CNN Follows Fox News In Using DMCA To Take Down Fair Use Videos

from the thin-skinned-much? dept

Mon, Apr 20th 2009 8:55am — Mike Masnick

What is it with cable news channels for being thinskinned the second some bloggers start posting criticism? Earlier this year, Fox News used the DMCA to take down videos that were being used in commentary, and then sought to force the site to waive its fair use rights for future video usage. So, that give liberals a chance to laugh at "conservative" Fox news... but don't laugh too hard, because now there's the flipside. The "liberal" CNN has filed a DMCA notice to have video taken down that was being used by a conservative blog for commentary purposes -- again, almost certainly fair use. Also, it sounds like some of the video footage that CNN demanded be taken down wasn't even filmed by CNN, suggesting they don't hold the copyright on it. Either way, it's quite silly for either news station to file such a notice. In both cases it was clear that the sites in question weren't trying to use the video to "compete" unfairly, but to offer criticism and commentary. The fact that both news channels went the DMCA takedown route, makes it clear that they were simply trying to shut up critics. And, of course, in both cases, it backfired, bringing more attention to the stories (and just how thinskinned) cable news networks appear to be... no matter where they might sit on the political spectrum.

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: dmca, fair use, news channels, takedowns
Companies: cnn, fox

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

OKVol, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:21am

To each, their own.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

That's why I downloaded this comment with uTorrent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JohnFen, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:22am

Not so much liberal
CNN is not exactly a "liberal" news channel, it's just not a hardline conservative one like Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: Not so much liberal
  I think every one of my conservative friends believes CNN is a liberal news channel. You many not think it's liberal, but enough people do to warrant the scare quotes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re: Not so much liberal
    Funny how "liberal" think CNN is mainstream and "conservatives" think the same about Fox. I suppose it is because no one think THEY are extreme but the other guy is....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not so much liberal
      I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I I believe that CNN has a strong liberal bias.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulser, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:27am

Worse
You know, I get irritated when I hear stories about the RIAA and the MPAA's shenanigans, but the erosion of fair use rights is really what gets me upset. I think that because it affects us more directly, we -- I include myself in this -- tend to respond more to news stories about DRM in music, movies, and games. But this kind of abuse of the DMCA actually has more potential to harm our society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:36am

For the tenth time, I don't think either Fox or CNN are trying to contain criticism, I think they're getting uppity about someone using their content, same as the RIAA. Not justifying it in either case, it's just if you're going to blame them, I would blame them for a different thing.

And yeah, CNN, like most media, is pretty liberal (90%, literally, of journalists are registered democrats). They're not as bad as MSNBC, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser, 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  For the tenth time, I don't think either Fox or CNN are trying to contain criticism, I think they're getting uppity about someone using their content, same as the RIAA.
  
  So, you honestly believe that CNN feels that including a one minute twenty second video of CNN footage in the context of political commentary is not fair use? Because this is the only way that your statement makes any sense. For this to be true, CNN would have to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what fair use is. I'm not sure what's worse, that you (based on your statement) think that CNN is dangerously ignorant of what fair use is or what Mike thinks, that CNN knows what fair use is, but chooses to ignore it and abuse the DMCA. Niether looks good for CNN.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Show me someone who does have a fundamental understanding of what fair is and I'll show you someone who has never taken a copyrights class. It's a ridiculously complex legal analysis and until a court rules one way or the other, you just can't say whether a given use is a fair use or not. I'm not agreeing with the networks here, I just feel that most people think fair use is more clear than it is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Show me someone who does have a fundamental understanding of what fair is and I'll show you someone who has never taken a copyrights class. It's a ridiculously complex legal analysis and until a court rules one way or the other...
      Amen to that. It's almost as if it was designed to keep lawyers in billable hours...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Norm, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Amen to that. It's almost as if it was designed to keep lawyers in billable hours...
        
        So True ... from the Copyright.gov link below:
        The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. (My emphasis)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hulser, 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's a ridiculously complex legal analysis and until a court rules one way or the other, you just can't say whether a given use is a fair use or not.
      
      I disagree. Sure, in order to be familiar with all of the ramifications of fair use and its application, you have to be an expert. But the principles of fair use are rather straight-forward. If this were not the case, then the utility of fair use would be be all but zero. In other words, if what you are saying is right about a "ridiculously complex legal analysis", nobody would take the chance and excersize their fair use rights. You're either right and there's really no such thing as fair use or you're wrong and it's being abused.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - R. Miles, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Aw, come on now! Even this should help everyone out:
      "The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."
      
