, he's downright plagiarizing the movies he reviews and he produces bottom of the barrel content. I'm not defending youtube's current system, but that guy has no room to complain when he's downright uploading whole movies and contributing nothing to the equation.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          plagiarize [thefreedictionary.com]
          1. To reproduce or otherwise use (the words, ideas, or other work of another) as one's own or without attribution.
          2. To plagiarize the words, ideas, or work of (another person).
          v.intr.
          To present another's words or ideas as one's own or without attribution.

          The NC always gives credit to the studio that made the movie, I don't think he's trying to say the movie is his own work. Also given some of his views on the movies themselves I don't think he'd WANT them to be his. Not to mention Channel Awesom

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Hence the dangers of centralization. There is a single power in charge of what stays up and what does not, and hence, given censorship powers over what most of the world sees.

        The internet was designed around DEcentralization. Too bad we have thrown that concept away.

        • by Teancum ( 67324 )

          The internet was designed around DEcentralization. Too bad we have thrown that concept away.

          The concept still isn't gone, and you can still route around centralization if you care do go that route with a group of people who share similar interests to your own.

          While YouTube is useful, along with other centralized servers, it isn't the only possible video distribution site to use... or for that matter create your own server to host videos. That is how YouTube got started in the first place, before it became part of Google.

      • This is a big and real problem, but the solution is to run your own site, link to it from all your youtube videos... and use the opportunity to link to other sites willing to host the videos youtube takes down. Right now people are barely aware that it's happening, compared to how much awareness there could be. But because Youtube controls not just the videos but the platform, you often only know they've taken down a video because someone mentions it in the comments. And you know what they say about Youtube

    • by Pulzar ( 81031 )

      Punishing corporations (appropriately) would work fine. If corporations feel the pain of the punishment, the pain will be passed on the individuals that caused the pain.

      However, if the punishment is so toothless as to encourage corporations to, in turn, encourage their employees to continue to break the rules, then you get what you have now. And in that kind of a setup, going after the employees that are doing what they are told is unfair. Fix the system by making the corporation feel the pain of doing bad

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Punishing corporations (appropriately) would work fine.

        Hillary and the Republicans will never allow it. It is not the way of their kind.

      • However, if the punishment is so toothless as to encourage corporations to, in turn, encourage their employees to continue to break the rules

        If this is true then one way to fix it might be to turn the tables on the corporations: report their content and have it removed so they can see first hand how one sided the rules are. With any luck they may go crying to their lobbyists and the law will be changed to include some penalty for abuse of the system.

        • Re:Turn the tables (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Thursday February 18, 2016 @03:04AM (#51532931)

          Then the law will be changed so that only registered media companies can issue take down notices.

          • It would take a massive change in copyright law to strip all copyright protections from the works of individuals. Right now, I can take a photo, write and essay, and post them online. They are protected by copyright and if I find that someone (be they an individual or a corporation) has taken my essay or photo and is using them without my permission, I can issue a DMCA cease and desist notice. The person/company then can either take down the content or face a lawsuit. (I have had to do this in the past

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              All the treaties that are coming on line remove the safe harbour provisions of laws like the DMCA and I'm sure the rules will be that little people can't take down the big boys as they're the ones writing the laws and treaties.

              • I don't think they need an explicit "little guy can't sue big guy" rule. As it is, they've rigged the system so that lawsuits are expensive and time consuming. This is nothing for a big corporation but can easily be taxing for a small company/individual. Since defending themselves in court is something big companies can do much more effectively, they tend to feel like they can ignore the rights of smaller companies/individuals until sued. (And even then, they offer a token, non-precedent-setting settlem

          • by jiriw ( 444695 )

            Someone over there start a 'for the people' registered media company then. Put some creative commons stuff in its portfolio so it's actually a proper business... And let the take downs commence like it's 1998.

        • by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

          I have a sneaking suspicion that may be exactly what happened here.

