Comments on: Mutiny at Mayer Brown?

By: guest

guest — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:12:15 +0000

329 + 330,
He is a close friend and/or manager of all the artists used in the film. Apply the law to those facts or just stop wasting your time and get off of ATL.
328

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:05:56 +0000

Agree with 329. He has violated copying/reproduction, public performance (maybe, due to internet broadcast), and may be liable for contributory infringement (knows others will display/copy, induces it through spreading it by YouTube, others infringe).
Fair use is never clear cut, but always a balancing test in light of the purposes of copyright law. CHECK YOU SECTION 107 OF COPYRIGHT ACT.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:02:23 +0000

328,
If you think he has a statutory exemption, he is not a school and he is broadcasting over the internet. No dice.
Clearly he took more than a de minimis amount of the song clips to use, and unless he wrote and owns the copyright, he is infringing. If you are assuming he has fair use, it is not so cut and dry. Transformative? No. New purpose or message? No. Parody? no. Profit motive? Likely. Effect on potential market? High, since people license out their songs for clips all the time. An ASCAP or BMI license doesn’t save him since this is not a public restaurant or venue that falls under it.
Simply put, he is taking music for use in promoting his for profit (or even non-profit, it probably doesn’t matter) video without giving credit or getting permission.
Someone should report his ass to ASCAP or BMI. This is a knowing and willful violation of copyright law, and could get statutory damages at the least (assuming these are registered copyrights).

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:50:17 +0000

@ 326 and 327
He doesn’t need them.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:46:25 +0000

As to that video…do you think he bothered to get authorization from the copyright holders of the music he uses?

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:45:44 +0000

As to that video…do you think he bothered to get authorization from the copyright holders of the music he uses? Would love to see how he defends that.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:42:48 +0000

175, you’re an idiot.
Even if a black person got into Yale, that wouldn’t be enough for you. You’d say, well, his 173 really only qualifies him to go to Columbia. Get it? Jackass.
And people have various reasons for picking a school. I have a friend who turned down Yale to go to a school in the South to be close to a sick parent, and others who turned down Harvard for NYU/Columbia and cash.
Don’t ASSume he didn’t get into Yale, you dipshit.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:19:10 +0000

What a dull and self-indulgent documentary. Did the people in the video sign releases?

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:07:56 +0000

I’d like to point out the amazing background choice in the first scene of the documentary. In order to establish his prestige, Mr. Chuck is sitting in front of a bookshelf filled with law books, just like the asbestos lawyer on late night tv ads.
But Mr. Chuck doesnt have many law books; all his textbooks fit on the top shelf. So he’s filled the second shelf with commercial outlines!
It’s the little details that make all the difference. The difference between “i don’t take you seriously” and “you are the human equivalent of a Weird Al song, a parody of the rationality that supposedly separates man from beast.”

By: guest

guest — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:00:00 +0000

oh boy
just watched the YouTube videos
(yes I am really bored at work today)
now everything Mr. Chuck has said and done makes perfect sense
note to Mayer Brown: RRRRRRUUUUNNNNNNN
this guy is CRAY -ZEE