Mom fights music giant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

humbleinspirit -> Mom fights music giant (7/22/2008 1:43:58 PM)

For Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz, a closely watched copyright showdown in San Jose federal court is a simple matter of standing up to powerful music moguls and petulant pop stars.

"I figure I have nothing to lose," Lenz said Friday in a telephone interview with the Mercury News. "The music companies are just going to keep doing this to people. I think it's my responsibility to stand up to them and say, 'That's enough.' "

Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.

Calling it a "case of first impression," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday considered Universal's attempt to dismiss Lenz's lawsuit, which maintains the media giant and Prince are abusing a 10-year-old copyright law intended to curtail movie and music thievery on the Web. Lenz is seeking unspecified damages and a court finding that she did not violate Universal's copyrights with the YouTube video.

'Takedown' letters

The case centers on a so-called "takedown" letter Universal sent to Lenz after she posted the video in February 2007. Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year, essentially forcing the material to be at least temporarily removed unless the target fights the request.
Lenz fought back hard, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties organization. She maintains that the video was a harmless, legal use of a popular song, and that her case exemplifies how a powerful industry can abuse the copyright law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Read Full Article



colliefan -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/22/2008 5:15:14 PM)

Sorry, copyright means copyright, no free use.



rlj -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/22/2008 5:16:09 PM)

quote:

Sorry, copyright means copyright, no free use.


Free use means free use, no copyright.



rhippie -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 3:25:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

Sorry, copyright means copyright, no free use.


Free use means free use, no copyright.


Huh?? She used copywritten material without the consent of the folks that owned the copyright; what does "free use" have to do with anything?



cow451 -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 3:31:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhippie

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

Sorry, copyright means copyright, no free use.


Free use means free use, no copyright.


Huh?? She used copywritten material without the consent of the folks that owned the copyright; what does "free use" have to do with anything?

Did she profit financially from it? Did she claim it as her own creation? If not, I have issues with the idea that she infringed on the copyright.



stellaluna -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 3:36:21 PM)

I'd like to see the video in question.



colliefan -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 4:11:07 PM)

quote:

Did she profit financially from it? Did she claim it as her own creation? If not, I have issues with the idea that she infringed on the copyright.


Doesn't matter, copyright is copyright. Churches must pay royalties for the copyrighted music they use in their services even those there is no financial gain for their use.



doinkdom -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 4:44:14 PM)

So if I'm tooling down the road on vacation taking videos of the family and posting them on my Facebook page...any background music playing on the radio could be considered copyright infringement?

[sm=popsigh.gif]



colliefan -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 4:52:36 PM)

quote:

...any background music playing on the radio could be considered copyright infringement?


probably



doinkdom -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 4:53:58 PM)

wow...this has totally gotten outta hand for sure then.



rlj -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 4:55:58 PM)

quote:

Doesn't matter, copyright is copyright.


No it isn't fair use is specifically mentioned in section 107 of US copyright law. This is a question of the DMCA vs. Fair Use.

quote:

Churches must pay royalties for the copyrighted music they use in their services even those there is no financial gain for their use.


They pay for the CCLI (which is what i have been familiar with for the last 20 years) which is incredibly cheap and gives them an awful lot of freedom. The license takes care of royalties, allows the church to use the songs in recordings of the service, make transparencies, tabs, etc. The CCLI also serves the dual purpose of allowing for a database of songs so if you wish to contribute songs that you have written others can readily access them. The question of financial gain can be debated to. Should a church with an excellent praise and worship team be allowed to make and sell tapes of music they did not write? This is accounted for in the CCLI by a clause that says that no more than 35% or so of a service tape that is sold can contain copyrighted music.

Anyway here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KfJHFWlhQ

If there is a moral to the story it's if you're going to take home movies of important moments in the lives of your children to post them on the internet so family that lives all over can watch them make sure you turn off your tv, radio, stereo, close all windows and doors so no sound from the outside comes in, wear nothing but white shirts and black pants, hide all food wrappers, pizza boxes, soda bottles so that you don't violate or offend anyone's copyright, trademark, etc.

Let me add turn off the computers! Man, what would Fritz do if his incredibly handsome mug showed up on YouTube when you took a few pictures of your toddler dancing or something with CW on the screen in the background? ; )



rlj -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 5:01:59 PM)

quote:

wow...this has totally gotten outta hand for sure then.


It SHOULDN'T be. However if the holder of the copyright chooses to send a letter to Facebook telling them to take it down I believe the DMCA states it has to be taken down (or is it the Patriot Act? There's more copyright rubbish in that since that's probably how terrorists funded 9/11 was copyright infringement and piracy) and the burden would be on you to prove that it wasn't an infringement. This woman is taking it a step further though and challenging it, forcing the label to apologize for saying she violated their copyrights and is suing them for what amounts to wasting her time.



stellaluna -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 5:39:08 PM)

Cute kid. I think she has a case.



Stephanos -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 6:08:07 PM)

IIRC "Free Use" only applies if you are using less than 30 seconds of a song, while not using the song to make a profit. (IE a commercial on TV would have to pay royalties if they use a song, even only 30 seconds, as they are making a profit). You also have to give full credit on where you got the song, who sung it, ect even if it is less than 30 seconds. If the song is over 30 seconds, even if it is not used to make a profit, you still need to pay royalties. I believe that is what "Free use applies to". If in this video, the lady used the full song. Then by law, it is a copy right violation, especially if she did not give credit to who used it.



