"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

Ah ... So there you are, you see. Universal were not actually trying to
prosecute the person concerned. They were making use of a law that
already
existed to have the content removed from a public domain website, on
copyright grounds. Were they being pedantic - perhaps - and if so, for
what
reasons ? Or is there actually yet more to it than we are being told ...
?
Media still trying to make it look like a good 'David and Goliath' story
?
So has the mother decided off her own bat to try to sue Universal, or has
she been 'encouraged' to do so by some other organisation ( EEF
Lawyers?? )
as a suitable test-case to suit their own agenda ?

Whilst it all seems a bit silly, and a waste of time and money, a law
never-the-less exists, which appears to cover the case in question, so by
contesting it, you are not trying to prove your innocence of having
committed any offence, which strictly speaking you have, of course,
rather,
you are trying to prove that the law is stupid and needs revising. I
would
suggest that the chances of that happening are very slim, and all that is
going to happen is that a lot of time and money and court-time that could
be
much more valuably used, will be wasted.

I'm all for the little man not falling victim of big corporations, but
sometimes it all just gets rather silly, and blown out of any realistic
proportion.

Universal were entirely within their rights to ask for the apparently
copyright infriging
material to be removed from YouTube. Were they over-reacting - certainly
IMHO in this case
but they weren't suing the mother involved as Jan alleged.

And.... the mother is certainly entitled to sue Universal under 'fair use'
provisions of
the law.

This case may actually serve a good purpose by making it clearer what
should and shouldn't
be acceptable use. From what I heard, the music was 'in the background'.
I'd have said
Universal must be utterly crazy to insist on its removal if that's true.

Graham

Yes, that's my thought too. Now Universal might be a big organisation, but
they are not stupid. Nor, I'm sure, are their corporate law department, and
any externally retained law experts. Which then begs the question of why
they would pursue this with such apparent vigour, given the negative
publicity which it would - and seemingly *is* - bringing down on their
heads. Which brings us back round to the question of is there more to this
than we are being told.

All of which is a very long way from bad joints on lead-free joints ...

Arfa