Comments on: McCain seeks special 'fair use' copyright rules for VIPs

His presidential campaign has discovered the remix-unfriendly aspects of American copyright law, after several of his campaign videos were pulled from YouTube.

[cdunning]

Is anybody surprized?

[skillingssucks]

I can't wait until McCShitstain is out of the daily news.

[wango2007]

"unfriendly aspects?"

The only "unfriendly aspects" is a liberal media who is trying to muzzle dissent.

At the moment there are 3,930 videos featuring Katie Couric on YouTube, but only the one that was part of the McCain ad was targeted for take-down.

This is the Obama campaign at work. Obama has adopted the same "dirty tricks" as Richard Nixon. No change there!

[dadsgravy]

Your empty rhetoric is stale. The media isn't liberal, conservative, or informing. It's just plain dumb. That's the problem with Republicans, they try and use the word liberal like it's a bad thing. I'd rather be liberal, ie open minded, then conservative, ie close minded, racist and ignorant.


Your ideas and your party are failing. And rightly so.

[Magallanes]

Yes, and McCain is anti-bush, and Palin can understand the common people, and of course Nixon was a hippie and democrat.

[Dalkorian]

Wow, the FACT that repuke days in office are numbered really bothers you, doesn't it. Good. America is going the wrong way now (economy, torture, terrorism and a constant attempt to shred the Constitution this great nation was founded on) and that problem can't be fixed by "staying the course". Repukes caused the messes we're suffering today and repukes should lose their jobs for it. That you're so scared of that FACT makes me feel a little better. You KNOW you screwed up and like a child confronted with bad behavior you're trying your best to make excuses and push the blame off onto someone else. As usual, true patriotic American liberals (read ADULTS) see through your childish tactics and will clean up the mess you leave behind.

[nobahdi]

Unfortunately, politicians are the ones that make the laws, so if they decide they get special privileges there isn't much to do about it.

[louhop]

I agree with the "tone" of this article.

The only way anything will change is if everyone is treated the same. There should be NO special treatment. If they would live a few days in an average persons shoes, they'd see the crap they have helped create and sustain.

[bsarte]

Really? So, all you need to do is rally enough supporters together to remove ALL of McCains videos. And at this point, they won't be back on before the election -- WHETHER THEY ARE LEGIT OR NOT!

Sounds like an unfair rule for this type of use. What will end up happening is people will stop using YouTube for anything beyond stupid, mindless entertainment.

[Magallanes]

"i have the power to claim and fight against a unfair law but i will do nothing but i will try fix it for my own convenience and only for my specific case".

So the problem is not the fact some videos was banned (they can republish it again and again) but the motive to fight for a specific and personal reason instead to fight for everyone (opposite to be a good President).

[cuylar]

This is a REALLY biased news report. How many Obama videos have been pulled? I am shocked at the level of "cult behavior" that is following the Obama campaign. Hold them both to the same standards. Not that I agree with asking for an exception but what is stopping these videos from being re-posted over and over as they are taken down?

[skillingssucks]

Learn what "biased" actually means, clueless.

[drhamad]

I agree, hold them to the same standards - what does that have to do with this article? The question is, in this article, should political campaign videos be given special treatment. The question is not should McCain or Obama videos be given special treatment.

[rage-demon]

Ah, but you see, McCain is the only one publicly whining about this and once again trying to benefit privledged "VIPs" just as he wants to give benefits to the rich while screwing the middle class. I whole heartedly agree with this article that in no way what so ever should he be given special "VIP" treatment. Change the system for all of us, or suffer just as we do.

[gggg sssss]

McCain know what YouTube is? Are you sure? Is it not a set of connected tubes connected to you? No that was Al Gore. LOL

[MaybeMaybeNot]

Actually, that was Senator Ted Stevens (R- Alaska), then Chairman of the US Senate Commerce Committee (which oversees US regulation of the Internet):

"They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."

[gggg sssss]

Sorry - I have been blaming Gore all along. Also been blaming him for inventing glovbal warming. Am I wrong on that as well?

[Dalkorian]

Honestly Chris, you should have simply titled this article "Definition: irony".

Anyone who has to ask why shouldn't vote in November. Stupidity is not an enviable trait in the electorate.

[jlees]

What could possibly be wrong with the elite being treated better than the masses. Don't they already have better medical and retirement paid by the same government that doles out social security and medicare to the rest of us.

[MARKINNYC]

I am shocked that the poor bitter old man that McCain has become would have the sheer gaul to ask for priority treatment. But I'm shocked at much of the things coming out of the minds and mouths of the GOP these days! The GOP has always been known as the party of racism and sexism. However I am shocked to see them attempting to use the law of the land to serve their own dubious purposes and yet my own level of naiveté persists, so it seems. I would advise the companies involved to take a e from Nancy Reagan and "just say no" to unreasonable political pressure and a potential misuse of his power as a senator of the USA. The poor wretched embittered bunch that's left at the GOP should be ashamed of themselves for trying such cheap tactics to intimidate and persuade to their own dubious ends a company such as Google and/or uTube. In the meantime a complaint should be lodged with the Federal Elections offices and the Senate Ethics Committee for possible ethics violations on the part of Mr. McCain. HOW DARE HE PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ILLEGAL and IMMORAL acts while seated on the floor of the senate as a Senator from Arizona! The pathetic old coot has lost all sense of propriety and/or decency and is now stooping to an attempt to intimidate private citizens in some misguided attempt to achieve his goal of winning the election for himself, and the Twit from Alaska.

[Jorgisimo]

This article is a perfect illustration of the following: The left-wing in this country has become everything they accuse the right-wing of being.

