Mom Files Suit Against Universal

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
An angry mother has filed a civil suit against the Universal Music Publishing Group for having a video of her dancing toddler removed from YouTube. The reasoning was that Prince was playing in the background.

Holden Lenz, 18 months old, is the pajama-clad star of a 29-second home movie shot by his mother in the family's rural Pennsylvania kitchen and posted last February on the popular video site YouTube.
Click to expand...
 
What? Do they want to make it illegal to listen to music on anything other than headphones, so that people who haven't payed for it won't hear it? It's ironic; the less control the MPAA has over enforcing copy rights, the more greedy and idiotic they get. They can't really do much about mass piracy so instead they abuse their honest customers. Idiots.
 
Did anyone else notice this part?
File-sharing and illegally downloading of music has devastated a once-booming music industry. Some observers say the industry is just trying to protect itself.
Click to expand...

Bull-shit. I actually hope that this woman wins her case. Prince needs to calm down, and the music industry needs to stop putting out crappy music that people wouldn't pay for in the first place.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
What? Do they want to make it illegal to listen to music on anything other than headphones, so that people who haven't payed for it won't hear it? It's ironic; the less control the MPAA has over enforcing copy rights, the more greedy and idiotic they get. They can't really do much about mass piracy so instead they abuse their honest customers. Idiots.
Click to expand...

I recall awhile back they said that the radio in your car was ONLY for the driver, and that other passengers should have to play to listen to it, lol
 
Does this mean that record companies can sue people for playing music too loudly from their car, cause effectively they are 'spreading music' without the legal ability to do so.
Like, I can pull my car up to a stoplight, and sit there for 60 seconds and listen to the rap tunes coming from someone else's car, and feel like 'yea, i heard it now, i don't have to buy the album anymore' hahahaha.

If thats legal, then we should go driving around the ghettos... think how much money we save by listening to music blaring from someone else's car radio!
 
shinryuu said:
Does this mean that record companies can sue people for playing music too loudly from their car, cause effectively they are 'spreading music' without the legal ability to do so.
Like, I can pull my car up to a stoplight, and sit there for 60 seconds and listen to the rap tunes coming from someone else's car, and feel like 'yea, i heard it now, i don't have to buy the album anymore' hahahaha.

If thats legal, then we should go driving around the ghettos... think how much money we save by listening to music blaring from someone else's car radio!
Click to expand...

Something similar JUST happened, employees playing a radio that customers could hear and they got sued.
 
Yep, in the UK they filed a suit against a company for playing a radio too loud "without a performance license." These people are fueled entirely by greed to the point where they have become seriously detached from reality.
 
uberbucket said:
Pretty soon you'll get busted for whistling popular tunes in public.
Click to expand...

Did you all know that happy birthday is a copyrighted song? Technically, every time it is played or sung in a public venue you have to pay royalties to the copyright holder.
 
Check it out. Crazy as it sounds AOL Time Warner are suppose to be the current owners and it is rumored that they get about 2 mil per year for royalties. I think they only get royalties when it is used in something that is for profit.
 
I heard it was some guy whose grandfather wrote the Happy Birthday song, and he sued someone or some firm for royalties...I think it's crossed over into urban legend status now. :p
 
Copyright law really needs to be rewritten. How can anyone hold a copyright for 99 years? That's just insane. 30 years, tops.
 
Gee, what about music stores that have listening rooms so customers can decide if they wish to purchase an album or not?

Oh a stereo shop? Pretty common for an employee to tune in to the radio or put in a CD of music into a stereo so the customers can decide if they like the sound of the stereo.

Makes me wonder if they are in line to be sued next.
 
I think it's apparent to everyone you can't mix a copyrighted track into your video without paying for it, but in this case the audio was incidental and only 29 seconds of it. This is similar to what Amazon does as a preview for the music. It's interesting she got a take down notice when the video had only 28 views. I can't imagine the resources these idiots are wasting to scour the entire internet looking for videos with obscure bits of their trash and mailing out thousands of inane notices. Sounds like energy that could be put into finding new talent, not that any with any real talent would want to be involved with the recording industry.
 
The video is actually back up on youtube. Most likely, some asshat at Universal screening for misuses of the music could hear the song playing in the background, even though it is of shit quality --that is if you're trying to listen to the song, and its not even enough of the song to even contitute the length of the demo you would hear through itunes or some other music service. I seriously doubt this is what Universal wanted to do, and I certainly feel like they will settle with this lady. I think they will settle and they'll take a strong look how how they issue these kinds of notices. This is the worst thing you could ever do for PR.
 
If she has the money to take on that corporation, go for it.

This shit has reached the breaking point. I pray that this woman wins her case not only for herself, but for the public as well.

If she wins, it will only add to the list of cases that can be cited as examples.
 
So, today, I wake up with this song in my head, all day long, I just can't get rid of it, later on in the afternoon I get a call from Universal Music....
They say I owe 'em 3 bucks!

Seriously, If you have to sue 20,000 customers, something is wrong. The problem is with the Recording Industry sponsors. Their business model is broken and it is not my job to figure out why. They say sales of CD's are down because of piracy, I say bull, sales are down because of me/us not buying products from predatory companys.
 
I thought Prince was once against tactics like this?The whole situation with the recording industry is totally out of hand.Maybe it's time for consumers to file a massive class action suit of their own for harrasment and invasion of privacy.
 
