What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
87 Comments
- peterlisanti, on 08/21/2008, -1/+133Here's the best part -
"Fogel added that an 'allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim.'"
Basically this gives victims of meritless takedown notices the ability seek damages in court. - thedsack, on 08/20/2008, -2/+102A win for the people
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -3/+69Whaaa? A judge making a logical ruling in a copyright case? This must be from The Onion.
- ileftfark, on 08/21/2008, -1/+60Finally, someone with some common sense. While there are definitely some grey areas in 'Fair Use', pictures of home videos of your family that happen to have a song or TV show playing in the background is the most ridiculous reason to allege copyright infringement.
- surfernerd6987, on 08/21/2008, -1/+58"Viacom has no alternative accept to repeatedly search the entire YouTube library," the letter continued, "and send take-down notices... This is a massive effort. We have manually reviewed over 1.7 million clips on YouTube and have identified more than 187,000 pirated clips of our copyrighted content. In an effort of this scale, some inadvertent error is inevitable."
WTF...who gets paid to watch 1.7million vids. I call bullshnit, or one extremely wasteful budget. - Darkaged, on 08/21/2008, -1/+52It's nice to think that at least one of those bastards got Rick Rolled.
- BaseballGuyCAA, on 08/21/2008, -2/+51It's about damn time.
"Whatever happened to... FAIR USE? Oh, yeah!"--Duffman - blacklilyninja, on 08/21/2008, -4/+40FACE ROLL on the RIAA
- artfiend77, on 08/21/2008, -2/+27Meh, they outsource to China, it's done in a day or two.
- ap1983, on 08/21/2008, -3/+25Whats crazy is that Viacom is a multi BILLION dollar enterprise, is it really hurting by use of its "copywritten" material?
- zcreem, on 08/21/2008, -2/+24What i amazing is that the companies have got away with this bullying for so long, the law hasn't changed it's just finally a judge has interpreted it as it was intended.
- Idietired, on 08/21/2008, -3/+22***I wrote this in another comment thread for a similar story a couple weeks ago, but it still applies here***
The music business still turns profits every year in spite of piracy, and sales numbers only saw a sharp decline when the RIAA started getting called on their BS reports. Here's a link that explains up to last year using the RIAA's own site and Neilson Ratings as sources:
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html#2007
The RIAA is a joke. They're burying themselves with their own over-aggressive tactics, and when the day comes that a judge orders THEM to cease and desist, just like that prick Thompson, I'll be there with my Nikon in one hand to capture the looks on their faces and my iPod in the other out of pure spite, all the while dancing on the steps of the courthouse that would be their organization's God-forsaken grave.
They and their sympathizers represent everything wrong with my beloved entertainment industry, so let there be no mistake that any quiver in my voice is not born of hesitation but of a very real hatred as I shout over the sound my blaring headphones
"***** the RIAA!" - accn112, on 08/21/2008, -1/+15Why do I get a feeling groups/companies like Viacom isn't going to care?
- Nerys, on 08/21/2008, -0/+12ABOUT F'ING TIME !!! A judge with a set of balls and morals! Lets hope it sticks!
- cadmiumpaint, on 08/21/2008, -2/+14as somone who creates stuff for a living i am in full support of copyrights however, i think something like youtube is completely fair use. The quality on there is worse than VHS most times so you don't have to worry about missing sales because of quality. Its similar to cassette and vhs tapes.
Even though i own all the Family Guy DVD sets i'll still look up clips on you tube. its eaiser and instant sometimes. Additionally you can't even fit a whole episode of a show on youtube without breaking it up. I don't really see how putting some clips on youtube can do anything but give the shows extra publicity.
There are some people that are too cheap to buy things, and for them youtube is the greatest thing ever. But they were never going to buy the products in the first place.
If they were broadcasting full HD quality broadcasts they might have some room to argue its infringement. - VivaCalligula, on 08/21/2008, -1/+13Oh thank god this passed!
I've been wanting to buy Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" on iTunes for weeks, but now that that 30 second clip is back online I don't have to anymore! I can listen to it whenever I want now. Might as well get out my Bose headphones so I can really enjoy the quality. I'm so glad I saved that dollar.
