CMU School of Drama


Sunday, September 07, 2008

Judge: Copyright Owners Must Consider 'Fair Use'

News and Analysis by PC Magazine: "A case involving the YouTube 'dancing baby' video will continue after a California judge ruled that content owners must consider 'fair use' before sending Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices."

5 comments:

Aaron S said...

Although I think that the basis for this lawsuit is rather ridiculous, I do have to give Stephanie Lenz credit for fighting back against the music industry. Some musicians are ridiculous about their work, which doesn't really fit within the stigma of rockers as renegades and "against the man". On the other hand look at someone like Trent Resnor and NIN, who released their latest album online and offers multi tracks to download and remix. Prince is just being a prick, and it's not the first time from what I hear.

Ethan Weil said...

Techdirt also covered this a while back at http://techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0251282050.shtml and it seems like more than the burden for copyright holders is the precedent it sets for 'fair use' being a right, not solely a defense. The point has also been made though, that many of the companies send un-official takedown notices, which still scare content hosts, but wouldn't be bound under this ruling.

Sarah Benedict said...

I am very surprised that Lenz actually fought the music industry on this one, it seems kinda silly. But then again an artists freaking out because 29 seconds of their work was being poorly played on the internet also seems a bit absurd. To some extent I understand why the artists fight for their right to be paid for their songs, but there reaches a point where it should just be flattery - that someone wants to play your music. I could never see myself being upset that something I wrote/created was "illegally" played/copied (to a certain extent) because it would be such an honor that my work was that appreciated. I think some humility is needed in these instances.

AndrewLeitch said...

Legally, the entire case makes sense and I think both sides did a good job representing their case, but the judge ruled correctly. Now, why would Prince actually spend all of his time working on getting a 29 second clip taken off youtube? Now, that's a bit ridiculous--it was the woman's kids dancing in their house, for crying out loud! This would been a better publicity move for Prince if he had just let them keep it online, rather than making himself seem a tad egotistical.

Anonymous said...

The copyright thing is getting way out of hand. I understand would understand it if the video allowed a downloadable version of the song or something, but if it was in the background in the video, it probably isn't even that good of quality. It's really ridiculous the extent that some artists will go to keep their work unavailable for free. I think alot of them don't think about the exposure it provides and how it could be good. I think they just think about whatever publicity they may incur when they sit there and cry about something so stupid.