      • but but but we have 10,000 videos uploaded to our site every 4 minutes but but but...we couldn't possibly check all the content. I watched c-span yesterday Facebook, google, yahoo were being quizzed by some Britain government office as to what they are doing to police their sites for terrorist videos.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Punishment by the People ... just boycott Sony and anything with their name on it.

      • We've been doing this for years now. And what's the net result? "They don't buy our crap, so they must copy it! We need even worse laws!"

        • Don't forget their attempts to pass: "They don't buy our junk so they must be pirating it so everyone must be required to pay $5 a month to us to allow us to recoup our losses." This didn't go through in the US, but if it did it would have instantly made me into a pirate. (I don't pirate stuff, but if I was being forced to pay for being a pirate, I might as well get the content that way.)

      • by JRV31 ( 2962911 )
        I used to be a Sony customer until they intentionally put viruses on CDs. (Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) Don't let this be forgotten.
    • The DMCA was written to make it extremely easy to have a take down order, and very burdensome to overturn such an order. Neither individual nor corporations can be punished for having a false claim, so the issue of corporate personhoood is irrelevant in this case.

      • You've fallen into the fallacy of thinking a DMCA claim is an order, that is mandatory to comply with.

        It isn't. The recipient can choose to ignore it. They just lose safe harbour immunity if they do.

        The problem is Google not having the balls to ignore these orders and to show up in court if Sony is stupid enough to sue.

      • by Teancum ( 67324 )

        The DMCA was written to make it extremely easy to have a take down order, and very burdensome to overturn such an order.

        No, the DMCA was written to make it clear how to object to content that might be in violation of copyright laws. It also provided a legal procedure that the content hosts (aka YouTube) must follow to put that content back up, and they are supposed to do so in a "timely manner" (meaning no more than a few days up to a month.... yeah I know that sucks but it still happens).

        Content providers can submit a counter-claim, but doing so puts the legal burden on the person submitting that counter-claim where you ar

    • by EEPROMS ( 889169 )
      Really all false copyright claims should fall under defamation as the company is inferring a person/s is a criminal without any valid proof.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Then I vote that a corporation/people that violates a very bad law get's the death penalty. Yes I want Corporate Death penalty where the company is sold off for it's assets and dissolved.

  • DMCA penalty (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CanadianRealist ( 1258974 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:58PM (#51531715)

    While DMCA is not likely mentioned, it likely is involved. And the reason there is no penalty is because Sony only needs to prove that it is a copyright holder, not that the video that was taken down is actually in violation of copyright.

    So the solution is simple. The professor should post some cat video on YouTube, claim copyright, and then file to have every video from Sony removed via a DMCA request.

    Hopefully with the whole Harvard Law Faculty behind him he can get away with it and show how broken the system is.

    • Re:DMCA penalty (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:18PM (#51531811)

      So the solution is simple. The professor should post some cat video on YouTube, claim copyright, and then file to have every video from Sony removed via a DMCA request.

      You actually can't do that. I've tried.

      Since it is a completely legal and sanctioned in law action to do, I don't mind admitting this.
      I setup a shell LLC with a youtube channel and over about a month filed over 50 copyright claims against sony entertainment, plus 4 copyright take down requests.

      Youtubes automated system for limiting an account after the 4th claim request, which works consistently for any and all other channels, is silently ignored and dropped for Sony.

      They are quite literally on an "Exempted from legal and evidence supported allegations of criminal activity" list.

      For any other random channel, if you make 4 claims at the same time against their channel, youtube takes that channels past month of monitization and gives it to you, limits your video uploads to 15 min max, prevents you from filing your legal takedown counter claims, and can even have the channel outright deleted.
      Anyone with a youtube channel can legally do this to anyone else with one.

      But do the exact same thing to Sony and nothing.

      Which also means, since no one is allowed to accuse Sony of actual crimes perpetrated on youtube, that Sony is legally allowed to take all of your videos music and other content, post it on their channel as-is completely unaltered, and claim it as their own property.

