What is Digg?154 Comments
- jeremyduffy, on 07/21/2008, -6/+135Or to sum up:
"Legal is illegal!!!"
They are morons. - nahsrocketeer75, on 07/21/2008, -2/+108Based on reading the article, it would appear as though Universal, while dead wrong on demanding the take-down, may have a point on the narrower issue, at least in the legal sense. Judge asked the key question: If you accept Universal's logic, is there *any* situation under which a take-down notice involving "fair use" could be deemed frivolous and thus an abuse? Answer would seem to be no, in which case studios could simply fire off these notices *any* time they heard one of their songs in a video, thus stripping "fair use" of any meaningful usefulness.
- brendangenius, on 07/21/2008, -3/+60Great, so 'fair use' is no longer legally fair and we are being restricted even more from sharing information, a lot of which is legitimate. Wikipedia often cites 'fair use' as a legal term, if that collapses, a lot of media will not be allowed to be published or re-published which has strong and negative implications, if you ask me.
There was no moral or legal reason to remove the video, other than to exercise corporate power. No one was going to lose money or reputation, nothing was at stake. It was removed to be petty and they may not want it; but these things can have long lasting implications. - briLo, on 07/21/2008, -2/+44I was pulled over by an RIAA cop and was told to shut my windows as the people outside my car had not paid royalties to listen to that song.
Rat soup eatin bastards! - LuxFX, on 07/21/2008, -2/+42Why does this remind me of a protective father charging his daughter's boyfriend with rape despite the sex being mutually consensual?
- Sly102, on 07/21/2008, -0/+37Granting Universal's position in this case must be looked at in terms of the implications for future behavior. If the court grants carte blanche in the issuance of take down notices, whether justified or not, without consequence, then every RIAA member will be free to bully and harrass those who use their material even under obvious fair use provisions. This would have a strong quelling effect on the freedom of expression. This is an attempt by Universal to gain a de facto expansion of RIAA rights not previously granted under the DMCA or any other existing law or regulation. Taken to its logical extreme, if Universal wins this case, they could issue take down notices for the same piece of content to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's ISP, Google, and all other relevant parties without any consequence to themselves even though they know the piece has already been ruled by the court to be protected under fair use statutes.
- Pixelante, on 07/21/2008, -1/+37>GO TO A DUNGEON
I don't know where to a dungeon is.
>GO DUNGEON
The door is closed.
>OPEN DOOR
The door is locked.
>UNLOCK DOOR
You unlock the door with the rusty key.
>OPEN DOOR
The door opens.
>GO DUNGEON
You are in a dark, damp dungeon. The walls are covered with moss and dark splotches that look like dried blood. Scattered bones of unfortunate explorers like on the floor.
Suddenly a large troll leaps out of the shadows and attacks you.
The troll hits you on the head with a large axe.
YOU ARE DEAD!
Play again (Y/N)?
>N
Goodbye.
READY.
_
Sorry, I tried to but it didn't work. The hintbook says to try and use the Second Amendment on the dungeon troll however. - paulot, on 07/21/2008, -3/+32It's amazing that the "treat your customers like criminals" business model hasn't put these guys out of business yet.
- 1charmedlife, on 07/21/2008, -1/+29What's REALLY funny to me, is that they have no f**king idea if you've licensed a song legitimately or not. I've used music in the past that I paid a license for, and still seen clips taken down because they ASSUME that if you're using the music on a clip online that you don't have a license.
They're so freakin' antiquated and the licensing systems so arcane, that's it'd be funny if it didn't screw up your own business.
Especially when it comes to music and you're paying 2-3 different entities for rights (synchronization rights, performance rights, and royalties). What a mess. - linagee, on 07/21/2008, -2/+29don't you DARE hum that tune of that popular song while walking along the street! a thousand lawyers will appear from nowhere and attack!
- btschul, on 07/21/2008, -1/+28It's like Universal doesn't want you to use their products, they just want you to pay them.
- Lubinski, on 07/21/2008, -0/+27WTF
- inactive, on 07/21/2008, -3/+29dancing baby video clip?
whoa i just got weird flashbacks of the windows 95 start up music and jpegs of porno taking 20 minutes to load in netscape - inactive, on 07/21/2008, -0/+26actually i really miss those days. kids today dont understand the thrill of watching pictures of possibly naked women slowly and slowly loading
- hawkeyeted, on 07/21/2008, -1/+27A home video with a baby dancing to a Prince song is not piracy.
