Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the gang-fight-gang-fight dept.

Music 298

Joren writes "Bad Lip Reading is an independent producer known for anonymously parodying music and political videos by redubbing them with his humorous attempts at lip-reading, such as Everybody Poops (Black Eyed Peas) and Gang Fight (Rebecca Black). According to an interview in Rolling Stone, he creates entirely new music from scratch consisting of his bad lip readings, and then sets them to the original video, often altering the video for humorous effect and always posting a link to the original off which it is based. Although his efforts have won the respect of parody targets Michael Bublé and Michelle Bachman, not everyone has been pleased. Two days ago, Universal Music Group succeeded in getting his parody Dirty Spaceman taken down from YouTube, and despite BLR's efforts to appeal, in his words, 'UMG essentially said "We don't care if you think it's fair use, we want it down."' And YouTube killed it. So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use? And if so, what recourse if any is available for artists who are caught in this situation?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's only fair use if you go to court... (5, Insightful)

Darkon (206829) | about 3 years ago | (#37808962)

...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.

Got to love the legal system.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#37808990)

Sadly, that's absolutely right.

I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.

Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809388)

It's amazing that you didn't post link to your site. Therefore, it didn't happen.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809462)

Sadly, that's absolutely right.

I had a non-profit service and community that I ran online for close to a dozen years and someone came along and replicated the exact same thing (though not as well) and even took the name and domain and everything else and catered to the exact same niche community (well, niche meaning we had about 100k members) . . . only they changed the name of it by one letter. After this, people were constantly getting confused. I'd get complaints about my site and members and service and everything else, that was clearly meant for the other site and I'd often be tagged for their failings, because of the confusion by the name.

Unfortunately, I'm just a dude and this wasn't a for-profit commercial enterprise of any kind. So, while I was clearly in the right to take legal action, there was absolutely no way I could have afforded the extreme costs that would have been involved.

That's okay! It was nature's way of sparing you the members who are so stupid they can't distinguish between two domains. Since you weren't bringing a product to a mass market where everyone's money is as green as everyone else's, you really didn't want those idiots anyway. They'd just waste your time and bog you down with stupid support questions that they wouldn't ask if they could RTFM.

Did you know I have never accidentally gone to "goggle.com" to try to search the web? Yeah that's because only an idiot would confuse it with "google.com". Same thing. The easily confused are only around because modern civilization has totally defeated natural selection. If it were up to nature, they'd have never survived infancy and their parents would have never lived long enough to meet.

Oh how I dream of a world filled with people who can think for themselves...this one requires far too much micromanagement of daily life and too many large governments to carry that out. It is so top-heavy it's about to topple over.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (5, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | about 3 years ago | (#37809008)

Everyone has to face that the fact that in the US, legal rights are only available to those who can afford to hire a good lawyer.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (5, Informative)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 3 years ago | (#37809112)

"We... settled out of court. The way the system appeared to work to me was... Lady Justice had the scales, and you piled cash on the scales. And the one that piled the most cash on the scales and hired the most experts and the ones most willing to tell the biggest lies... that was the winner. That's... that seems to be how our justice system functions now. It's terrible. It's terrible. How can a farmer defend himself against a multinational corporation like Monsanto?" -Troy Roush, Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association, commenting on how Monsanto uses legal action to bully farmers into settling when they are accused of "stealing" Monsanto's IP (genetically modified seeds). From "Food Inc."

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 years ago | (#37809164)

Which is complete bullshit of course. Many farmers have successfully defended themselves against such charges.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (4, Interesting)

kholburn (625432) | about 3 years ago | (#37809262)

Name some of them who have successfully taken Monsanto to court and won.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809464)

Also cite how much money it cost them to do so.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 years ago | (#37809146)

Uh except that you could go to court yourself. And if you are accused of a crime you get a free lawyer if you can't afford one.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (3, Insightful)

mitgib (1156957) | about 3 years ago | (#37809158)

Uh except that you could go to court yourself. And if you are accused of a crime you get a free lawyer if you can't afford one.

Which has no bearing on this topic

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (0)

I_Voter (987579) | about 3 years ago | (#37809576)

Perhaps he believes it is a crime to sue someone.

