If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Good: Little-known label Liberation Music gets press. Bad: Gets it for a DMCA takedown and legal threats against clear fair use in a lecture. Fark: A lecture by Harvard law professor and copyright guru Lawrence Lessig   (arstechnica.com) divider line 34
    More: Asinine, Lawrence Lessig, Liberation Music, YouTube, DMCA takedowns, legal threat, Electronic Frontier Foundation, appeal court, Harvard Law  
•       •       •

3216 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Aug 2013 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-24 10:46:33 AM
Thanks Lars. You are so metal.
 
2013-08-24 10:46:51 AM
I can't imagine a stupider DMCA takedown request decision.
 
2013-08-24 10:47:30 AM
Some companies just don't know how to handle free positive publicity, they have to go and generate the negative stuff.
 
2013-08-24 11:04:29 AM
Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.
 
2013-08-24 11:09:22 AM
In other news, there are still record labels?
 
2013-08-24 11:34:03 AM
How many people does YouTube employ just to deal with takedown requests?
 
2013-08-24 11:57:18 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.


So based on this article, you don't think this is an example of fair use?  Did you even bother to read it, or did you decide to move straight to trolling like normal?
 
2013-08-24 11:58:51 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.


Gnome Licensing Project?
Good Lager Pour?
Greek Lesbian Parade?

Help me out here, oh copyright guru.  Explain to me the mysteries of the GLP.
 
2013-08-24 12:04:05 PM

Satanic_Hamster: AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.

So based on this article, you don't think this is an example of fair use?  Did you even bother to read it, or did you decide to move straight to trolling like normal?


Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Pretty straightforward that Lessig was trying to use Lisztomania as one of the pillars of his presentation, seemingly without permission from Liberation Music.

I realize you geeks like to thumb your noses at content creators, and Lessig and the EFF are at the forefront of this, but the rules are the rules.

Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.
 
2013-08-24 12:08:22 PM

Glockenspiel Hero: AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.

Gnome Licensing Project?
Good Lager Pour?
Greek Lesbian Parade?

Help me out here, oh copyright guru.  Explain to me the mysteries of the GLP.


God-like particle.
 
2013-08-24 12:17:35 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.


Using it in a lecture constitutes fair use, something Liberation Music can't do anything about. He wasn't violating their copyright.
 
2013-08-24 12:20:06 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Pretty straightforward that Lessig was trying to use Lisztomania as one of the pillars of his presentation, seemingly without permission from Liberation Music.

I realize you geeks like to thumb your noses at content creators, and Lessig and the EFF are at the forefront of this, but the rules are the rules.


I think you're making an argument against a position no one has taken. There's a term for that, but since someone else created it, I guess I can't use it.
 
2013-08-24 12:24:49 PM
if he paid Phoenix to use the tune, then fine.

if he didn't, then he's a douchewitz.
 
2013-08-24 12:29:08 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.


And your head is so far up your ass that you just jump to arbitrary conclusions.

2/10.
 
2013-08-24 12:29:18 PM

rynthetyn: I can't imagine a stupider DMCA takedown request decision.


...Creation Science Evangelism has repeatedly filed DMCA notices against YouTubers using their videos of Kent Hovind, despite their having released said videos into the public domain.
 
rpm
2013-08-24 01:10:38 PM

rynthetyn: I can't imagine a stupider DMCA takedown request decision.


Maybe one that won't explode in their face quite as much, but MS has issued takedowns against MS Office SP 1. Posted on MS' site.
 
2013-08-24 01:27:58 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.


Says the fella who doesn't know the correct past tense of copyright.
 
2013-08-24 01:30:26 PM
Well, let's just turn this thread into one about me and not about the illegality of Lessig's use of LM's material.

Sheesh, you guys.
 
2013-08-24 01:34:13 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Satanic_Hamster: AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.

So based on this article, you don't think this is an example of fair use?  Did you even bother to read it, or did you decide to move straight to trolling like normal?

Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Pretty straightforward that Lessig was trying to use Lisztomania as one of the pillars of his presentation, seemingly without permission from Liberation Music.

