There have been discussions here before about Lenz v. Universal, in which Lenz (represented by EFF) argues that her use of a bit of Prince music was self-evident fair use; and that fair use must be considered in determining whether a DMCA takedown notice was given in good faith (good faith being a statutory requirement). Suffice to say that the opinions expressed here varied widely.

Today, the judge denied Universal's motion to dismiss. I've put up the ruling at http://jstyre.com/misc/Lenz.pdf A relevant excerpt, from pp 5-6:


A. Fair Use and 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
When interpreting a statute, a court must begin “with the language of the statute and ask whether Congress has spoken on the subject before [it].” Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass’n, 499 U.S. 117, 128 (1991). If “Congress has made its intent clear, [the court] must give effect to that intent.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 336 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the Court concludes that the plain meaning of “authorized by law” is unambiguous. An activity or behavior “authorized by law” is one permitted by law or not contrary to law. Though Congress did not expressly mention the fair use doctrine in the DMCA, the Copyright Act provides explicitly that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. Even if Universal is correct that
fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright.4 Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA. Such an interpretation of the DMCA furthers both the purposes of the DMCA itself and copyright law in general. In enacting the DMCA, Congress noted that the “provisions in the bill balance the need
for rapid response to potential infringement with the end-users [sic] legitimate interests in not having material removed without recourse.” Sen. Rep. No. 105-190 at 21 (1998).


The ruling means only that Lenz may proceed with her case, not that she has won it or necessarily will win it. Still, a significant ruling on an important issue.

"Even if Universal is correct that
fair use is an excuse for infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright."

That pronouncement is pretty profound when you actually ponder it. I agree about it being "a significant ruling on an important issue"!


Re: ". . . not having material removed without recourse . . ."

That phrase is a sort of triple negative:
"not" - negative #1
"remove" - negative #2, something taken away
"without" - negative #3, not having something

I love lawyer language [not].

i just hope she wins at least 100 million that way it'll give the Riaa pause before they go trouncing over someones fair use rights

"it'll give the Riaa pause before they go trouncing over someones fair use rights "

Then they'll laugh and do it anyway. They're spending the artists' money; price is no object.

that's alright they get successfully sued for 100 million a couple dozen times and i don't think they will have many artists that they can spend money from left or much more money for that matter.