I just didn't have any points to mod you up. :>)
I am also using this post to see what checking (No Karma Bonus) actually does.
Does anyone know any reason for checking No Karma Bonus?

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (5, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about 3 years ago | (#37809196)

The need for lawyers who have studied for years or decades indicates that our legal system is too complex. There are so many laws, there exist laws that even the best lawyers are unaware of. There is a huge amount of case law that many times, but not always, provides direction in cases that are ambiguous in the law. We have laws from 2011 that override some part of laws from 2003 that override some part of laws from 1987 that override some part of laws from 1972, etc. to the beginning of time. I don't know the solution to all of this, but I think there has to be one.

And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 3 years ago | (#37809594)

"And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector."

I hate to tell you this, but many of those high-priced lawyers do pro bono work.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about 3 years ago | (#37809198)

And if you are accused of a crime

Violating copyright isn't a criminal case in most cases. And you don't get a free lawyer for civil court cases.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 years ago | (#37809384)

Do you have ANY idea how badly it looks to a judge to use a court appointed lawyer? I assure you, going that route will guarantee you receive harsher sentences and far less leniency then with a competent non-court appointed attorney.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809436)

You believe this to be true because...

A lawyer who routinely does court-appointed work will have represented hundreds or thousands of defendants in front of each judge in that courthouse. The lawyer will know what strategies work or don't, the judge's pet peeves, and what sort of sentence the judge prefers to impose. For anything routine, a public defender will have more relevant experience and will be able to get an issue more quickly and effectively than anyone else. There is no punitive impact from using a public defender, but the opposite could very well be true. If you hire someone the judge doesn't like or who missteps during court, you have a problem. And, if the judge assumes you are more able to pay a fine, you're looking at the real possibility of a stiffer penalty.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 years ago | (#37809518)

I believe this to be true because I have experienced it first hand, have you?

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809026)

Right, and if you put your dick in a vagina, it's only "not rape" if you go to court and argue that it isn't, which most people don't have the resources to do.

What - no! It's "rape" if you're you fuck someone without having the right to, and it's copyright infringement if someone claims copyright and you reproduce when you're "not allowed". Fair use is not up to the copyright holder, it is just like the (albeit opposite example) of a minor - they can't give consent. The copyright holder can't take your fair use away, saying "we don't care about that", just like a minor can't give you consent by saying "I don't care if it's illegal, I want to fuck."

That's exactly what the letter does:
They said "We don't care if you think it's fair use, we want it down."'

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (0, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37809066)

"what recourse if any is available for artists who are caught in this situation?"

Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809100)

Maybe the dude who invented modern music theory should be suing all the big record labels, since you know, they're kinda cashing in on his fame?

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (2)

1u3hr (530656) | about 3 years ago | (#37809152)

Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?

So, you believe there should be no right to parody without the source's permission? If not, what is your point?

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37809176)

Sure ... so long as you remake the video as well as the audio, eg. Mad Al Yankovitch.

As it is he's using somebody else's video for profit (direct or indirect)

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (2)

EnergyScholar (801915) | about 3 years ago | (#37809392)

How would this protect you? If a large corporation initiates legal action against an individual, it DOES NOT MATTER whether or not the individual in breach of any law. Had this act of parody involved totally original video and audio (e.g. Weird Al's approach) , and had some large corporation taken offense and initiated legal action to take it down, do you think this story would have a different outcome? Why, or why not?

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (3, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 years ago | (#37809466)

This guy seems to be creating original music and lyrics, and the basis for it is bad lip reading, so a new video would miss the entire point. That's actually more original than Weird Al's parodies. He's using the video, but even Hitler understands that fair use can use existing video and audio.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (2)

The Creator (4611) | about 3 years ago | (#37809170)

Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?

We could make sure no music is borrowed or stolen by having a music cast. Each member of this cast would have to grow up in a complete music void, and start from scratch (banging two sticks together or whatever). Sure, we would no longer have a culture and all music would sound like perfect shit, but hey, a small price to pay for making sure all music is original!

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809274)

a creative one, look _

"Ummm ... create original material instead of trying to cash in on other people's fame?"

_ never heard this before. U're a such a rhetoric torero, Joce640k. What a refreshing
thought. And it's so new.