Zhi -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/23/2008 6:30:30 PM)

Free use also applies to parody, commentary, scholarship, something copyright being visible/audible in the background while reporting, and to sampling (the musical method, specifically). So, it gets murky. She should call it parody. ;)

Also the video is only 30 seconds long and the song isn't recognizeable for a good portion of that, so the 30 seconds rule probably applies as well.



cow451 -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/24/2008 12:10:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

Did she profit financially from it? Did she claim it as her own creation? If not, I have issues with the idea that she infringed on the copyright.


Doesn't matter, copyright is copyright. Churches must pay royalties for the copyrighted music they use in their services even those there is no financial gain for their use.


Uhhhhhhhhhhh ..................... tithes and offerings??????????????



colliefan -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/24/2008 2:37:45 PM)

quote:

Uhhhhhhhhhhh ..................... tithes and offerings??????????????


I said financial GAIN. Most churches are fortunate to operate a break-even level and are registered as a 501-3C organization.



cow451 -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/24/2008 2:50:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

Uhhhhhhhhhhh ..................... tithes and offerings??????????????


I said financial GAIN. Most churches are fortunate to operate a break-even level and are registered as a 501-3C organization.


Collecting money would qualify, IMHO. But rlj addressed it well.



humbleinspirit -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/26/2008 3:09:44 PM)

Well, after seeing the video, it is my conclusion that they made the song part of the video and not merely background music, but anyway...



quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

Did she profit financially from it? Did she claim it as her own creation? If not, I have issues with the idea that she infringed on the copyright.


Doesn't matter, copyright is copyright. Churches must pay royalties for the copyrighted music they use in their services even those there is no financial gain for their use.


But do they really though, or is it more voluntary instead?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

IIRC "Free Use" only applies if you are using less than 30 seconds of a song, while not using the song to make a profit. (IE a commercial on TV would have to pay royalties if they use a song, even only 30 seconds, as they are making a profit). You also have to give full credit on where you got the song, who sung it, ect even if it is less than 30 seconds. If the song is over 30 seconds, even if it is not used to make a profit, you still need to pay royalties. I believe that is what "Free use applies to". If in this video, the lady used the full song. Then by law, it is a copy right violation, especially if she did not give credit to who used it.


So because the video on youtube clocks at exactly 30 seconds and not 29 seconds, they have to pay royalties then?



SteveSund -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/26/2008 10:07:38 PM)

Financial gain is not a required element for copyright infrigement. It helps, but the copyright holder need not show the other party did so for financial gain.



colliefan -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/27/2008 2:41:05 PM)

quote:

But do they really though, or is it more voluntary instead?


Nope. Churches must pay royalties for the music they use. It isn't an option. Most of the older hymns fall in the area of public domian. I believe in some cases the words fall in the area of public domain but the new arrangement is copyright protected.



humbleinspirit -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/27/2008 8:06:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

But do they really though, or is it more voluntary instead?


Nope. Churches must pay royalties for the music they use. It isn't an option. Most of the older hymns fall in the area of public domian. I believe in some cases the words fall in the area of public domain but the new arrangement is copyright protected.


Now do they prosecute if they don't get a license at all?



colliefan -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/27/2008 8:55:12 PM)

quote:

Now do they prosecute if they don't get a license at all?


Now that would be a sticky situation b/c of the guidelines of Christians not suing each other; but who says that Christians always follow the bible?



humbleinspirit -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/27/2008 10:43:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

Now do they prosecute if they don't get a license at all?


Now that would be a sticky situation b/c of the guidelines of Christians not suing each other; but who says that Christians always follow the bible?


True.



rlj -> RE: Mom fights music giant (7/28/2008 8:26:31 AM)

quote:

Now that would be a sticky situation b/c of the guidelines of Christians not suing each other; but who says that Christians always follow the bible?


If everyone was following the bible there would be no need to sue because everyone would be making sure that they were legally using the songs. ; ) An important thing to realize to is that a record company can step in and so can a publisher when it concerns royalties it isn't just the songwriter.

However the performance of a song of a religious nature in a religious setting is exempted from copyright laws. In section 110 of the code when listing exceptions it says this:

quote:

(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly;


It isn't the performance that gets churches in troubles it is the transparencies, overhead projectors with the software and the recording of the songs for the service. Transparencies are the biggest problem with us charismatics and the CCLI. Traditional services this isn't a problem because there are always hymnals there. Printing the hymns in full that are copyrighted on the bulletin would be a no no. Recording the service with the songs intact is not exempted so this part would have to be edited out unless the license ok's it or some other arrangement is made.

CCLI allows for up to 35% of the recording to be praise and worship. The cost for my church for a year is $200. It isn't much when you consider that we don't have to buy hymnals or songbooks of any kind, we have authorization for over 150,000 songs, and we are networked with other churches and songwriters who put up their original works with this license. We probably use about 100 different songs a year under this license since some of the songs will be played at multiple services. There is nothing preventing anyone from writing their own which my Pastor often does. When you consider that a Hymnal with 500 hymns can run $25 or so each and a church could realistically have 30 or more of them it isn't a bad deal really.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI