Judge rejects complaint as law violation

Translated from german -> english by http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/tr
Judge rejects complaint as law abuse

The US-American musician Prince had called the blockage in of a YouTube video, on which in the background one ran its Songs. The video shows an infant, how it dances on the Prince Song "Let's Go Crazy". The nut/mother, that provided the video, inserted together with the EFF complaint. A California judge decided now: The publication of the video falls under "fair use". The YouTube video shows an infant, how it dances on the Song "Let's Go Crazy" from Prince. THE VIDEO The Song is hardly to be understood, yet the musician had ordered the blockage of the video. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) had submitted complaint with the nut/mother of the child. Judge Fogel from San Jose confirmed now the objection: The 30-Sekunden-Video falls under "fair use". It rejected a decision of general principle to the topic however. The EFF brings therefore a further action for the decision of general principle. The video is meanwhile again available with YouTube. In the past Prince was noticeable of already the-more frequent by the radical penetration its copyrights. Thus it proceeded for example against a taxifahrer, in whose video Blog occasionally the same Song "Let's Go Crazy" was played by Prince. Apart from the blockage of YouTube videos it had complained also against the publication of music files, texts and Albencovern on a Fansite. In addition it tried the Takedown of Tattoo photographies or number describing, which remind of Prince, to force. (author: Malo)

The "original" in german.....:

http://www.gulli.com/news...008-04-29/

Richter weist Klage als Gesetzesmissbrauch ab

Der US-Amerikanische Musiker Prince hatte die Sperrung eines YouTube-Videos eingefordert, auf dem im Hintergrund einer seiner Songs lief. Das Video zeigt ein Kleinkind, wie es auf den Prince-Song "Let's Go Crazy" tanzt. Die Mutter, die das Video erstellt hat, hat gemeinsam mit der EFF Beschwerde eingelegt. Ein kalifornischer Richter entschied nun: Die Veröffentlichung des Videos fällt unter "Fair use".

Das YouTube-Video zeigt ein Kleinkind, wie es auf den Song "Let's Go Crazy" von Prince tanzt.

Der Song selbst ist kaum zu verstehen, dennoch hatte der Musiker die Sperrung des Videos verfügt. Die Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) hatte mit der Mutter des Kindes Beschwerde eingereicht. Richter Fogel aus San Jose bestätigte nun den Einwand: Das 30-Sekunden-Video falle unter "Fair use". Eine Grundsatzentscheidung zum Thema lehnte er jedoch ab. Die EFF strengt daher eine weitere Klage für die Grundsatzentscheidung an. Das Video ist mittlerweile wieder bei YouTube verfügbar.

In der Vergangenheit ist Prince bereits desöfteren durch die radikale Durchsetzung seiner Urheberrechte aufgefallen. So ist er beispielsweise gegen einen Taxifahrer vorgegangen, in dessen Video-Blog gelegentlich der selbe Song "Let's Go Crazy" von Prince gespielt wurde. Neben der Sperrung von YouTube-Videos hatte er auch gegen die Veröffentlichung von Musikdateien, Texten und Albencovern auf einer Fansite geklagt. Er versuchte außerdem das Takedown von Tattoo-Fotografien oder Nummernschildern, die an Prince erinnern, zu erzwingen. (Autor: Malo)
[Edited 4/29/08 9:53am]

Another one

Also translated from german -> english by http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/tr

Universal moan about muzzle

Never we may pursue our legal interests! The EFF always sues us! Howl! Bad tendency with the medium giant Vivendi universal. As it were the tears close. One must leave oneself fallen a treatment nevertheless, one lets which rather angedeihen different. The Electronic Frontier Foundation gezerrt the for his part so complain-joyful company before court, after this let a video remove by warning from YouTube. Yes, exactly, which 29-Sekunden-Video with the hopsenden infant and a metallic sounding sound TRACK from a piece of Prince ("the prince formerly known as tafkap"). Such a metallic video is finally a striking injury of the company rights. Which however not at all in such a way saw the EFF and therefore judicially against the overall legal claims proceeded. Off here wird's more complicated. Universal appointed itself to the California anti- SLAPP law, which was to prevent a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation", thus typically a muzzle complaint against company critics. The giant sees itself thus in the role of the victim, to who must be helped. The judge wanted not to take this point of view, cancelte however the whole procedure, so that those had to request EFF a retake. The case is thus not yet over. One may count on further complaints, complaint songs and muzzle reproaches. [ fe

Quelle

Universal jammert über Maulkorb
von : Fritz Effenberger: Dienstag 29 April 2008, 12:38

Nie dürfen wir unsere legalen Interessen verfolgen! Immer verklagt uns die EFF! Heul!

Schlechte Stimmung beim Mediengiganten Vivendi Universal. Sozusagen den Tränen nahe. Muss man sich doch eine Behandlung gefallen lassen, die man lieber anderen angedeihen lässt. Die Electronic Frontier Foundation hat nämlich den seinerseits so klagefreudigen Konzern vor Gericht gezerrt, nachdem dieser per Abmahnung ein Video von YouTube entfernen liess. Ja, genau, das 29-Sekunden-Video mit dem hopsenden Kleinkind und einem blechern klingenden Soundtrack aus einem Stück von Prince (”the prince formerly known as tafkap”). So ein blechernes Video sei schliesslich eine eklatante Verletzung der Konzernrechte.

Was die EFF aber gar nicht so sah und deswegen gerichtlich gegen die pauschalen Rechtsansprüche vorging. Ab hier wird’s komplizierter. Universal nämlich berief sich auf das kalifornische Anti-SLAPP-Gesetz, welches einen “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”, also typischerweise eine Maulkorb-Klage gegen Konzernkritiker, verhindern soll. Der Gigant sieht sich also in der Rolle des Opfers, dem geholfen werden muss.

