McCain campaign protests YouTube's DMCA policy

John McCain's presidential campaign is protesting YouTube's video-removal policy, which has resulted in the deletion of some political advertisements the campaign believes are perfectly legal and protected by fair use.

In a letter (PDF) sent to YouTube CEO Chad Hurley and company attorneys on Monday, the campaign charges that "our advertisements or Web videos have been the subject of DMCA takedown notices regarding uses that are clearly privileged under the fair use doctrine." The DMCA is, of course, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act that allows copyright holders to submit takedown notices.

The letter cited "numerous" examples, without listing them. One would likely be CBS News' successful DMCA takedown request to YouTube over the McCain campaign's lipstick-on-a-pig ad. It used a brief video clip featuring CBS News anchor Katie Couric to make a point about sexism. (Disclaimer: CNET is published by CBS Networks, home of CBS News.)

Then there was the related flap last fall about Fox News complaining about McCain using a video clip from a Fox News-sponsored debate.

Legally speaking, McCain can't force the Google-owned video site to host his videos; among other things, the terms of service says "YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the YouTube Web site at any time."

But more broadly, the campaign has a point; YouTube seems a bit too eager to remove political videos. The McCain camp's solution is to ask for a "full legal review" of videos posted by political candidates and campaigns before they're automatically removed. Another solution? If you don't like the neighborhood, move. Nobody's forcing them to stick with YouTube.

[Galaxy5]

More stunts from the increasingly desperate McCain campaign.

[mikestatic1]

More comments from increasingly ignorant Obama supporters.

[crusadex]

yeah,we all need to surrender to socialism in america.Lets take awa freedom of religion next.
you people really have no idea what your voting for.

[pajja]

McClain was in Congress when the law was passed. Welcome to the world where copyright owners abuse the DCMA to take down items legally posted. McCain's campaign should be contact the copyright owners and pursue his case. You tube is just obeying the law.

[mathue_tax]

Anyone know what McCain's vote was on the DCMA?


Hmmmm, "Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate"


Okie, Senator McCain voted voted 'yea'.

I guess that's Karma in action.

[ZetaZeta_]

McCain has said on numerous occasions that he's computer illiterate. So he clearly had no idea what he was voting on in the first place. :P

[d_granger]

If the complained-of work is protected by fair use and the takedown notice sender is deliberately ignorant of the possibility, the party whose content is taken down can sue under 17 U.S.C. §512(f). This protects against takedown notice abuse. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No. 07-3783.

I?m not a lawyer but I read too much. This is not legal advice ? hey it?s free and worth what you paid for it.

[drfrost]

Of course it's fair use, it was broadcast footage. But this is CBS we're talking about. You can bet they won't be issuing any take down orders on Obama's ads.

And yes, they should sue them... but I doubt they will.

[olduser99]

It proves the point that DCMA is seriously flawed.... It's the right that pushed DCMA and now they are a victim of it is down right funny....

It's simple... DCMA needs to go away....

[drfrost]

I do indeed wholeheartedly concur.

[xesq]

interesting... i just searched and there are tons and tons of pro-obama videos, however there are only a handfull of pro mccain videos.
not only that but there used to be a bunch of anti-obama vidoes and now there are only a very small handfull.......

gotta love the liberals... as long as you support their idea they are all for free speech and you can say anything you want.... but oppose their ideas and your nothing but a hate monger and a racist.........

[jennyquatro]

Spare me - of course there are more pro-Obama videos. Younger demographic uses YouTube in general, not to mention there is SO many great videos of McCain/Palin totally blowing it. SP could have her exclusive YouTube with all the screw-ups she's done. Has nothing to do with free speech at all. Apparently "kill him" and hate mongering ARE ok by you. Sheesh.

[msanto]

Did you bother to check for DMCA violations in those videos? If not, your comment is moot. McCain's videos aren't being taken down for no reason. They are being taken down for DMCA violations.

