Well the case is a little more complicated than that. At issue before the court was whether Universal acted irresponsibly in not taking Fair Use into consideration with it's take down notices. Universal claimed that it was not practical for them to have to look at each and every instance to verify whether each example complied with fair use.

The judgement simply says that copyright owners have to take a minimum consideration before issuing a take down notice. It does allow the mother to take the matter to court for financial damages, which are expected to be marginal.

V10LETBLUES said:

Well the case is a little more complicated than that. At issue before the court was whether Universal acted irresponsibly in not taking Fair Use into consideration with it's take down notices. Universal claimed that it was not practical for them to have to look at each and every instance to verify whether each example complied with fair use.

The judgement simply says that copyright owners have to take a minimum consideration before issuing a take down notice. It does allow the mother to take the matter to court for financial damages, which are expected to be marginal.

It seems like a fair ruling.

lezama said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Well the case is a little more complicated than that. At issue before the court was whether Universal acted irresponsibly in not taking Fair Use into consideration with it's take down notices. Universal claimed that it was not practical for them to have to look at each and every instance to verify whether each example complied with fair use.

The judgement simply says that copyright owners have to take a minimum consideration before issuing a take down notice. It does allow the mother to take the matter to court for financial damages, which are expected to be marginal.

It seems like a fair ruling.

I agree.

Well - I'm actually in agreement with this decision.

I'll explain: once something as innocuous as this baby video is deemed "OK" for YouTube, then it will be bastardized by the masses so that every pirated song will also be uploaded with a child dancing/cat playing/waves crashing/etc. video to go along with it.

Once again, the bad guys ruin it for everyone.

Se7en said:

Well - I'm actually in agreement with this decision.

I'll explain: once something as innocuous as this baby video is deemed "OK" for YouTube, then it will be bastardized by the masses so that every pirated song will also be uploaded with a child dancing/cat playing/waves crashing/etc. video to go along with it.

Once again, the bad guys ruin it for everyone.

Any video posted must still meet Fair Use guidelines. The only thing this affects is copyright owners sending takedown notices without checking if it meets Fair Use requirements. The dancing baby clearly met that requirement and that was not the issue. The issue was Universal not even checking to see if it did.

Universal's argument was that over 300 hours of video is uploaded to Youtube every minute, and that it was unreasonale for them to be required to verify each and every one. I believe they are using algorithems now to quickly check.