Whoever decided to send that letter for Universal was a tool shed. - MtheoryX, on 08/22/2008, -1/+12"Viacom has no alternative accept..."
"...alternative accept..."
"accept"
Am I the only one that knows the difference between "accept" and "except?"
Seriously, wtf, over a thousand diggs on the story, over 35 diggs on this comment, and no one has pointed this out?
My grammar Nazi's have let me down tonight. - ZeeZee2k, on 08/21/2008, -0/+9Yea but they couldnt review those ***** pirated richard gere movies
- inactive, on 08/21/2008, -2/+10People who think this ruling is toothless don't understand how this process works. Before this ruling, copyright owners could use lawsuits as an intimidation tactic and bring meritless misappropriation claims against users within impunity. The burden would then be on the user to hire a team of lawyers to contest the charges and raise fair use as an affirmative defense. What the judge is saying here is that the burden is now on copyright holders to address the fair use issue up front and explain why it doesn't defeat their claim, preventing them from filing frivolous claims and mailing out meritless takedown notices as an intimidation technique.
- inactive, on 08/21/2008, -3/+11No it's not...That is so stupid,it just boggles my mind.
- Totz83, on 08/21/2008, -12/+20"fair" being the operative word, it works both ways. Of course incidences like the background noise in that video been construed as an infringement is ridiculous but ripping movies in a cinema and sharing it on torrent and streaming sites is definitely UNfair use, if there's to be a compromise it will require both sides to take a step back.
ie. stop saying " ***** THE *generic acronym* " every time a scene releaser gets nabbed in a theater with his $150 camera and his elderly mother's travel-pass. - Azerael, on 08/22/2008, -0/+7*Nazis
- ElGanyan, on 08/21/2008, -1/+8Good! I had a video taken down (A Colbert McCain green screen challenge of JAWs) that was clearly a parody and less than a minute long, peeved the hell out of me. What I really don't get is that these types of videos are basically free publicity for their products anyway (how many times have you seen a spoof or clip of a film and thought, "Oh, I haven't seen that in years, I should pick it up.").
- BDOUG, on 08/21/2008, -3/+10I agree 10 years is far too short. However it should end within a reasonable amount of time after the actual creator's death. "Reasonable amount of time" is up for debate, but no "estate" should continue to collect royalties on something that was created many generations prior to their existence. It's the ultimate hypocrisy we see from organizations like Disney that sticks in my craw. They ere founded on public domain art and owe their success to it. They now want to deny that opportunity to anybody else by extending IP in perpetuity. Music companies aren't any better, for they stand on the all-but-stolen works of musicians starting way back with early Blues players and singers, if not before then.
- MidnightRIder77, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6Also a win for ***** like Eric Bauman.
- dsmx, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6Yahtzee lives in Australia this ruling wouldn't effect him personally.
- cadmiumpaint, on 08/21/2008, -6/+11you've obviously never created anything in your life. I don't think you fully understand what a copyright is or what it does. It protects artists from having their work stolen. it would be a disaster if copyrights only lasted 10 years. many creatives whether its photographers, artists, illustrators etc etc depend on their creative materials copyright as their pension.
In your perfect little world, lets say you create the next Batman character. He's huge and everyone loves him. No one will give you a dime for it because they know in 10 years it will be public domain and they can make movies, games and whatever they want without paying you a cent. Other people will profit off of your work and you will have no legal grounds to get a fraction of a cent. Thats the ideal world you want? - inactive, on 08/21/2008, -3/+8now yahtzee will be able to use the songs he wants
- inactive, on 08/21/2008, -2/+7I always wonder about the alternative, so if these usually short clips are not there, would they expect people to buy them on DVD or something?
Just another example of an ever changing tide where consumers are getting the power back, and Viacom and others are losing control of their distribution, who didn't capitalize on it when they could have - PepeGSay, on 08/21/2008, -2/+5I think that fair use also gets at a bigger issue, that is central to this particular case:
Are we, regardless of corporate ownership of some small part of the experience, allowed to share, on a world stage, our life experiences?
