Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain Campaign Protests YouTube's DMCA Policy

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the sauce-for-geese dept.

Republicans 597

Colz Grigor writes "It appears that CBS and Fox have submitted DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for videos from the McCain campaign. The campaign is now complaining about YouTube's DMCA policy making it too easy for copyright holders to remove fair-use videos. I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 6 years ago | (#25380943)

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 6 years ago | (#25380977)

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win...

No, it isn't.

they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (-1, Troll)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25381153)

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.

Since McCain is not going to win (the economy is down & people blame Republicans*), he won't be able to do much about reforming DMCA. He'll just be one of one hundred senators.

*
* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Funny)

Elemenope (905108) | about 6 years ago | (#25381195)

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

Yeah, FOX *loves* Obama.

What, are you stoned?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (-1, Troll)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25381541)

FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist. They still air reports about why the government should provide Uncle Sam Healthcare.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381641)

FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist.

Best. Joke. Ever.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381609)

Fox != FoxNews
Fox is far more liberal than FoxNews (I don't care if they _do_ share a parent company...)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2, Funny)

devman (1163205) | about 6 years ago | (#25381201)

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama.

You and I apparently don't watch the same FOX.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | about 6 years ago | (#25381421)

You and I apparently don't watch the same FOX.

LOL you watch FOX ;)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381485)

Huh? What is this crap? Fox broadcasting: down 8.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 6 years ago | (#25381259)

* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Continue to believe what you want to believe. But the repeal of this act had nothing to do with the current crash. The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans. The repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk. That was just greed. And the fact is that the Fair Credit Act specifically required that banks take into account borrowers' ability to repay when making loans. Had existing regulation been enforced, none of this crap would have come to pass.

I am a fiscal conservative, and hate to see government regulation when it isn't necessary. What I see coming to pass is a lot more feel good legislation, and lax enforcement. We have the proper level of regulation in place right now, but when it is not enforced, it is worthless.

But, hey, good job trying to pass the buck. Of course, prefacing it with "FOX luvs the Democrats!!!111!" kinda outs you right off the bat.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 6 years ago | (#25381339)

he repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk.

You're forgetting a key point - banks would not have made those loans if they couldn't sell them off to investment houses. If there was no market for those loans, they would not have made them because the risk was too high.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 6 years ago | (#25381401)

I believe that the reselling of such mortgages existed well before the 90's as the ggp poster indicated. If I am wrong, please point me to a source. I will try to carve out some time to research tonight.

However, I still maintain that existing regulation should have prevented the shenanigans that went on with this housing market. The fact that ggp wants to absolve the Republicans who had control of both the White House and Congress from 2001-2006 is appalling. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand. Can you see the Democrats filibustering a bank regulation bill? Maybe on the Onion, but not in real life.

I voted Republican through 2000. I voted third party in the 2004 elections. I will actually break down and voted for the big O in 2008 (and I even donated to the campaign). We cannot afford four more years of this.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

liquidpele (663430) | about 6 years ago | (#25381509)

You are correct that it existed before, but the repeal of the act mentioned certainly did not help the situation. One of the big problems was that by having shell insurance, the banks could write off crappy loans as good loans and thus act like there was low risk.

http://www.dailywealth.com/archive/2008/oct/2008_oct_04.asp [dailywealth.com]

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381577)

I will actually break down and voted for the big O in 2008

That is about as far from fiscal conservative as you can get. If actions speak louder than words, O's actions dictate he is a very, very liberal democrat. McCain - while not my choice - is far closer to the center than Obama.

There are a few considerations: McCain as pres, Dem congress, likely nothing interesting happens in four years. Obama pres, Dem congress with Republicans potantially with no filibuster, you get shafted in every way (judge appointments, pet Dem projects, taxes - because someone has to pay for all their programs, etc.

You almost sound reasonable, but drift into "blame the sitting president for all your woes" rather quickly. And yes, I can see Dems blocking bank regulations which would restrict Fannie and/or Freddie when they are in bed - in the 90's sometimes literally - with them. Ultimately I blame peoples vanity for the problems we have. All the dirty loan deals couldn't have happened if someone didn't want to believe what they were being told.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2, Informative)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25381589)

>>>Republicans who had control of both the White House and Congress from 2001-2006 is appalling. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand

THE DEMOCRATS had control of Congress from 2007-8. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand to correct it. (For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381667)

(For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)

Look it up: any bill passed by more than two thirds is veto-proof.

I do blame the Republicans as well as the Democrats in congress for passing the bill, but we have bank lobbyists to thank for that!

In case you are forgetting, the senate currently has 51 democratic senators, not nearly enough to override Bush's inevitable veto.

