SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8093
The Michael Jackson Estate is suing the Walt Disney Company and ABC for using dozens of its copyrighted works without permission. According to Disney, no harm has been done, since including these works in "The Last Days of Michael Jackson" documentary is "fair use." The Estate clearly disagrees and notes that Disney's argument would make even the founders of Napster pause.
According to the claim, Disney and ABC’s broadcast used at least thirty different copyrighted works owned by the Estate, without permission. In fact, Michael Jackson’s heirs specifically urged the media titans not to use its intellectual property without a license.
Since Disney is known to be an avid protector of its own rights, the Estate calls out the company’s double standard. “Apparently, Disney’s passion for the copyright laws disappears when it doesn’t involve its own intellectual property and it sees an opportunity to profit off of someone else’s intellectual property without permission or payment,” the complaint reads.
The complaint stresses that Disney is known for its strict copyright enforcement actions and a narrow view of copyright law’s “fair use” doctrine. “For example, just a few years ago, [Disney] sent DMCA takedown notices to Twitter, Facebook, and other websites and webhosts, when consumers posted pictures of new Star Wars toys that the consumers had legally purchased.
“Apparently, Disney claimed that simple amateur photographs of Star Wars characters in toy form infringed Disney’s copyrights in the characters and were not a fair use,” the state writes.
However, when the Estate urged Disney not to use any of its copyrighted works without permission, Disney’s attorney used fair use as a defense. The company argued that it could legally use Jackson’s copyrighted material since the broadcast was labeled as a documentary. This is “absurd” and “dead wrong” according to Jackson’s heirs, who see it as a blatant form of infringement which even the founders of Napster would recognize.
[...] A copy of the Michael Jackson Estate’s complaint against The Walt Disney Company and ABC is available here (PDF).
Source: https://torrentfreak.com/michael-jackson-estate-turns-the-fair-use-table-on-disney-180531/
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jasassin on Monday June 04 2018, @03:11AM (19 children)
I hope Disney eats a billion dollar dick on this one. Especially after the toy picture deal (amongst so many other fair use takedowns).
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 5, Insightful) by idiot_king on Monday June 04 2018, @03:26AM (13 children)
This is just one capitalist shark trying to take a bite out of another.
"We The People" aren't the ones who win at all in this fight.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @03:38AM (2 children)
Is pushing for longer copyrights, stricter enforcement, or reduction of rights due to the first sale doctrine.
If they are not doing any of those, and are doing their part to point out double standards and help set legal precedents when the big guys fuck over other guys, big or little, I say that is a win for actual content producers, rather than ip holding companies/'publishing' houses. Disney in particular has been assholes since forever, but Eisner helped take Disney to a whole other level.
On that note: I hope Michael's heirs enjoy the fruits of his labor while not being too greedy with it going into the future. While I can't be sure if he was involved in any messed up shit later in his life, it seems pretty obviously in retrospect that he must not have had the greatest childhood and even all his fame and success didn't give him what he wanted out of life. So with any luck his kids can have some of that in his stead, hopefully with a longer and more fulfilling, if not profitable, life.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @05:01AM
Disney isn't a shark among the sharks. Disney is megalodon among the various lesser sharks. Disney is responsible for virtually all copyright extensions that have been granted in the past 75 years. There are a couple other megalodons, or apex predators, but most are mere sharks. Several great whites, and many many sand sharks and bull sharks. Even the various record labels are mere great white sharks. The megalodons are an exclusive group, consisting of Disney and the MPAA studios.
Harry Potter's group isn't even worthy of notice from those huge fishes - Potter is merely a very small sand shark, potting about in the shallows.
If Disney were to die, if they were to lose all influence, we might begin to roll back some of the unjust laws that congress has granted in the past half century.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 05 2018, @01:48AM
I don't. None of Michael Jackson's heirs had any sort of hand in making the music, so why should they profit from it?
In my view all his work should be placed into the public domain today. His kids should have to make do with the millions they already have. (Presumably).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimtheowl on Monday June 04 2018, @04:53AM (7 children)
At the very least, "We The People" are unlikely to loose on this one, which is why it is somewhat entertaining to watch unfold.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 04 2018, @11:14AM (6 children)
I don't see how "We the People" win... And they likely lose something. As others have already pointed out, if it's another bad precedent against fair use, that's bad. And for any member of the public who still uses Disney products, it's likely Disney will pass any significant losses onto the consumer (rather than reduce executive salaries or anything like that). So, higher admission to Disney World, a few less Disney movies produced... Whatever. Disney won't suffer in the least.
