ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Cracking Down on Abuse of DMCA Takedown Notices

(1/1)

40hz:
This just in over at EFF (emphasis added):

Judge Rules That Content Owners Must Consider Fair Use Before Sending Takedowns
News Update by Corynne McSherry

A judge's ruling today is a major victory for free speech and fair use on the Internet, and will help protect everyone who creates content for the Web. In Lenz v. Universal (aka the "dancing baby" case), Judge Jeremy Fogel held that content owners must consider fair use before sending takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").

Universal Music Corporation ("Universal") had sent a takedown notice targeting a 29-second home movie of a toddler dancing in a kitchen to a Prince song, "Let's Go Crazy," which is heard playing in the background. Because her use of the song was obviously a fair use and, therefore, non-infringing, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA. Universal moved to dismiss the case, claiming, among other things, that it had no obligation to consider whether Lenz's use was fair before sending its notice. The judge firmly rejected Universal's theory...

--- End quote ---

Full article: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/judge-rules-content-owners-must-consider-fair-use-

This is a significant first step in putting the brakes on the "shoot first and ask questions later" behavior of some of the bigger DMCA abusers. Anyone who publishes content on the web should be encouraged.

This is a significant ruling. If you're responsible for putting content up on the web you'll want to read this article. 8)

Darwin:
Finally! Common sense makes a return... Right, off to read the actual article now.

Thanks, 40hz  :Thmbsup:

Eóin:
It's good to hear some positive news from the world of copyright law :Thmbsup:

CWuestefeld:
The idea of the decision is good.

But this is just a ruling on a motion, not an actual decision. And even at that, this is only a single district court making that statement -- it's not precedential anywhere but within that district's jurisdiction.

Still, maybe it marks a new trend. And now, at least, someone's done the work of documenting the case, and others can emulate it.

40hz:
Still, maybe it marks a new trend. And now, at least, someone's done the work of documenting the case, and others can emulate it.
-CWuestefeld (August 21, 2008, 04:25 PM)
--- End quote ---

Absolutely correct. But it's more than what we had before. And change has got to start somewhere. Let's keep hoping. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version