DMCA Takedown Notice Leveled Against Ohio Congressional Race Ad

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.'"

Comments

No consequences

[wonkavader]

"...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.

Re:No consequences

[icebike]

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:No consequences

[h4rr4r]

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

[Entropius]

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.

Fair use?

[MrEricSir]

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?

Re:Fair use?

[wonkavader]

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.

Censorship

[DrYak]

Yet another attempt to use the DMCA as a way to censor, which will end up back firing due to the Streisand effect.

Re:Censorship

[uvajed_ekil]

Yet another attempt to use the DMCA as a way to censor, which will end up back firing due to the Streisand effect.

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:reasons for which are listed below.....

[Mitchell314]

. . . and the great tragedy is the politicians that ignore it are still in the game.

Must be nice being a senator...

[Joce640k]

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:R & D please?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman!

[StikyPad]

Abuse of apostrophe's make's Baby Jesu's Cry.

Re:time: not fair at all

[Anonymous Coward]

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.