I realize you geeks like to thumb your noses at content creators, and Lessig and the EFF are at the forefront of this, but the rules are the rules.

Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.


or to put it another way:  I know nothing about fair use laws.  The author left out an important one, using them as part of an academic critique.
 
2013-08-24 01:43:16 PM

whtriced: academic critique.


It wasn't a critique at all. Maybe the article left out where Lessig was critiquing the material.
 
2013-08-24 01:51:08 PM
"Fair use" is an affirmative defense against claims of copyright infringement: that is, the burden of the proof is on the defendant, not the claimant, to prove that their use of the material should be considered non-infringing.

That being said, the fair use arguments that Lessig puts forth regarding this use of the material are compelling, and it would have been smart for Liberation to let it go at that point.

THAT being said, I doubt the EFF will be very successful in their claims that Liberation's attempts to have arguments heard in the courts constitute harassment or have caused damages.
 
2013-08-24 02:03:04 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Well, let's just turn this thread into one about me and not about the illegality of Lessig's use of LM's material.

Sheesh, you guys.


Well, you're claiming to have a better understanding of copyright  than the guy who developed Creative Commons and you don't even know the proper abbreviation for the Gnu Public License is.  You invite the ridicule- enjoy it.

There's a reason I have you farkied in troll pink
 
2013-08-24 03:06:57 PM

Gecko Gingrich: AverageAmericanGuy: Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Pretty straightforward that Lessig was trying to use Lisztomania as one of the pillars of his presentation, seemingly without permission from Liberation Music.

I realize you geeks like to thumb your noses at content creators, and Lessig and the EFF are at the forefront of this, but the rules are the rules.

I think you're making an argument against a position no one has taken. There's a term for that, but since someone else created it, I guess I can't use it.


Chaffperson?
 
2013-08-24 04:13:53 PM

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Using it in a lecture constitutes fair use, something Liberation Music can't do anything about. He wasn't violating their copyright.


It's a little more complicated than just "did you use it in a lecture? You're clear." In fact, statutory Fair Use has 4 different factors that must be considered.
 
2013-08-24 04:14:43 PM

sirrerun: AverageAmericanGuy: Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.

Says the fella who doesn't know the correct past tense of copyright.


[snort]
 
2013-08-24 04:26:12 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Pretty straightforward that Lessig was trying to use Lisztomania as one of the pillars of his presentation, seemingly without permission from Liberation Music.

I realize you geeks like to thumb your noses at content creators, and Lessig and the EFF are at the forefront of this, but the rules are the rules.

Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.


Right, so just trolling then.
 
2013-08-24 04:38:31 PM
If anyone is interested, the lecture is available here.
The relevant section on call and response is around 37 minutes in. Lisztomania begins around 38 minutes, starting with it as the soundtrack to an edit of the dance scene in Breakfast Club. Then there's a remake of that with people dancing on a rooftop, over the same segment of the song - maybe 30 seconds total for each. Then several other remakes. Each time, it's just the beginning of the song, including maybe the first verse, stopping before the chorus.

Which pretty much solves my one objection - in the complaint, they said that the song was a little over 4 minutes, and they only used a short bit for five different clips, between 10 and 47 seconds each. And if you think about that, that could be awfully close to the entire song, if the clips were different portions of the song.  But they weren't - same 30 seconds or so of the intro and first verse.

That's a baaaad takedown.

/there's also a Daily Show clip earlier that's about 2-3 minutes long.
 
2013-08-24 04:40:45 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Satanic_Hamster: AverageAmericanGuy: Lessig is so biased against copyrights that it's not possible for him to judge fair use properly. He thinks the GLP is a valid contract.

So based on this article, you don't think this is an example of fair use?  Did you even bother to read it, or did you decide to move straight to trolling like normal?

Liberation Music owns the exclusive license to "Lisztomania" ... that song featured prominently in Lessig's lecture.

Pretty straightforward that Lessig was trying to use Lisztomania as one of the pillars of his presentation, seemingly without permission from Liberation Music.

I realize you geeks like to thumb your noses at content creators, and Lessig and the EFF are at the forefront of this, but the rules are the rules.

Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.


