digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Universal Music: DMCA Takedown Notices Can Ignore 'Fair Use'

blog.wired.com — Universal Music told a federal judge here Friday that takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to automatically remove content need not consider whether videos are protected by the "fair use" doctrine. The doctrine permits a limited use of copyrighted materials without the owner's permission.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • FuZi0nDET, on 07/18/2008, -1/+15If she wins this law suit will it honestly change anything? I'm excited to see some one getting some where against these guy, but I'm not optimistic that it will change anything they do.
    • slingr, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3if the lawsuit is won it will set precedence... so yes... it will change something
      • toomuchpete, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Not so. The fair use doctrine doesn't apply to the DMCA, so Universal isn't forging new ground here, they're simply stating the law as it exists.

        It sucks, but that's the way the DMCA was written.
  • str3ama, on 07/19/2008, -0/+44They're trying to re-write copyright laws in to a more Draconian system of laws that would go against the very root principles behind Copyrights - that being to allow the creator to profit from their content, and gracefully allow others to use that content and remix that content over time. The public domain is dying, and it's thanks to companies like Universal Music, News Corp/Fox and Viacom.
    • stubear, on 07/20/2008, -9/+2Even if we went back to the original 14 year system the majority of works illegally distributed on the internet today would still fall into this category. The public domain is NOT dying, it is simply not growing as fast as it once was. All the works that were originally there are still there (sans the small amount of work that was caught up in the Project Gutenburg case).
      • mrsteveman1, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9You neatly ignored the fact that THIS STORY is about companies not being required to even CONSIDER fair use when blasting out ***** DMCA takedowns.

        And yea, if these companies got their way, you wouldn't be allowed to do anything at all with their content without asking, so don't kid yourself.
      • stubear, on 07/20/2008, -6/+0@mrsteveman1,

        It is up to a court of law to determine whether or not something is fair use given that there is no easy test to determine whether or not a use is copyright infringement or not. If the defendant wants to push the case they are more then welcome to, otherwise leave the work pulled and move on.
      • mrsteveman1, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Doesn't matter, a competent legal department at these companies could take 5 seconds and determine if its fair use before sending out illegitimate DMCA takedowns, and they don't want to. It's not hard to determine if something is fair use, especially the copyright owner "is this the whole thing? does this make it harder for us to sell our content later on? are they profiting from it?" this isn't ***** rocket science, and it has nothing at all to do with court, all of this happens before a court is even involved.
    • pigfister, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3you forgot sony!

      The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

      The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

      The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
  • mattearle, on 07/20/2008, -2/+16Just put all the servers in China. The US government cannot influence the Chinese and they don't care about copyright law. Check mate.
    • Skootles, on 07/20/2008, -0/+13Then the only problem is the great firewall of china.
    • mattearle, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8There is no problem. tudou.com already exists and streams thousands of TV shows and movies and Americans can access it. We will always find a way to get our media, in a commercial free format, on demand.
      • Psi57, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Tudou is slow as *****... I like loading thing that fills up with orange stuff though. It should go "kekekekekekekekekekekeke" as it does :D
  • maxgoedjen, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Just one more to add to the list.
  • Greengoo, on 07/20/2008, -1/+11***** the MPAA!
  • theclaw1, on 07/20/2008, -0/+14You know the majority of works today will NEVER reach the public domain. They'll just file for extensions and "bribe" the judge into accepting them.
  • sonnydeejay, on 07/20/2008, -7/+2who cares about these *****
  • cmapes2, on 07/20/2008, -0/+20***** THE UNIVERSAL MUSIC!!!
  • buggiemks, on 07/20/2008, -14/+6Sorry fellow Diggers, but you're hypocrites.

    The Digg Army is the first group of people to jump on the bandwagon whenever an artist has their deviantart work used without permission, or a web designer has their template stolen by some company. In those cases, you all stand up and scream because the owners of those works aren't getting paid fairly.

    But this is the same case -- someone not getting paid fairly for use of their work. And just because it's "corporate America", you all think they're assholes for trying to protect their product.

    Well, which is it, Diggers? Are you in favor of artist's rights and ownership - or should anybody be able to steal anything whenever they want? You can't have it both ways.