I think c/net should adopt a disclosure policy.

[csoghoian]

CNET has a disclosure policy. You can find a link to my disclosure statement on the right hand side of every one of my blog posts. Or, you can follow this link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9893085-46.html

I make no secrets about hiding my political views. I also made no secrets about calling the Dems a bunch of gutless cowards for their shameless votes on the FISA immunity deal.

[drhamad]

Uhh... what does left or right have to do with this article? They should both be treated the same. Hold them to the same standards. The question is, in this article, should political campaign videos be given special treatment. The question is not should McCain or Obama videos be given special treatment. McCain is simply the one that has raised the issue.

[chilehead9]

It's amazing that there are people on here actually arguing against the concept of everyone having the same laws applying to them - one of the foundational concepts behind our nation.

@Cuylar: is the number of Obama videos pulled relevant to the issue of McCain demanding special privileges and a separate law just for him? It's not really an issue that if one candidate has videos pulled the other must too, it's an issue that if a candidate uses copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the copyright owners (as McCain has done with songs by Jackson Browne and Heart), he should go through the same penalties as everyone else. For Obama's campaign to have videos pulled, they would have to violate the law in the same manner McCain has. And for it to make the news like McCain, his campaign would have to demand to circumvent the law, as well.

And the subtext here is that it IS a really bad law. None of the rest of us get the option to opt out of it, why should the bald sack of hate?

[nachokb]

@chilehead9: Almost...

The problem is not that McCain's video effectively violated any copyright, the problem is that it's not relevant whether they did. It's so easy to abuse the DMCA, it's almost designed to make it hard to defend from them.

The issue with McCain's response is that they are claiming that political campaigning should be somehow prioritized. Google's first response firmly stated that they can't make exceptions[1], and rightly so. The OP claimed that any privilege would not only be unfair to any non-politician, but also nullify the little incentive they have to make things right (which is, to destroy DMCA in its present form).

The fact that Obama's campaign has not suffered from this joke of a law is not indicative of any attack on their part. Furthermore, I think these DMCA takedown notices are publicly available so that should be easy to prove or refute (note: I haven't even searched for them, as I don't find them relevant).

Focusing on who sent those notices only distracts people from the 4-letter problem: the DMCA...

One last thing -- let me highlight one false statement, or at least a really ignorant one, found in the campaign's letter[2]: "YouTube has nothing to fear by hosting non-infringing videos, let alone by reposting them much sooner than 10 days". As YouTube explained in theirs, finding whether a file is infringing is not something feasible by them, and, it only takes them to do that once to find themselves in a legal hell, where they would be held accountable for their decision which will surely differ from some judge around the US. Thus, their footnote saying "In our experience, copyright holder OFTEN back down [...]" is simply insufficient.



[1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/6827635/YouTube-Response-to-Sen-McCain (last paragraph on second page)
[2] http://lessig.org/blog/YouTube%20copyright%20letter%2010.13.08.pdf

-- nachokb

[brad14--2008]

Either it applies to us all or none of us.

[RainCaster]

Poor McSame, he is asking for special priveleges as if this is a multi-caste system. Well the parts of the Constitution that the GOP haven't perverted would disagree with that assumption.

[smhtriple7]

The chose of Sarah Palin and the campaign he is running have really started to turn the voters against.However a well known group has come oyt and endorsed him,can this endorsement be the October surprise that will turn this election around for him !!!!! Go to this site and you be the judge........http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3238578/John-McCain-endorsed-by-al-Qaeda-supporters.html

[renGek]

To me its not a mccain or obama issue. What I find offensive is that one person (dem or repub) can call for special "exception" because it affects them personally and because they can fast track to changing the law. While there is nothing new here, it shows how dangerous it can be when a lawmaker is influenced by special interest. All we need is for someone to pass a law to allow smoking in the classroom "an exception should be made for stressed out teachers" or something equally stupid like that. Easy to make a law, but takes forever to fix it or remove it.

[Renegade Knight]

Fair use is fair use. There is no need for a two tiered system. One that works and one that doens't. Just fix what was broken.

[digitalshaman]

interesting topic

since there is allegedly no *privacy* right in the Constitution (oh, those Originalists) and no *fair use* rights, though several folks have pushed for it in an amended DMCA going back to at least Nov 2000 (Boucher Amendment) & even amendments to the Copyright Act itself ... that disappeared with the Pro-IP Act being signed into law this month.

for once it would be helpful to see just how corporatist the economy has become and how little equity we have in our work not just the equity disappearing in our homes. it is hard to imagine how to define exceptions - especially when the same companies that react to take-down notices are still doing other forms of filtering that we cannot opt out of - & no one has devised an accounting system to provide necessary transparency & liquidity to "information" (not just copyright!) - that includes the above mentioned filtering that Google/YouTube do on a regular basis & the new lobbyist firm Arts + Labs (founding members include some interesting folks that are very willing to filter *your* internet connections) plans for greater coverage of on-line activities - a real nanny-state.

it would be nice if more discussion were open to defining *piracy* and *privacy* and more importantly - attribution over the works of innovators ... all the while the same set of people who rail on about how we need to strengthen copyrights & trademarks - attacks on the patent system continue unabated.

my suggestion - use encryption! at least understand what & how information is treated because for this American my privacy is more valuable than ANY copyright - bar none ...

[Renegade Knight]

Fair use existed before Copyright came into being. Copyright Merely Force it to have a name.

In order to make a living wiht your copyrighted materials you absolutly have to convey the ability (fair use) for people to enjoy that copyrighted material.

On the other hand there is no right to copyright in the constitution either...it's probably a moot argument.