YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship 488
jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
This all seemed unlikely to me, and reading the original letter:
1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation
2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.
DMCA confusion (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.
One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.
The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:
Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content.
C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
A and B go to court.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CNN is simply being responsible (Score:4, Informative)
Bill Maher is a political satirist. Assuming that anything he says is factually precise is going to get you into a world of trouble.
Besides, for public political figures, the standards for proving libel/slander are very high. They would have to prove that CNN knew that the statement was not true and that it was published in a deliberate attempt to malign them. Short of deliberate lies by the media organization itself (not by an interviewee), there is very little harm that this material could do to CNN if re-aired.
Re:Actually...This is more than a takedown issue (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Im shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
The republicans do. They want to limit what rights you have if you are gay. These rights include serving in the military, teaching, joining civic organizations and marriage amongst others.
Re:I'm confused (again). (Score:4, Informative)
YouTube isn't being spineless. They're doing exactly what the law requires. No more, no less. Takedowns are legally defined in the "safe harbor" portion of DMCA and they work like this:
The safe harbor law defines a way for service providers to escape liability from either the copyright owner or the poster of the material. If the takedown notice is invalid (the person/company giving notice is not the copyright holder, the work is obviously licensed, etc.), then the content poster has the right to sue under DMCA.
To summarize, if the person who had the content on YouTube thinks it's fair use, he can easily compel YouTube to restore it. He'd probably be sued by Time Warner shortly after, however.
IANAL.
Re:It's not about being gay (Score:1, Informative)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Informative)
From chapter 4:
"Winston dialled 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite a paragraph of Big Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened."
http://www.readprint.com/chapter-7603/George-Orwe
Re:DMCA confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?
Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
* The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.[512(f)]
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
Some of us still remember that Rudy was a complete douchebag who was going out in a wave of scandal before a couple of airplanes distracted the media. Elephant dung, anyone? Mistress in the mansion?
Giuliani handled 9/11 well, but he's still an ass.
Did you read the partent post? (Score:3, Informative)
He went on to say that IF a republican voted for money reasons they were either rich (because this group of Republicans has mostly helped the rich) OR they were stupid.
This was not a slam against Republicans who really believe in their base values.
Re:You're making assumptions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WTF (Score:1, Informative)