Dancing Tot Video in Copyright War — This is just incredible. Luckily the woman is counter-suing. Good!
Ms Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February but was informed last month that it was deleted from the website after Universal complained use of the music violated the company’s copyright.
“I was really surprised and angry when I learned my video was removed,” said Ms Lenz.
“Universal should not be using legal threats to try to prevent people from sharing home videos of their kids with family and friends.” EFF lawyers contend Universal is abusing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act provision that calls on websites to remove copyright material at the behest of owners.
The kicker here is that the music is barely audible. The next time the music industry sues over the digital copying saying it’s just because it is digital and makes for perfect copies, a lawyer should roll this out. It’s apparently NOT about the digital. It’s about everything.
Fair Use [should] cover it… the video is 29 seconds, and FU usually required over 30.
I been doing radio for 30 years, so…..
J/P=?
If the RIAA could figure out how to make a nickel every time YMCA was played at a wedding reception, they’d do it. Until those a-holes figure that out, they’ll be pulling this crap instead. Well off I go to “those music sites”…
How ironic is it that the music playing in the background is Prince, one artist who is pretty famously against major record labels and RIAA.
And while I agree with the YMCA comment above (and believe that it should be banned from all wedding receptions…), I think that most DJ’s pay ASCAP or BMI license fees so we probably won’t be able to get around that one.
Just another reason the RIAA should be dismantled. Maybe the record companies will bite the dust in a year or two and then the music will just be free, as it should be. I mean, they’ve had plenty of time to create a workable solution. On one side you have the artists, on the other, the consumer. Why DO you need anyone in the middle? To take the money from consumers and not give it to artists? Hmmm. Kind of like the insurance racket.
Well if it stops doting mothers uploading pointless videos of their wretched children doing “cute” things with rubbish music in the background, then I’m all for it.
Hey, you have to look on the bright side.
#4 – Jaded – Yup, and it will stop you from being forced, yes forced against your will, to watch all those videos….
Keep it up Universal. Between this and the iTunes contract negotiations, you’ll be lucky to re-sign and current major artists and sell any of their music to anybody. Gee, why won’t file sharing die???
This is outright insanity. I couldn’t tell what the hell was playing in that clip if you told me.
I guess music companies aren’t going to get it until everybody stops buying their crap. CDs, iTunes, everything. Just stop. buying. their crap.
I would not be surprised if there comes to be organized action against those companies, the RIAA and the corporate a-holes that run them.
Am I crazy or does that dancing kid look like a spitting image of Mr. Dvorak?
This is one reason to go with indi artists. I found a nice group that I like called Brobdingnagian Bards I found them via The Irish & Celtic Music Podcast A nice podcast and I have ended up buy things because of it.
Forget the RIAA, I found better music
# 10.. Yep, you are so right. Music was about art. Starving artist who practice their art with pride. Not noise from preprogrammed electronic machines hanging from the neck in the shape of a guitar that go thump thump regularly. Don’t buy the crap and only the artist will make music.
#7, Mikey,
Not quite. Dangle a recording contract in front of any band “trying to make it” and you will have signatures faster then iGlobalWarmer can contribute some methane to the atmosphere through his butt. And they will care even less what the terms are then iGW will about the immediate impact on the closest people.
Sure the bands care about how much money they get from records, especially after the first check arrives. They care even more about not having a record contract in the first place though. “The Artist Formally Known As Prince” and his record contract dispute is an anomaly.
So, shouldn’t the jerks with blaring bass driving through residential areas be charged for illegal broadcasting copyrighted material??
No one understands the huge bet RIAA has with Lindsay Lohan for who is the most ill. But it’s absolutely no argument that both are at the cutting edge of self-destruction.
#13 – Exactly correct.
This is so asinine that I can’t even think of anything intelligent to say about it. The RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot. I hope they hang themselves.
#13. I don’t think so, all that thump, thump, thump is completely indistinguishable.
I think the auto alarm companies should copyright the beep, beep, beep, beep song and charge the jerks with the blaring bass for illegally broadcasting copyrighted material when the jerks with blaring bass drive through residential areas and set off car alarms.
DAMN…….that does look like John!!! 🙂
Mr. Fusion
Notice I said re-sign, not sign. Once an artist or group has established themselves and their contracts come up, they have a lot more say in how their music is handled in the re-negotiating of their contract, not to mention the other lables that come knocking offering them more incentives. You’re correct though, a lot of new artists or band will sign at the drop of a hat, only because they don’t know any better. Others are a little smarter and create a demand(Arctic Monkeys come to mind) so they can hold a little more leverage at the bargaining table. With the net, the indie artist has worldwide distribution and some marketing without even dealing with a label. At that point it becomes a matter of who will the artist LET help them distribute, promote, and profit from their music. As for radio, they’re beholdeness (yeah, I made up a word) to the labels are part of the problem too, but again, the net has proven that artists don’t need them as much today, as they did years ago.