Major label uses DMCA to take down Romney ad of Obama crooning On Youtube - Polidicks

[quote=Ars Techinica] A YouTube video produced by the Romney for President campaign got hit by a takedown request on Monday, highlighting the challenges that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act can pose for free speech. For days, President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have been trading barbs over Romney's role in layoffs initiated by Bain Capital a decade ago. Obama's latest salvo, released over the weekend, was an ad featuring Mitt Romney singing "America the Beautiful" over images of shuttered American factories. The Romney campaign responded in kind, posting an ad that shows Pres. Obama singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" juxtaposed with "headlines about Obama rewarding lobbyists and campaign donors." But as the Huffintgon Post notes, if you try to watch the Romney campaign's ad, you'll be greeted with a message that says "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by BMG_Rights_Management." [B]Neutering fair use[/B] The Romney ad seems like as clear-cut a case of fair use as can be imagined. Obama's singing is a core part of the ad's message, and copyright law explicitly mentions commentary and criticism as justifications for fair use. And it's hard to imagine the ad harming the market for Al Green CDs or iTunes tracks. Yet the "notice and takedown" process established by the DMCA and apparently utilized by BMG in this case doesn't give the Romney campaign much recourse. It can file a counter notice stating that it believes its clip to be fair use, but YouTube is required to wait a minimum of 10 days before putting the video back up. In a campaign where the news cycle is measured in hours, 10 days is an eternity. Theoretically, there are penalties for bad-faith takedown notices, but that provision of the DMCA is almost toothless in practice. In 2010, a federal judge sided with Stephanie Lenz, a mother whose video of her toddler dancing to a Prince song was taken down by Universal Music Group, which controlled the rights to the song. The judge agreed with Lenz that the brief snatches of Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" heard in the background of the video were fair use. But Lenz bore the burden of proof to show that UMG had acted in bad faith, which is extremely difficult to prove. As a consequence, such lawsuits don't do much to deter rightsholders from over-zealous use of takedown powers. [B]History repeating[/B] This is not the first time a bogus takedown request has hit a presidential campaign. In 2008, Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, sent a letter to YouTube complaining that "overreaching copyright claims" were preventing his campaign from posting television clips to its website. The letter described the clips as "paradigmatic examples of fair use." But YouTube chief counsel Zahavah Levine fired back with a letter pointing out that trying to assess fair use on a case-by-case basis at YouTube's scale would be extremely difficult. In many cases, YouTube doesn't even have the information it would need to assess whether a particular clip is fair use. Given that declining to take down a clip could expose the site to liability, YouTube has decided to play it safe and comply with the DMCA's takedown procedure. No exceptions, even for presidential candidates. In 2008, YouTube expressed the hope that whichever candidate won the White House would help to reform the DMCA's takedown process to avoid this kind of problem. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Instead, Congress nearly passed the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would have given incumbent copyright holders even broader powers to take down content they didn't like. If Romney wins the election in November, we hope the experience of having his ad taken down will inspire him to make reforming copyright a priority for the Romney Administration. But we're not going to hold our breath.[/quote] [url="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/major-label-uses-dmca-to-take-down-romney-ad-of-obama-crooning/"]Source[/url]. The video that gotten taken down: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIajeW6xPnI&[/media] [b]UPDATE:[/b] [quote="Ars Techinica"] The music publisher BMG Rights Management appears to have used the DMCA takedown process to remove another video of the commander-in-chief belting out "I'm so in love with you." The video, one of many uploaded in the wake of an event at the Apollo Theater earlier this year, was made by YouTube user sNewsCast. When Ars clicked the "play" button from our Philadelphia office, we got the message "This video contains content from BMG_Rights_Management, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." Two other videos of Obama's singing, uploaded by the Associated Press and ABC News respectively, have also become unavailable. They bear the message "the uploader has not made this video available in your country," making it unclear whether these videos were also removed on copyright grounds. Numerous other videos of Obama's rendition of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" remain available on YouTube. Ars talked to Sherwin Siy, a copyright expert at the public interest group Public Knowledge, about the copyright issues raised by presidential renditions of copyrighted songs. Siy argued that the original Romney ad was "definitely" fair use given that it was "commentary and criticism and political speech." He said those were "core values of free speech." Siy argued that raw footage of the president singing is also fair use. "Anything the President of the United States does in public is newsworthy," Siy told us. Posting a video of Obama singing—or doing anything else at a public event—is protected as news reporting, he said. "You don't want it to be the case that you can blank out sections of the public record because they contain copyrighted works," Siy said. "It leaves you with an incomplete picture." Fair use guarantees that the public has access to as much information as possible about the activities of their elected officials—even if those actions sometimes seem frivolous. Unfortunately, the law doesn't give YouTube much latitude to stand up for fair use if it wants to hold onto the protection of the DMCA safe harbor. The notice-and-takedown procedure requires YouTube to leave an allegedly infringing work offline for at least 10 days, even if the uploader files a counter-notice stating that the work is not infringing. We've emailed BMG seeking comment on its takedown spree but have not received a response. [/quote] [url="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/yes-video-of-obama-belting-out-im-so-in-love-with-you-is-fair-use/"]Source[/url]. Thinks are starting to look a lot shadier now.

