digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Court Considers Toddler vs. Universal Copyright Case

mercurynews.com — Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz,whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mp3dog, on 07/19/2008, -0/+87The video in question:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
    • Niz1, on 07/20/2008, -2/+12is that the shorter version because 30seconds of anything is usually allowed right? like iTunes previews are 30secs same as others.
      • aladrin, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7Last I heard of this case, the video was 29 seconds long.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 07/20/2008, -2/+3No iTunes previews are 30 seconds because that's what the licensing agreement with the labels says they're allowed to use as a free preview. There's no law that specifically says you can violate music copyright so long as you only copy 30 seconds of music.
      • Blandyman, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1I don't know its called, but it exists. It's the legal limit of using some sort of copyrighted music, video, etc., as long as you state what song/video it is and the copyright holder.

        It's not copy 30 seconds of the song though, because it's not a 30-second MP3 she's releasing. It's just a video of the kid walking with the song in the back.
    • chillypacman, on 07/20/2008, -1/+48umm, so the song was playing in the background? I can barely hear ANYTHING amongst the static, it's barely even audible. One viewing of that video and the judge ought to chuck the case out as ***** or something.
    • Aliwalla, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7Same as chillypacman: I can really hear nothing discernible, especially not as Prince. If this cause doesn't get thrown out over the utter ***** of a toddler dancing to Prince on the the intarweb, then it'll be thrown out for lack of evidence. At which point the family must counter sue.
      • Ryosen, on 07/20/2008, -0/+12RTFA. The mother is suing Universal, claiming that the record company's DMCA take-down attempt violates the fair use clause.
    • niradg, on 07/20/2008, -0/+12Wow. Thanks! Now I don't have to go out and buy the whole album!
  • tvanwyk, on 07/20/2008, -6/+263The only crime I see is making the poor kid listen to Prince.
    • SRSco, on 07/20/2008, -21/+8Prince is awesome!
      • SRSco, on 07/20/2008, -17/+4For those who Digg me down. Have you actually seen him perform? He's a legend.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifp_SVrlurY Check out this sick solo. (I'd try to find better clips but it appears Universal Music has gotten YouTube to take them all down.)
      • SRSco, on 07/20/2008, -12/+2Had you seen him cover Creep @ Coachella you wouldn't bury me.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7You keep posting that stupid link. Get *****.
      • SRSco, on 07/20/2008, -13/+4Prrrrince1 OMG a digger who likes prince and doesn't like NIN. BURY him. GOMAG
      • vpshockwave, on 07/20/2008, -0/+14I don't support artists who pull dick moves like this, sick solo or not.
      • notoneofus, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9After his cover of Creep and subsequent insistence that videos of its performance be taken off YouTube, I've lost what respect I had left for Prince. It's not his ***** song.
      • uberduger, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Sorry SRSco, you're fighting a losing battle here. I can't bring myself to listen to his performances knowing how selfish and greedy he is.
        Plus, he'll probably try and sue me if I watch that performance you posted.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Prince is nothing more than an outdated ***** who can't get over himself. The fact that he's turned rabid on fans who dare enjoy his music and performances, like the performance previously mentioned, tells me he's a selfish bastard.
      • deathrobot, on 07/20/2008, -1/+0Prince dresses so fly. He's got so much style. He's a wack job though. And this lawsuit is ridiculous. Style: A
        Music: Never actually listened.
        P.S. I don't really think that they need all those guitarists on stage for a TRIBUTE song. That's just annoying.
    • apothekari, on 07/20/2008, -0/+28"The Artist Formerly Known As Relevant"
    • mistergraves, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4prince hasn't been good since '83. he's a total egomaniac for absolutely no reason. he's still riding the "when doves cry" wave. boo!!!
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/20/2008, -5/+14Viacom strikes again!
    • Lyght, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2NBC Universal.
    • uberduger, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3Is there a playbook somewhere that Prince, Viacom, etc all use for legal advice? It seems they're all taking similar approaches (i.e. try to financially annhilate your own fans).
    • ttntyler, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Vivendi.
  • Teknikscian, on 07/20/2008, -2/+131honestly. whats the point? did anyone lose money cause of the kid? retarded.
    • falafelkiosken, on 07/20/2008, -2/+49yes, people are going to watch that video instead of buying Prince albums - because of that kid Prince will die poor
    • Lunarsight, on 07/20/2008, -1/+18If anything, the video probably got Prince additional exposure.