- amoirae, on 07/21/2008, -1/+23Universal's greed is infringing on fair use rights.
- Abomonog, on 07/21/2008, -1/+22Because it's a pretty ***** close analogy of the situation.
- Crossmenjeff, on 07/21/2008, -0/+20well if fair use is breaking the law might as well just go the full nine yards and steal the stuff.
- DamageInc, on 07/21/2008, -2/+21None of this would have happened if Prince wasn't such a bitch about his music being shared/used without his permission in any possible way. He's the new Lars Ulrich of the music industry.
- phoomp, on 07/21/2008, -1/+19I would agree with Universal's logic, if Joe citizen can issue take-down notices against the like of Universal and receive the same expedient reaction from the like of YouTube.
- inactive, on 07/21/2008, -3/+20So if I fart to the tune of a Prince music, videotape my 'singing' anus and upload it on YouTube, Universal is gonna sue me?
- Diggnabbit, on 07/21/2008, -1/+18It's like this:
Universal: It was a copyright infringement.
Judge: How do you know?
Universal: Because they claimed it was fair use.
Judge: So?
Universal: Well, fair use is an affirmative defense (an exception, basically), so they can't claim it's fair use unless it was an infringement first.
Judge: But if it's fair use then it's NOT an infrgement.
Universal: yes, but it's not fair use until you say it is, judge. So before you declare it fair use, it's an infringement.
Internet: WTF? You suck, Universal. - amoirae, on 07/21/2008, -0/+15Only if you wear a raspberry beret when you do it.
- Diggnabbit, on 07/21/2008, -0/+15God. I hope so.
- linagee, on 07/21/2008, -0/+15Wow....... is this what the case is over? Geez. It's just some kid dancing around. The radio in the background isn't even that intelligible.
- BoneheadFarker, on 07/21/2008, -1/+15Meh...I kinda expect Prince to be a bitch. Lars disappointed me though...
- Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -0/+14http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
The audio quality is so awful that you can't even tell which sucky song it is. Ridiculous. - JonForTheWin, on 07/21/2008, -7/+21The government is the terrorist.
- Stavrosian, on 07/21/2008, -0/+14Fair use is still fair use, the only point of this is whether or not a company can be held liable for a bad faith takedown notice if something eventually turns out to be fair use.
i.e. nobody is saying that fair use is now illegal, they are merely arguing over whether or not Universal acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice on something likely to be deemed fair use when it reached a judge. - debuggercll, on 07/21/2008, -1/+14It's illegal to utilize the First Amendment. Go to a dungeon.
- paradexes, on 07/21/2008, -1/+14I have done my part... by not using my money to support their lawsuits against other people. I just buy music that is under creative commons licenses. I don't buy, download, pirate, etc. Music that is associated with the RIAA members. http://jamedo.com is one good spot. There is some pretty good music there. It may not make the charts (mostly because the charts are controlled by the labels) but it is good stuff.
- dcmjzero, on 07/21/2008, -2/+15fair use involves more than just parody. and she didn't kill her own defense by using youtube. read up a little on fair use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_und ... - WesSabi, on 07/21/2008, -0/+12Watch out, Numa Numa Guy. You're next!
- linagee, on 07/21/2008, -0/+12because everything legal is actually gray and laws are bendable to the one with the most convincing and dramatic story.
- raybury, on 07/21/2008, -0/+11We're missing some nuance above, but the Wired article from two days ago (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/universal ... gets it just right:
"Universal did not challenge Stephanie Lenz's assertion that the video was a "fair use" of Prince's song. After being taken down for six weeks, the video went back online last year, having now generated about half a million hits.
"The courthouse dispute on Friday centered on a rarely used clause in the DMCA -- originally approved by Congress in 1998 -- allowing victims of meritless takedown notices to seek damages in a bid to deter such notices and breaches of First Amendment speech."
