Not Smart: Warner Music Issues DMCA Takedown On Larry Lessig Presentation
from the this-is-going-to-hurt dept
If there were anyone out there to whom you would not want to send a random takedown notice for an online video, it would probably be Larry Lessig. Given that Lessig has become the public face for those who feel that copyright has been stretched too far, as well as being a founder of Stanford's Fair Use Project, and who's written multiple books on these issues, you would think (just maybe) that any copyright holder would at least think twice before sending a DMCA takedown on a Larry Lessig presentation.Apparently, you'd be wrong.
Lessig has announced that Warner Music issued a DMCA takedown on one of Lessig's own presentations, in which his use is almost certainly fair use. Lessig, of course, is a lawyer, and a big supporter of fair use, so it's no surprise that he's also said he's going to be fighting this.
The thing that I can't understand is who at Warner Music would decide this was a good idea? We've seen Warner make a number of highly questionable moves over the past six months, but this may be the most incomprehensible. Warner Music may claim it was an accident or that it didn't mean to send the takedown, but that's hard to fathom as well. The DMCA rules are pretty clear, that the filer needs to clearly own the content, and previously lawsuits have said they need to take fair use into account. I'm guessing we haven't heard the end of this yet...
Update: Some people have been asking which Lessig presentation was taken down. It's been reposted elsewhere, so you can check it out, and then explain how Warner Music has any claim to a takedown.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, larry lessig, takedown
Companies: warner music group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lessig Clinic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That peanut company CEO got an email from his plant manager telling him their peanuts contained salmonella, the CEO wrote back to ship them anyway. He now will probably be charged with at least manslaughter.
Some guy at the White House decides that they need to fly a 747 over southern Manhattan at 1,000 feet. He might just be fired.
Countless guys actually answer yes to the question "does this make me look fat?"
Beauty may be skin deep, but stupid is to the bone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it fair use in your view because you have seen the presentation, or is it fair use in your view because Lessig says so?
I hope the former...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm, would it be better to trust you own lay view or that of a renown lawyer in the field? Just wondering...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have you seen Lessig's presentations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have seen many, but the question that remains unanswered is "which one is he Twittering about?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever seen one that came anywhere close to violating copyrights? And do you think that Lessig, someone so familiar with the law as he is, would violate the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. Lessig has firm and definite views about the "public domain", and constantly advocates fair use to try in part to achieve that end. He is, however, not the only one associated with copyright law, and in many learned circles involving both academics and practitioners his positions are viewed with skepticism, perhaps the most well-known being his argument before the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft. It was sad to read how dejected he felt when the Supreme Court decision overwhelmingly rejected his arguments and upheld the power of Congress to enact the Copyright Extension Act (aka, the "Sonny Bono Act").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anything is possible. Do you think it is a reasonable likelihood?
It was sad to read how dejected he felt when the Supreme Court decision overwhelmingly rejected his arguments and upheld the power of Congress to enact the Copyright Extension Act (aka, the "Sonny Bono Act").
Ah yes. There are still some who believe that "limited time" actually means something other than "forever minus a day", but the Supreme Court knows better. Silly Larry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, consider this... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7967982.stm ... and someone once said, "familiarity breeds contempt"... ... but it wasn't me,...
uncle ger
ps - I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but the GF poster may just have wanted to form an opinion of his own. I think that's a pretty reasonable thing. If he doesn't agree with me (and/or you) he's foolish, but not necessarily wrong.
I'm going to eat some apple sauce,... later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mistake = broken law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mistake = broken law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: mistake = broken law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: mistake = broken law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: mistake = broken law
I think the DMCA take down notices I have seen have included sworn statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would like to see for myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.....