Next time you contribute, please at least try to educate yourself on the basic principles of our government.

One republican did do something (1)

CustomDesigned (250089) | about 6 years ago | (#25381637)

While most republicans did ignore the looming crisis, McCain not only warned [iperceive.net] that mortgages needing reform before they imploded, but signed onto bills to do just that - including in 2007 (although it was likely too late by then). He was ridiculed by both sides of the aisle. And yes, I am aware of how Bush fanned the flames of the mortgage mess.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381263)

The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis

Presidents do not repeal acts. They only sign legislation after it has been passed through two houses of corrupt politicians. So blaming a president for legislation is not completely correct, especially when that the party of said president only had a minority in both houses, i.e. the legislation was produced by the opposing party.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Informative)

Danse (1026) | about 6 years ago | (#25381313)

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.

Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?

** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org] was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.

I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 [wikipedia.org] (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates [wikipedia.org] to the AIG situation [npr.org] and how that affected [motherjones.com] the banks.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Insightful)

pmbasehore (1198857) | about 6 years ago | (#25381527)

OK, at the risk of sounding reasonable (and losing karma) I think we need to put the blame where blame is due.

As a conservative, I generally vote Republican. However, I am mature enough to recognize that many of the elected officials in the Republican party have directly or indirectly caused the current economic situation. I am also knowledgeable enough to recognize that the elected officials in the Democratic party are equally to blame.

The blame lies with Republicans, Democrats, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch. (I don't have enough information to blame the Judicial branch for anything.) ALL are equally guilty, and BOTH parties make equally valid statements about the other's responsibility.

Yes, Clinton's fiscal decisions (Glass-Steagall act repealed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, others) had their hand in creating this downturn. Yes, Republican legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and partisanship also had their hand in creating this downturn.

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#25381669)

Yes, and who can we blame for the fact that most of them still sit in the senate, the house, and Pennsylvania Avenue?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2, Insightful)

Danse (1026) | about 6 years ago | (#25381681)

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?

That was really my point. The gp poster was trying to tie all of our problems around the necks of the dems, so I pointed out that the republicans had a hand in it as well. Both sides have caved to the financial industry in a lot of ways and let them run wild. Trying to point at one or the other is oversimplifying in the extreme.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1, Interesting)

sglider (648795) | about 6 years ago | (#25381573)

If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked to for the Gramm Act, it even says that it passed 90-8 in the senate, and 362-67 in the house. Not exactly a 'party line vote'.

A little of your own revisionist history?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (3, Informative)

Danse (1026) | about 6 years ago | (#25381655)

If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked to for the Gramm Act, it even says that it passed 90-8 in the senate, and 362-67 in the house. Not exactly a 'party line vote'.

A little of your own revisionist history?

True. I should have said that as well. I was referring to the initial version, before they added the sweetener for democrats of strengthening the CRA (which I also consider to be misguided legislation).

I'm not trying to lay all the blame on republicans. I was just trying to explain to the gp poster that he was misguided in trying to lay it all on the dems.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25381645)

>>>notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org] was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again),

And I notice that you conveniently forget about the "Anti-Bankruptcy Bill" that was sponsored by Vice-President nominee JOE BIDEN. This bill prevented homeowners from appealing to the courts for help (Chapter 11 debt restructuring), and forced millions to default on their loans, thereby creating the first step towards collapse.

Read more here. Or just google. There are dozens of similar articles: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/biden-bill-to-blame-for-foreclosure-crisis [sweetness-light.com]

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381563)

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999 was signed into law by then president Bill Clinton after the Republican-controlled congress created and passed it.

Since the bill was passed by more than a 70% margin, it was veto-proof.

It's so predictable that the Republicans would blame this on Clinton, heck, they blame everything else on Clinton, why not blame him for an economic crisis that occurred almost a decade after he left office?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 6 years ago | (#25381621)

FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama.

You are Karl Rove, and I claim my £5.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381319)

Dare to hope. Prepare to be disappointed.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

theilliterate (1381151) | about 6 years ago | (#25380989)

Not according to TFA, but there was AFA http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/mccain_campaign_wants_youtube_dmca_special_treatment/ [theregister.co.uk] which held that everyone was suffering from this. And yeah, it would be nice if the rules that John Mccain voted for were different, right?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

flitty (981864) | about 6 years ago | (#25381661)

