From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:58:17 -0500

But, as I read the decision, the court also did not rule out using
automatic computer monitoring to identify potentially infringing
content and suggested that it might be able to handle a great many of
the instances while needing human intervention to make determinations
for some cases in grey areas.

Sandy Thatcher



At 8:34 PM -0400 9/16/15, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Robert Glushko <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 02:07:34 +0000
>
> I don't know Sandy, while this isn't the next Campbell, I think
> dismissing this as a sideshow is also a bit extreme.  I think this
> could give well deserved ammunition to people fighting against DMCA
> bots and whatnot.  A bot can't satisfy this test.
> ________________________________________
>
> 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