Dancing Baby Takes on Universal

[admin]

This just in from the "They Can't Possibly be That Stupid Department"... Universal Studios is being sued for forcing YouTube to remove a personal video of a baby dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" tune in the background. Yes, they got caught being unreasonable and now it's turning into a lawsuit so that they hopefully learn to not do this again. Maybe, if this happens - a lot - then perhaps somebody in a suit will finally get a clue.

Discuss "Dancing Baby Takes on Universal" here. Read the article.

 

[Seth=L]

Wow, stupid. Is it a coincidense that Universal is the only major studio that exclusively supports HD DVD?

 

[Leprkon]

hell.. if it had been a Metallica tune, the mother would have been shot and the kid sent to a monastery in Siberia...

 

[Johnd]

Well, at first blush, ridiculous. But if you read the article, the basis is copyright infringement. Youtube has been deleting many of their posts over the past few weeks regarding this very issue.

Napster, Youtube, Prince, Metallica. I don't know where it stops or where it ends, but defending an infringement suit is a costly thing...if the artist disapproves, it cannot be posted.

So. At first blush this is about a mother simply displaying her child dancing to a tune. Wouldn't it be beautiful were it that simple? Technology's a bit**!

 

[NeverSeen]

*downloads more music*

 

[MDS]

Even with 'fair use' there has long been a prohibition against public performance of copyrighted material. So while it is fair use to make a copy of a disc and give it to your friends, it is not ok to charge admission where you will be playing a copyrighted work; ie you cannot make a copy of a concert DVD and charge people to come to your establishment to view that concert.

Maybe Universal is taking that angle - that using copyrighted music as background music for a video that millions could see equates to 'public performance'. I think it is a stretch. I mean what's next? Sueing people for playing a song at their wedding because there are 100 guests?

 

[avaserfi]

I think it is a stretch. I mean what's next? Sueing people for playing a song at their wedding because there are 100 guests?

Only if a Universal rep was invited. They have to find out somehow . Anyone getting married or having a party soon be careful .

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe Universal is taking that angle - that using copyrighted music as background music for a video that millions could see equates to 'public performance'. I think it is a stretch. I mean what's next? Sueing people for playing a song at their wedding because there are 100 guests?

While it may be public performance, where would the paid charge angle fit in? I don't think u-tube is charging to see that that family is charging.

 

[MDS]

Who knows? I think their position is indefensible. I'm only offering one possible reason they could possiby think they have a case. Like I said, I think it's a stretch.

The RIAA and member companies are working very hard to alienate their customers and doing a bang up job of it.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I mean what's next? Sueing people for playing a song at their wedding because there are 100 guests?

Party DJs are already legally required to pay royalties. (of course nobody does)

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Suppose I am shooting a home video in the yard, and a car goes by with a loud stereo. Do I have to pay royalties on whatever song they were playing?
Sure, that is an extreme example, but who decides where we do draw the line?

 

[Johnd]

Sure, that is an extreme example, but who decides where we do draw the line?

Profit must come into the picture.

 

[Drako]

Even with 'fair use' there has long been a prohibition against public performance of copyrighted material. So while it is fair use to make a copy of a disc and give it to your friends, it is not ok to charge admission where you will be playing a copyrighted work; ie you cannot make a copy of a concert DVD and charge people to come to your establishment to view that concert.

Maybe Universal is taking that angle - that using copyrighted music as background music for a video that millions could see equates to 'public performance'. I think it is a stretch. I mean what's next? Sueing people for playing a song at their wedding because there are 100 guests?

It happens. They're called ASCAP fees and they file lawsuits almost as often as the RIAA. A couple of years ago a guy got sued for singing HAPPY BIRTHDAY at a big televised event...it turns out that the lyrics to Happy Birthday are still under copyright, and you have to pay royalties to SING IT YOURSELF in any kind of public venue. That includes weddings.

Here at work we pay a yearly ASCAP fee to cover our elevator music. Stupid, but true.