KillSwitch_J
2008-10-15, 13:32
by Chloe Albanesius
Should campaign videos added to YouTube get priority when it comes to Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices?
The McCain-Palin campaign on Monday sent a letter to YouTube requesting that it give a "full legal review" to all DMCA takedown notices aimed at videos from political candidates and campaigns.
"We believe it would consume few resources – and provide enormous benefit – for YouTube to commit to a full legal review of all takedown notices on videos posted from accounts controlled by (at least) political candidates and campaigns," Trevor Potter, general counsel for the McCain campaign, wrote in a letter to YouTube CEO Chad Hurley and the company's legal team.
If someone spots a video on a site like YouTube that they believe to contain copyrighted material, they can file a DMCA takedown notice with YouTube. YouTube will remove the video and notify the person who posted it. If the owner believes they are within their rights to post the material, they can file a counter notification and YouTube will investigate. If the video is found to contain no offending material, YouTube must re-post the video within 10 to 14 days.
In August, a California judge ruled that content owners must consider 'fair use' before sending DMCA takedown notices. At issue was a video Stephanie Lenz posted to YouTube that featured her young children dancing in the family's kitchen to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Universal Music, which owns the rights to the Prince song, contacted YouTube and demanded that it remove the video for copyright violations. Lenz sued and said it constituted fair use - and won.
The McCain campaign contends that many of its campaign videos have been pulled from YouTube because they include footage from news broadcasts. Potter argued that this also constitutes fair use because the footage is non-commercial, factual, and extremely brief.
Immediately pulling videos targeted by copyright holders "is wholly unnecessary from a legal standpoint," Potter wrote. "It deprives the public of the ability to freely and easily view and discuss the most popular videos of the day."
"Nothing in the DMCA requires a host like YouTube to comply automatonically [sic] with takedown notices, while blinding itself to their legal merit," Potter wrote.
While the DMCA requires video hosts to re-post non-offending videos within two weeks, the law does not give a specific timeframe for pulling content after receiving a takedown notice. The law does, however, note that if the "service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability [and] protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material."
Potter contends that "there is no need for a safe harbor where, as here, there is no infringement in the first instance."
With the presidential election three weeks away, "ten days can be a lifetime in a political campaign, and there is no justification for depriving the American people of access to important and timely campaign videos during that period," Potter wrote.
The campaign asked the YouTube conduct a "careful legal review" of any takedown notices it receives regarding campaign material. "If YouTube is satisfied that the use at issue is fair, or otherwise non-infringing, we propose that it decline to act upon the notice."
Protecting free speech should be "worth the small amount of additional legal work our proposal would require," Potter suggested.
Potter did not mention whether he wanted YouTube to extend this courtesy indefinitely or only until Election Day.
YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said it was "heartening" to see the McCain campaign addressing the importance of fair use, but said the request "addresses only the tip of the iceberg."
"It assumes that YouTube should prioritize the campaigns' fair use rights, rather than those of the rest of us," Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with EFF, wrote in a blog post. "That seems precisely backwards, since the most exciting new possibilities on YouTube are for amateur political expression by the voters themselves. After all, the campaigns have no trouble getting the same ads out on television and radio, options not available to most YouTubers."
The campaign should hold its fire for the major news media outlets that are issuing these takedown notices, not YouTube, von Lohmann suggested. "The networks need to back off and give fair use a wide berth," he wrote.
Washington-based interest group Public Knowledge said it was "ironic that the McCain/Palin campaign sent its letter to YouTube complaining about that company's take-down procedures on the same day that President Bush signed the Pro-IP Act, which is yet another bill written by the big media companies that adds yet more imbalance to our copyright laws."
Potter copied the Obama campaign on his letter to YouTube.
Source:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332528,00.asp
This would appear to be yet another opening RIAA and other agencies like it to gain even more power over what can and can not be posted on the net.
Is this yet another attempt by bush to leave some kind of lasting legacy behind as he leaves the white house, or as some of my more conspiratorial minded friends recently pointed out yet another instance of the republicans crawling into bed with the RIAA and BIG Content. To some it would appear to be the latter, but that's just my personal opinion.
