Ben_j, on 07 April 2015 - 8:09 AM, said:

::laughs::

Okay. So Prince (or more accurately Prince's business lawyers) sent a request to YouTube to take down a YouTube clip featuring Prince's music in the background of this video taken by a woman of her child dancing. Completely innocuous. Nonetheless, YouTube complied.

The woman who took the video sued Prince (or more accurately UMG) alleging that the use of Prince's song fell under "fair use." The fair use defense is kind of a catch-all that allows for people to infringe on other people's copyrights if they have just cause to do so, e.g., for journalistic purposes, educational purposes, etc.

There are three big phases in litigation. The first is the filing of the complaint--the document that lays out all of the legal arguments and reasons for the person suing to get money/remedies from the court. The person sued can move to dismiss the complaint (i.e. "throw the case out") if it lacks the required legal arguments or proper form. If successful, the case ends in favor of the person being sued.

In this case, UMG moved to dismiss the complaint, and did not succeed. That's what the big ruling was all about--there are grounds for the case to move forward because the fair use defense could apply and UMG could be found to have been wrong in requesting the takedown from YouTube.

So if someone else does something similar, like make a recording of a venue where a DJ is playing records on a soundsystem, and the rights holders of the song that ended up in the recording ask YouTube to take it down, because the copyrighted material was inadvertently recorded in the background, just like in the situation with the Prince song, there should be reason for the rights holders to be dissuaded from complaining to YouTube about the alleged violation.

Alas, there is no real disincentive to taking something down off of YouTube that might legitimately remain otherwise where questionable copyright violations are concerned.

Ha. I suspect Ben J was taking the p1ss a bit where he suggested this is jibberish. Both your posts were pretty good Pooter.

So the gist of it is that UMG failed to get the case against them thrown out but we still await a proper trial and conclusion. It would be nice to think that common sense would prevail on this. Clearly the subject of the Lenz video is the child/children rather than the music. And speaking personally, if the music had any effect on me it was to make me want to dig out my Purple Rain CD .

Claudia Fragapane's Gymnastics routine to Shake Break Bounce remains on youtube (in fact several performances of it). I'd like to think that UMG would be too ashamed by public reaction to attempt to get those clips taken down (it's easier to pick on an anonymous family, right?). But perhaps it's just that the Chems lawyers aren't as asinine as Prince's? In fact I think the Chems were perfectly happy about it at the time.

However, as much as it pains me to say this, I can't help thinking that UMG would have a much stronger case regarding the recent Warehouse Project clips. Let's be honest, none of us watched those clips to look at the backs of people's heads. The subject of those clips was the music itself. The long 34 min clip even had music by other artists removed from the Dj set so that it was pure Chems, and it featured a number of unreleased tracks. It also had a 'banner' advertising that it was about the Chems. It probably doesn't need those additional criteria but still...

I'm not a lwayer so feel free to correct me Pooter, but I'm thinking even if UMG etc do have to be more lenient about cases such as Lenz in future, I would have thought they could still get Warehouse Project type stuff removed where the subject may be deemed to be the music.

Next time something worth saving emerges I will make sure I save it. I could have easily ripped that video from youtube...

skyscraper, on 08 April 2015 - 2:26 PM, said:

Well, I think this argument seems a bit implausible, because let's face it, the most important reason these companies go against those (possible) infringements is a potential loss in profits and sales. But all those cases above don't even pose such threats because people won't stop buying music just because of a crappy audio recording (or even when it's a qualitatively resonable one). I'd believe it could evoke quite the contrary, people's desire to get a clean copy of potentially new songs might receive a boost. It's cheap and effective advertisement.
The other reason I can think of is that an artist might not approve of the context in which his/hers art is used or presented. But why would Prince feel bad about a child dancing to one of his songs? What exactly is the disadvantage in such a case, may it be financially or otherwise?
So in case someone records something that the artist is willing to share publically with an audience then I don't see any problem with recording it and post it online. But admittedly, I'm just a layman.

I'm familiar with that old Prince debate thing... IMO this falls under different and slightly more or less legal context than that one, like Skyscraper points out.

*dons paper hat with the words "totally a lawyerman like Pooter" scribbled on side in sharpie*

In the Prince song case it's not about the song, it's about the kid, but in this case, the only thing the video is doing is showcasing the music directly. It's 'advertently' recorded instead of inadvertently. But it's not about the "focus" of the video, this is the important difference: I'm remembering a certain (perhaps totally misremembered) copyright law that states (when interpreted) that fans are free to distribute tapes and bootlegs among themselves as much as they want, provided the band is cool with it, the material included isn't a released recording, and it's not being sold for profit. For example if a Chems show gets broadcast on BBC Radio, it is 100% legal to record it, trade it and upload it to places like Youtube, because the performance itself doesn't constitute a released product in the same way that We Are The Night as an album or Don't Think as a live album does, and because the act of broadcasting the concert on radio implies consent-to-be-recorded from the artist.