      It's kind of like the "Rick-Rolls" on Youtube and elsewhere that got Rick Astley a ton of recent exposure, paving the way for a greatest hits album to be released.

      Sometimes the cruelest thing you can do is give a person exactly what he wants. If Universal wants to prevent exposure for any of their artists, I say we comply. Do Universal a favor - don't play their music anywhere. Don't mention their artists in public. Discretely hide their albums in record stores. If their artists appear on television, flip the channel!

      Let's help Universal keep their artists a well-guarded secret.
    • VinnieDaMac, on 07/20/2008, -1/+19Instead of buying Prince's music, I can just listen to that video all day.
    • locojones, on 07/20/2008, -11/+1I don't know where you guys get your interpretation of the law. Seriously, instead of ranting and raving about what you think it is, why don't you sit down and read it. Money isn't relevant in copyright infringement, so all your discussions about "well it's free promotion!" or "who lost sales because if that" is just blowing more irrelevant steam.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/20/2008, -1/+16Right. The law's intention was to prevent music from being played in the background while a baby takes it's first steps.
      • tvanwyk, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4Pfft. Then what is the point of copyright? Here's a hint: if copyright didn't confer any royalty benefits, why would anybody copyright anything?

        If copyright suits don't have anything to do with money and royalties, then I'm Rick Astley. Give me a ***** break. Take away the monetary benefits (direct and indirect) that the RIAA and labels (but not artists, because they get dicked by the labels left and right) get from successful suits and the suits would stop overnight.

        Take away the royalties money, and you'd see how little the labels care about the content per se.

        Read past the official line of ***** for once. To record labels and big stars, copyright is ALL about the ***** money. It's either about getting pirates to pay up, or scaring enough people away from digital piracy in order to keep the royalty gravy train running.
    • IHaveCrayons, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1I don't think you understand why they send these takedowns. Of course, I really ***** hate the RIAA but it's better to look closely. Obviously, as you said, watching this video has no effect on sales most likely. However, this is CONTENT on the YouTube website. The video has over 500,000 views. What does that mean? That means YouTube is making money off this video through ad revenue. Case in point, companies send out these letters because they don't want other companies, like Google, to profit over their material. That's why videos of the Office get taken down. Not saying that I support this notion, but this is how it works. It's not really who LOST money, it's who GAINED money.
  • ThePenrod, on 07/20/2008, -0/+108You've got to be ***** me.
    • ThePenrod, on 07/20/2008, -0/+18I mean Universal Music not the mom.
    • caborobo, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6I wouldn't ***** you, you're my favorite turd. :P
    • UltraDavid, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3It's ridiculous that there's even a triable question here.

      Come on, The Law, catch up already.
  • drpunkerz, on 07/20/2008, -1/+62Are you ***** kidding me?
  • MAGZine, on 07/20/2008, -1/+197What a ***** joke.

    I see a red wrapper on the counter... Kit Kat trademark/brand used without permission...
    LAWYERS ACTIVATE!! Form of: assholes!
    • go5go, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6And Fisher Price.. Good thing the kid didn't fall, or they would be all over this one too!
    • caborobo, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3In related news... Dragonforce has filed suit against GH legend iamchris4life.
    • alex7575, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8"LAWYERS ACTIVATE!! Form of: assholes!"