Andrewd what good does it do the public for a huge chunk of money to flow into the Michael Jackson estate? It's fun to see Disney attacked, but it's not going to have any positive effect.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:16PM (1 child)
If the precedent set is pro-Disney, then Disney loses because it will set a precedent that their own property can be fairly used under similar circumstances, as MJ's Estate itself said 'Star Wars movies could be chopped up into a series of 'documentaries' with the music overlaid, then made available in such a way as to qualify as fair use and avoid disney having licensing/creative control over them. If the precedent is anti-Disney, then Disney will also lose, because the precedent will mean that fair use no longer applies to any major publishing entity in the US, consumer with either be in an uproar for the laws to be changed, or not care (more likely), and the only damage it will really place for mainstream society is against the publishers who were abusing their size to steal little guy's works and claim it was fair use, while smacking down little guy's actual fair use by claiming intellectual property protection against things that should have definitely qualified under fair use.
Basically, whichever way this case pans out it fucks the publishers, and as an added bonus it is being funded by MJ's estate, so anyone who felt like some of his actions were just as bad as Disney, can take solace in the fact that it is media mogul pitted against media mogul. I just hope this case goes through a full court battle and doesn't get settled. Too many cases that would set a precedent worthy of either changing the law, or overturning abuses of the court system, neither of which we have gotten a lot of the past 20-30 years or so thanks to people settling before the precedent was set.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Spamalope on Monday June 04 2018, @03:13PM
You haven't mentioned the most likely outcome. It's fair use for Disney but nobody else. Disney has wielded the political power to change the copyright law itself, something like this would be trivial.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @03:48PM (3 children)
First, it's a peaceful process which is not an automatic win for Disney.
Second, this is an opportunity to limit Disney's power. So these two points mean even if the case doesn't go well, there is still is an ongoing opposing force to Disney's machinations.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 04 2018, @04:33PM (2 children)
I don't understand this reply. The enemy isn't Disney per se: it's massive copyright extensions and overbearing restrictions. Even if Disney were severely punished or limited in its power, there are dozens of other companies that will likely gladly take up the torch for restrictive copyright in its place. And a victory here is actually a victory in favor of restrictive copyright...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @05:09PM
What makes those things "enemies"?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @05:46PM
Well, that's part of the point. Dozens is weaker than one very powerful one since their interests don't coincide.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:04AM
Why are you refusing to sell the capitalist the rope that they will hang themselves with, comrade Tankie?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @08:08AM
In the word it is the might makes right all the time. The People only gets something as poster child for, and support of New Winners, and only for a limited time mostly. So, whenever the big ones are fighting, things may go lucky (for some time) for the rest of us. Fairness in practice is only a middle ground compromise between two or multiple of wrongs. In times without challenger, we feel a whip of tyranny (by any other name) biting our skins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @07:10AM
Only a billion? That's hardly a slap on the wrist for a multinational megacorporation the size of Disney. They need to eat a FIFTY billion dollar dick, and they need to choke on it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by loonycyborg on Monday June 04 2018, @09:26AM (2 children)
If that happens then it would be even worse double standard, because this IS an pure case of fair use. A more worthwhile payback to Disney would be pursuing them for a genuine violation of copyright rather than this rather silly lawsuit. This really bad situation: amateur photographers get shafted while big guys like Disney and Michael Jackson Estate get to freely harass everyone who they wish with invalid copyright claims.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 04 2018, @10:20AM (1 child)
because this IS an pure case of fair use
A pure case of hypocrisy too. Watch out on youtube for my clearly labeled documentary "animated movies of the XX century", see how disney takes it down in a microsecond.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by loonycyborg on Monday June 04 2018, @02:38PM
Only Bots are capable of microsecond response time. And incapable of sending DMCA counter-notices. Because justice system would consider them inferior when processing the resulting lawsuit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:40PM
I disagree, I hope that Disney wins, then chokes on the victory as their own precedent kills their future legal actions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lentilla on Monday June 04 2018, @03:58AM (12 children)
The enemy of my enemy might (temporarily) be my friend, but it doesn't mean these new guys will always smell of roses. We may indeed cheer on the calling-out of hypocrisy but in the next chapter both parties will be shown to be cut from the same cloth. Never-the-less, it's fun to enjoy for the time present.