I think the judge here is reaffirming that we are. Which is a good thing. No one owns that experience of the child doing that and should be able to control it merely because their IP was part of the experience. I know this is the emotional, and not the legal definition, but it's what rings true for me. - AngelaQ, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3The problem with that, Herbert, is that the author of the music will get nothing for his or her work unless he or she is actually the performer who struck it big on that hit. Often the long-term most successful songs are written by composers, not performers.
- horkyborky, on 08/21/2008, -5/+8As someone who creates content and also worked for some fairly large content companies in the online space, I fully respect a creator's copyright in material. Stealing music, films, TV shows, etc. hurts creators' ability to earn revenue. So does posting copyrighted material, even at crummy resolution on Youtube.
But posting a short clip of a cartoon, a joke from a TV show, or your toddler dancing to Prince is clearly not the same thing as posting a FAMILY GUY episode in its entirety in four chunks. As long as it's not for commercial use, the type of activity in the article is clearly fair use and should be allowed. - Nerys, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I don;t know when I look at a clip it takes me about 5 seconds to determine if its fair use. Since they are already LOOKING at it long enough to determine if its infringing they have already looked at it long enough to easily and instantly determine if its infringement or fair use. IE I CALL BS
- inactive, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4It probably means that copyright owners have to address the issue before you file a complaint in court. Otherwise they can force the other side to hire a team of lawyers to raise it as an affirmative defense. This ruling should make it harder for copyright owners to use DMCA takedown letters as an intimidation tactic.
- hierophantus, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2I see that someone dugg you down. Other than perhaps an over-optimistic conclusion that this will "prevent" copyright owners from filing frivolous claims, as opposed to just discourage it, that was an accurate description of what the ruling says and what its effect should be.
- HerbertWest, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Angela, you bring up an interesting point. Let me clarify mine.
The record companies were never meant to be the gate keepers of what gets out into the market place. They have, over the years, set themselves up to be just that and it has been to the detriment of the artists, and the public. We are in a place right now where a few companies control the radio waves, and the record stores, and are working to homogenize every music market on the earth. My eyes were really opened when I first clicked on internet radio from other countries. I thought I was in for a treat of exotic sounds of far away songs and bands, however I was greeted at almost every turn with Brittany Spears or her equivalent.
The record companies are making a few people rich -a few. I really don't want to get into it, but it's well known that in the recording industry only a few of the top, and I mean top tier stars make any real money and they only manage to do this when they have gained enough star power to leverage out of their bad first contracts.
Also, The amount of wrong done in the recording industry by screwing over and not paying artists for their original works is well documented and truly staggering.
All that said, your point is still a very good one. I wonder how composers got paid before..? ...? I might have to do some research into that. - nmckinlay, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2@cadmiumpaint
At least I'm not the only one that picked up on the absurdity of his argument. Dugg. - cryemoxkidcry, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2encore.
- FreddieD, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3Sorry for not understanding the legalese of this better but, what exactly is entailed in copyright owners considering fair use? It almost sounds like you can drive a truck through the hole in that statement alone. What all do they have to do to "consider"?
Do they (Universal, Viacom, etc) need to show a certain level of documentation explaining how they have considered, yet rejected, the notion that the media is considered fair use? - MtheoryX, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Just when I thought I was let down...a challenger approaches.
- Nerys, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3PRIVATE copyright should be the life of the author and possible transferable to family.
COMMERCIAL copyright IE for profit copyright I am unsure if even 10 years is short enough but I could live with it.
In his perfect little world that batman character would be protected under PRIVATE copyright IE forever as far as the author is concerned. ONCE ITS USED COMMERCIALLY then the 10 years starts.
SO no your little scenario would not play out like that.
I also think the copyright should apply to EXISTING WORKS. so if you make a NEW work based on that character thats a NEW 10 years for that character so they could not just "wait you out" and not pay you a fraction of a cent.