      I thought that WAS their default form...???
    • BringerOD, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0OMG Funny!
  • BillyVandergaw, on 07/20/2008, -26/+5How do you resolve this? Easy...remove the sound from the video. Everyone wins.
    • Flytrap, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7That is not the point.

      In our world there is always background noise made up of, in part anyway, distant televisions, radios, and other multimedia broadcasts and playbacks. In modern society, it would be impossible to exclude copyrighted materials (however distorted or faint) from the background ambient noise of any home recording (unless done in a sound booth - imagine if every house had to have a sound booth in order to film any home video).

      It is one thing when one adds copy written material as the background track of a home recording. That is not the case here. The sound track in question is part of the background noise that happened to be in existence within that household at the time of the recording
      • locojones, on 07/20/2008, -3/+1Copyrighted noise in the background of home recordings isn't important so long as you keep those for personal use. The problem arises, and the issue here is, when you choose to distribute and publicly display that content on a worldwide video sharing network. And that is where, unfortunately for the her, she will lose her claim. She can state "I didn't like feeling like I'd done something wrong" until she's blue in the face, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
      • rdebath, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Wrong,
        If she can convince 12 specific people that in a standard court of law that it's unreasonable for her to feel guilty about it she would win.

        If there are only judges in the court it's more of a problem. But even then the judge is supposed to rule on the intent of the law as well as the litteral interpretation of the words. Implicit in that is that the intent is not an ass even if the law is (or the law's being misused).


    • uberduger, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Resolution: Give Prince a mild sedative. Calm him down a little.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1I was thinking more along the lines of anything that'll put him in a coma.
  • rex84, on 07/20/2008, -0/+75It's gone from absurd, to ridiculous, to retarded.
  • jlebrech, on 07/20/2008, -1/+66FAIR USE !!!!!!
  • thecosmicpope, on 07/20/2008, -0/+66That video can come down when Price unblocks videos of the Radiohead cover he did which he had no rights to.
    • sarixe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Fisher Prince
    • warforyourmind, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0Is Universal trying to get Prince albums sold?? This is a truly innovative marketing strategy.

      //sarcasm
  • youthinkicare, on 07/20/2008, -3/+124***** that, it's called ambiance. This is tantamount to them telling us to turn our car stereo down.

    ***** you Universal. ***** you Prince. ***** you RIAA. Just because of this, I'm going to turn up my stereo extra loud today. Sue me.
    • TheAkolyte, on 07/20/2008, -0/+29Dont worry, they will.
    • locojones, on 07/20/2008, -19/+3When you choose to distribute your "ambience" over the internet, then it becomes a distribution or public performance in a digital media stream, both of which violate the copyright law.
      • johndi, on 07/20/2008, -1/+18Are you a troll or lawyer working for the RIAA? Never mind, I retract my question on the grounds that there isn't a substantial difference.
      • completerobot, on 07/20/2008, -1/+8Now that's just being unfair to trolls.
      • brycelb, on 07/20/2008, -2/+7NO THEY DON'T. The major problem that folks like yourself have is you listen to the RIAA and record labels and assume that what they tell you is the law.

        I'm a photographer, should I be able to sue people I have sold pictures to when they invite people over to their house and some of them happen to glance at them. This is how absurd the record labels are being.
      • locojones, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Actually I could care less what the RIAA or the record labels have to say on the matter because I have read the copyright law, the major decisions interpreting it, and understand them both. So yes, I know what the law is, which is much better than thinking I know what the law is which is what all of you armchair attorneys are doing. It's juvenile, and very unbecoming when you rant and rave about that which you do not know.

        And Bryce, your question doesn't even make sense. Of course you can't sue someone when they invite people over to their house to view your photograph. The same thing would hold true is this mother invited her friends over to view the videotape in the privacy of her own home.