Rules are rules and fair use is one of those rules. The takedown notice is inappropriate.
 
2013-08-24 04:41:36 PM

sirrerun: AverageAmericanGuy: Sorry that Lessig needs to rewrite his presentation to be in line with copyright law, but maybe he should have thought about that before he used copywritten content.

Says the fella who doesn't know the correct past tense of copyright.




CopyFreedomstm
 
2013-08-24 06:34:53 PM

Theaetetus: If anyone is interested, the lecture is available here.
The relevant section on call and response is around 37 minutes in. Lisztomania begins around 38 minutes, starting with it as the soundtrack to an edit of the dance scene in Breakfast Club. Then there's a remake of that with people dancing on a rooftop, over the same segment of the song - maybe 30 seconds total for each. Then several other remakes. Each time, it's just the beginning of the song, including maybe the first verse, stopping before the chorus.

Which pretty much solves my one objection - in the complaint, they said that the song was a little over 4 minutes, and they only used a short bit for five different clips, between 10 and 47 seconds each. And if you think about that, that could be awfully close to the entire song, if the clips were different portions of the song.  But they weren't - same 30 seconds or so of the intro and first verse.

That's a baaaad takedown.

/there's also a Daily Show clip earlier that's about 2-3 minutes long.


This is a succinct explanation of the issue.  Talking about a phenomenon related to a piece of copyrighted material while showing materials which contain portions of the copyrighted content is one of the more well-established Fair Use cases.  It's why the news can do reports on things like Gangnam Style or the Harlem Shake and not get sued into oblivion.

This may actually be the case where a copyright holder gets spanked with fines for harassment.  It's pretty bad.
 
2013-08-24 07:29:32 PM

yukichigai: This may actually be the case where a copyright holder gets spanked with fines for harassment. It's pretty bad.


Hahahaha... no. The record company will say something along the lines of:

- We let a 3rd party law firm handle these, it's not us.
- There's soooooo many notices we file we can't be expected to verify them all (absurd, I know).
- It was an intern who filed it, we've already handled it internally.

and they'll scurry away with nothing to show for it. Oh ok, if it's a day where this gets infront of the wrong judge who's on a crusade to dish out the most harshest punishment of all, maybe a 5k fine that can be paid by writing-off the donation of 8000 unbought CDs (currently sitting in a warehouse in Tacoma) to a library somewhere.

DMCA damages are just for the little people.
 
2013-08-25 12:47:15 AM
broadsword:
DMCA damages are just for the little people.

Well, Devil's Advocating it, what are the damages for Lessig? As shown by my link above, his lecture is still available. Plus, it was a lecture from 2010, only recently taken down for a few days on YouTube, so it's had minimal impact on it. In fact, if anything, it has  increased the visibility of that lecture and gotten him more press.
The DMCA allows him to recover attorney's fees and court costs, which he undoubtedly will. But beyond that, he has no real compensatory damages, and the DMCA doesn't allow for punitive damages.
 
2013-08-25 06:24:46 AM
I'm fairly sure that I've only seen AverageAmericanGuy write trolling posts. I'm not sure why people respond to him in such earnest.
 
2013-08-25 07:23:16 AM

Theaetetus: broadsword:
DMCA damages are just for the little people.

Well, Devil's Advocating it, what are the damages for Lessig? As shown by my link above, his lecture is still available. Plus, it was a lecture from 2010, only recently taken down for a few days on YouTube, so it's had minimal impact on it. In fact, if anything, it has  increased the visibility of that lecture and gotten him more press.
The DMCA allows him to recover attorney's fees and court costs, which he undoubtedly will. But beyond that, he has no real compensatory damages, and the DMCA doesn't allow for punitive damages.


To be honest, I thought there was a section in the act that covered if someone made bogus claims (and it was never used) but outside of personal expenses covering defence, yeah, problably nothing.

It did lead me to http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/483729/google_submission_hammers_sec t ion_92a/  which has google saying that 37% of DMCA takedown notices were not valid - makes you think that there should be some sort of deterrant to setting up a bot and auto-filing every time it finds a text match it doesn't like.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report