doctorow at August 22nd, 2013 22:49 — #1
scooter at August 23rd, 2013 00:06 — #2
Gooooooooooo get em boys!
jake0748 at August 23rd, 2013 00:20 — #3
IANAL. But is the term really "caselaw"? Sounds too much like cole slaw. Other than that, Huzzahh!!!
headcode at August 23rd, 2013 00:31 — #4
xzzy at August 23rd, 2013 01:32 — #5
I'm going to guess that the people who run Liberation Music were the type of kids who dared each other to throw rocks at bee nests.
I mean, being a bully is one thing. Picking on something that can make your life a living hell is just plain dumb.
abstract_reg at August 23rd, 2013 02:26 — #6
Yes, yes it is. Clearly YANAL.
siriuslycold at August 23rd, 2013 04:36 — #7
I'm going to guess that the record company will argue "fair use" only covers the prof's usage in the lecture... once it goes onto YouTube it might be a different matter
howaboutthis at August 23rd, 2013 08:07 — #8
Liberation Music? The name strikes me as ironic, or possibly sarcastic.
Yet another clueless company that thinks the DMCA gives them control over the intertubes.
boundegar at August 23rd, 2013 08:17 — #9
Who is this Phoenix? I thought the Who wrote that misbegotten rock-opera, as a followup to the abortion Tommy?
ironedithkidd at August 23rd, 2013 09:11 — #10
You have Rick Wakeman to thank for the music in that crap Roger Daltry movie.
davide405 at August 23rd, 2013 09:59 — #11
It's time to reach into the wallet and make another donation to EFF
scooter at August 23rd, 2013 11:12 — #12
Distribution is covered under fair use. Considering they're going after a professor that teaches about copyright at Harvard Law, the simplest explanation would be that they don't know what they're doing.
seanc0x0 at August 23rd, 2013 12:06 — #13
I wonder what the heck the record company hopes to accomplish by attacking one of the best known copyright experts on the planet, and a lawyer to boot!
I sure hope they get what's coming to them.
apenzott at August 23rd, 2013 12:28 — #14
With this latest Liberation Music saga, I am visualizing the following:
Liberation Music assailants as Somali Pirates deciding to take on a ship, not realizing that it is from the Royal Dutch Navy, armed with three "Goalkeeper CIWS" units setup to work in concert, and twitching to life as the units are self-calibrating and the targets are sized up.
The initial barrage is engagement of the anti-SLAPP laws used as leverage with "Liberation Music" being an "offshore corporation" being forced to post a bond equal to their annual revenue, and them some. Failing that, the case is dismissed with extreme prejudice and now irritated judge declares that all such cases are to be routed through his venue. (I got to stop reading the Prenda Law saga dealing with Judge Otis Wright.)
atblanketfort at August 23rd, 2013 14:52 — #15
That's what the lawyers at my office say. They don't want us to "rebroadcast." I respond with, "that's stupid."
spejic at August 23rd, 2013 16:04 — #16
yep at August 23rd, 2013 16:06 — #17
Oh, OK. Se...hello... to ma LEEDLE FREN!
doctorow at August 27th, 2013 22:49 — #18
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.