undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrobbrown4514y ago0 comments

The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.")

The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.

0 comments

mcguire4y ago

I would expect the courts to also object to using copyright law to suppress other legal rights.

But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.

scotuswroteus4y ago

Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect

robbrown451OP4y ago

Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan...

Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse