YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship

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."

Comments

Actually...

[Otter]

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).

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

[Spazmania]

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)

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:DMCA confusion

[Spazmania]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID 132 Emphasis mine. It doesn't even require that you state a reason; you need only assert that your material doesn't infringe. The DMCA is really a mixed bag. This is one of the things they got pretty close to right.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't stepping down because he's gay, he's moving to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign.

Re:Im shocked!

[killjoe]

"And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is?"

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.