sfgate.com — A woman who posted a home video on YouTube of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" squared off Friday against entertainment giant Universal Music Corp. in a federal court case that tests copyright law. The issue in Stephanie Lenz's lawsuit against Universal is whether the owner of the rights to a creative work that's being used
Jul 19, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountJul 20, 2008
Well since you obviously don't know what you're talking about, I'll just pretend you didn't make an ass out of yourself with such an inane comment.
diggikJul 20, 2008
I knew the original version of the song had infants laughing and mother prompting in it. I just never understood why they didn't play this version on the radio. It's even short, too. We've been cheated for so long until now!
bmatherlyjrJul 21, 2008
Unfortunately, you are slightly miss led. Regardless rather or not she profit from the posting of the copyrighted clip is mute. Technically it wasn't hers (based on the law as it reads today) to post to begin with.If Universal can further prove the YOUTUBE profited in ANYWAY from the posting of the video, they can hold both her and youtube liable for monetary punitive damages.Do I agree, no of course not. I am in line with the majority that this is wrong and the system is flawed. Until congress wakes up and sees how menacing these outdated copyright laws are, your going to see more and more cases like this in the future with the big guys getting decisions in their favor.
bmatherlyjrJul 21, 2008
Yes. We are all under agreement that she wasn't setting out to profit and her use SHOULD be considered fair use but the catch 22 is that the site she used to use the copyrighted material is a for profit site. If Universal can prove the Google profited from the posting of the video in any way regardless rather or not the woman ever saw a dime, it completely jeopardizes the fair use defense. The only way the fair use can be successfully defended is if she had posted this video on her own web site that is strictly a non profit site. If she posted this video on her site that happen to have google adsense or other forms of profit generation upon it, it kills the fair use defense. That's how it will be argued and I am afraid that Universal will be the victors.Does it make it right? No Do I agree with that line of thinking? to a degree, I do and to a degree I don't. Do I think the laws need to be changed or updated? Absolutely.
bmatherlyjrJul 21, 2008
It's considered a music video on a for profit site. I've made this argument over and over. It's only fair use if there is nothing in the form of monetary gain to be made. YouTube is a for profit, website. If Universal or Prince can prove that ads were displayed at anytime around the video, it destroys the fair use defense. Because now your using the music to enhance an advertisement and just like any other advertiser / advertisement venture you have to license the use of the music. REGARDLESS if the intent was to or was not to sale advertising. The fair use law needs to be changed.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2008
money-hungry assh**es. that's all they are.
vidkidJul 22, 2008
I guess I need to make sure my microphone is off when recording stuff just in case there's music playing in the background, or someone says a trademark phrase like 'iPhone', 'I'm Rick James, Bitch' or 'Let's Get it On'. Corporate America can 'Suck It'.