DMCA Takedown Notice Leveled Against Ohio Congressional Race Ad 130
Ponca City, We Love You writes "EFF reports that after Ohio Congressman John Kasich put out a commercial featuring a man dressed as a steelworker discussing Governor Ted Strickland's record, Strickland's campaign folks apparently realized that the 'steelworker' was really a paid actor, and put together their own video, mixing in clips of some of the actor's other work to make fun of Kasich. Now the DMCA has been used to send a takedown demand to YouTube that it remove Stricrkland's video for at least 10 days because it uses short clips from the actor's movies." The video has since been restored, some of the reasons for which are listed below.
"First, the political video's use is transformative because it provides evidence that the supposed steelworker was actually a paid actor and as the Supreme Court explains, transformative works 'lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright.' Second, the political ad only uses a few seconds of the original film, so a fair use is particularly justifiable when it uses the minimum necessary to make its point. 'What's troubling, yet again, is that this form of political speech has been removed from YouTube in the heat of an election battle,' writes Mike Masnick on Techdirt. 'Even if the takedown was not political, it's clearly a case of copyright law being used to stifle political speech.'"
reasons for which are listed below..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really only need one reason: First Amendment of the US Constitution.
No consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
"...Arginate should take a closer look at Section 512(f) of the DMCA — which provide penalties for misrepresenting that an online video is infringing — before sending any more notices."
Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this, even though it amounts to perjury?
Please, I want someone to tell me there have been consequences, and that people have been fined or jailed for it. But I suspect that the has never been a single such case where there any real consequences.
I know we care, but the legal system doesn't and only an idiot could fail to notice. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me I'm wrong.
Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I show a short clip from a film just to prove that someone is an actor, how could this possibly NOT be fair use?
Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another attempt to use the DMCA as a way to censor, which will end up back firing due to the Streisand effect.
Re:Fair use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you asking? You know it's fair use, we know it's fair use, and the lawyers who demanded the takedown know it's fair use.
This isn't about copyright law. This is about the clever use of perjury.
It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman! (Score:1, Insightful)
It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman!
Re:reasons for which are listed below..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Congressional candidates tend to have strong connections to wealth and political power, and are often lawyers. The DMCA may have pissed off the wrong people, this time.
Must be nice being a senator... (Score:4, Insightful)
One quick phone call and your web site is back up again. I bet if it was joe sixpack it'd still be down.
Re:No consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this...
You've hit the nail directly on the head.
There is no teeth in 512(f). It aught to be a mandatory quarter million dollar penalty for filing a take down notice that was proven false or unjustified, or over-ruled by a court.
Fair use of short clips is protected. But without any consequence of ignoring this fact, the practice of take-down first and apologize later, or never, will continue.
But I'm glad to see this happening to politicians. Now maybe they will listen when citizens complain about this practice.
Re:R & D please? (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't need the tags. Could already tell party affiliation because of the nature of the attack ad.
A fake person selling fake policy to the down home American everyman.
It's a microcosm for the entire republican ideology.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, I wouldn't be so sure that it will backfire. Most of Kasich's supporters (supporters of a liar who supported NAFTA and got rich on Wall Street, then denied it) are going to go to the polls and vote for him because of the (R) next to his name, regardless of what dirty tricks and lies he uses to try to unseat the at-risk Democrat in charge in Columbus. People like Tom Ganley (R), also in Ohio (a pretty slimy prominent car salesman), and Alan Grayson (D) in Florida (the guy who calls his opponent "Taliban" Dan, edits video to blatantly twist words, and got very testy with Anderson Cooper when called on it) will still get plenty of votes because of the (R) and (D) on the ballots.
Most people haven't heard of the DMCA to begin with, or have no idea what it does or is supposed to protect. This is interesting to a few of us, but will certainly get lost in mainstream reporting and be a non-factor. Sad, because it is such an obvious misuse of a law, and a sign of how f'd up our political system has become. The only "undecided voter" in a mid-term election like this is is the one who hasn't yet decided whether to bother voting or not.
Re:No consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Fines are not good enough, they only make it so the rich can break the law with impunity. Jail time or community service for the client and the lawyer is the only fair solution. They might have more money than most, but we each only get so much time.
Re:No consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like the quarter-million penalty. To a lot of corps this is chump change.
Now, sometimes someone makes a bona fide claim only to have that claim denied, and that act shouldn't be punished. But malicious abuses of the system like this are inexcusable.