      After that they can submit all of your audio to their own content ID matching, so any video you ever post in the future where your own voice says any word that you have already used in a past video, Sony owns your voice and you are in violation of copyright law.

      Even if you were to go to court to sue Sony for infringing your copyright, the "evidence" that youtubes content ID explicitly states your own work is owned by Sony and not you can easily be used against you.
      I fear many judges looking between Sony and some twit on the internet are going to just assume Sony is making the truthful and accurate statements, and clearly you must be wrong.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cramer ( 69040 )

        You need to use paper -- the tried and true method of all things legal. Youtube gets too many crackpots, like you, doing this sort of shit, so they ignore you. Serve an actual from-a-lawyer DMCA notice to youtube (and Sony), and they will act on it. They cannot legally ignore it. I suspect 100% of your takedown requests were complete bunk, and Sony's legal team would toss you into a wood chipper if you actually filed them.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          His whole point is that *most* takedown request are complete bunk, but if you're Sony you don't have to deal with that. Which is just one of a dozen pieces of power imbalance that make the current system untenable -- Sony can make bunk claims against you all day, without evidence or paperwork or even a human being in the process. They can use those bunk claims to steal your money AND your content. But if you make claims against Sony -- even valid ones supported by evidence and paperwork -- YouTube simply ig

  • Need to pay the legal bills + any back ad revenue for any false claim.

    Harvard needs to send the bill to google.

    • by CanadianRealist ( 1258974 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:02PM (#51531737)
      Google did exactly what the law requires them to do. Sony made the false claim, they should be the ones that pay the penalty. And also the people in government who created something as broken as the DMCA.
      • by vlad30 ( 44644 )

        people in government who created something as broken as the DMCA.

        I think you mean "people in government who endorsed something as broken as the DMCA" they didn't create it the various companies with an interest did they stupidly endorsed and made it law

      • Google did exactly what the law requires them to do.

        Not exactly, no. The law requires them to respond to claims and counterclaims, that part is correct. However, google allow for fast track automated claims (but not counterclaims of course) which is not required by the law.

        So, while they are operating fully within the law they have gone above and beyond what is necessary in the direction of claimants (particularly large corporations).

        • by KGIII ( 973947 )

          Law doesn't really have fuck all to do with it - except in the cases of actual infringement and leaving the content up. When it comes to removing content, Google (YouTube) can take down any damned video they want to take down and there's not much to do about it if you want to use YouTube. They can, if they want, take down your video because Sony sent them a picture of a cat with a party hat and said that your mom's a nice lady. They can take down Sony's video because you wrote them a haiku. They can take do

  • by Barlo_Mung_42 ( 411228 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:03PM (#51531747) Homepage

    If someone legitimately infringes content they eventually cut off your ability to upload content. Why can't they do the same from the other direction? If someone issues too many bogus claims they lose the ability to issue more claims.

    • by jafiwam ( 310805 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:10PM (#51531777) Homepage Journal

      If someone legitimately infringes content they eventually cut off your ability to upload content. Why can't they do the same from the other direction? If someone issues too many bogus claims they lose the ability to issue more claims.

      They don't want to.

      It suits them just fine to allow their service to be "cleaned" of things they don't believe in while not actually having a policy about those things.

    • by dissy ( 172727 )

      If someone legitimately infringes content they eventually cut off your ability to upload content. Why can't they do the same from the other direction? If someone issues too many bogus claims they lose the ability to issue more claims.

      Because filing a bogus claim is a legal action codified in law as your right to do.
      Ignoring a bogus claim however is a criminal action with some pretty heavy penalties for doing.

      • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @11:25PM (#51532337) Homepage Journal

        They're not legally obligated to let complainants use the automated fast track system. As long as they respond to an actual on-paper notice within a reasonable time of receiving it by mail, they're within the law.

