WSJ
October 11, 2008 at 1:24 pm 8 comments
Last week I got a call from a fact checker at the Wall Street Journal. Let me just say that of all the articles that have run about my case over the last year (when the WaPo article heated things up), I’ve never gotten a call from a fact checker. Maybe Corynne or someone else at EFF has gotten them but I know that more than a few articles have run with small inaccuracies.
So anyway…
I knew an “essay” was coming in today’s WSJ but I didn’t know anything else about it. When I found it today and read the byline, I did a kind of “eep!”
In Defense of Piracy
Digital technology has made it easy to create new works from existing art, but copyright law has yet to catch up.
By LAWRENCE LESSIG
Who knows this topic better than Lawrence Lessig? Here’s an excerpt that’s relevant to my story:
How is it that sensible people, people no doubt educated at some of the best universities and law schools in the country, would come to think it a sane use of corporate resources to threaten the mother of a dancing 13-month-old? What is it that allows these lawyers and executives to take a case like this seriously, to believe there’s some important social or corporate reason to deploy the federal scheme of regulation called copyright to stop the spread of these images and music? “Let’s Go Crazy” indeed!
The essay goes on to make clear, excellent points about the evolution of copyright coupled with today’s technology and information-sharing culture. It’s not long either. Check it out.
Entry filed under: Making a federal case. Tags: lawsuit, wall street journal.
1. Erie PA News and Events for Columbus Day–Monday, October 13, 2008 | ErieBlogs | October 13, 2008 at 7:39 am
[...] of Piracy” in the Wall Street Journal this past Saturday. In the essay, Lessig discusses Erie blogger Eden’s encounter and subsequent lawsuit against Universal Music Group regarding her posting of a [...]
2.
Theryn | October 14, 2008 at 10:27 am
Aha! I knew he couldn’t resist this story.
Looks like that article is a book excerpt. Very cool!
3.
Eden | October 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm
You’re right:
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4110
“The Wall Street Journal is running an excerpt from Larry Lessig’s upcoming book, Remix (book party in SF, Oct. 29.)
“In this excerpt, Lessig tells the story of Stephanie Lenz, who taped her infant child with some Prince song playing in the background and uploaded the video to YouTube, only to find a moment of her life deleted after Prince and Universal sent YouTube a DMCA take-down notice.
“Lenz is “collateral damage” in the copyright wars, a war that is properly fought against piracy, Lessig argues, but is sweeping up innocent people who are just trying to create something new out of the stream of media that comes our way.”
4.
Theryn | October 14, 2008 at 7:04 pm
He mentioned the article on his blog.
5.
Eden | October 15, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The headline gave me pause too. I’m glad he spoke up about it. There were, however, several errors that I corrected with the fact checker. I wonder if the book version of this piece will have the errors. Most important, I thought, was that Holden is 13 months in the video, not 18. The point of the video was that he’d just learned to walk. If he’d been 18 months old and walking for a while, it wouldn’t have had the same purpose (which is to say, “Look — he’s walking! Look — he’s dancing!”). We filed the original suit when he was about 18 months old, which is where people get that he was 18 months in the video.
6.
Theryn | October 15, 2008 at 3:20 pm
You should comment on his post. Even if it’s not possible to correct this printing, corrections are always made to later ones.
7.
Theryn | October 15, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Oh, and… this is the part that I think is always misconstrued: “They watched the video scores of times.” Didn’t it only have something like 29 views when it was originally taken down? (Some of which were undoubtedly you.) Comments on stories about this always make reference to however many views it has now, using that to bolster Prince’s argument (hey! lots of people are watching this!). But if it had never been yanked in the first place, and there was no case, the present view count would likely not be much higher than the 29 views it had when this all started.
8.
Eden | October 15, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I think it was nearly 180 when it was taken down. After it was reinstated and we filed the lawsuit & the hits started to climb, someone gave a figure (I think the low 300s) and said something like “this is going to get popular.” I thought it was only about 30 views but I think YouTube said it was more.
My favorite comments are the ones that say that I put my video up to become famous. Seriously. And I can always tell the comments of someone who hasn’t even bothered to watch it. I read one on his post today that was obviously from someone who hadn’t seen the video.