Three things come up in my head from this story:
1. Wasn't everyone ok with the takedown/repost way that Youtube handled other potential copyrighted videos a few months back? Yes, it sucks that they take them down, but they go back up eventually. With the volume of videos going through youtube, 10 days is pretty damn fast to investigate potential copyright infringement. (as if a fragmented pixellated 320x240 10 minute flash video could be considered infringement, but that's neither here nor there for this conversation)
2. So McCain's camp wants special hosting treatment from youtube for their campaign videos? If ANYTHING changes about DMCA coming from john mccain, it will be that Politicians get special treatment hosting their videos and a loophole for politicans to use that exempts them from the DMCA. John McCain has been a vocal supporter of the MPAA and RIAA and the new Copyright Czar. (even if he has used several campaign songs without permission from the owners.)
3. Is John McCain's Campaign really this hard up for cash? Sheesh man, when your campaign is relying on a free video hosting service to get your message out, you can't exactly bitch about not getting your money's worth. Pay for your own damned video bandwith if you want constant reliable service.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381023)

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Only in as much as it is wrong to wish harm on others.

Seriously, though, the Republicans are simply reaping what they've sown. if the law is broke, fix it. ... Though they'll probably fix it by putting in an exception for political campaigns, like they did with do-not-call.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (4, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | about 6 years ago | (#25381029)

The sad thing is they won't. Here they have clear and direct personal experience of the DMCA as currently implemented preventing legitimate content from being posted. You'd think that would do it. But they're* pleading special case for politicians, rather than calling for reform of the DMCA as a whole. And if they're taking that stance now, while the issue is hot and they might win a few votes for challenging an unpopular law, there's little chance of them turning around and calling for reform later.

*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | about 6 years ago | (#25381167)

It's completely different provisions that make the DMCA unpopular.

Shielding service providers as long as they promptly process takedowns and put content back up on counter-notices is a Good Thing; without it YouTube wouldn't exist. Moreover, the DMCA provides for legal penalties if misused -- if a supposed copyright holder has something taken back down after the person who posted it gave a counter-notice, they're on the hook if such was done wrongly.

The McCain campaign is presumably whining about the process because the information they're trying to promulgate is time-sensitive (only relevant up to the election) and they don't want the downtime it takes to provide counter-notices -- but once they do provide counter-notices, CBS/NBC/whoever won't be able to have it taken back down without risking their own necks. It's a good process, though, and I don't see any reason to fill it with loopholes.

The parts of the DMCA that make it illegal to circumvent the dongle check in the 15-year-old piece of accounting software my consulting client's small business uses (company long out of business, dongle recently broken) are complete BS, but the takedown and counter-notice process is reasonable.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 6 years ago | (#25381377)

The parts of the DMCA that make it illegal to circumvent the dongle check in the 15-year-old piece of accounting software my consulting client's small business uses (company long out of business, dongle recently broken) are complete BS,

I don't have the article handy, but that scenario was exempted from DMCA in the last year - basically any software that required hardware dongles to use that software, when that software or hardware is no longer marketed.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

wronskyMan (676763) | about 6 years ago | (#25381407)

The takedown provision is also unpopular; while the shield is good, it should be extended similar to the protection of the phone company (instead of the current "information provider" vs "common carrier" dichotomy). Youtube is merely a conduit for you to post your videos, since it is hosted on their server w/o human intervention. If I set up a call center for telemarketing fraud, the authorities will come after ME if it is justified rather than trying to sue the phone company and having my service cut off.

Dongles can be circumvented when... (1)

angahar (579961) | about 6 years ago | (#25381473)

Administrative exceptions to DMCA as of 2006: "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.)"

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 6 years ago | (#25381215)

*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.

Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.

Here is the thing, if this issue really is that important to you, then you must be willing to make sacrifices (Voting for McCain if you were planning to vote Obama, or the reverse). They need to know that their position, or lack thereof is worse than people not voting for them, they are actively voting against them. It is a bitter pill to swallow, for them and us. Who will blink first?

This holds true for whatever candidate you support. Threaten to withdraw that support, and mean it, if there are issues you need addressed. The other candidate may not be what you prefer, but you can be damned sure that all promises made to special interests will be forgotten if keeping them means costing them the actual election. If there is one thing that politicians like more than lobbyist money, it is winning the election in the first place.

If IP/copyright reform is as important to Slashdotters as we claim, then you HAVE to take positions like this to force it to be a real issue. Again, a bitter pill, and not for everyone, but you have to ask yourself, how important is copyright reform to me?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | about 6 years ago | (#25381239)

he DMCA as currently implemented preventing legitimate content from being posted.

One problem with the US law is that fair use is in no way accuratly defined. It is in fact about as vague as you can get for a law.