(Score: 5, Touché) by MostCynical on Monday June 04 2018, @04:53AM (9 children)
Maxim 29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries [wikia.com]
https://www.schlockmercenary.com/ [schlockmercenary.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @05:03AM (8 children)
Amazing how few people understand that. The enemy of mine enemy is the enemy of my enemy - and I need to keep an eye on BOTH of them, because either will slip a knife into my back if I allow them.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 04 2018, @10:45AM (1 child)
In a fight among enemies and not-friends, you should hope that the mightiest one loses, though.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday June 04 2018, @08:21PM
I've always liked the adage: "Let's you and him fight."
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @03:49PM (5 children)
Allies are the enemy of my enemy. While that may not necessarily mean they won't stab me in the back, it tends to reduce the chances of it.
e.g. you're saying Britain and Germany were equally likely to stab the U.S. in the back during WWII?
Maybe because what you're saying is poorly worded, or just outright wrong.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @04:17PM (4 children)
I'm afraid that you don't have it right. "Enemy of mine enemy" may well have described the US/UK/British Commonwealth, and the Soviet, during World War Two. We had a mutual enemy, and the Soviet was having it's ass handed to it - so they found cause to fight beside us, more or less. The block I have already described, US/UK/British Commonwealth, were indeed "allies". Near the end of the war, there was no competition seen between the allies, as there was between the Soviet and the rest of the allies. The Soviet raced as far and wide and deep into German held lands, as possible, to prevent the allies gaining control of any of that land. There was also a race for Japan, but we cut that race short with the atomic bombs, and a peace treaty, signed before the Soviet could get a fleet into Japanese waters.
After the war, the Soviet stirred the pot as much as possible in Asia, aiding Red China when they saw fit, then North Korea, then Vietnam. Anyplace the Soviet could turn people toward Communism, and against the West, they did so.
Describing the Soviet as our "ally" is a poor, sloppy, and lazy way of defining our relationship. "Enemy of mine enemy" fits that relationship, perfectly. The Soviet was never our friends. Russia may or may not be a friend, one day - but for some reason the Democrats seem determined to ensure that never happens.
I have worded things poorly, a few times - but not this time. I have said precisely what I meant.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @04:32PM (3 children)
Yes, but "ally" is a subset of "enemy of my enemy." That was my point.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @04:36PM (2 children)
Additionally, "ally" according to Dictionary.com:
Which the relationship of the Soviet Union and the United States in WWII would fulfill the first definition.
Declaration by United Nations
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 04 2018, @04:39PM (1 child)
Blarg, bungled the URL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @05:39PM
While that is all correct, in legal terms, it still fails to define the precise relationship between the USSR and the rest of the allies. Almost immediately upon cessation of histilities with Germany, the USSR partitioned an entire continent, threatening by force of arms any who would cross that partition. The "allies", as the law refers to them, were ready to kill each other, just as soon as their mutual enemy was deceased.
Again, I say, sloppy, lazy, and inaccurate definitions.
The Soviet was an enemy of our enemy, nothing more, and nothing less. I can understand that subtlty is lost on politicians, but some of us can understand the differences.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday June 04 2018, @05:30AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @11:34AM
or while your enemy and their enemy are busy you can delay stabbing either in the back whilst funding or materially supporting which every party will result in attrition on both sides, boosting your own financial position to such as degree that you can afford to bailout both back stabbers when they can't fight any more, making them, if not your friends, at least your debtors.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Captival on Monday June 04 2018, @04:20AM (11 children)
Kanye West says the President is doing good. Judging by the economy, he's right. But Liberals are boycotting his music.
Michael Jackson molested a whole bunch of kids. The same company that fired Rosanne are happy to hero-worship him.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @04:49AM (9 children)
Was that ever proven, or did this just get accepted based on he must have done it since "What was he doing hanging around with a bunch of kids?" + "He looks and acts weird" + "He settled with the guy saying "I'm never gonna have to work again".
Just asking cuz I genuinly do not know if there was a definitive signal that I missed.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @05:06AM (7 children)
Pull your head out of your ass, and get a breath of oxygen - your brain needs it. Sumbitch was documented many times to be sleeping in the same bad with little boys who were unrelated to him. One of two things was going on:
Either Jackson was an impotent, retarded sumbitch who never grew up,
OR, he was diddling those little boys.
Your choice. Either way, he was worthy of contempt, and certainly NOT worthy of the hero worship that America gave him.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:12AM (1 child)
It seems strange to me that all these people wanted large payouts from a supposed child molester. If someone molested someone I know, I'd want them in prison at the very least. But no, large settlements from a supposedly dangerous child molester. That makes sense. Not.