[guest86]

Yeah, DMCA sucks. People told to remove DMCA out. We want classic back. More friendly better than DMCA.

[Darryl Snortberry]

cant say i feel sorry for him; welcome to our world. maybe they will stop passing so many dumb laws.....i doubt it.

[Electro_Fox]

Um, Snortberry... >maybe they will stop passing so many dumb laws.....i doubt it.<

The House and Senate are controlled by a Democrat majority. If the Republicans even wanted to pass any laws or legislature, it has (and had) to go through the Democrats first. I am a Democrat first, but secondly, I am ashamed of our party promising swift, complete reforms and bi-partisan co-operation to help the country first. Well, look what happened. The WORST drop in the market since The Great Depression, record-high fuel prices, default in every sector of the financial market, ad infinitum, et al...

I can't even tell you now who I will vote for, but I am so truly unhappy with my party as of now... Almost wishing for Reagan again, wow...

Here's a thought - don't use copyrighted material without getting permissiom from the copyright holder. Even if you're a maverick.

[maverick_nick]

Ha ha... so true - I like that. McCain's complaining about being rebuked for breaking the law. I support the law, he said, as long as it doesn't apply to me :)

[drfrost]

If you knew anything about fair use, you'd know it was covered by doctrine. It's an abuse of the DMCA but its going to take a lot of money and time to do anything about it.

[crusadex]

Hey,It's cool if you really want socialism.But i think anyone who has lived under this slavery will tell you you don't.
Go ahead and vote for your very own personal demise.it's your call.Once the Obamaessiah starts doing his thing it will be us that pays,and pays,and pays....
As for the copyright crap,everyone and thier grandma is using someone elses content.google/youtube is just censoring,like they do for china.
But it's alright,vote yourselves into slavery.talk to me again next year to see how you enjoy what you've done.

[jennyquatro]

Socialism? Have you been following what Paulson and friends and the financial crisis at all? Infusing money into the banks? Now THAT is socialism! Just following what seems to be working for Europe (in general). There is no censoring going on here, please. Plus, he's used several songs at rallies without copyright permission. You would think the sinking campaign would learn after the first few times. Plus he voted FOR the DCMA! Sigh.

[radjpat]

Really? So the Bush republicans won't have you paying for the Iraq war and the bailout of their wall street buddies? The Bush administration is starting to socialize the financial system now. Big republican donors sucked all their money out of the system and now want the government to bail them out... Paulson's only response "we have to do it"

[drfrost]

jennyquatro - "Just following what seems to be working for Europe."

If you really believe socialism is working for Europe you need to look a little deeper. Their birth rate is abysmal, their social security plan is much more generous than ours (think about our baby boomer problem multiplied by 10) and to shore up this problem they're having to bring in hordes of immigrants, most of whom are muslim. And this is by no means their only problem.

[drfrost]

radjpat - You seem to forget a congress controlled by democrats passed the bill you're referring to.

All you democrats/republicans to whom it is more important to bash/destroy the other side than to actually do something positive for this country.... you guys need to take it outside and let the grown ups handle things. Seriously.

[Signal-Support-System-Spc]

McCain has a face for radio, now Cindy... that's another matter for us old folk.

[dprophit]

What about the Latham act and the 1st ammendment. The Latham Act allows nominative use of a trademark or copyright for fair use and competition or newly creative art work but not if the entire content is unaltered and purely nominative in whole by the original work.

[crumpled]

McCain has already been told by at least two artists to cease and desist using their songs in his rallies. He doesn't bother trying to clear rights he just steals songs effectively faking endorsements meanwhile handing the RIAA and MPAA every luxury to go after kids and middle aged people, levying millions of dollars in fines. YouTube does everything it can to obey the DCMA or the same media companies McCain helped embolden will destroy YouTube as well. It's not censorship. You can't make laws and then decide they are to inconvenient to obey. That would be fascism, and we certainly don't need a fascist president.