        The record labels are angry because she didn't keep the use in her own private home. She uploaded it to the internet for millions of people to view, and that's where she crossed the line. The same thing would happen to you if the people to whom you sold your photo decided to scan it and uploaded it all over the internet for free so anyone and their brother could take it and never have to compensate you. In that case, you would be well within your rights to sue them.
      • Suneet67, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Your understanding of distribution does not apply in the context of this Prince case given that the distribution was not profit driven on behalf of the mother nor was it damaging to potential profits for Universal. You have to look at the facts of the case at hand: the question is not whether the mother's video was a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (as you smug-ishly imply you are an expert on and pertinent case law) but a question of whether the mother is entitled to fiduciary and/or punitive damages based upon a threatening letter Universal issued her based upon the assumption that her posted Prince video violates their copyrights/ownership rights. That means that even if you are correct in that Universal has a legitimate claim that the Mother violated copyrights, the most the court would do is throw out the plaintiff's suit (the plaintiff in this case being the mother who is suing Universal for sending her the letter without merit). In my opinion, the mother is not entitled to any fiduciary damages
        but the case is important in that it places scrutiny upon the corporation to legitimate and legally justify their dispersal of threatening letters.

        To side with the RIAA on this question is flawed because while copyright and ownership laws make it illegal to distribute the so called Prince track in REAL form, ie burning a cd or direct file sharing of an MP3 or likewise digital media format, Universal will not be able to win in court that the Mother's actions within the youtube Prince video constitutes willful or an intent to distribute copyrighted material. To say that the mother is guilty of copyright violation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because of an ambient copyrighted track in a video will open a legal pandora's box where MySpace/Facebook pages with ambient music and thousands (if not millions) of youtube videos with copyrighted music playing in the ambiance will make their creators liable for civil and criminal penalties. The legal brightline must be placed on the question of distribution; not generic distribution as you are interpreting it, but direct distribution that directly infringes upon profits for a corporation, eg all the posted concerts and TV shows on youtube.

    • katzmoses, on 07/20/2008, -2/+2it's kind of not the same thing at all
    • reformation, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Its not the same.
      They are wrong but so are you.
  • RetepNamenots, on 07/20/2008, -1/+54I'm going to extract the audio and put it up on TPB so that the whole world can listen to Prince in all of his 256Kbps glory.
  • rawrzzz, on 07/20/2008, -8/+16That was a pretty ass decision by Universal, but please, for the love of god, no one wants to see a lame, shaky video of your toddler dancing.
    • zeptobyte, on 07/20/2008, -0/+30No one wants to see it, but she should have EVERY right to post it.
    • Qumahlin, on 07/20/2008, -0/+13sometimes people also put the videos up as an easy place to direct family members and friends to see them. Not everyone who puts a video up on youtube is doing it to get a billion views.
  • silence7, on 07/20/2008, -18/+9Dupe......

    http://digg.com/movies/Serious_YouTube_test_of_cop ...
    637 diggs
    • hagfish70, on 07/20/2008, -1/+11Sad.
    • silence7, on 07/20/2008, -4/+3Sad that I reported this as a dupe, or sad that people have dugg it down? People are constantly telling people to digg the original story, but when you point them to the original, you get dugg down. Nice....
      • uberduger, on 07/20/2008, -2/+0The site in the one you pointed us to is much better as well - it loaded about 10x faster. Shame.
      • hagfish70, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Sad that you care enough to take the time to look it up and post it. I mean it's freakin Digg. Who cares?
      • silence7, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1And yet, you took the time to both reply to the original, AND come back and reply to my reply....
        I'm impressed by your caring.

        I actually read the original article, and when it hit the front page again, I knew it was a dupe.
  • yow1, on 07/20/2008, -0/+32next video: toddler learning to kick record company ass
  • cgbspender, on 07/20/2008, -1/+57They are absolutely right. Instead of buying all Prince CDs he has ever made I am now watching this video when I feel the urge to listen to Prince. Surely they lost billions because of it.