No conclusive evidence was ever found. I strongly suspect that had it been a criminal trial, it would have failed miserably. I guess irrational people don't care about evidence, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @02:22PM
He did go through a politically charged criminal trial, and he prevailed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Monday June 04 2018, @07:18AM (4 children)
That is my belief... I don't believe Michael ever had a "childhood", and even though his body matured, in his mind he was still a kid.
And I think that is what a lot of us liked about him so much... he was still a kid... and we envied him, as the rest of us were forced by economics into the reality of living a life productive for someone else.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @07:30AM (3 children)
Salutes, then. You are not one of those hypocritical asses who worship a man for his money. A lot of people think Jackson was diddling those little boys - and the STILL admire him!
You, I think, may be foolish. Those other people, I think are sick, and maybe evil.
That is my honest opinion, for what it is worth.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Monday June 04 2018, @10:59AM (2 children)
Yeh, he may have well been diddling those boys, but I also believe he was still a kid - in an older body.
Personally, I would have a hard time holding him culpable unless any physical harm came of it.
This is a conundrum for law... as where does one draw a line. Equality under the law means that law applies to everyone. How am I to say Michael is not culpable, but someone else doing the exact thing is?
Maybe I am a fool for thinking that... but its just one old fart's take on it. This is not the first time I've been a fool... actually I get "taken" all too often.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @11:32AM
Good honest answer - and modded up for that.
The conundrum for law? Yes, it is, and also an ethical and moral conundrum. The law echoes ethics and morals, as well as religion, in that, all recognize a "coming of age". And, all recognize that some people will never pass the "rites of passage". You could be right. Jackson never became a man, so he can't be held accountable as a man.
So, now where are we? Maybe you're less a fool than I thought, but I certainly disagree with you! :^)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 04 2018, @08:05PM
This is not a conundrum for the law, damn it. He was over 18. If at any time after he was 18 any of his partners were underage, then he broke the law. I don't give a tinker's damn for what his mental state may have been.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday June 04 2018, @05:49AM
http://www.oxygen.com/the-jury-speaks/blogs/a-short-history-of-the-michael-jackson-child-molestation-case [oxygen.com]
Michael Jackson sex abuse lawsuit dismissed
A judge on Tuesday dismissed the lawsuit brought by a choreographer who alleged Jackson molested. https://usat.ly/2DdhMbMhttps://usat.ly/2DdhMbM [usat.ly]
Lits of people have tried to get at Mr Jackson's money. No one seems to known if any of them were actually molested or abused.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EvilSS on Monday June 04 2018, @05:32AM
Fixed that for ya
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @05:30AM
estate of child molester sues goy hating jews.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:21AM
https://media.giphy.com/media/pUeXcg80cO8I8/giphy.gif [giphy.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @06:37AM (6 children)
If anyone hasn't been paying attention, they have reached the point where they can both buy the legislature to ensure 'their' imaginary property will never enter the public domain, in frank contravention of the Constitution, and they have enough of an engine built up on past works that they are able to buy the rights to newer ones.
Marvel. Star Wars.
We must return to rational, constitutional copyright. Fourteen (14) years was sufficient in the age where the printing press was a novel idea. This should be an absolute upper bound on the length today, with infinite cost-free distribution. Five years with an optional one-time renewal would be reasonable.
For any person or corporation to be able to hold absolute power over ideas, for what amounts to multiple generations if not lifetimes, is patently absurd.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @07:40AM (1 child)
Why? Seems the real problem is your legislature can be bought and the resulting laws are bad. Removing Disney doesn't fix this at all.
Or is the real reason you're fine with your side still being able to buy the legislature and prefer that Disney be sacrificed to satisfy the ignorant mobs?
The US Government seems to give such matters a very high priority, look what they did to Kim Dotcom. Why was getting him so important till it was acceptable to break the illusion that NZ is an independent country and make NZ arrest him? Was what he did Snowden level?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 04 2018, @08:11AM
You're half right, or more. The underlying problem needs to be fixed. But, Disney is the worst of the worst offenders. I'd love to see them go belly up, and gasp out the last of their lives. As I mentioned earlier, Disney and the MPAA are the worst - all other players are small fry in comparison.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Monday June 04 2018, @07:41AM (2 children)
I see what you did there.
(Score: 4, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 04 2018, @11:05AM (1 child)
It's good that you quoted parent post accurately; not everyone takes the time to copy right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 04 2018, @12:26PM
Punny Brewster?
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Monday June 04 2018, @08:21PM
The same asshats want to expand it to 144 years now...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/18/us_congress_copyright_extension/ [theregister.co.uk]
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P