I think the penalty for blatant abuse of the law, at least for corporations, should be a legal death penalty: the inability to bring actions, suit, complaints, or any other form of legal action against anyone else. No more patent claims, no more DMCA notices, no lawsuits against anyone for any reason. If you are going to abuse the law, then you don't deserve its protection.
Re:It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Abuse of apostrophe's make's Baby Jesu's Cry.
Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)
But the baffling thing here is that this isn't some big company demanding a political ad be removed; it's a tiny film studio. And the film in question is free on the internet.
It just seems like there has to be a missing piece to this story.
Re:No consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Fines are not good enough, they only make it so the rich can break the law with impunity. Jail time or community service for the client and the lawyer is the only fair solution. They might have more money than most, but we each only get so much time.
Only problem of that is that then all possibly controversial takedown notices will then be done by corporations. Who are persons, but have additional rights, like the ability to spend as much money as they like on political campaigns (unlike humans, who have sharp limits), cannot be imprisoned, cannot be drafted, and pay lower taxes.
Re:No consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Still not good enough. To some a $300 ticket might mean no food or at least going without other things they really need. This man will not suffer like that even with this ticket.
Taking an 8 hour day from his life would be just as fair as taking it from any other man.
Re:No consequences (Score:1, Insightful)
... will then be done by corporations. Who are persons, but have additional rights...
They are a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality and having its own powers, duties, and liabilities. I post this simply so you will stop comparing a corporation to a person as any validation of a point. Apples and Oranges.
like the ability to spend as much money as they like on political campaigns (unlike humans, who have sharp limits),
Corporations, labor unions and national banks cannot contribute directly to any candidate's political campaign. If the candidate receives a large check from Don's Widgets, this is illegal.
Checks from sole proprietorships and partnerships are acceptable. Members of the board can contribute, but often many contributions from the same board will trigger an investigation.
They can form what is known as a "political action committee" which can donate up to $5,000 per candidate.
cannot be imprisoned,
Tell that to the execs of ENRON...but in reality, while a corporation cannot be INCARCERATED, you CAN remove a corporation's liberties.
cannot be drafted, and pay lower taxes.
Who says they can't be drafted? President Obama took over a company because he didn't think it was being run right...whats to stop them during a time of war?
Depending on individual income, the marginal tax rate for the tax year 2009 ranges from zero to 35%.
Corporate taxation in the United States (for federal) ranges from 15% to 35%.
This information can be located by simple googling, which produces links to FEC.GOV, law.cornell.edu etc.
time: not fair at all (Score:2, Insightful)
The effect of jail varies greatly with income.
Rich: Jail is yucky. It's boring, the food tastes like crap, and you can't play polo. When you get out, you can go back to your normal routine. (you have no job, the butler has kept the house nice, etc.)
Middle: Jail is a personal disaster of unimaginable horror. You lose your job. You are unable to even respond to your creditors, never mind pay them. You thus lose your car and your home. This likely means you lose a spouse and/or your children; the state will find adoptive parents for your children if your spouse doesn't just take them while moving in with his/her new lover. You will never gain the same sort of employment ever again, because you now have a criminal record. Your finances will never recover.
Poor: Jail kind of sucks sometimes. You might get a bad roommate, it's hard to keep facebook updated, and you have to do unspeakable things to get any drugs. On the upside you don't need to worry about finding food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and heat. All your needs are taken care of, and nothing much is expected of you. You almost certainly didn't have an intact family to begin with, so no loss there. If you are friendly you can even get special treatment, play games, lift weights, and so on. All in all, it's not such a bad deal.
Re:time: not fair at all (Score:4, Insightful)
This may be one of the most bigoted things I've yet read on /., and it gets a +3 *Insightful*?!
While I'm not disputing that jail has differing effects (and frequently different meanings) for different classes, I think the line between the classes so far as perception is much more nebulous than stated here, and your portrayal of the "poor" viewpoint betrays what may be the most callous stereotyping I've ever seen.
Do you really think that people suddenly become shiftless drug addicts with no aspirations or family ties just because of their income? I suppose your hewing to the stereotypical politician portrayal of the 40-60% that comprise the American "middle class" is explained by your (apparent) belief that all that separates most people from a degenerate life of crime is an unexpected large expense or two?
Wow. Just wow. I know I've read insightful comments from you in the past, but damn, I wish I had a heap of mod points to spend.
Re:No consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you send a corporate entity to jail?