Further proof the music industry is populated by wankers!

A federal judge heard arguments in San Jose on Friday in the case of a Pennsylvania mom who posted a YouTube video that showed her toddler learning to walk, while the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" rocked in the background. The pathetic douchenozzles at Universal Music says Stephanie Lenz violated copyright by using the song; the company wants her video taken down. 'Cos they are a bunch of scum sucking misers. Lenz says there's no harm, no foul. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is backing her, with a legal argument that will be a test of what copyright holders should fucking think about before sending out tens of thousands of so-called "takedown" letters each year, 'cos the have nothing better to do.

Memo to the music fucktards!

Comments

[inside out]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation wants every fucking thing for free.

If they get it, we're fucked.

Copyright ownership and intellectual property actually matter.

It's SO easy to say they don't. But if everyone could get MADSCAM without ever paying you'd be the first to be whining.

And I know you'll say that's not true. But, sorry, it is. As you said in response to my last post, you do things "for money" - well so do songwriters.

[pat smith]

Do you really mean exactly what you say, inside out? I hope you're overstating things because arguing that a home video that happens to feature a copyrighted song is a sign of severe retardation, most likely caused by oxygen deprivation from having your head up your ass too long. I imagine you've extracted it just long enough to enter the comment above.

Are you fuckwads really going after all the little homevideos that happen to feature a recognizable snippet of music? What if a movie or TV show happens to be playing in the background?

I can see the point of demanding a 10 minute clip of the Daily Show be taken down. That's the kind of shit people watch on YouTube, depriving Sumner Redstone of his precious pennies.

I hope Neil Young doesn't find my family videos on YouTube. I'm sure a few his songs are featured in the background.

[Tom Messner]

Isn't the distinction here "family videos" versus "family videos on you tube"?
Wider dissemination than family viewing is the issue. Folks who want the notoriety of you tube should write their own music to go with their videos or pay the artist they've cadged from.
Much like jukeboxes and plays on the radio, the people who created the music deserve to be paid--something.
Then ASCAP and you tube can have a negotiation or whatever they do to derive what that something is.

[pat smith]

Hey George: have you looked at your traffic reports lately. Looks like your blog has broken through with mental institutions as well as homes for the retarded.

Messner: Listen up, douchebag: is there any proof in this case that the defendant wanted notoriety? I've uploaded a few family videos to YouTube because it's the easiest way to share that stuff with my far-flung family and friends. I could give a flying fuck if anyone else watches it. Like I said before, some of my clips probably feature Neil Young in the background. Does that mean I'm next in court?

[Clemenza]

Gotta agree with Pat Smith on this one. Although, I'm far less concerned about Neil Young's attorneys going after Pat than I am with Vera Lynn's demanding George Parker cease and desist from posting his homemade videos on YouPorn.

[Tom Messner]

I debated in high school, and have to admit calling the opponent a douchebag is a ploy our septuagenarian debate coach never thought of. Kind of sets first affirmatives back on their heels.
But one hardly need to prove that someone wants notoriety to identify theft of property.
The creative artist deserves, has the right to compensation. The artist or the artist's reps also should have the right to allow or bar the use of, say, lyrics and music over some visual, even the saintly Pat Smith family. But on this latter point, ASCAP might give a pass on that even as this douchebag gives a pass on your desire to share the Pat Smith family videos over youtube--although youtube is hardly a sine qua non of your sharing. Burn a DVD and mail it.

[Auntie Christ]

I blame the technology companies for creating the 20 headed hydra that lets us do these things. The simple solution is make it impossible for me to copy music from my library if you don't want me to share it (why does Sony Music have a parent company that manufactures home burners?). But I can run out and buy software and hardware that let's me copy, upload, mix, rip, wirelessly broadcast, share via podcast, bluetooth etc. Interesting to note that if Stephanie Lenz sampled a Prince riff and did her own remix, that probably would sqeak by on a freedom of expression basis. With computing power comes responsibility.

[Jane Sample]

@ inside out & @ Tom Messner - copywrite law allows for the "fair use" of copywrited materials. Such as personal use in home videos, mix cd’s ect .. as long as you were not using the copywrited materials to make a profit. The original creators of copywrite law did not want to curtail people’s enjoyment of copywrited materials by over-zealous lawyer and greedy corporations. They wanted to protect the creator’s rights to make a profit off their own work, and they wanted to maintain a free flow of creativity in our society.

The overzealous nature of music, film and television studios in issuing letters to consumers who are exercising their “fair use” rights of copywrited materials is really what we should be worrying about.

Also please notice that Prince is not going after the Pennsylvania mom. Shouldn’t HE be upset that someone is using HIS song in a VIDEO!!!

[Tom Messner]

Good point on legality, Jane.
I was considering the moral point, law being one of those exercises that the kids on the block who wanted to be the banker in Monopoly all went into.
On the adjective, I don't know how a lawyer can be over-zealous. Either the lawyer observes the law or doesn't.

[Copyrighter]

I think the bigger issue is that the Web makes it damn near impossible to manage anything, legal or not. Who defines what passes as family home video and profiteering—especially when so many advertisers are using covert methods to push their products? Maybe I’m slightly old school, but music rights should be respected somehow. Youtube continues to be a vehicle where “innocent” material can often explode into something much bigger. Would anyone consider negotiating costs after something becomes popular and moves beyond the personal arena? Of course not. That said, I hope we’re never prohibited from viewing the outrageous videos from Huey, Dewey and Louie without fear of legal retribution. I’m certain, however, that I would have zero interest in viewing pat smith’s home videos, which no doubt star his Appalachian mutant offspring rocking to Neil Young—although I might have guessed a preference for the tune from Deliverance. Whatever.

[inside Out]

Jane's right on "fair use" - although it has proven one of the hardest legal terms to define, the making of money is central to any attempt. It also takes into account the percentage of a piece that is quoted or used. (Which is why quoting any song lyric without permission is questionable because even two lines constitute a high percentage of the whole).

Anyway my original post had more to do with the involvement of The Electronic Frontier Foundation than whether or not this particular case had any merit. And I stand by my belief that intellectual property rights are vitally important - and will become more so.

As current or former ad-people we only know a world where someone else has always "owned" our ideas. And we have to remember that for the artists still signed to major labels this is also true - which is why the labels go after people not the artists. And, yes, they can be a little over-zealous.

I guess this is a classic case - for those with nothing to protect it's a non-issue and for those with something to protect it's very important.

[Auntie Christ]

Remember how the ITC went apeshit over sharing type fonts and tried to sue everyone who changed a serif enough to call the font their own? Of course to stop people from pirating they could have just lowered the price of legitimate fonts to SOMETHING REASONABLE. Every small designer wasn't the NYTimes afterall, so keep the price inline with how it will be distributed. Does the ITC even exist anymore? Once you start hosing people they generally hose you back.