From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:51:41 -0500

It strikes me that this whole case is a tempest in a semantic teapot
and does not have much real substance to it as far as fair use is
concerned. There is no judgment here that the use of the music by Lenz
was or was not fair use; it is all just a question of whether, in
issuing a takedown notice, Universal considered whether the use might
be fair.  Since only a subjective belief that a use was infringing,
including a consideration of whether it was a fair use, is required by
Sec. 512, those who issue takedown notices simply need to acknowledge
that they considered whether the use was fair--and since fair use is
so difficult to determine, that is a very thin requirement. So I don't
see this case as having much impact on DMCA disputes moving forward.
It is a sideshow at best.

Sandy Thatcher



> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:45:24 -0400
> Subject: Fair Use Review Must Precede DMCA Takedowns
>
> https://www.law360.com/articles/702339
>
> Copyright holders cannot shirk their duty to consider-in good faith
> and prior to sending a takedown notification-whether allegedly
> infringing material constitutes fair use, a use which the DMCA plainly
> contemplates as authorized by the law," the appeals court wrote. "That
> this step imposes responsibility on copyright holders is not a reason
> for us to reject it.
>
> Full text of the opinion (9 pages; PDF) in Lenz vs. Universal Music is
> available here:
>
> https://www.scribd.com/doc/280946517/Opinion-From-United-States-Court-of-Appeals-9th-Circuit-Lenz-vs-Universal-Music
>
> Comments are welcomed on what seems to be an important decision.
>
> Thank you, AnN Okerson