U've heard about terms like analogy + association? No. Never mind. Have fun in Disney
Land.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809356)

This sentence is a copy of a thought, which is a copy of a copy of a copy of a though + it
suggests not to copy. You should work for Universal Music.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809072)

...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.

Got to love the legal system.

This problem wouldn't arise if the law stated precisely what is and what isn't fair use.
Less flexibile than the current US system, but so much better for the common man who wouldn't be suject to bullshit claims from the entertainment corporations.
The fact that you have to go to trail to decide if what you do with a copyrighted piece is or isn't fair use is a lost cause for 99,999% of the people that are up against the corportations.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (3, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | about 3 years ago | (#37809082)

Or if you're responding to a DMCA notice.

As I understand it, if someone complains about your work under the DMCA, the hosting provider is supposed to forward the complaint to you, and immediately pull your work. If you respond to the DMCA asserting you have the rights to the work (for whatever reason, including fair use), the host is supposed to put it back up, and let you and the complainant duke it out in court.

Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 3 years ago | (#37809122)

Of course, as a private entity, Google can pull down whatever it likes from its services - there's no obligation for them to host any of your material.

On the other hand, if Universal sends a takedown notice, and the person who put the video up asks Google to restore it, then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 years ago | (#37809150)

... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.

..and by no reason you mean that Google doesnt have a large revenue stream associated with advertising RIAA music on a large percentage of its youtube video collection, and Google also isnt in the process of making a deal with the RIAA for direct music purchasing through Google...

Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

lahvak (69490) | about 3 years ago | (#37809174)

Both of those deals are supposedly as advantageous for RIAA as they are for Google (otherwise I highly doubt that RIAA would enter into those agreements with Google at the first place), so I don't think they are going to back out of those deals because of this one video.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 years ago | (#37809496)

Except the RIAA will gladly cut off its nose to spite it's face.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (4, Insightful)

todrules (882424) | about 3 years ago | (#37809094)

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about 3 years ago | (#37809372)

Of course even if he went to court and won, YouTube could still choose to take it down, due to the request of the record company.

Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 3 years ago | (#37809592)

False.

There are counter-notice provisions in the DMCA.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content [citmedialaw.org]

In his facebook post, he said "I appealed their claim through the official YouTube methods."
Presumably, this means that BLR filed a counter-notice with YouTube and UMG won.
Possibly because YouTube didn't buy his fair use arguments.

While YouTube/Google may have ignored his arguments, BLR is free to find a different host that is more friendly.
Or he can build his own web-server and let UMG deal with his ISP.

Firth Spot! (-1, Offtopic)

mfarah (231411) | about 3 years ago | (#37808964)

Yup.

Kickstarter that badboy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37808968)

Kickstarter Lawsuits. We finally have a solution!
SUE ON BROTHERS.

Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#37808998)

That doesn't really solve the underlying problem, though. Either way, it costs a ton of money and time and lawyers get paid incredible sums. All kickstarter does is pool the resources of a community that may or may not care about one individual's situation and try to give them some sort of chance against the corporation that has unlimited resources.

Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809234)

Even then, if everyone pitches in a dollar and the case is lost, it STILL got to be fought in the public, while everyone who lost is only liable for one dollar. It's not about "one individual's situation". It's about bringing to light a situation that has ramifications for the public interest. I'm sure that the EFF would be more likely to contribute lawyers to a case that was funded by kickstarter rather than give out pro bono lawyers.

Granted, it would still be astronomically expensive, but the idea is certainly something I'd never thought of.

Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809014)

This shouldn't be necessary. Since Google owns YouTube, they should know all about 'freedom' right? Surely they know parody is protected? Surely they aren't the same as every other corporation out there?

Hello? Is this thing on?

Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809090)

More importantly, if google wants youtube to continue to be go-to place for video hosting, they're going to have to consider shielding their contributors from some types of legal action. Parody videos are youtube's bread-and-butter....

Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (5, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37809242)

Google has no right to decide whether it's a parody or not. That's up to the courts. If they receive a DMCA complaint, they have to take it down. If they didn't, Youtube wouldn't exist by now.

Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809542)

Yes, but you can also contest a takedown notice. At that point, Universal would have 10-14 days to file a lawsuit or the content must be put back online.

Fucking hell. (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#37808970)

They invoked the "we don't care what you think" and everyone knows that the founding fathers added that clause to the Constitution, so that all of your rights and all of the land's laws could be circumvented with that clever dismissive phrase.

Re:Fucking hell. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37808992)

The solution is to elect people who understand and respect our founding principles instead of people who promise us all kinds of new shiny stuff. We're supposed to be electing representatives, and instead we vote for people who rape us.

Re:Fucking hell. (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | about 3 years ago | (#37809416)

The solution is to elect people who understand and respect our founding principles instead of people who promise us all kinds of new shiny stuff.

That's both the solution, and the problem. Yes we in theory can elect people that will fix the system, but no, we as a people are greedy, short-sighted, narrow-minded voters that will vote in anyone that promises free lollipops after the election, issues be damned, until it gets really bad. That's why our elected officials are voted back and forth on seesaw elections. One election they vote in a candidate for all the shiny stuff he promises because the last guy was too busy trying to solve issues and spending money where it needed to be spent. Then next election they vote the first guy back in because the second one undid all the fixes from the first guy. Rinse and repeat.

I don't blame the politicians or the corporations, I blame the voters. Unfortunately, big business has sat quietly on the sidelines slipping dollars into pockets and actually getting laws passed that serve their good.

Re:Fucking hell. (5, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#37808994)

Closer to the truth than you think. The federal government has ignored quite a few laws recently, effectively invoking this "we don't care" clause, with absolutely no reaction from anyone.

Re:Fucking hell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809500)

What, you mean the ones they're barred by the Constitution from enforcing?

I agree with this (2)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 3 years ago | (#37808976)

I have it on good infornation that the Italians have lip-reading technology. So if they copied our nation's broadcasts and presidential addresses, they could learn important secrets that could be fuel for their islamocommunist crusade against America, our freedom and our God. Good thing most Italians only speak their weird dialect of Mexican and can't understand our American language and Christian culture. But the safest thing is to use our legal freedom system, backed up by the force of our men, women and children in uniform if necessary, to eep the Italian infiltrators and saboteurs off America's internet.

Bought congress (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809000)

These are the kinds of laws we get when we let companies (via their lobbyists) write their own legislation.

no recourse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809010)

There is no recourse. Youtube is a private company that can make any decision it wants about what gets posted. They can take the legal liability or they can elect to skip all that and take down creative expression upon ANY half-arsed complaint. Its their choice.

Re:no recourse (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37809192)

Actually, it's not quite so simple. If you post anything people upload, then you are covered by the Safe Harbour provisions of the DMCA. If someone files a take-down notice, then you are obliged to remove it, until the original poster produces a counter notice. If you then restore it, then the copyright owner has to get a court to agree that it is infringement (by suing the original poster). If you don't, then you may be deemed to be taking an active role in copyright enforcement and lose your safe harbour status. In short, not restoring it can open Google up to more liability than restoring it.

Things you can do. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809020)

Send a letter to your National and State Congress critters, the local paper(s) Op-Ed, the local paper(s) when the the EFF and any others you can think of. Don't exaggerate, send copies of any proof that you have. Write up your own letter and send it to them and You Tube\Google claiming they have violated your 4th Amendment Rights and send it registered, return receipt requested. Not that they'll care, but at least you can prove you have complained to them.

AC

Re:Things you can do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809056)

Send a letter to your National and State Congress critters, the local paper(s) Op-Ed, the local paper(s) when the the EFF and any others you can think of. Don't exaggerate, send copies of any proof that you have. Write up your own letter and send it to them and You Tube\Google claiming they have violated your 4th Amendment Rights and send it registered, return receipt requested. Not that they'll care, but at least you can prove you have complained to them.

AC

Jeeze, my typing is horrid this morning. Here's a link to Chilling Effects with a form you can fill out. http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf
Contact page for the EFF. http://www.eff.org/about/contact

AC

Re:Things you can do. (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 3 years ago | (#37809068)

Well gee I bet they'd be really sorry about raiding my home and confiscating my computer equipment without a warrant then.

Re:Things you can do. (3, Informative)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 3 years ago | (#37809156)

Fourth amendment?