        There's also no reason they can't allow the uploader to counter the claim instantly and put the video back up.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Time to get out of the US, and move somewhere with saner copyright laws.

          • by chihowa ( 366380 )

            After not too much longer, no such place with exist, thanks to all of "trade agreements" that every other country is falling over themselves to sign.

            I doubt Google has any interest in moving Youtube to a saner jurisdiction anyway, since their fast track system is the cause of many of the complaints. They're getting something out of this situation.

    • They can't even get the search right on Yt, pretty amazing for being owned by Google.
    • Think about where their money comes from. Yeah, Youtube might make some money on ad impressions for some person's channel. But give Sony and other abusive corporations free reign to squash anyone they want? I wonder how much they pay for their channels?

  • by Daniel Matthews ( 4112743 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:15PM (#51531787)
    It is that simple, if an account has the right credentials a far more stringent process should be used to scrutinise their content if there is a complaint, and that process should be designed to ensure the rights of all parties are fully protected.

    Save the automated kill scripts for Mr. Fakename and his 2 week old account.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      No. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. This idea of protected status is bullshit that further promotes injustice. The way to fix this problem is to punish false accusers.

      If youtube or the courts won't do it, then the People may have to step up to the plate.

      • The thing is that posting videos to YouTube is not a legal right. Google can remove any video for any reason. They have decided that assuming guilt is far cheaper than manually checking every complaint. The penalty for posting copyrighted material is often ignored, and lots of people will just recreate accounts if they get banned.

        If you want to punish false accusers, you are going to have to start punishing the rightly accused.

    • So it is ok for Youtube, Google and Sony to stomp all over the rights of us plebs, but not universities?

  • by watermark ( 913726 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:15PM (#51531789)

    Right now, Youtube takes the video down as soon as a DMCA claim is made against the video. One of the biggest issues is that youtubers depend on the ad revenue which is lost when these bogus DMCA claims take the video down (or worse, they redirect the ad revenue to the company that made the false claim).

    The solution is to give the author of the video some time to counter-claim that the video is not infringing, without automatically taking the video down. That or punishing the company that made the false claim. Either works, the later probably would work better, but it would be hard to enact in practice.

    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:33PM (#51531865) Homepage Journal

      The solution is to give the author of the video some time to counter-claim that the video is not infringing, without automatically taking the video down. That or punishing the company that made the false claim. Either works, the later probably would work better, but it would be hard to enact in practice.

      The solution is to sue the offending party.

      The professor has damages from lost revenue, so should have standing to sue. Google was only doing what the law requires, so the professor should sue Sony in civil court.

      Or perhaps start a class-action suit against Sony.

      In engineering, there are lots of interesting technical problems and lots of engineers with spare time.

      In law, there are lots of legal problems, and also lots of self-proclaimed "under employed" lawyers.

      In engineering, we have a world of open source software, operating systems, electronic designs, cheap laptops and inexpensive microcontroller boards whose specs rival a desktop PC of ten years ago.

      In law, we've got... an endless parade of rights violations, injustice, and unfair abuse.

      The victim is a law professor at Harvard, for god's sake! Why doesn't he file suit and get some of his students to help with the case hands-on?

      Maybe I expect too much of lawyers. They're probably wired differently than engineers.

    • by Cramer ( 69040 )

      The DMCA doesn't work like that. Youtube MUST make the alleged content unavailable in a timely fashion. (i.e. upon notice) They take it down and pass the infringement notice on to the poster. The poster should be able to file a counter-claim, but youtube's process here can be difficult. (read: you'll need lawyers. you can file a counter-claim, but you'll have to do it through a lawyer, on paper.)

  • If you want to fix it, you will have to vote out the entire House of Representatives and get the law changed. Otherwise move on to something else.

  • The DMCA doesn't help, but standard libel laws should apply.