The actual time to enter PUBLIC DOMAIN where anyone can profit from it is a whole nother issue. but 10 years should be enough to allow people to SHARE works that have already gone through the 10 years or 15 years maybe. - illdourmum, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2my exact thought
- cadmiumpaint, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3"In his perfect little world that batman character would be protected under PRIVATE copyright IE forever as far as the author is concerned. ONCE ITS USED COMMERCIALLY then the 10 years starts."
your scenario fails on 1000 levels. It is full of contradiction and abusrd assumptions. I don't have the time to point them out to you, and i doubt you'd even understand.
you don't understand the complexity of what you are arguing. Please stop pretending to be an adult and go back to reading your summer reading list for 6th grade. thanx. - Otto, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1America does indeed have fair use clauses in the law. The four letter companies just like to pretend otherwise and ignore the actual law.
- PhantomJM, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1That judge just made my Christmas card list.
- WardOnTheWeb, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1And the Streisand Effect proves itself yet again. The mother's video would have likely gone unnoticed and done very little harm to Universal's bottom line. Because they attacked it, however, they're not only suffering from the legal and PR backlash; they've also made the video wildly popular.
Incidentally, I'm taking up a collection to buy Universal a clue. Anybody care to contribute? - dsmx, on 08/22/2008, -1/+2Copyright should not be transferred to descendants as they have no part in the creation of the original item and should only be allowed to be given to people not companies. It should last 10 years at most to stop force companies to come out with new stuff and not rely on repackaging old stuff. If it reduces profits then good because it will force companies to create more stuff to keep there profits up.
- Kedyn, on 08/22/2008, -1/+2You people have way too much damned time on your hands. Is it really necessary to write such huge comments that basically mean nothing?
- cadmiumpaint, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1@ Murdats.
The Mona Lisa is under copyright and a few billion people know what it looks like. Copyrights aren't bad. They protect the work.
The only people its bad for are for cheap asses who want everything for free.
The Watchmen, The Spirit, V for Vendetta, Hellboy, Fantastic Four, X Men, Spiderman, Daredevil, The Hulk, Batman, Star Wars, Star Trek....all properties that are DECADES old yet still have a lot of value. So you say that all those properties are old and forgotten about and worthless.....hmmm ok.
directors don't make movies. They have some pull, but ultimately is producers and movie studios that have money and make movies. These are money people...everything is bottom line. A film, a character, an intellectual property is a widget on a spreadsheet with profits and losses. you have no understanding of the filmmaking process or business.
Why would you pay some writer several Million Dollars for the rights to turn their character into a movie, when you can just wait a few years and get it for free? Its smart business. But thats the world you want.
Its esp. important in something like a Batman scenario where a character exists in different forms across different media and needs to have protection. If Batman weren't under copyright and/or trademark can you imagine how many crap movies would get made using the Batman image? You would destroy the character and make the franchise worthless due to all the half assed, ***** quality, cheaply made knock offs trying to cash in on a free name.
would you pay 10 million bux for a house that you could get for free in 10 years? And considering that in this perfect world where copyrights expire in 10 years, anybody stupid enough to pay money for a property would be a fool since their investment would go up in smoke in a decade.
Basically it would cause the entire creative business to come to a screaching hault and nothing would get made. No artist would ever get paid, and we'd have nothing.
You'd be able to see this if you had any understanding of how copyrights, artists and the rest of the creative world work together.
you and people like you are selfish pirates who are looking at this from your own naive perspective..its the cheap ass "i don't want to pay for anything therefore copyrights are bad" perspective. if you were an artist, or someone who creates for a living you'd understand the value. Find me an artist who hates copyright protection for their own work. It might take you a little bit of forever. - cadmiumpaint, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1@ DSMX
"It should last 10 years at most to stop force companies to come out with new stuff and not rely on repackaging old stuff"
you don't know what you're arguing. if copyrights only lasted 10 years nobody would ever take a risk by making new stuff. All you would see is repackaged old stuff because its free for anybody to sell or distribute.
why bother......i could just re-sell Star Wars forever because nobody owns the rights to it. It would be a bad business to take a risk on new unproven material. -
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is