In this case, no, the fourth amendment doesn't hold, it's data sitting on Google's servers that's being yanked down by Google, not the Government.

Blame the right entity (1)

Co0Ps (1539395) | about 3 years ago | (#37809028)

And YouTube killed it

Yes, but it's not YouTubes fault. They have to take it down by law. Blame your politicians and ridiculous copyright laws - not YouTube.

Re:Blame the right entity (1)

Entrope (68843) | about 3 years ago | (#37809078)

Which copyright laws are those? The DMCA's take-down provisions have a corresponding put-back provision, and the law stops there. (Google may have some term of service that lets it censor content; I don't post stuff on YouTube, so I haven't researched that.)

The take-down: Pretty familiar, although the legal checklist of requirements (to make it a valid take-down notice) is not always as well-known.

The put-back: After receiving a take-down notice, the person who provided the allegedly infringing content can object (with a similar, but shorter, list of required statements). If the service provider receives a valid counter-notice, they must relay that to the rights holder, and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.

It is not clear where this process stopped or broke down in this case.

Re:Blame the right entity (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 years ago | (#37809166)

and if they are then not notified by the rights holder within 10-14 business days that the rights holder has filed a lawsuit, the service provider must reinstate the content.

I see a lot of you slashdotters make this claim and its flat-out wrong.

The law does not make the service provider host any content at all.

Re:Blame the right entity (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#37809096)

Except that the DMCA clearly provides not just a take-down procedure but also a counter-claim procedure where people can say "no, this isn't a violation", the hosting site can put it back and is then legally immune from being sued by whoever alleges copyright claims.

Did the guy who made the parody video file a proper DMCA section 512(c) put-back notice? If so, YouTube is required to tell Universal of the filed put-back notice and if Universal does not file an appropriate lawsuit against the guy who made the parody, YouTube is required to reinstate the content.

IANAL so I dont know exactly whats going on but this is my limited understanding of the DMCA

Re:Blame the right entity (2)

jpapon (1877296) | about 3 years ago | (#37809134)

YouTube is required to reinstate the content

I don't think this is true; YouTube can host/takedown any content whenever they damn well please. There is no law that obligates them to host something they don't want to.

Re:Blame the right entity (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37809204)

If they don't reinstate it, then they put their safe harbour status in jeopardy. If they are not classed as a safe harbour by the DMCA then they, not the original uploaders, are liable for any copyright infringement.

Put the take down letter on the web. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809030)

Be sure to include the address of the lawyer that penned it with the take down letter.

Streisand the hell out of it! (4, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | about 3 years ago | (#37809042)

This must not stand!
Repost the video!

Re:Streisand the hell out of it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809298)

This kind of abuse will keep on happening until there is parity -- until the penalties for an improper take-down notice are on a par with hosting an infringing file. And since hosting an infringing file can lead to a company being put out of business, Universal Music Group would need to be pretty sure of its assessment in order to issue a take down notice.

Re:Streisand the hell out of it! (2)

Co0Ps (1539395) | about 3 years ago | (#37809504)

Doesn't work. YouTube has automated copyright infringement detection. Basically the music/movie company uploads all their shit and YouTube will scan trough all uploaded content and match it. Then they can choose to take it down, add advertising etc. This is probably how the copyright claimer was notified of the video in the first place. No YouTube staff where probably ever involved in taking it down.

Re:Streisand the hell out of it! (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 3 years ago | (#37809520)

Who cares what youtube thinks, why bother with some third party? If he wants the video to be available why doesn't he just host it himself? When he receives the takedown, he can counter it instantly.

Looks like the assholes are winning (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 3 years ago | (#37809050)

The politically correct ones. Their asshole is where their mouth should be. It's also why it's more politically correct (in the music industry) to kiss their ass then to kiss their mouth, especially after they've been talking shit, which would be rather unpleasant.

Unfortunately parodies remind them that it's not normal to have an asshole where your mouth should be, unless they are ass kissing, then it's perfectly normal, except they don't like being reminded that they are ass kissing or that they are a walking talking parody of themselves, a bunch of walking talking assholes.

Now that would make for an interesting parody video.

Counter notice? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809052)

Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?

