Stephanie Lenz is an angry Pennsylvania mother who refuses to back down from the music industry.
Lenz’s attorneys were in federal district court on Friday morning, trying to thwart a motion to dismiss her lawsuit against Universal Music Group. A year ago, the music label ordered YouTube to pull down a 30-second video she shot of her infant son dancing to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy.”
Lenz, who resides in a rural Pennsylvania area, claims that her video is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Fair Use provision in copyright law. She fought the order, and eventually, Universal Music abandoned any claim that she violated Prince’s copyright. YouTube has since reposted her clip.
Now Lenz is out to teach the music industry a lesson.
What Lenz and her attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation want are for media companies to stop sending take-down notices in a “willy nilly” fashion and to make sure that they have a legitimate claim of copyright violation before acting.
Schmuck bureaucrats should learn not to mess with Mom…
Unfortunately, the RIAA owns congress. They’ll just get their lapdogs to change the law making it even tighter. They’ll make it retro-active and she’ll really be screwed!
To be begin with, I fully endorse this woman’s stand against the evil industry and their stupidity. In the clip, I would like to know what proof they have that what was playing is indeed a Prince song, it is barely audible and sounds like any other song as not enough is heard to distinguish it from any other hard rock tune. The music industry lawyers had better wise up and stop sending out letters. What a waste of paper!
#1 “Unfortunately, the RIAA owns congress”
Truer words were never spoken.
Besides an angry mom, this case needs publicity, to shine a light on this mafia (also known as the RIAA). You go, mom!
Way to go Mom!
If this lawsuit teaches the RIAA not to sue left and right, then I’m all for it.
I wish her the best.
So this seems to be working correctly. Somebody makes a cute video of a child and uses the child’s favorite song. I do realize that music is copyrighted and the writer, performer and music distributor has the right to protect the music. But truly is this not about illegal distribution of this material and not what happen with this mom and child? I think this was not a problem until you start making these video’s public. This does fall into the same category as someone making a public speech or presentation. You cannot use copyrighted material without permission.
I think the misconception is that youtube is somehow excluded from this. Unfortunately I think enough litigation will end this practice and will force sites like youtube to become more aware of copyrighted content.
Even though this person was not trying to profit from this video. It was still something that will bring up debate when displayed in the public.
jescott418, play the video and listen. The audio quality is so poor the song is nearly unrecognizable. The video is not about the song, it includes only a few seconds of the song. The video is about the kid, and falls well within fair use.
#7 – jescott418
If you share a clip of your buddies in a bar, where they play Purple Rain in sound system… should you get sued for infringement?
Although I agree that artists should be payed for their work, the American people need this women to push back on the RIAA and win. The interpretation of the DMCA by this organization is not only over-reaching but antequated. We need more people like her who are willing to stand up and fight (and win punitive damages), so organizations like the RIAA don’t have free reign to harass the public indiscriminately.
What exactly did thid lady do? Can she reduce this to a simple procedure and a simple form (say in PDF format) and post it somewhere for all who have had videos pulled from YouTube? We need to emulate what she did.
I’m reminded of the Simpsons’ Rev. Lovejoy’s wife saying, “Won’t someone please think of the children?!”, in her usual hysterical outcry.
What’s totally dumb about this is that such exposure on Youtube will probably increase the sale of Prince’s music. And if all it does is make a relatively small number of people happy to obtain a song of his for free. Then he and the label should write it off as PR. After all, I didn’t give a squat about Dolly Parton songs until I heard Target use one recently. Which caused me to download the longer clip of that from Youtube. If I like it enough, I might just look for the CD. But if not, then the one tune will do me fine. And the RIAA should stop counting their beans over the loss of a buck a song. Recovering that would only amount to enough bread to pay their expensive lawyers. Are they really so dense to think they’ll make a king’s ransom from stopping all privacy, as if they ever could? Meanwhile out courts are getting increasingly tied up with these cases, while more serious crimes await their trial dates. Are the RIAA paying for this burden, or the taxpayers?