I agree with all of you. This is just too much. How much money do they want? Gosh! This is why the world is so messed up. They want to put copyright on everything, and then squeeze the last bit of money possible out of it. I'm sorry for my vocabulary not being as big to express my feeling towards this situation as I wanted to, but this whole thing makes me mad.:mad: grrrrrr.... I feel like saying so much...but...ahhhh! Screw them!
 
freeloader1969 said:
Copyright law really needs to be rewritten. How can anyone hold a copyright for 99 years? That's just insane. 30 years, tops.
Click to expand...

the news article is out of hand... but 30 years? most of the beatles and zepplins stuff would be free by now...

the good music was just ending 30 years ago...
 
Hurdler said:
Did anyone else notice this part?


Bull-shit. I actually hope that this woman wins her case. Prince needs to calm down, and the music industry needs to stop putting out crappy music that people wouldn't pay for in the first place.
Click to expand...

So it's good enough to download, but not good enough to buy? Right. If you download it and listen to it then you can pay for it too. If not then you're just another P2P hypocrite.

However, this case is just retarded. Purely 100% stupid. Actions like this do nothing to promote the purchasing of music.
 
When CD was introduced they promised the customers that after the mass production started the prices would fall back to LP levels. Look what happened.. The price has at least doubled since then.

If their sales are hurting it's simply because customers are protesting an overpriced product. Music industry is the ONLY industry in this planet who thinks they don't need to follow the price/demand law.
 
If Prince truly had a personal hand in this, this is truly wacked.

The dude gives his album away with a British newspaper and with every concert ticket sold on his tour (also see link), and then proceeds to personally hunt down people that might have a clip of it on their website? :confused:

And then, better yet, Universal actually listens to his requests? The record industry is already pissed at him for giving the album away (losing them profits), and yet they humor him on something that's very questionable legally?

I don't get it....but then again, maybe I'm not supposed to. :rolleyes: Either way, if it's true he exercised influence to make it happen, it makes him more of a tool than I already thought he was.
 
I doubt Prince is involved with this at all. That's the whole problem -- the labels control all this legal garbage for the most, not the artists.

I download a lot of music, but I don't see how that makes anyone a hypocrite. I used to spend $50-$75 a week on CDs, LPs from the used record store, merchandise, etc, etc. The industry is now out of control...it wasn't 15 years ago.

I was waiting in the line at Barnes & Noble last week to pay and I noticed a rack of CDs next to the checkout...$15.99 "reduced from" $18.99 in a cardboard case...not even a jewel case. You're telling me this is a good business model? If you wanna pay for that, be my guest, but I say the real hypocrites are the ones who tolerate being crapped on by corrupt corporations, be it the record industry or some other field. Enjoy being exploited.
 
Well, I do agree in the fact that it's ironic to see people say that a movie, song, game, or whatever is crappy and not worth the money, but them watch them listen to that song, play that game, or watch that movie, so many times as if there was no tomorrow. Now that's ironic.

But, like some of us, I use downloads as a way of trials. I give an album a go, and if I really like it, I go buy it. So yes, I do have downloaded at some time in my life, but I always buy the good albums as well. Same applies for movies, as I download the crappy ones from the internet, and if it was worth, head to BestBuy and buy the DVD. That's how it works for me, and some of us as well. We need ways to distinguish crap from awesomeness, and downloads is one of those methods. Sorry if this is not the most ethical practice, but I know some of you guys agree with me.
 
Yah I mean personally to me this stuff is getin retarded like you all have said. And yes I do download, but if the game or cd or whatever is worth it, yah ill go spend my hard earned cash because I think the developer deserves my businsess:rolleyes:
 
I wish I knew where to download songs for free. Today I killed $13 buying Static X's new CD Cannibal.

I feel so ashamed that I just supported the RIAA........:(
 
init6 said:
I doubt Prince is involved with this at all. That's the whole problem -- the labels control all this legal garbage for the most, not the artists..
Click to expand...

Normally, I'd agree with you, but this is direct from the article, and is highly unusual:

A well-placed source directly involved in the situation confirmed to ABC News that Prince was directly involved in seeking the takedown of Lenz's video.

"This guy scours the Internet,'' the source said of the legendary artist, who once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol and wrote the word "Slave'" on his cheek until he won back the rights to his music from another publishing company.

"He's really intense about this stuff," the source said, adding that Lenz's video "happened to be one of many'' that artist apparently located online and demanded be taken down.
 
It's obvious that Universal has no stand on this case. Take for example "evolution of Dance" on youtube. If Universal was in the right, that video would have been taken down a LONG time ago. The use of segments like that for non-commercial purposes is clearly stated in Copyright Law Chapter 1 section 107

§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use³⁸
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

It's copyright abuse. Pure and simple.

Along with that, the record companies think that they define fair use of a segment of a copyrighted work. Some even claim that use of 1 second of a copyrighted work is violation.

Consumer rights groups say write to congress. Have them rewrite the laws. That will never happen. Big business has an iron fist on our government. Which includes the RIAA and MPAA. They have senators, representetives, judges and special interst groups on their "off the record" payroll. It's bribery not "donations"

A more radical and forceful method is required
 
Rob94hawk said:
I wish I knew where to download songs for free. Today I killed $13 buying Static X's new CD Cannibal.

I feel so ashamed that I just supported the RIAA........:(
Click to expand...
See, now you are defeating the purpose of downloads. Is not about killing your $13, is about who is going to enjoy those $13 that you have. Like Unreal_Tker said, "if the game or cd or whatever is worth it, yah ill go spend my hard earned cash because I think the developer deserves my businsess". So yeah, if you believe that Static-X deserves those $13 for making good music, despite your financial situation, then you just did the right thing. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top