Is it a parody? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809054)

I didn't see the video that was taken down, but I don't believe that the videos I did see would meet the legal definition of parody. To be a parody, you have to make fun of the original work. These videos use the original work to make a joke about other things, which is legally defined as satire and is not protected as fair use.

Weird Al claims to get approval before every song that he does.

Re:Is it a parody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809104)

I didn't see the video that was taken down, but I don't believe that the videos I did see would meet the legal definition of parody. To be a parody, you have to make fun of the original work. These videos use the original work to make a joke about other things, which is legally defined as satire and is not protected as fair use.

Weird Al claims to get approval before every song that he does.

From wikipedia:

"A parody (pronounced /pærdi/; also called send-up, spoof or lampoon), in current usage, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on, or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, *satiric *or ironic imitation. "

Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement

So, no. Parody can use satire.

Re:Is it a parody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809118)

Parody can use satire. However to be a parody, you have to make fun of the "original work". These videos seem to me to be using the "original work" to make a humorous derived work, but not a mock of the original.

Re:Is it a parody? (2)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | about 3 years ago | (#37809180)

MAD sometimes use stillshots from movies and adds their humorous quip onto them.

F.eks...

A stillshot of Sam Gamji holding the Star-glass and a sword looking menacing, while saying: "I'll show Gandalf how many Hobbits it takes to screw in a lightbulb!"

So....if that works for MAD...

Re:Is it a parody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809210)

They're making fun of the fact that their mouths look like they are singing these alternate lyrics when you take away the original track. Maybe that's not their intention, but they could easily claim just that if they must meet any "making fun of" clause of parody. PS: parody doesn't have to mock to be parody. It can instead enlighten, bring to light important social issues, etc.

Re:Is it a parody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809244)

Apparently, you can't read.

Re:Is it a parody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809160)

Weird Al is just being polite.

Coolio said no to "Amish Paradise", he did it anyways, and a public squabble ensued. Since the real deals, the bitch-raping, crack smoking gangstas, aka, american role models, don't have a sense of humor.

Re:Is it a parody? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 3 years ago | (#37809358)

make a joke about other things

As near as I can tell, it's not making fun of anything but the original song's lyrics. The only difference between this and Weird Al, is that Weird Al makes awesome music videos, while this is just scribbling on the original video.

Streisand effect (2)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 3 years ago | (#37809058)

Sometimes I'm not sure if these people are just ignorant to the Streisand effect, or are actively trying to use it to gain publicity for themselves generally or whatever the parody is using as inspiration or source material.

The Video is not Down (2)

Fantom42 (174630) | about 3 years ago | (#37809098)

The videos don't seem to be down. I just watched it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading#p/c/48076365A788CC3F/6/bQOJwDMZMXw [youtube.com]

Their youtube site is up (3, Informative)

sproketboy (608031) | about 3 years ago | (#37809102)

I just checked it. http://www.youtube.com/user/BadLipReading [youtube.com]

It's really funny but not as funny as Day Job Orchestra.

this will persist... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809106)

This will persist as long as people keep UMG and others in business.

Why is ANYONE giving money to them any more, given all the shit they have pulled over the last years? Seriously... it boggles the mind. Just stop giving them money, and they'll go away!

Setup a website and put the videos there... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809154)

Setup a website on a host in some country that doesn't have draconian laws and host them there... done...

Sadly enough, UMC is right on legally (1)

roguegramma (982660) | about 3 years ago | (#37809228)

You'll probably simply moderate me down for this, but technically UMG is correct, because he is using their video.
He would be fine if he created his own video.
The parody defense would probably mean he could use their texts if altered to be a parody, but that's it.

He could try to strike a deal with UMG, for example "You allow me to use your video, then I allow you to use mine".
And if UMG refuses, it would be ok to bad-mouth them.

This isn't even a case of copyright law doing something that it isn't intended to do.
The only decent stand to take against what happened, if you want to go that far, would be to argue that all information once released should be free. That may be a reasonable stand, but it isn't how we handle things today at all.

Re:Sadly enough, UMC is right on legally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809476)

Nonsense. Why is there still so much misinformation about the fair use defense?
There are four specific factors listed in the law for the judge to consider in deciding whether the use is fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  They're using the video to promote sales of the audio track on iTunes.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  It's a commercial pop music video.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  They used the entire video portion, but none of the audio.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
  I daresay it probably increases sales of the original.

