Pick A Side: Video Of Creepy Girls Singing To Donald Trump Taken Down Over Copyright On WWI Song
from the yuge dept
I really hate stories where there is no one to root for. Unfortunately, this is one of those stories. C'est la vie. If you were ambulatory enough to get to your computer these past few weeks, you likely came across a video from a Donald Trump rally, in which a group of five young girls, only three of which are seen in the video, called the USA Freedom Kids hip-bobbed a serenade to the Trumpster about how awesome America is. It was horrible. It was jingoistic and patronizing with just a dash of discomfort as these young girls were dressed in pleated red, white and blue skirts and tops. So that you don't think I'm exaggerating the level of horror here, see the video of the whole thing below, if you can stomach it.
That video is from the YouTube account for The USA Freedom Kids. I embedded their video instead of this one that was uploaded by a Phoenix, Arizona Fox affiliate, because, well...
Yeah, it was taken down by EMI. But why, you ask? While many of us would thank anyone or anything that could tear the existence of this horror show away from wherever unsuspecting innocents might happen across it, what stake does EMI Music have in this song sung by The USA Freedom Kids?
It’s possible that YouTube’s auto-removal bots finally caught some infringement (real or perceived) on the song, though if that’s the case, it’s odd it took them so long.Given the autobots haven't gobbled up other versions of the recording, it appears most likely that EMI specifically targeted the one shared by Fox. Now, look, what the hell am I supposed to do here? I don't want that video to exist, but I also don't like EMI being able to disappear content of any kind in favor of protecting their rights to a song that was created before my grandfather graced Earth. It's like trying to decide whether to back Stalin or Pol Pot in a fistfight: I'm just wishing there was a way where everyone could lose.
The more likely case, though, is that someone realized that “Over There,” the World War I song that Freedom’s Call’s tune is taken from, is still copyrighted. And that the copyright belongs to Sony/ATV Music Publishing, EMI Music Publishing’s parent company. Fox 10 Phoenix didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, nor has EMI.
There are so many reasons why it's ridiculous that EMI could take down this video to begin with: the age of the song, the nature of the use for political speech by these girls, the fact that a news organization did the sharing in its capacity on reporting the news, etc. But this is what you get when you mix silly politics with insanely over-reaching copyright law, I suppose.
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: contentid, copyright, dmca, donald trump, takedown, trump girls
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Still happy to see it happen.
Will I be voting for Trump? Yea, no, I refuse to vote for ANY candidate I deem to be morally or socially corrupt.
There is not a singe person right or left running for president that deserves the job!
I will likely vote when one comes along to start ramping up the DA's office to start charging multiple members of house & congress with all sorts of fucking shit!
Until then all of these bastards will either advance the Rights desire for a Tyrannical Police State or the Lefts desire for a Tyrannical Communist state... not sure what the fucking difference is after all has been said and done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still happy to see it happen.
If he's the least corrupt politician, that's only because he's only been a politician since he started running for President. He has, for example, used eminent domain to get local government to force homeowners to sell so he could build stuff. But he wasn't a "politician" at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still happy to see it happen.
Trump probably offshores and tax-dodges as much as he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still happy to see it happen.
Don't know about the first, but doesn't EVERYONE do the second? I know *I* tell my tax attorney, "If it's legal, take the avoidance AKA tax dodge. (One, two, and your idea, three.) If you can tell me how to somehow adjust things to make it legal (especially on a going forward basis*), do it. If you think that it's a valid tax, pay it. If you think it does NOT properly apply to us/me and can correctly support your position to the IRS then do NOT pay it. No smelly stuff and everything's all above board, but twist and turn as appropriate."
If it's legal, avoid incurring, reduce, or even paying the tax. If Congress changes the law and you (the tax guy) can change to match, great. If not, fine; better luck next time. Sorry, but doesn't EVERYONE EVERYWHERE do that? Or am I just actually smarter than you guys?
I pay my fair share of taxes, but if it's legal then I reduce my tax load. If Warren Buffett wants to pay higher taxes, he can effectively pay them RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY SECOND directly to the US Treasury.
What?? I shouldn't have a tax attorney? Then the tax laws shouldn't be so f'in damn insane in the first place. Let's do everybody to a only-income with a no-exemptions escalation tax rate, at least that's understandable. BTW: "When they started in the 1860s, the max rate was 10%. Only 10% of households paid income tax," so 90% of them LEGALLY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY according to WP. The "Freeloaders" vs the "One Percenters" of the 1900s.
