Latest Bogus DMCA Takedown Sent By NPR?

from the you'd-think-they-know-better dept

Mon, Oct 26th 2009 2:38pm — Mike Masnick

You wouldn't normally associate NPR with sending bogus DMCA takedowns, but via the EFF we learn that NPR has sent a DMCA takedown to YouTube over a commercial that uses a clip from NPR. The commercial is from a group that opposes same-sex marriage, so there's likely a political angle here. NPR claims that it issued the takedown to "protect NPR's valuable reputation as a trusted and unbiased source of news," but that's not how copyright works. This is quite similar to when CBS tried to stop the McCain campaign from using a snippet of a broadcast in an ad. In both cases it seems that the use is a clear situation of fair use, with the content not being used for commercial reasons (yes, we'd like to believe that politics still isn't commercial) and only a snippet was being used.

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, takedown
Companies: npr

26 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:32pm

Come on now Mike, you know politics is all about who can buy the most representatives, of course its commercial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Reed, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:32pm

Not how it works
I hear a lot of talk here about how the content industries ignore that piracy exists in the solutions they present, but why is it then perfectly acceptable to ignore the reality of the abuses of our court systems and how it's used and repeat the line "it was intended to promote the progress".

Sure it was intended differently, but that's not how it works now, and this is just another fine example of the reality of our entitlement society.

So why not present arguments/solutions that accept that reality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucretious, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:40pm

why would you be surprised? NPR is very left-leaning and along with every in-house attorney working for media outfits chanting the mantra "protect-it-or-lose-it" its not surprising in the least.

true balanced journalism went out the window years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:42pm

Gee, get it right: It's actually called "opposite marriage."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:47pm

And, as usual...
As usual, it is well-timed to ensure that the speech will be squelched until after the election.

DMCA needs to die a horrible death, quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Reed, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:49pm

Re: And, as usual...
And of course, as usual, the Streisand effect kicks in, drawing a lot more attention to the clip than there otherwise would have been.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Known courageous one, 26 Oct 2009 @ 3:55pm

Re: Not how it works
The difference is that promoting progress is the enabler for copyright in the constitution. That is to say, the government is allowed to enact copyright laws for that purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 26 Oct 2009 @ 4:01pm

Re:
damn, I hate to say it, but he's true.

Considering that political people are giving themselves exemption to spam and other things (see net neutrality bill, etc), I can see the slippery slope but I don't know If the current political climate should be dmca exempt for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMenach (profile), 26 Oct 2009 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re: Not how it works
The difference is that promoting progress is the enabler for copyright in the constitution. That is to say, the government is allowed to enact copyright laws for that purpose.

That may have been their intention, but the laws are now being abused in order to hinder that purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2009 @ 4:55pm

Perhaps NPR did not want the perception that they oppose same-sex-marriage to be drawn from the connection to the commercial. Perhaps they simply did not want the clip to be used for that purpose. I seriously doubt there is any commercial consideration here at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 26 Oct 2009 @ 5:16pm

Re:
If that's the case, then they need do nothing. The clip was used in a way that seems entirely legitimate. No implication was made that NPR supported their position.

NPR is clearly in the wrong here. I don't support the message of the commercial at all (and the clip they used was selected to be as shocking as possible), but it seems clearly fair use, in the copyright sense, to me.

Of course, the dirty little secret of NPR is that they aren't as left-wing as everyone (both supporters and opponents) like to think. (They never were, really, but are less so now than ever.) They have been entirely coopted by major corporations over the past several years and are now simply another corporate mouthpiece like the other mainstream news outlets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
centrist, 26 Oct 2009 @ 6:18pm

Re:
"NPR is very left-leaning"

Based upon your claim, I doubt you see the entire spectrum.
I would mostly agree if the word very was removed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2009 @ 6:19pm

Re:
What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kzd, 27 Oct 2009 @ 1:52am

Non Commercial is irrelevant
A use's commercial status is completely irrelevant to copyright infringement. That would imply that I can file share among other things, or show a protected broadcast at a church, school, or any other non commercial setting, which has been repeatedly upheld to be a violation. McCain commercial was used in a paid advertisement which is clearly commercial anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rebrad (profile), 27 Oct 2009 @ 7:58am

Publicly Owned
NPR is paid for with our tax dollars. As far as I'm concerned there should be no restrictions for use of anything NPR broadcasts by an American taxpayer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 27 Oct 2009 @ 8:33am

Re: Non Commercial is irrelevant
A use's commercial status is completely irrelevant to copyright infringement.

In the US it is relevant because it is part of determining fair use under the four factor test:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Oct 2009 @ 9:16am

Re:
NPR engages in fair use activities EVERY DAY, thus it is disappointing to see that either they don't understand the premise of the very rights they exploit, or they do understand and are just engaging in political hoodwinkery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Oct 2009 @ 9:20am

Re:
"""
Perhaps they simply did not want the clip to be used for that purpose.
"""

Well, too damn bad. You don't get to send DMCA take-down notices just because you don't like something, or you don't like its context, or you don't like the way it was used, etc. But too many companies DO send DMCA take-downs for just these reasons, and for most providers it is less hassle to just take "x" down, regardless of the true basis of the claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 27 Oct 2009 @ 9:23am

Re: Publicly Owned
"""
NPR is paid for with our tax dollars.
"""

[CITATION NEEDED]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2009 @ 10:47am

Re: Re:
http://www.google.com/search?q=opposite+marriage
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Recycled Bottle, 27 Oct 2009 @ 12:43pm

Who in their right mind thinks that NPR is not biased and as screwed up as the other news networks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Oct 2009 @ 1:02pm

Re: Publicly Owned
You're 2% right.

About 2% of NPR's budget comes from grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is the entity formed by the Public Broadcasting Act.

98% of NPR's budget comes from donations from the public, corporate sponsors, and the fees NPR charges individual stations to carrying their programs.

At the station level, most of the money comes from donations from the public and a substantial portion comes from businesses, usually local to the broadcast area.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 27 Oct 2009 @ 3:53pm

Non-Commercial Use /= Fair Use
Just because a use is non-commercial does not make that use a "fair use". Whether a use is commercial or not is only one FACTOR of the fair use analysis (there are 4 factors).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2009 @ 5:55pm

Re: Publicly Owned
If it were funded through taxation, as you claim, then would its name be National Taxation Radio?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2009 @ 5:57pm

Re:
You are correct. Those who are politically right leaning consider NPR to be screwed up and see Fox news as being fair and balanced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 25 Nov 2009 @ 10:55pm

ResellerRatings.com bogus DMCA
How do you publicize a bogus DMCA take down when neither the company that field it or the company they filed it against will comment on it? ResellerRatings.com filed a bogus DMCA against complaintsboard.com in order to have a discussion regarding ResellerRatings.com skewing reviews in favor of sites that subsribe to their "service" apparently they had a problem with people using the word extortion when mentioning their policies that bar a response from any merchant that will not pay them a monthly fee.

You can still view the google cached version here.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:BuDQWkmWCssJ:www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/resell erratingscom-c94794.html%3Fsort%3Ddated+complaints+board+resellerratings&cd=1&hl=en&ct=c lnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
[ link to this | view in thread ]