But it's up to a judge to consider these, and only if the case actually goes to court.

Re:Sadly enough, UMC is right on legally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809498)

This isn't even a case of copyright law doing something that it isn't intended to do.
The only decent stand to take against what happened, if you want to go that far, would be to argue that all information once released should be free. That may be a reasonable stand, but it isn't how we handle things today at all.

I would mod you down if I could, but I am not signed in. Not many people opposed to the system argue that the copyright system is doing something that it isn't intended to do. It is doing exactly what is intended: give unshakable monopoly control to the corporations to increase profits. That was always the idea of copyright . . . as long as it was for a finite time. Now that copyright is forever, some people want the control to be less totalitarian. That's the problem.

you ought to be moderated down for being wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809580)

*cough* fair use *cough*

Pirate Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809284)

Where is America's Pirate Party? I wish to vote for them.

Shouldn't be taken down (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809304)

but geez, the original raw material is utter bs.

what recourse? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 years ago | (#37809308)

Hire an attorney, spend lots of money getting to court and then winning.

But by then you have been drained of your measly little life savings and have noting left to show for it except a hollow 'i won'.

The media giants have won this one They bought the legislation and are going to use it. The only way out is to repeal the DMCA and pave the way for winners in these situations ( and other frivolous suits ) to recoup ALL their losses and a *hefty* fine placed on the industry that goes to the winner.

Make them be damned sure they cant lose in court and be able to defend their actions of suing old ladies to the judge..

Re:what recourse? (2)

drew30319 (828970) | about 3 years ago | (#37809396)

Although hiring an attorney is not a bad idea, the rest of this is not accurate. DMCA is a large unwieldy tool but YouTube's approach is pretty fair. If you assert your willingness to be identified and sued by the rights holder (through a counter-notification) they will put your content back online. Only if the rights holder then takes legal action do they remove the content.

Although "the media giants" may abuse DMCA, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for not taking the time to learn what our own rights are and how we can assert them; and asserting them doesn't have to cost us anything other than investing a little time in the process.

Big Content (0)

Casca1 (656425) | about 3 years ago | (#37809330)

Not that I advocate it, but the more the big, dying music content industry goes down it's Sue you till you obey line?
One: Fuel-Air Bomb
Two: UMG Headquarters
Three: Fair use of oxygen and flame
It really WILL be the death of them...

YouTube DMCA takedowns (2)

drew30319 (828970) | about 3 years ago | (#37809368)

Has YouTube changed their procedures for dealing with DMCA takedowns? I had this same experience with a video for my nonprofit and once I asserted my willingness to be sued YouTube restored the video. Their position at the time (and apparently still their position per their site) was that it was up to the rights holder to sue under DMCA --- not for a contributor to sue to have content restored. The process I followed is here: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_counter [youtube.com] and although my video was down for a few months it was put back up and is still up years later. This is the way that I believe DMCA was designed to work and YouTube does a pretty good job of balancing this process. YouTube does not make any determination about if the content is "fair use" or not - they instead put the onus on the one asserting infringement to take legal action. Seems reasonable to me - and at least in my case - their process worked.

IANAL but did graduate from law school a few months ago.

don't host in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37809458)

domain from some hostile country like venezuala, hosting in china or russia

freedom means you can do whatever you want as long as those in power approve

Another of the 1% (1, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | about 3 years ago | (#37809508)

Add this to the list of problems with the 1% that need to be corrected. The entire issue of intellectual property needs to be overhauled in the Constitution 2.0.

DMCA Counter Notice (1)

Courageous (228506) | about 3 years ago | (#37809586)

File a DMCA Counter Notice.

This establishes to Google your exact name, filing address, and a statement (notarized, I believe) that you have the right to be doing what you are doing. Fair Use is one of those rights, although the first thing an attorney will tell you is that fair use is extraordinarily vague. Before filing this thing you may wish to consult with an attorney. Defending yourself against a lawsuit, which the DMCA Counter Notice will surely enable them to file, will cost a $15,000 simply to get started.

C//

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?