John McCain, Forgetting His Own Support Of Fair Use On YouTube, Tries To Use Copyright To Take Down His Own Ad
from the hypocrite dept
You may recall that, back during the 2008 Presidential election, the Presidential campaign of John McCain sent YouTube a letter, complaining that the video site did not take fair use into account when deciding to pull down videos after receiving copyright complaints. Apparently, some people had been issuing copyright claims on videos related to his campaign that he believed were fair use, and he was quite upset about it. In particular, McCain was upset about videos his campaign had uploaded that included news clips that were taken down. He insisted this was not just fair use, but that YouTube was an important platform for political speech, and should be much more careful before pulling down political videos. If you can't read that, here are just a few choice quotes from the letter:YouTube is to be congratulated on the groundbreaking contributions it has made to the political discourse....From there, the McCain campaign went on to propose that political campaigns get special treatment, and that any videos associated with a political campaign get a more thorough human legal review prior to a takedown. If this sounds familiar, it's the same idea we actually heard proposed by the Copyright Office at their recent hearings. That suggestion of carving out political speech for special rights is a very bad idea, but McCain wasn't wrong to note the problem of copyright being used to censor political speech.
... overreaching copyright claims have resulted in the removal of non-infringing campaign videos from YouTube, thus silencing political speech.....
... It is unfortunate because it deprives the public of the ability to freely and easily view and discuss the most popular political videos of the day....
We recognize that the DMCA provides a counternotice procedure (of which we have availed ourselves several times), but this procedure, and the way YouTube has implemented it, provides inadequate protection for political speech, particularly in the context of a fast-paced political campaign.....
You know where this is heading, right? It appears that McCain's current campaign (for Senate re-election in Arizona) has... issued a copyright takedown on a video posted by Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who is challenging him for his Senate seat. Kirkpatrick apparently uploaded a McCain campaign ad from his 2010 Senate campaign about completing "the danged wall" on the border with Mexico, and uploaded a version with Spanish subtitles. Here's the original ad:
The ad in question was not blocked because of its content, according to Lorna Romero, a McCain campaign spokeswoman.Again, there's a strong argument that this is fair use. It's certainly not undermining the market for 2010 McCain campaign spots. And, of course, it's not like McCain created the commercial because of the copyright. The whole thing is obviously done to censor a political rival because the message is embarrassing in the context Kirkpatrick raised it in.
"The Kirkpatrick campaign launched a digital ad which was a clear copyright violation and YouTube agreed," Romero said.
It seems like the McCain campaign of today, might want to refresh what the McCain campaign of 2008 had to say:
While the issues presented by YouTube and other Internet technologies are new, the need to prevent meritless copyright claims from chilling political speech is decidedly not. Thirty years ago, a federal judge confronting a copyright claim over the use of music in a political advertisement correctly recognized the importance of preventing copyright from interfering with political candidates' free and full exercise of their First Amendment right to vigorously debate the issues of the day:And, yes, they are as true today as well. If only the McCain campaign were familiar with what the McCain campaign wrote, because right now, it appears to be doing the exact opposite, in trying to use copyright to censor political debate.In the context of this case, the Court must be aware that it operates in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... [T]here is practically universal agreement that the major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, including discussions of candidates. This is a reflection of our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, because the identities of those who are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation.[....] Though the judge who wrote those words had never used YouTube, the values he articulated are as true today as they were when he wrote them three decades ago.
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: ann kirkpatrick, copyright, debate, fair use, free expression, john mccain, political speech, politics, takedowns, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoping for a reminder from Rep Kirkpatrick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Two Faced Hypocrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crystal clear
See he wasn't defending fair use the first time around, he was defending his campaign and was using fair use as the tool to do so. Same thing this time around, because the other side is the one claiming fair use he's got no problem throwing it under the bus because the point isn't fair use, it's defending his campaign.
In neither case does he actually care one bit about fair use, he only cares about his campaign, so his actions aren't hypocritical they're consistent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCain is a hypocrite and an ass
Hopefully Ann Kirkpatrick (not a shining star in anyone's book but not a hypocrite swift-boat lackey like McCain) will remove this blight from my home state.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This story just makes him look like a bigger ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians! Hypocrates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USE ALL IN MY ONLY ACCOUNT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]