    Sony published a false statement (incorrect DMCA claim) that claimed a professor of copyright law violated copyright law.
    It doesn't get much more defaming than that.

    • by pem ( 1013437 )
      Or tortious interference with the contract between you and youtube...
      • He? And if youtube decides to close shop, does it mean it owes everyone who ever posted a video some money?
  • Of course not ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:46PM (#51531943) Homepage

    Once again, a company has issued overreaching copyright claims with no penalty or consequence for harming an innocent part

    Of course they don't have any consequences.

    They got exactly the fucking laws they bought, ones with they can make unfounded accusations with no burden of proof, and which people are expected to jump to and enforce or face their own penalties ... make no mistake about it, this is exactly what they wanted, and exactly what they got.

    And, they've managed to get the US government on the fucking payroll to ensure every other damned country has the same absurd bullshit. And companies like YouTube pretty much have to jump and say "yessir boss".

    The DMCA and related laws are supposed to give them all the power, and no accountability. That's what they paid for, that's what they got.

    This is what was said when it was happening, and this is what has been said ever since. But let's not pretend this is the first we're learning about just how defective these laws are.

    These damned laws a broken by design, because they were written by and for the copyright cartel, and the rest of us can go get stuffed.

    Blame the idiot politicians who gave this shit to them -- Sony and these guys? They paid those clowns fair and square. And they keep delivering in the form of even more fucking broken garbage, like the IP provisions in the TPP which will more or less the USA in championing the rights of multinational corporations like the puppets they are.

    Hell, DHS (and by extension ICE) are now the enforcement arm of the copyright cartel. Welcome to the awesome future where corporations have more rights than you do.

  • Fair use doctrine (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @09:53PM (#51531977)

    As much as I hate copyright trolls, Sony in primis; people most of time really don't understand the fair use doctrine.
    What is and what is not fair use can only be decided by a judge and it varies case by case. There is no law stating what is precisely fair use and what isn't. And this is what gives the copyright trolls such an advantage. They have simply to say it's not fair use and bingo you're censored. And your only legal recourse is to go to court. And even then because fair use doctrine is so vague it's possible the judge is going to go against you. The situation would be much easier if instead of the fair use doctrine we had a law stating exactly and clearly what are the boundaries of fair use.

    • Re:Fair use doctrine (Score:5, Informative)

      by dunkindave ( 1801608 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @10:47PM (#51532169)
      I came to post similar information. Fair Use is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit you violated the letter of the law (used part of a copyright work without express permission), but you had a legally acceptable reason for doing so. The rights holder has the legal right to claim any use is infringing, and it is up to the user to show they their usage falls within one of the allowable exceptions, such as being a short excerpt, or a parody, or a critique, etc. Where the boundaries are between a short excerpt and a long one, is left as an exercise for the jurist, as are the boundaries for the other exceptions. In this case, Sony claimed the professor used songs without permission, and they are correct, so they complained to Youtube. At that point, it became the professor's responsibility to prove his use was allowable under the law according to the fair use doctrine (note it is a doctrine and not technically a law), which he appears to have done, at least to Youtube's satisfaction.
      • Fair Use is a not defined legal concept that non-lawyers rarely understand. The courts deliberately want it kept vague so they have to decide on a case by case basis what is and is not Fair Use. Many non-lawyers believe things like "If you only use _______ amount it's Fair Use" but no such definition exists in reality. I know of a case (and I don't want to go into the details because it will lead to digression into unrelated topics) where a documentary used (I believe) a 10 second excerpt of a popular so
      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        Fair Use is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit you violated the letter of the law (used part of a copyright work without express permission), but you had a legally acceptable reason for doing so

        Can you clarify that? IANAL. Fair use is stated directly in US code. My reading of the law indicates that "fair use" is not a violation of copyright. It looks like in the past it was a violation, but no longer.