    /Sarcasm
    • f4nt0m4s, on 07/20/2008, -0/+19You get urges to listen to Prince? They have pills for that...
      • FluffyArmada, on 07/20/2008, -0/+13No. They have suicide for that.
  • f4nt0m4s, on 07/20/2008, -1/+45Whether she wins the court battle or not, she is winning the popularity battle as this negative publicity is a nice black mark towards both Universal and Prince.

    Prince is such a douche bag. All he does is complain. What is it with artists no longer relevant to music or reality being the biggest money grubbing, whining, pieces of ***** in our society. These guys perpetuate unnecessary lawsuits and their expensive lawyers and big corporations all need to go away.

    ***** Prince. ***** Universal.
  • Tamant, on 07/20/2008, -2/+15For ***** sake, I'm not even listening to the buzz in the background that they call music. I was focused on the little kid running around. What has the world come to?
    • chris062689, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7Watch what you say!
      You might be classified as a Sexual Predictor now.
      /Sarcasm
  • Crossmenjeff, on 07/20/2008, -0/+16this is simple, if she loses the case, then boycott Prince.
    • aliguana, on 07/20/2008, -0/+11if she WINS the case, then boycott Prince. Eitherway, he loses.
    • thesonofdarwin, on 07/20/2008, -0/+13Haven't people been doing that for years? I know I've been...
    • toolboxnj, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3Who listens to Prince to boycott him?
  • ephrils1, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3It's about time those companies got taken down a notch.
  • kwaatr, on 07/20/2008, -7/+1The only crime I see is making the poor kid
    • stonebone4, on 07/20/2008, -0/+10Prince threatened to sue him if he finished his sentence.
  • BobSutan, on 07/20/2008, -4/+31Whoa people, slow down a sec! She's the one suing the record company, not the other way around. Why and how is in the article, so please read it before posting half-cocked **IA hate. I'm no fan of theirs either, but at least get your stories straight.

    The short version is she's suing for "fair use" to keep the video online due to Universal Music's attempt to have Youtube pull down the video because of the song in the background.
    • kahrytan, on 07/20/2008, -1/+42 and Universal wants to drop the case. She wants the judge to keep case alive. She basically wants to make example of Universal for having ***** for brains. And if she wins, it will screw with RIAA cases.
    • Ajajadude, on 07/20/2008, -1/+27They started it by sending off one of their heart-warming take down notices to her, she turned around and decided to call them on their *****. So, get off your high-horse and don't assume ***** about anyone. Prince and Universal are still scum sucking douchebags.
    • digglet08, on 07/20/2008, -5/+1Oh! My original idea was right! In that case, I don't feel terribly bad for either party.

      I guess people here believe what they want to believe (see bush articles).
    • chrishirsch, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Do you realize what you've done?!

      You're gonna have to excuse my friend here, he's a little slow. The town is THAT way!
  • gemmini, on 07/20/2008, -3/+5***** Universal. They're just a bunch of giant ***** who only want money money money. They don't care about anything else in the world, even if people died over their their products. All they care about is making sure that their music is safe. So you know what? Don't buy Universal Music products! Ignore them! Burn them! Do anything you want, as long as Universal doesn't exist ever again to do ***** like this.
  • davidwasman, on 07/20/2008, -1/+16So why not join in solidarity with her and thousands of us post ourselves dancing to the song on YouTube?
  • TheBSG, on 07/20/2008, -3/+13As a Minnesotan, I feel obligated to apologize for Prince. Not only for his music, but for him being a prick as well.
  • Chubakkaz, on 07/20/2008, -3/+3seriously???!
  • skimmas, on 07/20/2008, -2/+10Due to the extremelly high quality of the sound in the background I think we can all clearly see how the audio is obviously going to be re-riped distributed in p2p and the black market. :D With so much better exemples I wonder if they are triyng to lose the court cases on porpuse.
    • chris062689, on 07/20/2008, -2/+0Even if it was "high quality", it's not the creator of the videos fault if someone goes and ripped the music off of the video, it's not the video that should be sued / taken down. It's the person who ripped the content off the video in the first place!
    • Stevo23, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1They are dolphinately not trying to lose on porpoise.
  • Iceknuckle45, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5I drive by Princes' studio in Chanhassen daily and lose more respect for the guy every day based on these digg posts. Supposedly the whole place is wired for sound. I wonder how many people he has ripped off.
    • digglet08, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0Are you sure this is Prince's doing?
      (I could be horribly, horribly off track here though)
  • S68x, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4So all this means that videos of live concerts where their music is clearly audible should all be taken down. Good luck with that.
    • locojones, on 07/20/2008, -2/+2Actually, yes it does, those are violations of copyright also. Under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which was enacted in 1994, the recording of live musical performances (that is, bootleg copies) is expressly prohibited. The relevant provision includes separate prohibitions against the distribution and transmission of such unauthorized copies.
  • bratterscain, on 07/20/2008, -2/+9What next? An infringement lawsuit because my memory recorded a song in my head?
    • uberduger, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Watch out, because the thoughts in your head about Prince may get you sued for slander.
  • Totz83, on 07/20/2008, -1/+6Prince truly is a dick
  • Supergaxx, on 07/20/2008, -0/+37" But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations."

