AfterDawn: Tech news

Universal claims fair use is fair game for DMCA takedown

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 21 Jul 2008 11:36 User comments (6)

Universal claims fair use is fair game for DMCA takedown As we told you last week, a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) for allegedly abusing the DMCA takedown process has finally come before a judge. In that case Stephanie Lenz, with the backing of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), is claiming that the takedown request issued was made in bad faith and UMG should be penalized as a deterrent to future meritless claims.
In an interesting twist UMG's lawyers seem to actually agree that the YouTube video in question is fair use rather than copyright infringement, but they're arguing that they don't have to take that into account before they issue a DMCA takedown request.

When asked by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel "Are you saying there cannot be a misuse of a takedown notice if the material is copyrighted?" UMG attorney Kelly Klaus replied "I don't think 'fair use' qualifies."

The question was in regard to the wording of the DMCA, which states "Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice." Material misrepresentation means lying about the facts.

It also specifically identifies parties who are covered by this as "Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification." UMG is arguing that this passage only applies to parties falsely claiming ownership of a work, but the wording clearly seems to indicate otherwise.

There's no word on when we can expect to see a decision from Judge Fogel. His decision could have chilling implications for many people. Under UMG's reading of the law it's not their responsibility to distinguish between fair use and copyright infringement, even if it's obvious, before making legal claims abouit a work.

It makes you wonder how many times this has happened to someone who didn't know how to fight back.

Previous Next  

6 user comments

121.7.2008 14:28
blueroad
Inactive

you gotta be fuking kiddin me..first the "we dont need no stinkin proof" article and now this? pigs..filthy beurocratic capitalistic pigs..

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 21 Jul 2008 @ 14:31

The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

221.7.2008 16:35

Originally posted by blueroad:
you gotta be fuking kiddin me..first the "we dont need no stinkin proof" article and now this? pigs..filthy beurocratic capitalistic pigs..

no brainz! dun tellz me you got whacked again!?!? :P

anyway.... they need to be held liable for spamming out takedown notices, I'd say 10-25G a over turned takedown notice should make them stop and more carefully look and tag clips.

321.7.2008 22:17

Any judge who sides with them is so obviously corrupt that he should be removed immediately.

430.7.2008 13:23

But everyone knows the U.S. has the best judicial system money can buy...

530.7.2008 16:40
1bonehead
Inactive

Maybe we need the mafia to judge this case. As even they have a code of honor, whereas the legal system in the US, ?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jul 2008 @ 16:43

The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

62.8.2008 13:47

quote,,But everyone knows the U.S. has the best judicial system money can buy... Man did you hit the nail on the head

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive