

Record Label Picks Copyright Fight With The Wrong Guy - weisser
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/27/226834651/record-label-picks-a-fight-over-copyright-with-the-wrong-guy?sc=fb&cc=fmp

======
DigitalSea
For anyone wondering, Lawrence Lessig is not only one of the most known names
when it comes to fighting copyright infringement but he also famously co-
founded Creative Commons and founded the Stanford Center for Internet and
Society. Lessig is a guy you seriously do not want to ever send a copyright
infringement notice to unless you want one hell of a fight.

For those wondering who Liberation Music is, it's a spin-off label of the
Mushroom Music Group which was co-founded by one of the biggest and one of the
most powerful names in Australian music, Michael Gudinski. Essentially it's a
smaller label with the backing of a larger one.

Get the popcorn ready, this is going to be one interesting fight if anything
comes of it.

~~~
jessaustin
" _Liberation_ Music", ha!

It's not clear to me, however, just how big an award can come from _one_
instance of improper takedown? I mean, I don't expect the label to have to
sign fewer artists or anything.

~~~
neltnerb
It sounded like the goal was to make copyright holding companies nervous about
sending automated notices. If damages for infringement are $180k per song,
surely damages for wrongful DMCA notices are the same order of magnitude?

~~~
btown
Unfortunately, a quick Google search brought me to
[http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+...](http://www.casesofinterest.com/tiki/Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+Corp).
(EDIT: that link seems to be broken, it's /Lenz+v.+Universal+Music+Corp. with
the trailing period):

> A plaintiff suing over a wrongful Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown
> notice can only recover for damages that were proximately caused by the
> notice... The Court determined that attorney fees are collectable but
> explicitly forbid the attorney fees if the work was done on a pro bono
> basis.

So it seems like Lessig would be pushing for a change in precedent, because as
current case law seems to stand (IANAL), even if he won legal costs and
damages it would be a drop in the bucket to the record industry, and no reason
to change their practices of sending automated notices. I hope he succeeds
though!

~~~
kolinko
I think there's something called "punitive damages"
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages).

That's why that lady got a couple million dollars from McDonald's for a too
hot coffee a couple years back - not because it caused her so much harm. (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)
)

~~~
npsimons
And just to cut in with a quick response to all those who automatically use
this as a call to tort reform:

1) The lady didn't ask for that much; the judge awarded it, after much
shenanigans by McDonalds';

2) In the end, it wasn't a couple million, it was reduced by the judge to
under $500k.

The case is more complex than most people want to believe.

------
kefs
The Phoenix “Lisztomania” Brat Pack mashup discussed (on YouTube):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtE-
xnPKj28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtE-xnPKj28)

To see some of the global creativity this video sparked, this video has a
pretty comprehensive list of 'brat pack mashups':

[http://vimeo.com/4934345](http://vimeo.com/4934345)

And finally, Lawrence Lessig at TEDxNYED in 2010 discussing this case:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhTUzNKpfio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhTUzNKpfio)

------
dm8
Fair use doctrine is great and it was fascinating to learn about when I was a
grad student at Berkeley. We need to educate people about fair use so that
everyone knows how some of these lawsuits are ridiculous.

Anyone interested in how copyright vs. fair use works should watch documentary
called RiP: A Remix Manifesto ([http://ripremix.com/](http://ripremix.com/)).
It covers all the major issues related to copyrights, fair use etc. I highly
recommend it. In fact, Lawrence Lessig is part of that documentary.

~~~
devx
This is a great series about how innovation and creativity happens, too (hint:
through remixes):

[http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-
series/](http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/)

------
jusben1369
Is it fair to assume that this must be something YouTube set up? I guess I'm
wondering if YouTube says to the record labels "Hey, don't worry about us
anymore. We scan everything and if one of your songs is found we'll send out
the notice. Just sign this doc saying you wont' sue us if/and we'll monitor
this all automatically for you" Perhaps that's why they dropped it pretty
quickly (or maybe it was fear of this guy) It would kind of suck if they're
just trying to protect their artists from being ripped off and now are going
to be the poster child for this crusade to destroy the bots. Seems like
YouTube might be the significantly more guilt party. (Not sure so posting this
as a question)

~~~
icebraining
YouTube does have an automated monitoring system called ContenpID, but it
doesn't send C&D notices like Lessig claims he received, so that's on the
label. As far as I know, YouTube itself just blocks the video.

------
jfasi
I find the inclusion of the quote from Bob Cronin the remix maker smells of
false hope.

Suppose Lessig wins the case. The greatest impact to record labels I could
foresee is they would have to be more careful about their takedown requests.

It sounds like a favorable outcome for Lessig isn't going to turn the world of
youtube copyright upside down and automatically grant an umbrella to
legitimize works in a legal grey area. They're still going to receive takedown
requests, and they're still going to have no recourse.

------
jfasi
> ... says Corynne McSherry, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group, who is representing Lessig

Wow, not even the top legal scholars in a field, pursuing a case in their own
field, are willing to represent themselves. Why is that? I'd think that Lessig
would feel safe representing himself in this case.

------
ballard
I'm coining a new word:

Lawrenfreude n. Schadenfreude when the underdog moonwalks over The Man.

~~~
shabble
Obligatory Blue Jeans Cable v. Monster Cable legalese catfight:
[http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/](http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/)
(The final response pdf in particular)

------
benched
According to the article, YouTube detects copyrighted songs and pays labels a
cut of ad money. Every song ever recorded exists as at least one YouTube
video. It doesn't seem like YouTube is playing whack-a-mole with all these
songs anymore, the way it used to a few years ago. Does this mean YouTube is
now a normalized source of income for all record companies?

~~~
aroch
If you read the article again you'll note that companies can _opt_ to get paid
part of the ad revenue. If a company hasn't opted to, it's whackamole

------
ivanbrussik
so before any song all you have to do is insert slide "we are critiquing X
song..."

~~~
caf
No, because the law isn't applied by robots.

That's actually the point of Lessig's lawsuit - that there neds to be a human
in the loop when these notices are issued, because deciding if something is
likely fair use or not isn't something you can do mechanically (at least with
current technology).

