Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
actually if you read the filing it perfect for the first ammendment /fair use arguements made here
from the fact - that the music is contextually relevent to the story (i kissed the girl)
- they only use it in that context and avoid using the music in the preview promo clips
- use only title only promotion of the music (ala lenz vs universal)
- and that the industry refuses to licience it to hard core (censorship vs income protection)
it almost a perfect fit. |
I was referring to the part of the complaint wherein the plaintiff asserts that RK claims on its websites (in its terms and conditions) to own the rights to ALL the material displayed on their websites, including music and the soundtrack to the videos therein. (See the bottom of page 14 and top of page 15 of the complaint)
One thing on which I should hope we can agree here; the
factual question of who holds the copyright to the songs in question is not subject to First Amendment arguments.
Once the plaintiff presents evidence in support of its allegation that the defense falsely represented its rights to the content at issue, I think that
could impact whether the case ever even reaches the Constitutional and fair use questions at all.
My point is that the court may find grounds for deciding the case on "technical" points before reaching the more nuanced Constitutional ones. I'm not saying it
will play out that way, just that it
could. Many, many cases, both civil and criminal, that involve substantial questions of Constitutionality never reach those issues at all, and are decided on points that are relatively simple "black letter law" by comparison.
(Don't take my word for it, ask any 'con law' expert or academic, and they will tell you the same thing)
I suspect this case will settle before the court considers any of these points, anyway... but it is still an interesting set of questions we're talking about here.