
Dancing Baby Video Battle Back in Court Tuesday - pwg
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/dancing-baby-video-battle-back-court-tuesday
======
alexqgb
Is anyone else bothered by the characterization of the music as "background"?
To me, that suggests music that happened to be playing incidentally in the
background while something unrelated was being filmed (e.g. people at a BBQ).
That's not the same thing as a performance clearly tied to the song; one in
which the particular song is a key element of the video.

In other words, passing this off as "background" music is nonsense. Given the
context of the video, that characterization is clearly and obviously not true,
and I don't think the EFF does itself or the broader cause of copyright reform
any favors by misrepresenting facts in this fashion.

For what it's worth, I think Fair Use should allow this video, and videos like
it. People's engagement with the culture is what makes it culture, and the
idea that ownership of the underlying IP extends a bubble of ownership and
control to every imaginable situation in which that IP appears is, frankly,
odious. As far as this case goes, I think the EFF has picked a fight well
worth having, but their ends don't justify the means. If anything, the means
may compromise the ends.

~~~
JanezStupar
The music is background since the music is not the focus of the video, the
dancing baby is.

To me it seems that you are implying that parents wanted to post a tune from
The Prince on the Internet and used a clip of their dancing baby as an excuse.

That is precisely wrong and precisely along the lines that label lawyers will
probably try to draw.

~~~
bartl
And according to the article the video was 29 seconds long. Very short if
someone wants to argue that the intention was to post the song...

~~~
alexqgb
Nobody is arguing that the intention was simply to post the song. They're
saying that a portion of the song was used illegally and without permission.

Also, 29 seconds is ~30 seconds, which is the length of a standard TV
commercial. In a world where all identifiable samples need to be licensed,
that's not "very short" at all.

I know that telling people they're categorically wrong when it comes to
copyright is perceived as defending copyright. I want to be clear that I
recognize the need for substantial copyright reform and liberalization. When I
say "you're wrong" I don't mean that reform and liberalization are bad things.
I simply mean that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to
the law itself, and how it actually works. I think widespread ignorance is a
bad thing among those who (quite justifiably) would like to see the law
changed.

------
tlrobinson
I was hoping it had something to do with this piece of internet culture...
<http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/a/ab/Dancing_baby.gif>

~~~
mc32
That's what came to mind first, but I'm glad it was more serious and that the
court did consider the use of the song "fair use" and that copyright holders
should consider the fair use of their copyrighted material before sending a
takedown notice.

Sometimes I think the EFF overreaches, but here this is 'common sense' stuff
that they should (and did) pursue. Kudos.

~~~
crististm
The "overreaching" part is subjective. I think it is quite balanced
considering the actions of the other parties involved.