    It would be unfair to require them to actually make sure someone is breaching copyright, before saying someone is breaching copyright?
    • UltraDavid, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Seriously, what a frickin ludicrous thing for them to say.
  • diabulos, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9What about all the millions of wedding videos out there with the couple dancing to whatever god awful song they felt was inspiring? and any video taken on the town with the music from bars, night clubs and restaurants blasting in the background?
  • artfuldodga, on 07/20/2008, -0/+17Copyright, getting out of hand much?
  • kilps, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4I wonder ... if she where to apply for permission to use the song - would they give it to her?
  • localzuk, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Is it me or is Universal trying to claim that they shouldn't have to look at each case before leveraging a law which has a very specific purpose? They claim that it would be unfair and costly to actually look at these videos before shouting 'copyright infringement'? That's just ridiculous. Of course they should have to. If they don't, the likelihood of a) getting it wrong and b) them being sued shoots up.
  • AndrewDB, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3This is *****.

    What about all those God awful gaming videos and etc with music over them that are whole songs?

    Universal doesn't do ***** about those.. hypocrites much?
    • digglet08, on 07/20/2008, -8/+0If you mean Rock band and Guitar Hero, those are licensed games.
      • rabidg00se, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Gaming videos, not video games. You know, those ***** ones where people show you five different angles of their "EPIC" Halo sticks and headshots, with some awful speed metal song over it.
    • digglet08, on 07/20/2008, -3/+0ohhhh, you are correct, Im workin my legs
  • kirado4, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5-->***** you prince.. everyone hates you soulless bastard
  • jskline, on 07/20/2008, -3/+1Ok all;

    I'm still confused. There is a legal stipulation that you can only use something like 20 or 25 seconds of something as "fair use" before it becomes a problem. If I'm not mistaken; how long is that video;... all of about 30 seconds. Then; because of the distortion of the users stereo, and then the inherited lossy conversion for Youtube, where do these people get off?? The song is barely discernible.

    I don't believe Prince would even have an issue with this but you know damned well there are several dirty; very dirty lawyers involved in this. They see the RIAA cashing in on in discriminant copyright violation filings, and are hoping to do the same here. Then when they discover they can't get out of it easily, they try and drop it. Now someone has guts to fight back and show these lawyers for what they really are.
    • aladrin, on 07/20/2008, -5/+1You're confused because you have no idea what the law states and are just guessing. It's 30 seconds you're allowed to use, and 'discernable' has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      Google a bit before you post your idiocy next time.
      • tvanwyk, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1In this case, the user put the song title in the title of the YouTube video. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the user hadn't put "Let's Go Crazy" in the song title. Would it still have been identified as a Prince song? I've watched the video, and I don't think the sound is identifiable. But, maybe I don't have a good ear. And maybe the web sheriff with the shiny badge has a nice Sennhaiser headset that lets him hear things I can't.

        That aside, typically "discernable" has everything to do with it. If you're right that "'discernable' has absolutely nothing to do with it," then the existence of a body or evidence of death has nothing to do with a murder trial. Suing somebody for an unidentifiable piece of IP is akin to trying somebody for murder when there is no proof that anybody actually died.
      • rabidg00se, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

        Where did you find your information, aladrin? I don't see anything about time limits on that page, or the EFF page after it. Maybe I just didn't Google enough before I posted my idiocy, or maybe you're just a huge douche.
    • completerobot, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Are you serious? If any artist would have a problem with something like this, it's Prince.
    • UltraDavid, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1You guys are both wrong. There's no set period of time before something stops being fair use, just as there's no set number of words you can take from a book or number of features you can take from a picture. There's a very general formula for deciding whether something is fair use that makes you look at several factors, but it's not rigid at all, and even the importance of the various factors can vary widely. Most cases involving fair use are decided in unique ways.

      I don't think this nonsense is the lawyers' fault; their obligation is to pursue the legal objectives their clients want, and, with few exceptions, they have to follow that regardless of their own personal positions. The problem here is the objectives Universal wants to pursue. Well, that and the law that allows those objectives in the first place.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/20/2008, -3/+4I think this is a bigger issue than at first it appears. This is a conflict between profit and culture. "Is our society here to preserve capital investment, or is it for the benefit of citizens?"

    Imagine one day, when we have computer-assisted memories -- perfect recollection. Will we be in copyright violation if we replay the memory of a song we heard but didn't pay for? Can we show friends and family our parties without paying ASCAP fees that never find their way to artists?

    I know where I stand on the issue. I think if you have to pass laws to protect your money, you need to find another way to make money. Businesses need to offer utility to people or not exist. There will always be jobs and money to be made, as long as there are people to work and a public that has money. Investment money and CEOs do not poop gold and are pretty replaceable.
  • Matteus15, on 07/20/2008, -1/+0I am having problems believing that Viacom would go through with an actual case against the mother... although i have seen Viacom doing weird things in the past, this just seems way to absurd.
  • profitimo1, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2another day ruined by reading to crap like this. if this is the case, they should stop marketing their music!
  • akhomerun, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7the recording industry didn't lose a dime from this video.

    now they will by sending their lawyer brigade. it's too bad that these silly things destroy lives financially.
  • t4m5t3r, on 07/20/2008, -0/+10i say we just stop buying thier stuff, ALL OF IT, ***** them they want to go to such lengths to ensure profits get EVEN GREATER i say we ensure they dont get *****!!

    this is about scaring everybody else, they will think if they'll do this to a mum, capturing her kids first steps, they'll go after anybody and in a sense thats true, there is no level these scumbags wont stoop to get profits, its a disgrace that the courts would even allow this to get that far, it just shows you how corrupt the courts are to allow this to happen, at the end of they day just like the music and movie industry all they care about is the pay packet at the end of the year, ***** SCUM!!
    • digglet08, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Its incidents like these that make people proud of their illegal activities!
    • AltairLaAhad, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Hell yes! I'm not buying any of their ***** now! Not that i did before.
  • andretii, on 07/20/2008, -2/+5she should be jailed for bad music taste.
  • LansingSterling, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1she should of used a song from Jamendo instead. they a lot of talented artists
  • javaroast, on 07/20/2008, -0/+25What really pissed Prince off was that the kid was taller than he was.
  • xokittyxo, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2Those big music industries are out of control...
    ... Its not like she was trying to make money off of the music.
  • digglet08, on 07/20/2008, -6/+0WOOOOOOW. After several days of intense thought, I finally understand this case. Its for the copyright of the song in the backround! I thought the mother wanted it off and it was like her copyright.... wow.

    now that I understand, thats ridiculous.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.