YouTube ‘Dancing Baby’ Copyright Ruling Sets Fair Use Guideline

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I know it seems like common sense to require copyright holders to consider fair use before issuing takedown notices but apparently we needed this court ruling as a reminder.

On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, cleared the way for the case to go to trial, and set a guideline that may change the way media companies police their holdings online. In its decision, the three-judge panel ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking services like YouTube to remove videos that include material they control.
 
That's not going to stop Nintendo from taking totalitarian control of performance of their copyrighted material. Unfortunately the DMCA is often in direct opposition to the original purpose and spirit of the Copyright Act of 1976.
 
Armenius said:
That's not going to stop Nintendo from taking totalitarian control of performance of their copyrighted material. Unfortunately the DMCA is often in direct opposition to the original purpose and spirit of the Copyright Act of 1976.
Click to expand...

What we really need is a big video site that's not based out of the USA. A site that used the more modern copyright laws in Canada or certain European countries would solve these issues.
 
I hate to side with the music industry but they MUST consider fair use on whether or not to abuse a system on a privately owned website?

Are we delving into the realm of youtube is private but everyone has a right to use it?
 
sfsuphysics said:
I hate to side with the music industry but they MUST consider fair use on whether or not to abuse a system on a privately owned website?

Are we delving into the realm of youtube is private but everyone has a right to use it?
Click to expand...

Sure why not? If someone's video clip has 10 seconds of some silly song in the background of his dancing baby then it's fair use. It makes more sense for the content mafia to think before pushing the "censor" button.
 
Hooray! No more takedown notices if a song or TV show happens to be playing in the background of a video for 3 seconds.
 
Wierdo said:
Sure why not? If someone's video clip has 10 seconds of some silly song in the background of his dancing baby then it's fair use. It makes more sense for the content mafia to think before pushing the "censor" button.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point, I'm not arguing whether or not it's fair use. I'm wondering about the courts basically saying Youtube can't be so willy nilly and take down whatever they want for whatever reason on THEIR site. Again, it seems to be that people have the some inherent right to post videos on youtube.
 
Steve said:
I know it seems like common sense to require copyright holders to consider fair use before issuing takedown notices but apparently we needed this court ruling as a reminder.

On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, cleared the way for the case to go to trial, and set a guideline that may change the way media companies police their holdings online. In its decision, the three-judge panel ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before asking services like YouTube to remove videos that include material they control.
Click to expand...

What's absurd is that this court case has dragged on for eight years. If she hadn't gotten lucky and found a pro bono attorney, she never would have been able to fight this because it would have cost many millions in legal fees (thanks to the Bar Association Racketeering limiting the supply of lawyers and deliberately obfuscating laws so that no regular person can understand them).

They should remove any references to justice from the outside of the courthouse because it's obscene to call any courthouse a "justice center" or "justice building"; there is no justice system only a court system that is focused on legal maneuvering and technicalities and not on who is right or wrong.
 
sfsuphysics said:
You're missing my point, I'm not arguing whether or not it's fair use. I'm wondering about the courts basically saying Youtube can't be so willy nilly and take down whatever they want for whatever reason on THEIR site. Again, it seems to be that people have the some inherent right to post videos on youtube.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding the case.

YouTube can do whatever the heck it wants.

However copyright holders cannot just blast YouTube with DMCA takedown notices when something is found on YouTube and then threaten YouTube with failure to obey copyright laws by not taking down something.

The content holder must consider Fair Use. YouTube is just the middleman.
 
Copyright is way out of control. Its to the point where copyright is like having illegal drugs. 3 seconds is equal to having such a small amount that you get a warning or a fine, but no jail time. People like kim dot com get raided for sharing illegal videos like he was sittiing on a 10 tons of cocaine. And its Hollywood corps that have so much money were already to make new laws to favor them.

The other problem with youtube, is its all automated. If the computer finds copyright music in the background even for a few seconds it flags it. Totally beyond ridiculous.

Should copyright be protected sure, but its gone way too extreme for quite some time now.
 
Fair use... I don't know if it's a law thing (you have to say something to defend it otherwise you lose it kind of thing) or what. But, a 5-10 second clip in the background of a dancing person is normal. Hearing a song playing from someone elses car is normal. Trying to limit that stuff because someone that is hearing it may not have paid for the right to hear that material is just stupid.

Full song? Take it down. Clips? Maybe. Hearing it in the background, or even using a tiny clip as part of an act/dance? Just let it go.

It's things like this that piss off a lot of people. I don't buy music anymore unless I absolutely have to. I went from buying a few CD's a week to zero music purchases. I refuse to support such a Gestapo music industry. I'm just one person, but I'm sure there are literally dozens of us. :D

Social media and the internet are huge things. It's becoming a replacement for the "Listen to this" and sharing your headphones. Sadly, that's forbidden now.

I would just like to see some more leniency with stuff like this. Sure, they didn't get a license for re-broadcasting that shit. But, if you take off the asshole glasses, you can just say "Let it go." (lawsuit pending for me using that phrase).
 
Did they give more details on how they must "consider" fair use? If they didn't, wouldn't it just be as simple to state: "This is not considered fair use by us" when sending the take down requests, with basically no thought to it really being fair use since they "consider" nothing as fair use.
 
Sovereign said:
You're misunderstanding the case.

YouTube can do whatever the heck it wants.

However copyright holders cannot just blast YouTube with DMCA takedown notices when something is found on YouTube and then threaten YouTube with failure to obey copyright laws by not taking down something.

The content holder must consider Fair Use. YouTube is just the middleman.
Click to expand...

The significance of this case would be that they can no longer automate the takedown process. No more having a bot crawl youtube videos and auto-generating takedown notices. Now someone is going to have to actually watch each and every video to determine if it's fair use before sending out the DMCA notices.

Even if the bots just flag the videos that have the material in them, there could still be thousands of videos to have to watch.
 
cgrant26 said:
Even if the bots just flag the videos that have the material in them, there could still be thousands of videos to have to watch.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a decent job... As long as it pays well and has a good pension.
 
And how many sales of Prince songs were generated by her use of the song. Any advertising is free advertising. The music industry should force Google to put a link to the song on the Play store and profit.
 
sfsuphysics said:
I hate to side with the music industry but they MUST consider fair use on whether or not to abuse a system on a privately owned website?

Are we delving into the realm of youtube is private but everyone has a right to use it?
Click to expand...


We are already there.

There are tons of instances of big media groups like FOX or CNN lifting stuff off YouTube without the poster's consent and using it as footage on news reports....and when I say "lifting" I mean giving no attribution where credit is due etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top