[MMcCubbing]

Even if he has the legal right to use such content in his videos it should be (not so) common courtesy to contact the copyright holders, especially for something as important as a campaign video. On the other hand, my understanding is that with a DMCA take-down he, or his campaign, can appeal and have to video reposted. That's just my take on it though.

[drfrost]

They can complain and their use of the material is certainly covered by fair use. But it wouldn't make it back up til after the election.

[LucidGoldfish]

The reality is, youtube i.e. google probably doesn't really want McCain videos on their site. Regardless of the reasons given. Although I do not like McCain...especially since he picked Palin for VP, I am somewhat troubled by the fact that youtube is taking down his videos. Yes, he could go to another video hosting site, but youtube, by far, is the most recognizable name. So you could say that it is a major media outlet. When media outlets start cherry picking who and what views they want to cover, and ignore any views that they disagree with, it only hurts the consumer, citizens, the people in the long run. i.e. you and me. Yes, there is free speech, but if it isn't allowed to published in the main stream, well ... then free speech just becomes a farce. Speech just becomes another commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled by the entities with money, and power who's only goal, is to make more money and power. Although I don't want people to vote for John McCain, I really don't want a company to make that decision for people by strangling the flow of ideas and viewpoints that said company doesn't agree with. Thank God they haven't put a strangle hold on any independents. ..... HA!

[LucidGoldfish]

The reality is, youtube i.e. google probably doesn't really want McCain videos on their site. Regardless of the reasons given. Although I do not like McCain...especially since he picked Palin for VP, I am somewhat troubled by the fact that youtube is taking down his videos. Yes, he could go to another video hosting site, but youtube, by far, is the most recognizable name. So you could say that it is a major media outlet. When media outlets start cherry picking who and what views they want to cover, and ignore any views that they disagree with, it only hurts the consumer, citizens, the people in the long run. i.e. you and me. Yes, there is free speech, but if it isn't allowed to published in the main stream, well ... then free speech just becomes a farce. Speech just becomes another commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled by the entities with money, and power who's only goal, is to make more money and power. Although I don't want people to vote for John McCain, I really don't want a company to make that decision for people by strangling the flow of ideas and viewpoints that said company doesn't agree with. Thank God they haven't put a strangle hold on any independents. ..... HA!

[maverick_nick]

I can't say that I agree with your conspiracy theory. If someone you don't like uses you or your creation in their video and you request that that video be taken down, then YouTube is obliged to do so regardless of their opinion. So if McCain stopped using the content of artists whom don't like him - seems like everyone - then YouTube wouldn't take down any of his videos.

You can't make assumptions and blame Google or YouTube for simply obeying the law - the same law that McCain helped pass.

[TheStrangeProfessor]

Unfortunately,youtube doesn't get a choice. If they get a takedown notice,
they have to take it down. They have, in the past, sent a letter to the
person/corp sending the takedown notice that said in effect "We think
this is fair use, do you still want to pursue this". However, if the person/corp
insists, then it has to come down. The poster of the video has to send
youtube a counternotice before the video can be restored.
One would think that people reading cnet would have at least some awareness
of this. It is not new (remember the baby dancing to prince music video?).
The fact is that the DMCA is a horrible law, and McCain voted for it. Even
worse, your administration is pressuring other countries into adopting the same sort
of laws (and our weak kneed Conservative Govt here in Canada rolls over to them).
Congress even passed a bill creating a copyright czar, and one of the duties
of this new position is to pressure other countries. I think the youtube removals
are poetic justice.

[Electro_Fox]

I did...

[johnericanderson]

I would be willing to bet the videos were taken down in response to threatening notifications from attorneys. It's easier (cheaper) to remove videos than to argue in court.

I wonder who's attorneys?

[ultrabob]

I think this fall in the "NO SHOES NO SHERT NO SERVICE" category.

[thelemurking]

Oooh the irony!

As much as I hate the DMCA, I think this time around it's hilarious! If only he had voted AGAINST the DMCA in the first place!