    And before you jump down my throat, let me ask you this: How many of YOU have ever released a song, or produced a film? How many of you ever dealt with somebody illegally using your work, whether they made money off it or not? I bet not many. Well I have. I've had to chase down people across the internet for copying my films, getting traffic they don't deserve and making money with banners from my work. It sucks. So as far as I'm concerned, peole have every right to defend and protect their work.
    • Murdats, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6so apparently you only see the world in extremes.

      its the incredibly hypocritical nature of the industry where its "whats yours is ours and whats ours is ours"

      and apparently you didnt read the article, she wasnt after money, it was a 20 second clip of her kid, the industry issued a DMCA notice which she then used a clause to have the video put back up because the music she was using was under fair use.
      the industry apparently is trying to kill fair use.
      • buggiemks, on 07/20/2008, -9/+2Nope. Not at all. If her video didn't have copyrighted music in it, they wouldn't have any problem with it staying on YouTube. It only became an issue because SHE used THEIR music.

        And I see I'm already being dugg down for being right. Too bad. I expected more than that from you guys.
      • locojones, on 07/20/2008, -6/+2I love how, on Digg, whenever someone disagrees with copyright infringement, they try to force it into the fair use argument without having any clue whatsoever that means. Sure, it's probably fair use if you play the music inside the confines of your own home, for your family, and record your baby dancing to it. It's probably even fair use if you show that clip on your tv to friends and family, or loan it to your neighbors to see how cute it is. However, it's most likely not fair use when you post that clip containing copyrighted music to a worldwide video sharing site. That crosses the boundary into distribution and public performance without a license. Just because it's your personal clip doesn't make it fair use when you're showing it to the world at large, no matter how you rationalize it and no matter how much you disagree with copyright law.
      • nblsavage, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6buggiemks, you're not being dugg down for being right.
      • buggiemks, on 07/20/2008, -6/+1nblsavage,

        Yes, I AM being dugg down for being right. Just like I predicted. I have yet to see anybody in this thread provide a valid counter-argument. And they won't. Because it's easier & more fun to scream "F*** the RIAA" than to consider that a large company may be correct in protecting their work.


      • Travelsonic, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4"Nope. Not at all. If her video didn't have copyrighted music in it, they wouldn't have any problem with it "

        IF anybody makes a work in this country, unless otherwise noted, it's copyrighted.

        So what you MEANT to say included a lack of problem if copyright INFRINGING music was used. It's about permissions, not just whether or not something is copyrighted or not, otherwise it'd be illegal to distribute your own work.

        " It only became an issue because SHE used THEIR music."

        You know, X number of seconds is covered under fair use, right?

        "And I see I'm already being dugg down for being right. "

        No, you are being buried by people who know better than you on this topic.

        Locojones,

        ". However, it's most likely not fair use when you post that clip containing copyrighted music to a worldwide video sharing site."

        Again, there is an x number of seconds covered under fair use.

        Again, it is whether permission is given, or fair use covers it and not whether or not it is copyrighted alone that matters. Many indie artists copyright their works and allow it to be freely distributed. Your language is ambiguous enough that this possibility is ignored.

        And no matter how much you disagree with it, we have fair use that allows us to use tiny portions of a work for certain purposes, and people who feel deeply will defend it.
    • Sarevok9, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3As a current Deviant artist and file sharer allow me to tell you my views, however hypocritical as they may be.

      I enjoy listening to music, as does most of the world, but just because I hear a single on di.fm, last.fm, pandora.com, or any shoutcast station doesn't mean that I'm going to run out to buy the album. Typically I'll go to torrentz.com piratebay, or one of the private trackers that I'm part of and search for the music I'm after. I'll typically download it, listen to it, then if I enjoy it, I'll spend the 15$ or whatever, so the artist can get 1$.

      When I publish my work onto deviant art I always allow people to download the .psd files for my work and I openly encourage tweaking / remastering of all my works so long as (in the case of a photomanipulation of a real life model) they respect the model, don't sell my works under their name, or use them in any commercial publication. I also sell said works as prints, typically the people that buy my prints are fellow artists. Could they choose to download the psd, print it from their own comp, etc. Sure. Do they, no.

      Many people who torrent music, priate games, etc. are doing so simply because A. they don't have the money to buy the game at the time. B. They want to try something beyond the 'demo' before they buy it. or C. They simply refuse to pay 15-20$ for 10 songs, of which they may enjoy 3, or 50$ for a game they'll play for 4 hours and get sick of.
      • locojones, on 07/20/2008, -4/+2Sorry Sarevok, your justification doesn't cut it. If you "dont have the money to buy the game at the time," then don't steal it. If you want to "demo before [you] buy it," rent it from blockbuster, borrow it from a friend, or try it out at Best Buy, don't steal it. If you disagree with "15-20$ for 10 songs, of which [you] may enjoy 3" then don't buy the CD, go online and purchase the individual tracks, but don't steal them. I'm tired of this sense of entitlement to free stuff just because you disagree with how it's distributed. The rationalization for law breaking on this site is mind-boggling.
      • Travelsonic, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3Don't talk about the law if you can't even get the law right.