Der Richter wollte diesen Standpunkt nicht einnehmen, cancelte aber das ganze Verfahren, so dass die EFF eine Neuaufnahme beantragen musste. Der Fall ist also noch nicht ausgestanden. Man darf mit weiteren Klagen, Klageliedern und Maulkorb-Vorwürfen rechnen. [fe]
[Edited 4/29/08 10:19am]
[Edited 4/29/08 10:24am]

Could someone who actually speaks German translate this? This isn't English...it's gibberish.

"The nut/mother" is kind of funny.

Here's an English-language version:

http://tech.tm/wire/click/1869060

Judge Dismisses DMCA-Abuse Lawsuit Over Video Of Baby Dancing To Prince


Last summer, we wrote about the EFF suing Universal Music for sending a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube over a 30-second home video of a baby dancing to some barely audible music by Prince. The EFF claimed that this was an abuse of the DMCA, as the use of the music was clearly fair use. Unfortunately, though, a judge has dismissed the case (update: to be more specific, he dismissed portions with leave to amend), arguing that the EFF did not make a case as to why this was self-evident fair use, and noting differences compared to other abuses of the DMCA. The EFF had also asked for a clear ruling stating that the video did not infringe on Universal's copyright, but the judge declined to do so, noting that Universal Music hasn't indicated any plans to actually sue (it just sent the takedown notice). The EFF has already refiled a new complaint to make the claims clearer, but so far, this case hasn't gone all that well. However, the video itself is back online:

I think we get the gist.

What is the date of this piece?

syble said:

Twiki said:

http://publications.media..._aid=81545

Legal Battle Continues Over Home Video's Use Of Prince Song

by Wendy Davis, Tuesday, Apr 29, 2008

Stephanie Lenz's homemade clip of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" is only 29 seconds long, but the litigation it sparked has dragged on for nearly one year now with no signs of slowing down.

Universal Music Group last June asked YouTube to remove the clip, claiming the video infringed on the copyright to "Let's Go Crazy." Lenz protested, arguing that the background music to her toddler, Holden, dancing was a fair use. Six weeks later, YouTube restored the video.

But that was only the beginning. Legal proceedings ensued, pitting the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation against a major record label in a battle regarding when it's legitimate to complain that clips violate copyright.

The digital civil liberties group alleges that Universal should have never asked YouTube to remove the homemade clip, which the group called "a self-evident non-infringing fair use." The group initially filed suit against Universal last summer, seeking damages for allegedly violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by making misrepresentations about a clip.

Universal responded that the fair use issue wasn't clear-cut, and also argued that the lawsuit itself violated the record label's free speech rights. To support the latter claim, Universal said that its takedown notice sent to YouTube was itself a form of speech.

Federal district court judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose tossed the entire case earlier this month. He ruled that the Electronic Frontier Foundation had not provided enough information to show it was self-evident that the clip was fair use, and that Universal also had not shown its free speech rights were violated.

But Fogel also ruled that the Electronic Frontier Foundation could re-file its complaint, and the group took him up on that offer. The most recent papers, filed April 18, charge that Universal knew or should have known it had no grounds to complain under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"The video bears all the hallmarks of a family home movie--it is somewhat blurry, the sound quality is poor, it was filmed with an ordinary digital video camera, and it focuses on documenting Holden's 'dance moves' against a background of normal household activity, commotion and laughter," the new complaint charges. "The snippet of 'Let's Go Crazy' that plays in the background (not dubbed as a soundtrack) of the Holden Video could not substitute for the original Prince song in any conceivable market."

Universal did not respond to a request for comment.

Ha-Ha, the Nut/Mother

Just goes to show even Prince CANT control EVERYTHING on the web.

toots said:

toots said:

laurarichardson said:

Twiki said:

toots said:

toots said:

Twiki said:

Actually, it shows that he can. Or at least he so far has the law on his side when he attempts to.

How is the law is on his side when the judge throws the case out??

It only shows it IS NOT on his side by saying these lawsuits are silly in the courts eyes every time they turn around he is always suing people. it only means he is acting like a 2 year old throwing a fit IMHO.

laurarichardson said:

universal moan and muzzle ?

what is that exactly?

this place gets wierder by the minute.

Twiki said:

toots said:

How is the law is on his side when the judge throws the case out??

It only shows it IS NOT on his side by saying these lawsuits are silly in the courts eyes every time they turn around he is always suing people. it only means he is acting like a 2 year old throwing a fit IMHO.

The case that was thrown out was one that the EFF brought against Universal (who represent Prince). The EFF was trying to say that what Universal did was unlawful, and the judge threw that out, saying they didn't prove their case.

Believe me, I'm not on Prince's/Universal's side on this; I'm just pointing out that the decision was at least a temporary victory for them.

what if a person posted a video of prince on youtube, or say redtube LOL or dailymotion of one of these songs that just got ripped off but named it "peanutButter" but spelled it backwards so it was hard to find. thats crazy... i bet no one is crazy enough since January to see if this works and then not share it with everyone... what if when this guy posts this certain video he were to come here and ask a trivial question in which the only proper answer is "Ingrid Chavez" thereby tipping everyone that the video or videos were posted. I mean someone could say use youtubedownloader 3.11 to copy them for their own if they had say, 31 hour and 21 minutes to do so. How come no one ever thought of that... or at least posted a song on youtube under a jibberish name and saw it stay there for about 4 months.

this is purely hypothetical... i mean spell peanutbutter backwards and you will see there are no prince vids... nobody thought of this yet?

Barbefunkoramaque said:

toots said:

laurarichardson said:

toots said: