Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:35:17 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/14402119765/youtube-decides-obama-singing-al-green-is-fair-use-restores-all-videos.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120719/14402119765/youtube-decides-obama-singing-al-green-is-fair-use-restores-all-videos.shtml issuing a takedown to YouTube over a Mitt Romney advertisement that used a clip of President Obama singing one line of an Al Green song. As we noted at the time, this seemed like a clear fair use case. Also, people pointed out that it was clearly an attempt to stifle speech since BMG only went after the Romney commercial, and not the original clips of Obama singing. Realizing this, BMG then also issued takedowns for those videos. If YouTube wanted to retain its DMCA safe harbor provisions, it is supposed to keep those videos down for 10 days and then it could (but does not need to) restore them. However, Google has jumped the gun and restored the videos already (you can see it here), saying that the company made a determination that the content does not violate copyright laws.

At this point, the ball is back in BMG's court. Technically, it can now file a lawsuit against the uploaders of the video if it wants (so, the Romney campaign, the Associated Press and others). Also, it could potentially try to go after Google itself, claiming that the safe harbors no longer apply due to the early reposting. Of course, one would hope that BMG realizes that pursuing any of these strategies would lead to ridicule and, quite possibly, a court issued rebuke for wasting their time with a bogus copyright claim. Unfortunately, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, when it comes to copyright claims, many copyright holders fail to recognize this kind of likely outcome ahead of time.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> your-move,-BMG http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120719/14402119765 Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:05:24 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/13500819733/bmg-doubles-down-issues-takedown-original-clip-obama-singing-al-green.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/13500819733/bmg-doubles-down-issues-takedown-original-clip-obama-singing-al-green.shtml takedown on the new web-based ad put out by the Romney campaign, which included a brief clip of President Obama singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." As we argued, this use seemed to be pretty clearly "fair use." And, of course, it was noteworthy that BMG only seemed to go after the Romney ad, making it pretty clear that this was politically motivated. The original clips of Obama singing Al Green were all over YouTube... and BMG only chose to go after the one used in a Romney commercial. It appears that someone pointed out to BMG's lawyers that this looks really bad, so rather than backing down, BMG has doubled down and issued takedowns to a bunch of the original videos of Obama singing that one line from Al Green. Here's one that shows BMG issued the takedown. The original one that we linked to was actually from the Associated Press, who -- as a news organization -- has an even stronger fair use claim. But that video is missing as well, though it has a slightly different message on the site now: That's... weird, because the video was absolutely available just this morning. Has the Associated Press really decided to block that video in the US? Seems... strange. Why would the AP allow itself to be bullied like that? Because I'm curious about these things, I hopped on my handy dandy VPN system and magically transported my connection to Canada... where the video came back. Magic. So, it's not entirely clear what's going on here, but if you're in the US (and not using a VPN) it appears that these clips of Obama singing Al Green are quickly disappearing from the web, despite clear fair use claims. The entire thing is 9 seconds and there's no way that anyone could make a reasonable claim that this use takes away from the original work or somehow acts as a substitute.

And, of course, in true Streisand Effect manner, all this is doing is calling a lot more attention to the video... and BMG's ridiculous censorious response to the situation.

Update: And... as Michael Weinberg points out, BMG appears to only be targeting President Obama singing Al Green. There are tons of other clips of Al Green singing the song himself or others singing the song. All left up. Hmm...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> this-may-get-interesteing http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120717/13500819733 Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:18:47 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/02364219725/insanity-romneys-ad-featuring-obama-singing-al-green-shut-down-via-copyright-claim.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/02364219725/insanity-romneys-ad-featuring-obama-singing-al-green-shut-down-via-copyright-claim.shtml explain fair use to the company (seriously), and suggesting that Presidential campaigns should get special treatment to prevent videos from being pulled down. Of course, what might be better is if the Presidential candidates spoke up about how they'd fix the "shoot first, ask question later" aspect of the DMCA takedown procedures, but no one seems willing to do that yet. Back in the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney also had to explain fair use to Fox News, so he should be ready for this issue again.

In fact, he appears to be the first "fair use victim" this time around. Romney's campaign had posted a web video ad on YouTube that included some of the well-known footage of President Obama singing a single line of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Apparently, that triggered BMG to issue a takedown on the Romney ad. This confuses me. If you look at the original footage of Obama singing, it's a grand total of 9 seconds long. If there ever were a clear-cut case of fair use -- a very brief snippet, used in a political ad -- this would be it.

One hopes that Romney, who spoke out against SOPA during the primaries, will start to realize that perhaps he should take a stronger stand in favor of digital free speech rights and against copyright excessiveness, now that he's (yet again) a victim of such things. But perhaps that's just wishful thinking.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> seriously? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120717/02364219725 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:31:00 PST Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080207/131317200.shtml you may be charged with copyright infringement. The story of the case is as follows: BMG famously offers a CD and DVD "club" that sends out new CDs and DVDs on a regular basis to subscribers. Sometimes those subscribers move and cannot be found or for whatever reason the discs are determined to be "undeliverable." BMG so devalues its own discs that it has told the post office to throw out the undeliverable discs, rather than spend the postage to have them sent back to BMG. The post office dumps the discs in its dumpsters -- at which point a Postal Service employee dumpster dives to rescue them. He then goes and sells those discs to local stores, cashing in to the tune of nearly $80,000. This gets discovered, and he gets charged with mail fraud before settling on charges of copyright infringement.

However, what no one seems to clearly explain is where the infringement is? BMG instructed the CDs to be thrown out. The Post Office threw them out. At that point, the property has been relinquished by BMG and the Post Office, so it would appear that anyone who finds the discs wouldn't be committing any kind of infringement (or, for that matter, fraud) in selling them. A lower court ruling was especially bizarre, in demanding that the guy give up all the money he earned to BMG due to the "lost opportunity" to BMG in selling the music. As we've discussed at length before a "lost opportunity" is not an actual loss and it's not a crime. It's simply a marketing challenge. Otherwise, just about any business could be guilty of creating a "lost opportunity" for any competitor. The pizza shop down the street creates a "lost opportunity" every time I eat there instead of the deli. Hell, just buying one musician's CD rather than another's creates a "lost opportunity." So, it's ridiculous to equate a "lost opportunity" to a crime -- and even worse when that "lost opportunity" was self-created by BMG choosing to throw out the discs.

Luckily, the Appeals Court tossed out the "lost opportunity" part, but as Patry notes, it doesn't appear that anyone questioned how the facts of this case could possibly be considered copyright infringement. Selling used CDs is considered to be perfectly legal and non-infringing. How is selling CDs that have been thrown in the garbage any different?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> so-sayeth-the-courts http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080207/131317200