      From the U.S. Copyright website.
      *confused*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hulser, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Link to source? Not saying it isn't true, but I find it odd that in explaining fair use, the government would use language like "taken without permission". The sense I get from that is akin to saying "You'd better watch out if you think you can steal the livelyhood of our fine, upstanding content owners without fear of righeous justice!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        R. Miles, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Link from www.copyright.gov website.
        
        Yep, it's all there in splendid, easy-to-understand verbiage.
        :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        R. Miles, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        CRAP!
        Sorry, not getting the link correct. Let's try this again:
        http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
        
        *hopes it turns into link*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hulser, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
        
        Thanks. But still...sounds like it was written by someone who views copyright as a form of complete ownership rather than a temporary privilege given at the expense of the public. How can you "take" something that isn't owned?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Enrico Suarve, 21 Apr 2009 @ 12:51am
  
  Re:
  Democrat = Liberal??
  
  You're funny ;0)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2009 @ 5:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Democrat=Regular Conservative
    Republican=Bat-Shit-Crazy Conservative
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Joe, 20 Apr 2009 @ 9:44am

Question
Isn't it illegal to post a false DMCA takedown? Or does it not apply with Fair Use?

This is a serious question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Washii, 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: Question
  Sure. But you still have to go through the legal motions. Although a lot of sites have the counterclaim templates online, it sometimes seems like nobody exercises their rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mechwarrior, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: Question
  Its only illegal if the its proven illegal. What this means is that the counter-party has to show proof that the DMCA notice was infringing on fair use.
  
  This is fairly impossible because the counter-parties are usually individuals. The DMCA offenders often have lawyers just to squash counter-notices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:27am

video site
someone needs to make a video site that is 100% fielded with lawyers, put up a bunch of fair use clips, and start making moeny off the DMCA abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lance Drager, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:46am

"Liberal" CNN
CNN is not now, and never has been, liberal. Glenn Beck? Lew Dobbs? Come on.

I haven't near the space to justify this statement here,
but for further analysis start with www.mediamatters.com and www.dailyhowler.com.

Granted, CNN is not as crazy as Fox "News." I suppose that's some peoples' definition of "liberal".

What this country desperately needs are news sources that deal with actual news, not fictional narratives designed to emotionally sway the voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 20 Apr 2009 @ 11:52am

I find myself not only not watching these poor excuses for 'news channels' now, but actually wishing they would go away completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comboman, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:10pm

Daily Show? Colbert Report?
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report use (and ridicule) clips from FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc everyday. I can't imagine they are getting permission to use these clips (as they are often shown in a very negative way) so why aren't they being sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: Daily Show? Colbert Report?
  because they aren't online.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2009 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Daily Show? Colbert Report?
  M-O-N-E-Y
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:30pm

Fair use and parody
I think The Daily Show is clearly parody, which has a pretty wide fair use berth. Stanford U library has a pretty good online resource for copyright and fair use, easier to read than the government's site. From my interpretation, these DCMA takedowns are total crap when they are being parodied or used to make commentary about their content.

The Stanford site:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:48pm

I wouldn't call CNN liberal. Childish fits much better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 12:54pm

Democracy Now! is liberal, CNN is just an Adjaculator posing as news service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 20 Apr 2009 @ 3:04pm

What happened to reporting...
It is no wonder CNN wants this clip down. This is a total embarrassment to their organization and the reporter on the scene. What happened to just reporting the news? Was her job really to go there and argue with the protestors? Are you kidding me? Whether you agree or not with the protest, just report the facts and move on. It isn't CNN's job to give their opinion on something like this - especially a field piece. Good grief!

I get so sick of both CNN and Fox. Neither one of them are capable of reporting the facts in non-biased manor. Just give me the news, report the story as accurately as possible and then go to town with your opinion segments, but let me have the news straight.

Frankly, if I was in charge at CNN I would want that piece down as well (not justifying the DMCA use which is wrong), but man is that bad!

Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2009 @ 10:13pm

Let's review in the context of Fair Use
It used to be that if you only used 30 seconds of copyrighted video or audio, no royalties had to be paid or licenses sought.

Why not re-evaluate the takedowns and determine if they truly fall within Fair Use or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irv, 21 Apr 2009 @ 8:22am

abuse of DMCA
It's interesting that the scumb - uh, people who wrote DMCA included provisions for counter-notices and fines for exactly the kind of frivolous take downs that are described in this article.

Repeat: Sending take down notices in cases of clear fair use can result in serious penalties. But it never works out that way because Fox News and CNN can spend a lot more money on unscrupulous lawyers than the rest of us can (I say unscrupulous because, if they had any actual ethics, they would not send abusive notices).

In other words, they knew DMCA would be abused just like this but made it the law anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]