        17 U.S. Code 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use [cornell.edu]

        • Fair Use is an affirmative defense, meaning you admit you violated the letter of the law (used part of a copyright work without express permission), but you had a legally acceptable reason for doing so

          Can you clarify that? IANAL. Fair use is stated directly in US code. My reading of the law indicates that "fair use" is not a violation of copyright. It looks like in the past it was a violation, but no longer.

          17 U.S. Code 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use [cornell.edu]

          There are many laws that contain exceptions, except it becomes the "offenders" responsibility to prove the exception applies to his or her situation. This is called an affirmative defense [wikipedia.org]. "In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcome the plaintiff's claim."

          As you cited, fair use is permitted under US law, but as the original AC pointed

  • Take down all the content on Youtube that Sony is trying to promote (previews for upcoming movies etc.) and replace it with bad parodies. :)

  • by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @10:13PM (#51532047)
    What the hell is wrong with people? Sue them for damages based on lost ad revenues if the video was monetized. There are no consequences to a fake DMCA takedown but doing almost anything to someone that causes them to lose money means they can sue you for damages. Why does nobody do this?!
  • harming an innocent party.

    I'll play devil's advocate here and ask what harm was done to the professor or anyone else who was affiliated with the video? He did not stand to make any money from it, as it was publicly viewable on youtube. I don't like the fact that the video was taken down so quickly but I don't really see how its temporary removal did any meaningful harm, either. I even agree with the label of innocent being applied to the professor as it certainly seems he did not aspire to do any harm to Sony or anyone else who

  • Just watched this today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Remember, Google does not give a shit about it's users. They set up the copyright claim system to help punish small users doing fair use and completely silence anyone exercising free speech.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I had Warner try to take down a video I posted a while back. The irony was that the video was a conference held by Duke Law on copyright and the artist who was lecturing was sued by Warner/Island records for sampling(quite creatively) one of their artists. The lecture itself was on fair use. I had to do nothing more than point out to Youtube that the lecture was on fair use and they reinstated it and I never heard another word. It's at this point that I realize that in its current incarnation, copyright is

  • WTF? It's a free service. Which makes them essentially volunteers. Yes, I know they make money off the commercials, but that is no different from someone promoting themselves (to customers, perspective employers, etc.) based on a fact that they volunteer at some organization. In both cases the volunteers derive tangible benefit form volunteering. But it's still volunteering. And you shouldn't be obligated to continue volunteering once you start (or risk a law suit). They didn't sign an SLA with the g
  • by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Thursday February 18, 2016 @03:13AM (#51532955)

    The record companies also shook down the producers of the 2008 film, The Wrecking Crew [imdb.com], a documentary about a very few, unknown, session musicians who played on innumerable hit records from the 1950s and 1960s. The release of the film was delayed for over two years -- until the companies were paid, in essence, for the use of the artists' own performances.

  • If nobody hears (even snippets) of their music, no one will buy it.
  • When Bill Clinton signed the DMCA into law in 1998, the initiative that resulted in the draft legislation being put before him was one run entirely by large, copyright-holding corporations. 18 years later and with countless real-world examples to go by, we really must not be surprised to learn of instances where the DMCA is being used, by the people that sponsored a law, to act against the potential opponents of those parties. In theory law is just, consistent and treats all parties equally. In practice, n
  • That is, every time you have a claim of copyright protection denied, you have to pay a fine of $100 to the person whose work you falsely tried to stop.

    If your claims are denied more than 1% of the time, that triples to $300. More than 5% of the time, it triples again to $1,200.

  • There needs to be a pre-emptory "fair use" counterclaim that (a) leaves the claimed-infringing material up and (b) puts the issue of fair use in front of a magistrate within madeupnumberten days unless the claimant abandons the DMCA claim. The magistrate can decide whether or not a respondent versed in case law would have a reasonable expectation of winning. *expectation*. Loser pays a madeupnumber$500 fee for forcing the decision, plus up to some similar amount in actual costs. Anyone with amounts in

"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"

Working...