So in this case I'm arguing that the person's video falls under the category of "recorded performance" and not a copy of a released product, and therefore UMG doesn't have the right to go after it. Of course no one's going to stop them, hell most of my "Awesome Live Moments" videos are blocked in half the world's civilized countries thanks to UMG, but in a just world they shouldn't be able to.

Eis-T, on 08 April 2015 - 7:54 AM, said:

Yeah! This happens too often, there's a decent amount of Chemical History that's been lost simply because it wasn't online for long enough. Like the leaked Roundhouse prototype videos, for starters. And there was some interesting soundcheck footage up once that's lost too. Also there was some video of 1996 Pinkpop on youtube but that got taken down with the rest of the guy's account when they nailed him for copyright stuff.

I have a list of things "to archive" that I'm going to get to one of these weekends...

skyscraper, on 08 April 2015 - 5:26 AM, said:

Re: Common sense - it would be nice if there were some sort of prevailing notion of common sense. Unfortunately, I don't know that there is and it certainly doesn't prevail. But I do agree with your sentiment, for sure.

Re: Shake Break Bounce - some copyright holders pursue their rights more aggressively than others. In fact, copyright law demands that you pursue your rights in order to keep them, in a sense, because when you let others infringe your copyright, an argument forms that you were simply allowing for a free "license" to everyone use your copyright. Terrible system, I know. But some rights holders simply decide to be more lenient and let some things go.

Re: UMG's case with the Warehouse Project clip - I disagree with you on this. I think that the basis for the video with the baby in it and the video of the Warehouse Project clip should be given the exact same treatment. The reason is that if you start to get into the idea of whether or not something should be taken down on the basis of the "focus" of the video or the "reason" of the video, you err on the side of takedowns.

For instance, should every video of concert footage be taken down because there is little or no "action" in the crowd or movement of the artists on stage if it contains copyrighted music being played during the performance? What sort of necessary action or movement of the crowd should there be?

If you can create a rule that would delineate the acceptable shots, by all means, take a stab at it. I'm not sure there is an easy answer.

skyscraper, on 01 April 2015 - 2:50 AM, said:

You're not the only one, this song is going to be awesome!
Just one thing, I think this line is:
'Similar to the Jacques Cousteau'
Well, I hope it is, he's one of my childhood heroes, and it's great to hear that name in one of Chemical songs

sandelic, on 08 April 2015 - 8:16 PM, said:

That's the only thing you found wrong with 'my' lyrics? Ha! I think I might have a few other bits wrong too. But yeah that line is definitely not correct in my transcript. I'll go with yours.

MadPooter, on 08 April 2015 - 7:28 PM, said:

Ok naive/idealistic on my part!

MadPooter, on 08 April 2015 - 7:28 PM, said:

Sounds like a similar principle to people's right of access on land. E.G if people have been taking a short cut across a farmers land for the past 40 years and worn a path through, he probably can't just decide to stop them one day. So he has to say "get off my land" continually so that they can't establish right of access in the first place. Or something.

MadPooter, on 08 April 2015 - 7:28 PM, said:

Well I was trying to wear my 'common sense' hat, so again probably naive. Common sense tells me (I think!) that the Lenz clip was about a dancing kid in a kitchen with music on in the background, whereas filming at a concert is more likely to be about the music itself. But perhaps that differentiation wouldn't stand up in court. I wonder if the volume was below 'x' decibels or 'x' percentage of the overall sound on a clip, could it be established as background noise rather than an intended sound recording?

Also supposing I were an artist, I think I might have a fear that one day recording devices would become so good that they could deliver high quality sound/vision of my concert which in turn would undermine my profits if I wanted to sell that as a live album/film at some point. Also as an artist I might want to try out new tracks live without high quality versions of the tracks appearing before I was ready to release the music. One of the Chems heroes, New Order used to try out work-in-progress songs whilst on tour back in the 80's. Now they are more wary of doing so because they don't like the incomplete work being uploaded to the internet. If it's their music, maybe it's their choice?..

You know chem bros are really starting to piss me off with this lack of news about the album

chemicalreaction, on 08 April 2015 - 7:47 PM, said:

Nothing since Sonar last December and EBW11 last month. I don't remember the pre-Further months being this quiet.

If I recall, don't the tour dates come AFTER the album release? Not the other way around!

on their twitter...

Wait, what? Akai S3000 for live?) Again?))

Explud, on 09 April 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

Maybe Tom decided to go back to MPC + samplers instread of Ableton + MPD

Maybe he's just lurking in old stuff libraries and dragging it to Ableton
Because in 2004-2008 touring time they used S5000-S6000 and not S3000.

Explud, on 09 April 2015 - 1:42 PM, said:

THIS.

"the project"

He was inspired by aphex twin and will release all the old stuff on a random soundcloud account. I'm pretty sure that is the case.

So, he's bringing Otter Rock to the live set ? I hope not

Ben_j, on 09 April 2015 - 7:45 PM, said:

aw come on!

DooooooooWeeeeeeeeeOooooooooooooooWeeeeeeeeOoooooooooooLowerweeeeeeeeeLoweroooooooooooo

Tell me that's not the best lead ever.