Baby Holden defeats Prince and Universal
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Here’s a result we almost missed.
Remember the YouTube video of young Holden Lentz bouncing happily along to a Prince song?
“Once upon a time little Holden Lentz used to like Prince,” his mother, Stephanie, told p2pnet. But, now, “He’s all about Chuck Berry.”
Holden used to love dancing to Prince’s ‘Let’s Go Crazy’ and Stefanie posted a YouTube video of her son in action.
A nice little family video for other people to enjoy.
The clip was all about Holden. You could barely hear Prince yodelling in the background, but, “Universal and Prince violently objected to this awful infringement of their copyright,” said p2pnet, going on:
“The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), acting for mother and, in effect, son, says Vivendi Universal’s claim is rubbish and company, the biggest of the Big 4 labels for whom suing their customers is now standard practice, should be held accountable, ‘for misrepresenting that her fair use violated its copyrights’.”
Now, referring to Holden v His Purpleness, “Copyright holders must assess whether material has been used fairly before they demand that it be taken off the internet, a US court has ruled,” says The Register.
“Rights holders who demand that material be taken offline without such an assessment risk paying out damages and costs to whoever published the material, the court said.
Lenz has now sued Universal for misrepresentation and interference with her contract with YouTube, says the story, going on:
“Lenz argued that companies such as Universal which wanted to remove material such as her video were obliged to assess whether or not material came under the fair use exclusions to copyright law. According to the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Universal disagreed.
“Universal suggests that copyright owners may lose the ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements if they are required to evaluate fair use prior to issuing takedown notices,” said judge Jeremy Fogel in his ruling. “Universal also points out that the question of whether a particular use of copyrighted material constitutes fair use is a fact-intensive inquiry, and that it is difficult for copyright owners to predict whether a court eventually may rule in their favor.”
Not fair
Fogel disagreed with Universal’s view. “While these concerns are understandable, their actual impact likely is overstated,” he said. “Although there may be cases in which such considerations will arise, there are likely to be few in which a copyright owner’s determination that a particular use is not fair use will meet the requisite standard of subjective bad faith required to prevail in an action for misrepresentation.”
Judge Fogel noted that the issue of whether or not copyright owners had to make a judgment on fair use had never been directly decided in the courts. He said that copyright owners must decide if fair use exemptions apply before taking action.
“In order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with ‘a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,’ the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright,” he said.
Fogel said damages might be small, “the Court concludes that Lenz adequately has alleged cognizable injury under the DMCA,” said Fogel.
p2pnet – ‘Fair Use’ doesn’t count in DMCA take-downs, July 21, 2008
The Register – Dancing Baby v. Universal: Baby wins!, August 25, 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.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Serves them right!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“They Indeed Have Gone Crazy”
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3197/125/
November 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
thanks for the honorable mention Jon, I found this on Sunday.
This is going to go a long way fighting RIAA and the MPAA with their frivilous ‘take-down’ notices.
Now they can be fined for not researching ‘fair use’ implications. (albiet, not incredibly large fines, but you can now hire a lawyer to defend yourself and lawyer fees are included in the fines. w00t)
go Ray Beckerman
November 11th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Today I was at a repair shop getting my car worked on. As I sat in the waiting room, I could hear a radio playing in the garage. Should I have called the police or made a citizen’s arrest?