A few years ago the state screwed up motor voter and sent my private mailbox address, instead of my physical home address, to the county voter services agency. I got a letter from the agency calling me a fraudulent voter, and threatening to turn me over to the District Attorney. The letter, like a takedown notice, accused me of wrongdoing without needing to meet the same burden of proof a conviction would have to. And like a takedown notice, it was triggered by a set of rules that didn't necessarily involve human judgement.
Universal is seeking to not be sued when it errs in this way. I suggest any settlement involve it adding a human factor to the takedown notices, a final go / no-go based on the good judgement of employees, albeit not attorneys, as to whether something meets fair use because ordering a takedown. - vladkov, on 07/21/2008, -0/+11When do we stop giving these ***** our money?
- WalkerTXclocker, on 07/21/2008, -1/+12Not sure if I'll get dugg down but it's the truth...
For all the people that want to argue that pirateing is illegal. Not sure if I'll get dugg down but it's the truth...
Have I pirated music? Yes
Is it illegal? Yes
Do I think it's illegal? Yes
Do I care? NO!
Rationalization...
It's called civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. It is one of the primary tactics of nonviolent resistance.
The archaic copyright laws(well, a lot of laws) are designed so that the average person cannot make it through a day without breaking the law somewhere or somehow. This gives the gov't the power to harass/arrest anyone anytime they see fit because they can always find something. It's high time that the laws are changed to actually punish real criminals. - WoollyMittens, on 07/21/2008, -0/+11A culture is there to be celebrated. Not to be held at ransom and rented to consumers piecemeal.
- SWATJester, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10Jesus christ, I learned this in my first day of Copyright law.
FAIR USE IS NOT INFRINGEMENT. Fair use is an affirmative defense.
Using the above poster's idiotic comparison to murder and the insanity defense, if you were protected by the insanity defense, it was not murder. You killed someone yes, but you did not commit the crime of murder.
Same thing with infringement. If you are protected by the fair use defense, the conduct is NOT infringing on the original copyright, because it is a legitimately allowed use. - BobSutan, on 07/21/2008, -0/+10The problem is they're trying to frame it in absolutisms. Just because it's possible 1 out of a million fair use cases may cross the line into infringement doesn't mean ALL examples of fair use do, or warrant a takedown.
- inactive, on 07/21/2008, -0/+9You have been eaten by a grue.
- spacebuddy, on 07/21/2008, -1/+10***** the RIAA
- xptoast, on 07/22/2008, -0/+8Or in this case money and power.
- Otto, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8Universal is abusing the DMCA by issuing takedown notices for what is clearly not illegal infringement.
Here's the thing: a takedown notice requires the copyright holder to make a statement that he has a good faith belief that the material is not legal. If they are sending takedowns in bad faith, then that is abuse. - Diggnabbit, on 07/21/2008, -1/+9It's definitely a derivative work. That's not the issue at all. (Nor is it whether it's parody or whether there was profit made from it.)
The issue is whether it is abuse of copyright for the copyright holder to send a takedown notice when it has reason to know that the use is almost assuredly fair use. As the article points out, Universal is correct that it is infringement (because it's a derivative work that incorporates the copyrighted work); the question is whether that justifies sending the takedown notice when it's also a fair use. - zadadka, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8"No Public Broadcast" is a common theme in audio & visual copyrights, and YouTube can certainly be considered as public broadcast.
Having said that, Universal clearly drank from the zealot cup on this one. - Altotus, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8It's even more ambiguous than that. Strictly speaking, the use isn't infringing until after a court has decided as much. Someone make a use, the rights holder claims that use is infringing, it goes to a court, the person says that the use is a fair one, the court decides. If the court decides that the use wasn't fair and there was infringement, then the use was infringing all along. If the court decides the use was fair, the use was never infringing at all.
So, the predicament becomes, if you can't tell if something's infringing a priori, how does one reconcile being able to abridge the the use a priori. Generally speaking, prior restraint has been poorly received in legal circles (but that was before the more blatant corporate interference in government that we enjoy today). - bjs3171, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8no it's not. that's why it's called "fair use". Learn to read, Universal.
- bradleyland, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8"...in which case studios could simply fire off these notices *any* time they heard one of their songs in a video, thus stripping "fair use" of any meaningful usefulness."
So basically, we're talking about the legal equivalent of a Zergling rush? - rz8472, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7A dancing baby? Oh no they di'int....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is