McCain Campaign Sends Letter To YouTube Defending Fair Use
from the what-the...? dept
This is impressive, and somewhat unexpected. It's rather rare to see politicians (other than maginal ones, at least) showing any sort of recognition of fair use. It's certainly not an issue you'd expect to see raised by a presidential candidate (of either party). However, John McCain's campaign has sent a letter to YouTube complaining about the site's unwillingness to consider fair use in videos before taking them down. You can read the whole letter at that link or below (if you're not reading via a feed):The letter basically notes that YouTube seems a bit too fast on the trigger in pulling down content based on DMCA takedown notices, in part parroting the some of the recent ruling where a judge said that those sending DMCA notices need to at least take fair use into consideration. Of course, that was directed at the sender of the DMCA takedown notice, not the recipient, as in this case. I'm sure the McCain campaign recognizes that YouTube is completely within its legal rights to automatically pull down the content, but in sending this letter the campaign is suggesting that, specific to videos put up by either political campaign (the letter cc's the Obama campaign), that YouTube take into account fair use.
The letter is addressed to YouTube's founder, Chad Hurley, as well as Google's Senior Copyright Counsel, William Patry (who we've talked about and quoted here many times) and Zahavah Levine, who is General Counsel for YouTube, who I've met and spoken with in the past. Both Patry and Levine are well aware of the legal issues here (probably better than just about anyone else), so it will be quite interesting to see how they respond. The real issue here has almost nothing to do with Google/YouTube -- but with the way the DMCA itself is structured. Since it provides clear safe harbor for a recipient of a takedown notice if they take down the content, it's a reasonable business decision to simply take down the content and then follow the proper procedures for letting the uploader file a response notice.
While it certainly would be nice for YouTube to take into account fair use before deciding whether or not to pull down the content, the real problem is with the law itself, and the incentives it puts in place for any recipient of such a letter. If the McCain (or Obama) campaign were really concerned with that, they should not just ask for this special exception to YouTube's official policies, but should promise to push for a change to the DMCA that makes an explicit point that recipients of such takedown notices shall retain their safe harbor protections even if they refuse to take down content, if they have a reasonable belief that the content in question is being used in accordance with fair use rules.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: campaign, copyright, dmca, fair use, john mccain, takedowns, videos, william patry, zahavah levine
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pendulum Swings
You hit the heart of the matter in the last paragraph. Grousing about underapplication of fair use does little. The push needs to be to get laws changed so that a reasonable expectation that something falls under fair use laws permits keeping the item. Or, as a minimum, the complainant needs to be specific with respect to the manner in which a particular item violates copyright law. While I prefer the former, I know evaluating fair use costs money, and the burden should be placed on the complainant to show that a particular usage falls outside fair use.
Unfortunately, the businesses that use copyright as a weapon are far better organized than individual users. Until someone mobilizes the assortment of individualists who believe copyright has been overapplied, the abuses will continue.
Of course, if someone was to serve as the champion for fair use, and there were some attorneys interested in pro bono work, the right case could call all the way to the Supremes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laws get in the way
The solution: Write better laws or STFU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mccain mcfailing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quick Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stunt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fine and Dandy
I very much doubt this, but maybe this will bring some attention to the issues we have with DMCA. However, I suspect this will be attributed to a liberal media squashing political free speech. (Not saying that is the case)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Quick Question
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105& amp;session=2&vote=00137
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the DCMA only protects them if they are not taking advantage of said videos.
i think the fair use battle will have to wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can't "break" a Maverick!
VOTE McCain 2008 – NOW OFFICIALLY ENDORSED BY TECHDIRT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are PDFs too good for TechDirt? Or is there some reason why you don't want people with non-Flash-enabled browsers (such as smart phones) to read this stuff?
Not only that but this document is embedded in such a way that you can't "fullscreen" ... instead you have to reduce it to an almost unreadable, nastilly pixellated size.
Please don't use this iPaper crap again for your documents. PDF viewers are based on an open standard and available for far more platforms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You can't "break" a Maverick!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1 Vote for iPaper
Why make the experience better for a small percentage of phone users and hurt the 90+ percent of us "classic" readers.
No offense Bill, just representin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another against
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You can't "break" a Maverick!
Regardless, let's hope that J-Mac remembers this when he's back in the Senate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What is so hurtin' about PDF? I'm complaining about this because the experience SUX even on my 22" monitor and quad-core processor.
I'll go into some more detail about why iPaper sucks:
Every time I see an iPaper used I groan because I know it's going to be a very frustrating experience. Yeah it's neat to see the page inline like a graphic... but in every other aspect it's a usability nightmare.
In fact you could pretty much get the benefit of iPaper by taking a screen shot of the page and linking that to the PDF.
It's not a Flash issue... Flash is great in certain circumstances. Just not not this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Laws get in the way
The solution: Write better laws or STFU.
I prefer to not prescribe to such a hopeless mentality. If the law is messed up, then the law should be changed, and the only thing that should get in the way is policy arguments from the other side, not a dogmatic "life sucks; deal with it" attitude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bummer
Not only that, but why is this YouTube's job? If the McCain campaign doesn't like it, why aren't they going after the companies who filed the invalid takedown notices? Making YouTube liable for screening DMCA notices is just as bad as making them liable for screening for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Laws get in the way
I agree absolutely. I see combinations of apathy and martyrdom, and neither is appropriate. If you are apathetic, why are you here anyway? Rather than be a martyr, why not be a champion and galvanize the masses to revolt?
Incredibly enough, we still live in a democracy, and with enough support laws can be changed. Now, if you can get enough people away from their computers and televisions to sign petitions...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, i think you meant "subscribe" not presecribe???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ipaper
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bummer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ipaper
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a defense of fair use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not a defense of fair use
That might be walking a fine line to get around things, but I dont see why that couldnt work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Generally, I would side wit YouTube. Why should they open themselves up to a lawsuit in order to placate McCain? Is McCain going to pay their expenses in a suit? I bet not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]