Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 27th Oct 2007 22:34 UTC, submitted by Kishe
Legal When her 0.29" family video was taken down by YouTube on the request of Universal MPG, the affected mother of two struck back with a lawsuit against Universal with the help of the EFF. While technically her family video might have been a copyright infringement as she had no license to include Prince's song as a background score, it is encouraging to see the public fighting back against restrictive laws that get in the way of their every day lives. My Take: I stated my own opinion on the matter on my personal blog.
Thread beginning with comment 281298
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: legal ramifications
by oma2la on Sat 27th Oct 2007 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE: legal ramifications"
oma2la
Member since:
2005-07-05

I assumed you were aware of YouTube's commercial status, and nothing in my comment suggested you weren't. If you are objecting to my assumption that you do not possess in depth knowledge of US copyright law when in fact you do, I apologise without reserve.

My point is simply that it seemed you did not fully comprehend the legal complexities of the situation. You are focusing on the unfairness of the particular case in question, and on its own I agree that removing the video seems harsh (even though none of us has a legal right to have our videos hosted by anyone, and the plaintiff has in no way suffered) but in the absence of modern legislation concerning these newly arisen situations, the RIAA has to act to protect its intellectual property. It may take a long time for governments to agree on comprehensive laws dealing with online content, but until such laws are made these apparently unfair cases will continue.

Neither of us can know how "99% of the artists" feel about the current situation, so it is probably unwise to use such figures.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: legal ramifications
by Eugenia on Sat 27th Oct 2007 23:51 in reply to "RE[2]: legal ramifications"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Take it then as "vast majority of artists". I know a few, and none of them has a problem. If Prince has a problem with it, he is one of the very few who do.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: legal ramifications
by chmeee on Sun 28th Oct 2007 22:04 in reply to "RE[3]: legal ramifications"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

I really like how the few you know constitutes a "vast majority of artists". I didn't realize that the total count of artists is the few you know plus prince.

In all seriousness, don't use terms of your opinion as facts, which you are doing. It confuses the vast majority of people who read you. Of course this "vast majority of people" is one or two people, but hey, if you can use that term to describe your friends, I can use it to define another arbitrary set of people.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: legal ramifications
by scuro_falcao on Sun 28th Oct 2007 23:26 in reply to "RE[3]: legal ramifications"
scuro_falcao Member since:
2006-03-18

Youtube is a great way for people to hear your music. I'm a musician, I am personally OK with the RIAA taking those songs down.

Hopefully people will start using more indie artist's songs whom usually are more talented and origional ;-)

Since a handful of companies set the trends and control music tv and radio nowadays.. its disguisting.

In my opinion, it does nothing but benifits the artists which is why all the major lables like to put all their music videos on there. Sure you can record the audio output easily, but in my opinion if you really like the band enough you'll buy their record and go to their shows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: legal ramifications
by stestagg on Sun 28th Oct 2007 02:07 in reply to "RE[2]: legal ramifications"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

So you agree with Eugenia, the law is stupid, and needs reform. So what is your point?

Reply Parent Score: 1