Oh the sweet, delicious and tangy irony.

Now that's just dirty. No wait, it's just politics.

...

Harm set, harm get. The biter will be bitten. Curses, like chickens, come home to roost. etc.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36802603]i've literally never heard of any of those[/QUOTE] yeah neither have i and i know all of the words are those, like, translated from another language because idioms don't translate at all. I know "Arrimar el ascua a su sardina" means "to look out for #1", but literally translates as "to hold the ember to the sardine."

why would anybody seek out and watch an attack ad on youtube

damn merge

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;36802639]why would anybody seek out and watch an attack ad on youtube[/QUOTE] do you know any staunch conservatives in real life

[QUOTE=Lankist;36802623]are those, like, translated from another language[/QUOTE] I might be wrong but I think at least two of those are fairly common german idioms

So when was it that we had to start paying for free speech exactly?

Why is half this thread (disregarding the fact that the other half is about translating idioms) basically just going "haha a Romney video got taken down sucks for him!"? This is really bad, another case of blatant abuse of the DMCA, we should be up in arms about it no matter who's video it is.

[QUOTE=Spooter;36803135]Why is half this thread (disregarding the fact that the other half is about translating idioms) basically just going "haha a Romney video got taken down sucks for him!"? This is really bad, another case of blatant abuse of the DMCA, we should be up in arms about it no matter who's video it is.[/QUOTE] Facepunch only complains if things don't go their way. COD is banned from shelves in Taiwan for being too rebellious? Ha, fuck those Activision cunts. [b]WHAT THEY BANNED POSTAL IN TAIWAN GOD WHAT A BUNCH OF CUNTS BURN THEIR HOUSES DOWN AND RAPE THEIR CATS[/b]

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;36804287]Facepunch only complains if things don't go their way. COD is banned from shelves in Taiwan for being too rebellious? Ha, fuck those Activision cunts. [b]WHAT THEY BANNED POSTAL IN TAIWAN GOD WHAT A BUNCH OF CUNTS BURN THEIR HOUSES DOWN AND RAPE THEIR CATS[/b][/QUOTE] If you have a tongue for melodrama, then yes that is how it goes. that's how almost everyone anywhere acts. What is good to you is good, what is bad to you is bad. People usually justify something somehow if it was a "wrong" act done in their favour, and while it's a bit hypocrtical it's to be expected

So wait, it's illegal to sing songs now? I hate my country's fucked up laws. Go to hell, record execs.

Just goes to show, right or left, big business will screw them over.

[QUOTE=Forumaster;36805623]So wait, it's illegal to sing songs now?[/QUOTE] For advertising purposes? Yes. (Sort of.) It's mostly a civil offense, not strictly criminal. You can say a lot of shit about people like the RIAA, but I don't blame them at all for wanting to keep their songs away from political associations without compensation. C'mon, what would you say? "Listen, fucker. You are not going to try to become president by plagiarizing our shit. Deal w/ it." [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] I'm surprised at the number of people here who are A-Okay with politicians exploiting popular culture for political gain without anyone's consent. Their platform should stand on policy, not copyrighted songs. You can argue the company's motives, but the effect is that it cuts out a little of the stupid campaign bullshit. I'm stoked about that, personally.

For anyone surprised about this, are you surprised it costs 10,000$ to have "Happy Birthday" sung in a film? The rights to this song have been owned for years. It's like this for almost any IP that's owned by large corporations.

That's why restaurant chains have to come up with their own little birthday songs. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok63096hxgI[/media]

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;36804287]Facepunch only complains if things don't go their way. COD is banned from shelves in Taiwan for being too rebellious? Ha, fuck those Activision cunts. [b]WHAT THEY BANNED POSTAL IN TAIWAN GOD WHAT A BUNCH OF CUNTS BURN THEIR HOUSES DOWN AND RAPE THEIR CATS[/b][/QUOTE] people give a fuck about postal?

[QUOTE=DrLuke;36802585]Harm set, harm get. The biter will be bitten. Curses, like chickens, come home to roost. etc.[/QUOTE] It would seem the tables have hoisted him with a taste of his other foot. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;36802603]i've literally never heard of any of those[/QUOTE] They sound like something Rolf would have said on Ed, Edd, N Eddy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36805768]For advertising purposes? Yes. (Sort of.) It's mostly a civil offense, not strictly criminal. You can say a lot of shit about people like the RIAA, but I don't blame them at all for wanting to keep their songs away from political associations without compensation. C'mon, what would you say? "Listen, fucker. You are not going to try to become president by plagiarizing our shit. Deal w/ it." [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] I'm surprised at the number of people here who are A-Okay with politicians exploiting popular culture for political gain without anyone's consent. Their platform should stand on policy, not copyrighted songs. You can argue the company's motives, but the effect is that it cuts out a little of the stupid campaign bullshit. I'm stoked about that, personally.[/QUOTE] There is a difference between pulling an ad off tv and pulling a YouTube video. By your logic, anyone who filmed themselves doing karaoke should have their video pulled off YouTube.

Youtube's system exists entirely outside of DMCA. The labels and studios have been privately given unlimited, no-questions censorship power over Youtube above and beyond the law. Thus, even videos with clips of shitty covers from other videos are censored.

I thought that under american law they couldn't censor political ads in this way

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;36811550]Youtube's system exists entirely outside of DMCA. The labels and studios have been privately given unlimited, no-questions censorship power over Youtube above and beyond the law. Thus, even videos with clips of shitty covers from other videos are censored.[/QUOTE] That's because Youtube is a private website and they can function however they wish. They are in no way obligated to allow anyone to upload anything, and I'm pretty sure equal time laws don't apply to websites which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36814422]That's because Youtube is a private website and they can function however they wish. They are in no way obligated to allow anyone to upload anything, and I'm pretty sure equal time laws don't apply to websites which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, yes. Though I don't think it's a good thing that the biggest video hosting site in the world turned over admin-level control to a cartel of record labels and movie studios because they were threatened with massive bullshit lawsuits.

Article updated. Seems like they are also attacking Obama singing too.

[QUOTE=Spooter;36803135]Why is half this thread (disregarding the fact that the other half is about translating idioms) basically just going "haha a Romney video got taken down sucks for him!"? This is really bad, another case of blatant abuse of the DMCA, we should be up in arms about it no matter who's video it is.[/QUOTE] It's ironic, because the GOP tends to side with large corporations (read: recording industry).

[QUOTE=Saber15;36816757]It's ironic, because the GOP tends to side with large corporations (read: recording industry).[/QUOTE] The record industry is known for mafia like tactics and backstabbing. It wouldn't surprise me if they bite the hand that feeds.

Only way that the ad can be re-uploaded soon is if they can get the attacking group to admit they did it in bad faith and revoke the claim... At least thats what happened when Machinima tried censoring videos it didn't like.