Judge: Labels Must Consider 'fair Use'
By
UPI ,
published on August 22, 2008 at 6:30 AM
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: piracy
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: piracy
Syndication:
A U.S. judge says record labels cannot order YouTube users to remove videos featuring their music unless they can show it’s not a legal "fair use." In what is being considered a victory for individual computer users over corporate music copyright holders, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, Calif., ruled Wednesday that music companies cannot issue blanket orders to remove YouTube videos unless they first determine if each video is using the copyrighted music in a way that’s legally permissible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Thursday.
-
Previous News Article
FCC Slaps Comcast, But Lays... -
Next News Article
The Best Paid CEO In The U.S.?...
Its about time!
Next they need to go after the RIAA with RICO
Youtube users are doing them a favor, it's pretty much free advertising for the labels. How many times do viewers ask about a song they liked in a video? All the time, and they usually get their answer.
Only dumb people ask about songs. They are on the inter webz and can look songs up if they had half a brain.
Unfortunately I don't think all those anime music videos fall under "fair use."
Im pretty sure they are not talking about the anime video being 'fair use'.. Im pretty sure they are talking about the 15year old girls shaking their asses to the music.. Thats 'fair use'..
This is actually perhaps something rather significant... For once, a judge has ordered that the burden of proof for fair use is laid upon the plaintiff instead... Personally, I think that this is a good idea, since this should cut down on that huge slew of frivolous lawsuits filed by corporate copyright holders against small individuals in such a way that they are dissuaded from attempting to take up that burden and hence defend themselves.
As far as actual "fair use" goes, the bulk of YouTube videos almost invariably well pass on criteria #1, #2, and #4, as they, in respective order, are done for a non-profit/non-commercial/personal-only usage, take from a copyrighted work that is already openly available, and as a general rule, do not degrade the value of the copyrighted work; i.e, it does not hamper the holder's ability to make money off of the work.
That only leaves #3, the question of the amount and substantiality of the work. It should be noted in cases where the copyrighted content that is used is entirely parodied, then it passes this criteria as well.