Vivendi Universal & Prince vs Baby Holden
p2pnet news view | Music:- Stephanie Lenz’s little boy, Holden, may only be a toddler, but he’s been stealing the bread from out of Vivendi Universal’s mouth.
Vivendi is the biggest of the multi-, muilti-billion-dollar Big 4 records labels who rule the music business offline and who want to do the same online, and who claim they’re being” devastated” [their word] by all those evil copyright infringers.
Like Holden.
Because Holden loves his Purpleness.
Or he used to.
He’d happily boing up and down to Prince’s ‘Let’s Go Crazy’ and his mum thought it’d be kind of neat to get him on a video.
So she captured 29 seconds of Holden in full bounce and posted it on YouTube.
But Vivendi and Prince got to hear about it and decided to do the only thing they could to protect their property.
Sue little Holden’s mum for, gasp, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT !!!!!
And you can barely even hear the music.
Now the case is going to court this coming Friday, but Stephanie and Holden aren’t taking it lying down.
With the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) on their side, they’ll be demanding that Vivendi Universal’s claim goes were deserves to go —- in the bin —- and that the company is held accountable, “for misrepresenting that her fair use violated its copyrights”.
If you’re in San Jose, or you can get there:
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
280 South 1st Street
San Jose, CA 95113
And stay tuned.
.
.Stumble It!
Holden in full bounce – Toddler’s video upsets Prince, October 26, 2007
EFF – Friday Court Hearing in YouTube Video Battle, July 15, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:01 am
For the benefit of everyone whose browser does not properly display offsite imbedded frames, the direct link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ
Anti-adbanner software can have its downside
July 16th, 2008 at 6:05 am
thanks but direct link is already in story
July 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am
“thanks but direct link is already in story”
So it seems. Although there is actually a clickable link present under the word “YouTube”, it appears in regular text (not bold, underlined, or colored text) and I could only find it by moving the cursor over every single word on the page and watching URL appear in the statusbar.
Here’s the page code:
So she captured 29 seconds of Holden in full bounce and posted it on YouTube.
Is the link invisible to anyone else?
Is there a way on Firefox to set the browser to automatically highlight in some way all hidden URL links?
July 16th, 2008 at 8:43 am
BTW: It is “used to.” He’s all about Chuck Berry these days.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
And Indiana Gregg rejoices.
Tare them apart Holden!!!!!
July 16th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“Is the link invisible to anyone else?”
I’m using Firefox 1.06 and it shows up in blue for me, both in the article and in your comment. I’m not sure if I changed something to do this or not. There’s probably a setting in about:config to do it. I tried to look for it on the Mozilla site, but they seem determined to make any information there as hard to find as possible. It used to be a simple link from the FAQ, not I can’t find any link to the page that explains the config settings.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
A lot of homemade videos on Youtube and other user-upload video sites contain background music of complete songs in near-CD-quality digital sound mastered into the video. Since this music could be ripped from the video and played elsewhere, that might be classified as a copyright violation.
But here the music is only faintly audible in the background, it plays at very poor audio quality, and is only a portion of the song. That hardly qualifies as infringement, it seems to me.
Summy-Birchard Music could certainly sue over unpaid performance royalties for the thousands of birthday parties filmed with people singing “Happy Birthday to You”, which they own the copyright of this 1893-origin song.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
How low will they go? Any judge in his/her right mind should laugh them out of the courtroom. I hope this mother wins a settlement and somehow they learn their lesson. They have made the bed they now lie in by shunning the internet and all the possible ways to profit from it. They lost the chance to be the leader of online distribution when they failed to act. I just wonder how long us taxpayers are going to sit around allowing them to manipulate laws and try and control everything. Greed, plain and simple. I will never buy anything that gives anyone but the artist a penny. How sad that a proud parent no has to police anything that might be owned by them. It just makes me sick!!