Appeals court strikes a blow for fair use in long-awaited copyright ruling

[offbeatbryce]

That particular portion of the defense would fall under "purpose and character of use". It doesn't have to specifically say home video anywhere in the Fair Use doctrine. The doctrine itself is intentionally vague with basic principles to allow a judge grey area, because frankly, there is no other way to handle it.

So is it meaning that anyone uploading a dance video is fair use or only the one with the baby?[DOUBLEPOST=1442298675,1442298235][/DOUBLEPOST]

But that is a fairly significant difference. Had she privately emailed it or shared it amongst friends and family with a private link from YouTube or Facebook, she wouldn't have had any problems. Instead, she essentially broadcasted it out to the world for anyone to see/ hear.

That said, it sounds more like she won on a technicality, not that she actually had the right to use the song in question.

If the judge's comments are accepted, fully automated ContentID would no longer be allowed to issue a takedown on a partial hit unless checked and confirmed by a human first... and I don't see how this is a good thing.

Adding the human element would add significant time and cost... things record labels, media conglomerates, and YouTube don't want to spent and, worse, who would quickly find a way to make come out of our pockets, not theirs. Perhaps we will have to start paying a 'licensing check' fee in order to upload or maybe a ContentID hit will move a video into a purgatory limbo while it waits to be checked by a human - something that could be expedited for another additional cost.

Anyone who has had issues with YouTube knows how slow, cryptic, or completely absent their help service can be. This ruling and the idea of the judge has the potential to make it infinitely worse.

Now, I'm not saying the current system is working. It isn't and there are plenty of glaring problems. I just feel that it's too risky to do anything that could effect Google's bottom line or, worst case, make them decide to close up shop- at least to public, non-monetized, smaller channels.

If you think of the average number of views for a popular song it's anywhere between 1,000 and more depending on the song. Some videos that are dancing have millions of views. What I think is a good solution is something similar to a mechanical license. A mechanical license is something you pay for to sell your cover on iTunes. To stream a cover on some sites is .01 cent USD per play. So if you think about this with YouTube for a second .01 cents for
1,000 views is 10 USD dollars. Multiple that by how many videos of the same song are uploaded and the copyright holders would be making millions of dollars.

Spotify and other streaming services already pay these fees so why isn't YouTube? I've confirmed with agency's like CD baby that these fees are paid for automatically via streaming audio.

 

[Tarmack]

So is it meaning that anyone uploading a dance video is fair use or only the one with the baby?

I didn't say anything about whether or not it is fair use. Just what the defense would be, and that fair use is vague intentionally so they don't have to try to outline every possibility.