        Infringement is infringement is infringement is NOT theft is NOT theft.



        Don't cut it for you? Good, but your opinion doesn't supercede the fact that others diagree with your/find the justification reasonable or whatnot.

        In other words: Get off your high horse.
      • Sarevok9, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4But you see, thats the thing. I don't have this sense of entitlement, I am well aware that I am breaking the law, hence why if I don't like a cd, I delete that shi*, if I don't like a game (I almost never pirate games) I delete it.

        You see, right now the quality of distributed music, and the methods of distribution don't reflect 'fairness' to the artist, or the end-user. The radio plays 1-2 tracks off a cd, typically those are the only 'decent' tracks, while all the others are total crap that can barely conform to my definition of music. Sure I can go i-tunes all 27 tracks of a MSI cd for 27$, or I can alternatively download it for free, decide on my own terms if I like it, then go buy it at the store for 16$. Or I could listen to 30 second 'clips' of each song which are always the 'good part' of the song (if applicable). So, lets review the err in your logic.

        Cd- 27 tracks 64 minutes in length
        Record store- 16$ and disappointment if it sucks.
        I tunes- 27$
        Downloading- Free + 16$ if its decent.

        I see there being no drawback to my logic whatsoever, and based off research I'm not the only person that does this practice, nor am I the only person who understands the flaws in modern music distribution. (Trent Reznor / Radiohead agree with me I think).

        So while I may not be the pinnacle of ethics, I still believe that what I'm doing suits my needs as a music buyer. If the mass media companies would embrace this rather than shunning it everyone would be much happier.
    • zaptoman, on 07/20/2008, -2/+2Booo.
    • kirado4, on 07/20/2008, -3/+2hey ***** face.. I've had my work used in a book without my permission.. so yes I've had to deal with my work being ripped off and being used for profit.. could I sue them and win..? not likely they are a big publisher have more money to spend protecting there rights than I do have with mine.. but maybe they should get fined $100 000 dollars for it? Maybe one day when I'm old and rich.. I'll destroy them..??

      also you should read the damn article
  • rationalbeats, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Ohh Thanks I already knew that.
  • zaptoman, on 07/20/2008, -1/+11I agree with Fogel. The takedown notice was warrantless in the first place, Universal should be penalized for even attempting it. If nothing else it should serve to deter other warrantless copyright panics.
    • toomuchpete, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1You do realize that there's no warrant requirement for civil actions, don't you?
      • zaptoman, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2The time you spent typing your reply could have been spent looking up the definition of warrant. In fact, I'd say your comment was unwarranted.
  • AelitaMoon, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7It honestly frightens me, after reading both sides' briefings on the case, that there is such a monumental lack of common sense in the legal field. 29 seconds of song, 20 even discernable, set unintentionally in the background to a video of your little boy learning to walk and dance does not constitute "OMFG STEALING OUR SONG!"
  • novemberwhiskey, on 07/20/2008, -5/+0"The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the woman's law firm, asked U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday to award attorneys' fees and other unspecified monetary damages under Section 512 of the DMCA."

    The woman is asking for legal fees and unspecified monetary damages.

    Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me, trying to squeeze some money out of Universal's pockets.
    • richiewrt, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Good for her if she is. Universal and the RIAA has been squeezing money out of peoples pockets for much longer. About time someone put the squeeze on them.
  • TheBSG, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3My favorite video explaining fair use:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
  • SpyDerMann, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4You can do something to stop this bull from happening! Send letters, and also, vote with your money. Donate as much as you can to the EFF to aid the good guys in their fight.

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

    http://www.eff.org/action
  • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2I guess filing lawsuits and bribing lawmakers are cheaper and easier solutions than actually creating content worth paying for anymore...sigh.
  • icndvl, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Buying RIAA/MPAA products = Helping organized crime
  • Midtowner, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1No federal statute can ignore fair use. Fair use is a First Amendment concept (for you non-U.S. types, that's the part of our Constitution which guarantees free speech). Now, there truly is some question as to what precisely constitutes fair use as there are no hard and fast rules, but there is established case law out there saying that it does exist.

    I do think that (maybe) the MPAA types have an argument that this is not fair use, but rather a commercial appropriation, but I think such a view is short sighted. Sites like YouTube are not used by their users to steal the works of others. Sites such as YouTube are public fora -- places of public expression. They may happen to be owned by a for-profit company, but no user of YouTube really cares about YouTube's profit margin so long as YouTube, or something like it continues to exist (and is free), which is why I really don't buy their commercial appropriation issue.
  •  

    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.