I'll admit, sometimes they are misapplying a rule that came out of a committee, but the rule generally makes perfect sense to anyone that's not an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What scares me most is that they probably DID think twice, and then still did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (they did it anyway)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automated perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of penalties
All laws particular ones like DMCA, should include server penalties for mis-use that can be applied either by a regulator or via petition to a court. Mis-use would include failure to take in account fair use, falsely claiming copyright etc. Penalties would be along the lines of:
* Suspension of rights on a piece of material
* Suspension of action or re-course for a duration
The DMCA isn't going to go away any time soon. The problem is companies receive no penalty for abusing the system and until they do they aren't going to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of penalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of penalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tunnel Vision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you ever consider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig is the Fair Use God
Daisy Whitney
Writer/Report
Check out my Ebook on fair use and online video: www.daisywhitney.com/ebooks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://blip.tv/file/1937322
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bullies and the Bullied
Monsanto has a killer track record in bullying.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA On Larry Lessig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possibly just a lone idiot?
Keep in mind that MS sent a recruitment letter to RMS a few years back. Probably the same sort of idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, this is a genius move by Time Warner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, this is a genius move by Time Warner
Lawyers representing TW and other rights holders helped write the DMCA. The only way a rights holder can perjure themselves is if they claim ownership of content that they don't actually have the rights to.
THERE IS NO PENALTY IF, BY "ACCIDENT", A TAKEDOWN NOTICE IS SENT TO SOMEONE ERRONEOUSLY. If Time Warner has the rights to the content that they CLAIM was used in Larry's presentation, there is no penalty for sending a takedown notice for something that is patently fair-use. They wouldn't even be in the wrong legally if said content wasn't actually in the presentation at all.
The DMCA was written with the help of lawyers from rights holders and they made sure that there is zero liability on their part in cases such as this.
That said, I am not a brilliant law professor, specializing in IP, from Stanford...I would be absolutely delighted if Lessig found some way to legally bitch slap those pricks (and somehow force them to go about the whole takedown procedure in a more restrained way).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My opinion after viewing the presentation.
(1) The entire presentation is offered freely on the internet; the purpose of the presentation is to educate people on Dr. Lessig's opinion on this subject (about which is an acknowledged expert). To me, that sounds non-commercial and/or educational.
(2) I don't know the nature of the copyrighted work in question. I expect it is a snippet of a music recording.
(3) The brief snippets are much shorter than the work as a whole.
(4) And few are likely to use this presentation as a way of listening to the music (or viewing the video, if that's what's being objected to) because it is an inconvenient form for that purpose and because only brief excerpts are used. I doubt the distribution of this video will harm sales of the music. For some of the pieces used (especially some of the mix videos) it might *aid* sales by pointing them out to people -- but those are probably not what Warner is talking about anyhow.
So I'd say it is clearly fair use. That's only a personal opinion -- I'm not licensed to practice law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner probably found out when the rest of us did
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torrent of presentation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bug in the system.
The imagery, audio, and remixes used, poignantly depicted the realities of the artistry and culture spreading online today. Some of the examples were truly amazing pieces of work, which would have been impossible to create as little as a few years ago.
This was obviously a social and political statement, using appropriate examples from existing culture ( and none in it's entirety), to reinforce the author's position, and facilitate the understanding of those viewing the statement.
If this was an automated take down notice, then it clearly shows a flaw in the base coding of the detection system. There is absolutely NO method of determining the validity of use in an automated manner. If this was not an automated take down notice, it would indicate a more profound problem.
Does a letter or notice from a lawyer have the force of law? Just receiving a letter claiming their belief in infringement does not constitute proof of infringement. Yet the receipt of such letters is followed by take down as if it were a court order stating proof of infringement requiring action. This makes no sense to me at all, except in the use of law as form of duress or extortion - clearly not what the principle of law is designed for.
With obligatory IANAL, I presume no defence other than the viewing of this presentation would be required to convince any rational human being of the falsity of infringement claims. Unfortunately, rationality may be in in short supply these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good response, club penguin
Could be a false notification, not really from Sony... you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On July 24, 2002, at the O.Reilly Open Source Conference he announced this would be one of his last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
larry Lessig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lessig
[ link to this | view in chronology ]