Question

NON PLAGIARISED ANSER AND NON COPIED PLEASE OR I WILL DOWNVOTE AND REPORT. Word limit 400

Have you ever posted or viewed copyrighted material online that could be subject to a DMCA takedown request? Research the case of Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. to learn the key issues it raised in connection with takedown orders. Write a few paragraphs summarizing your findings, including the current status of the case. (Medium, 6 marks)

Answer 1

Answer:

• In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, covered on EFF, lodged a lawsuit against Universal's bogus copyright allegation after You Tube deleted a video.
• The video is a 29-second record of her son dancing to the Prince song "Let's Go Wild," which begs whether a copyright holder can allow a clear, fair usage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA).
• The co-counsel on the case is Keker, Van Nest, and Peters LLP.
• Section 512 of the DMCA also developed the so-called "Notice and Release" scheme, which grants service providers the copyright responsibility for user-posted material to have been deleted by providers after they have been told that it is in violation. However, Section 512 also often targets legitimate content.
• To deter such misuse, Congress maintains that the DMCA provides a set of checks and balances, including section 512(f), which encourages consumers to keep owners of copyright liable if they submit a poorly faith DMCA note.
• Lenz argued that Universal's notification of downgrade in breach of Section 512(f) was a misrepresentation. In reply, Universal claimed that proprietors of copyright do not recognize fair usage until submitting DMCA notices.
• The 9th Circuit dismissed this claim, finding that DMCA allows copyright owners to investigate the legitimate fair usage of works before handing down notifications directed at them.
• The Court of Appeal showed that fair use is not a "infraction to be excused," nor is not a violation of copyright at all.
• The Ninth Circuit has found that copyright holders could be kept to an arbitrary level to assess lawsuits according to Section 512(f).
• In other terms, senders of fake notifications may be excused as long as they assumed subjectively that their targeted content was infringed.
• This feature of the decision disappointed EFF as it suggests that a subjective conviction in the violation will justify an incorrect reversal, regardless of how irrational the conviction is.
• Following the Ninth Circuit decision, Lenz and Universal also sought clarification by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the appeals of all sides and then decided on a compromise.