------
* - as opposed to a going backward basis, I presume. Doctor Who must use that doing his taxes. Or being a foreigner and infrequent visitor to the UK, does HE not pay his own fair share of taxes? And what is the fair share for an alien? Or is UNIT too cheap to pay him in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Still happy to see it happen.
People that say this stuff make it clear that they are drinking someones cool-aid. Will any of us ever find the perfect candidate? No we won't but we should never ever think that our guy is not corrupt in some fashion either.
Yea, trump is no cream puff, but bernie sanders is still pedaling the same old bait and switch of the left which is... Hello Americans, you are pissed off at the rich... vote for me so that I can tax them more giving the government MORE money but NOT YOU. I will still also build in tax loop holes into my laws so that the the ones I close for political appearances will be offset. You will love me for my backstabbing and you will love me for my tolerance. I made it clear that I had no spine when I apologized for saying "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter".
Sorry folks, Bernie is still a politician that is beholden to his party. The only reason I possibly have any consideration for Trump is the fact that he thumbs his nose at everyone and refuses to apologize.
I would like Trump more if he ran as independent, but lets be honest he is playing political games just like everyone else and I still see people buying the SAME FUCKING SHIT!
I see no fundamental change even if Trump gets into office, hope I am wrong, but nothing will change until "The People" change and understand what it means to be a member of "We The People" and supporting a constitution that is "For The People & By The People".
This nation is still doomed until the party system has been thoroughly broken and exposed for the curses it sets upon the people. Political Parties are nothing more than a mechanism to lock down candidates that the people have voted into office, keeping them under yoke that they can not do as they please the way those like Ted Cruz has done.
The fact that the Party hate Donal and Ted are certain signs that these guys are the least corrupt in the field at this time... and that is saying something for a thoroughly corrupt party like the Republicans. Hillary and Bernie are still loved by their crowds and this is a terrible terrible thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still happy to see it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Still happy to see it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Still happy to see it happen.
You make no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still happy to see it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still happy to see it happen.
Lefts desire for a Tyrannical Communist state
leads to this:
desire for a Tyrannical Police State.
You cannot have the first without the later. Also, the Left desires a police state just as much as the right. Obama has certainly enjoyed using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nineteen-seventeen
“Over There” sheet music:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nineteen-seventeen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nineteen-seventeen
The sheet music itself clearly states "Copyright MCMXVII".
I think Ball State is trying to claim copyright over their "digitization" of the sheet music. Which is ridiculous, really. There is no creative component in simply scanning sheet music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could it be copyrighted?
Someone please explain this to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How could it be copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How could it be copyrighted?
Also, I would like to see them enforce a claim against the original recording (1917/1918) by Nora Bayes who did in the mid 20's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How could it be copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How could it be copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How could it be copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kids, creepy videos and politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kids, creepy videos and politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kids, creepy videos and politicians
Do try to keep up little one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't hard
Given that the video was already made, the mere fact that it is up on a site is not a problem. Censoring it, however, is a HUGE problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't hard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sides are for losers
Not liking a video is a stupid reason to think it shouldn't exist. Don't pick a side; support uncensored speech for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frightening ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frightening ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pain stops when you stop hitting your head against the wall
Obviously then I was not.
Thanks Techdirt for brining this to my attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy, support the Trump video. The concept of freedom of speech is not not valid if it supports all speech, not just the palatable stuff. The only way you know that your speech is truly protected is if the speech that you find odious or offensive is also protected. If somethings being censored, so could you be, so object to it even if you agree that instance should be hidden from view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over There
(YouTube also has a video set to music from a 1917 recorded performance by Arthur Fields. Additionally, there appear to be other YouTube videos available via simple search.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Autobots vs. Decepticons...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Autobots vs. Decepticons...
I was wondering if someone would catch this. :)
So, yes, this smacks of Megatron's gang's dirty work. Let's leave Optimus Prime out of it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow! OK.
That was just brutal. Wars have been fought to keep kids like that from ever achieving anything, and to keep that rino Trump, and the rest of the inbred swine (cc 300 (2006)) from ever becoming President.
I wonder if those eyes glow in the dark... damn. Misschevess wee'uns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow! OK.
They'll get a scholarship to Liberty University. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you are a censorious hypocrite.
All you're saying here is that the YouTube copyright bots took the video down for what you consider the "wrong" reasons, when, if you had your say, that video would be removed everywhere just because you think it shouldn't exist.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USA
What, no giant Uncle Sam on stilts? For shame, Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]