Should campaign videos added to YouTube get priority when it comes to Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices?
The McCain-Palin campaign on Monday sent a letter to YouTube requesting that it give a "full legal review" to all DMCA takedown notices aimed at videos from political candidates and campaigns.
"We believe it would consume few resources – and provide enormous benefit – for YouTube to commit to a full legal review of all takedown notices on videos posted from accounts controlled by (at least) political candidates and campaigns," Trevor Potter, general counsel for the McCain campaign, wrote in a letter to YouTube CEO Chad Hurley and the company's legal team.
If someone spots a video on a site like YouTube that they believe to contain copyrighted material, they can file a DMCA takedown notice with YouTube. YouTube will remove the video and notify the person who posted it. If the owner believes they are within their rights to post the material, they can file a counter notification and YouTube will investigate. If the video is found to contain no offending material, YouTube must re-post the video within 10 to 14 days.
In August, a California judge ruled that content owners must consider 'fair use' before sending DMCA takedown notices. At issue was a video Stephanie Lenz posted to YouTube that featured her young children dancing in the family's kitchen to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Universal Music, which owns the rights to the Prince song, contacted YouTube and demanded that it remove the video for copyright violations. Lenz sued and said it constituted fair use - and won.
The McCain campaign contends that many of its campaign videos have been pulled from YouTube because they include footage from news broadcasts. Potter argued that this also constitutes fair use because the footage is non-commercial, factual, and extremely brief.
Immediately pulling videos targeted by copyright holders "is wholly unnecessary from a legal standpoint," Potter wrote. "It deprives the public of the ability to freely and easily view and discuss the most popular videos of the day."
"Nothing in the DMCA requires a host like YouTube to comply automatonically [sic] with takedown notices, while blinding itself to their legal merit," Potter wrote.
While the DMCA requires video hosts to re-post non-offending videos within two weeks, the law does not give a specific timeframe for pulling content after receiving a takedown notice. The law does, however, note that if the "service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability [and] protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material."
Potter contends that "there is no need for a safe harbor where, as here, there is no infringement in the first instance."
With the presidential election three weeks away, "ten days can be a lifetime in a political campaign, and there is no justification for depriving the American people of access to important and timely campaign videos during that period," Potter wrote.
The campaign asked the YouTube conduct a "careful legal review" of any takedown notices it receives regarding campaign material. "If YouTube is satisfied that the use at issue is fair, or otherwise non-infringing, we propose that it decline to act upon the notice."
Protecting free speech should be "worth the small amount of additional legal work our proposal would require," Potter suggested.
Potter did not mention whether he wanted YouTube to extend this courtesy indefinitely or only until Election Day.
YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said it was "heartening" to see the McCain campaign addressing the importance of fair use, but said the request "addresses only the tip of the iceberg."
"It assumes that YouTube should prioritize the campaigns' fair use rights, rather than those of the rest of us," Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with EFF, wrote in a blog post. "That seems precisely backwards, since the most exciting new possibilities on YouTube are for amateur political expression by the voters themselves. After all, the campaigns have no trouble getting the same ads out on television and radio, options not available to most YouTubers."
The campaign should hold its fire for the major news media outlets that are issuing these takedown notices, not YouTube, von Lohmann suggested. "The networks need to back off and give fair use a wide berth," he wrote.
Washington-based interest group Public Knowledge said it was "ironic that the McCain/Palin campaign sent its letter to YouTube complaining about that company's take-down procedures on the same day that President Bush signed the Pro-IP Act, which is yet another bill written by the big media companies that adds yet more imbalance to our copyright laws."
Potter copied the Obama campaign on his letter to YouTube.
Source:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332528,00.asp
This would appear to be yet another opening RIAA and other agencies like it to gain even more power over what can and can not be posted on the net.
Is this yet another attempt by bush to leave some kind of lasting legacy behind as he leaves the white house, or as some of my more conspiratorial minded friends recently pointed out yet another instance of the republicans crawling into bed with the RIAA and BIG Content. To some it would appear to be the latter, but that's just my personal opinion.