Judge Tosses Universal's Defenses in YouTube Case

Submitted by Bibliofuture on March 5, 2010 - 12:26pm
Topic: 
Legal Issues

Universal Music failed to convince a federal judge in San Jose that a Pennsylvania homemaker knew she was infringing its copyrights when she posted a YouTube video of her toddler son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy."
Stephanie Lenz said Universal forced YouTube to remove her video, and then YouTube sent her a "takedown notice" saying subsequent copyright infringement activity would lead to the deletion of her account.
She sued the record label under a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which states that a copyright holder "who knowingly materially misrepresents" that someone misused its material "shall be liable for any damages ... incurred by the alleged infringer."
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel denied Universal's motion to dismiss the complaint in an August 2008 ruling that some hailed as a victory for fair-use rights.

Full article

Comments

Submitted by AndyW on March 5, 2010 - 12:30pm.

So, when can we have that discussion about copyright in this new age of the internet?

Submitted by Bibliofuture on March 5, 2010 - 12:32pm.

I think this is the video. You can barely hear the music. I am almost thinking this is the wrong video because I cant imagine they went after the mom for this video.

Link to video

It is the right video. Below the video is this note: If you're trying to contact me, please call my EFF lawyers at (415) 436-9333.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 5, 2010 - 2:31pm.

we are gathered here today to cease the video taping of any toddler silliness involving music.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 5, 2010 - 2:34pm.

Reading the full story you will see that the record company is currently losing this one. The mother sued the record company under the DMCA.

Here is the excerpt from the article:

She sued the record label under a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which states that a copyright holder "who knowingly materially misrepresents" that someone misused its material "shall be liable for any damages ... incurred by the alleged infringer."

Submitted by Walt on March 5, 2010 - 5:18pm.

This is also an interesting case because, if I remember, it's one where Big Media flat-0ut argued that fair use is infringement, but infringement with a defense. If that was true, then the suit needed to be tossed. Of course, the law is very explicit about fair use being an exception to copyright, not a defense against infringement--but Big Media pretty consistently ignores the wording of laws it doesn't like. I hope Lenz wins.