First of all, the list of things failing under fair use is incomplete by using the phrase "for purposes such as". Secondly, even though something belongs to the list it can still be infringement because of the part "the factors to be considered shall include", which btw doesn't say anything about how the four listed factors should be considered.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 6 years ago | (#25381317)

I strongly disagree, that's a strong point. We don't need legislators to muck about in laws every time that there's a change needed the judicial branch can handle most of that. Law makers don't have to become involved unless the new interpretation is incorrect or is not made in the way that the American people want.

Well, that's the theory, the only problem is that the legislature is allowed to consider lobbyists before the citizenry. But realistically it's far better than what happens in many other parts of the world. These bumps are relatively minor compared to the very scary situation in many parts of Europe.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381553)

Yes. But that vagueness was previously okay, because it would lead copyright holders to decide whether they *really* wanted to waste the time and money to pursue a copyright infringement case -- was it worth the trouble? They might lose. Likewise, users of copyrighted material that would be infringing would want to be sure the use clearly fell under as many of the conditions for "fair use" as possible, lest they be sued over it. Settling the question of who was right under the law would be properly decided by a court of law (rather than, say, stupid technical means = DRM), but only if necessary/important enough to the two parties to make a case of it.

You're right that there are lots of details left out, but that's kind of the point -- it depends greatly on circumstances. If you read any of the cases on the subject it isn't simple. So, if you are a user, make sure you qualify for as many of the factors as possible and always use the minimum material necessary. Then you are in a good position if a copyright holder does complain, and you can tell them to take a hike or take you to court.

With the DMCA, SO much power is placed in the hands of the copyright holders that the negative effect on users is obvious. It's automatically assumed the infringer is wrong unless the infringer offers some rationale to oppose the DMCA takedown notice, and although the entity issuing the takedown notice is supposed to swear they are the copyright holder or their representative, we know that often isn't the case and they're unlikely to be countersued for misrepresentation. In short, the copyright holders (or illegitimate interests claiming to be) have little legal risk by issuing huge numbers of bogus takedown notices. That asymmetry has a serious chilling effect. And now the politicians are complaining about it when it affects them.

Good.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | about 6 years ago | (#25381059)

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (3, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 6 years ago | (#25381189)

Gawd I wish you weren't right... :-(

Checkmate (5, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 6 years ago | (#25381301)

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

That would be perfect.

Since there does exist an actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party [wikipedia.org] Pirate Party. Now put a political message in the metadata of your files, and claim your exemption.

I'm certain that The Pirate Party would have no issue endorsing files so that they received DCMA exemptions.

(The Pirate Party of Podunk County has approved this message)

Re:Checkmate (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 6 years ago | (#25381323)

DCMA exemptions.

Err... DMCA exemptions.

(I suppose my username + mixing up DMCA/DCMA exemptions indicates one hell of a Freudian Slip.)

Re:Checkmate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381559)

I'm not sure why you needed to tell us you have a sexual fetish for Joel [wikipedia.org] and Benji Madden [wikipedia.org] .

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (5, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 6 years ago | (#25381397)

they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

McCain looks and acts like a 300 year old vampire. Obama is gonna give him an ass kicking Blade style!

AdObama4Pres-Blade1.torrent 619.43 MB

----------------------

McCain is 72 years young, and as strong and healthy as when he was 20!

AdMcCainYoungAndVigorous-Cocoon.torrent 601.45 MB

-

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

CrackerJackz (152930) | about 6 years ago | (#25381093)

I think its a higher likelihood of 'loopholes' being added for 'political ads / content' (just like the National Do not Call list.

There is simply to much lobbyist $ rolling around to hope for an outright repeal.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | about 6 years ago | (#25381275)

No, but please let the rest of us enjoy the Schadenfreude that results from seeing politicians getting bitten by their own legislation :-)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | about 6 years ago | (#25381653)

and shit rolls downhill

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 6 years ago | (#25381455)

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Obama was 8* when the DMCA was passed. McCain voted for it. I know which one I'd rather see burned by it now.

* Some rounding is involved here.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381495)

They will make an exception for political campaigning but keep the DMCA otherwise.

Fair use or Political attacks? (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 6 years ago | (#25380983)

Why should McCain be against takedowns? That seems to be the entirety of his election strategy this year.

Sorry McCain (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#25380985)

you completely shit on the first amendment with your campaign finance reform (aka incumbent protection). The sooner you die the better, asshole.

Oh, Please... (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 6 years ago | (#25381021)

Money != speech

Re:Oh, Please... (2, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | about 6 years ago | (#25381137)

Opinions vary.

Re:Oh, Please... (3, Insightful)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | about 6 years ago | (#25381309)

But

Money == <access to advertising slots>

Oh please (5, Insightful)

Exanon (1277926) | about 6 years ago | (#25380993)

To think that the DMCA defenders would actually change their minds over this is ridiculous. They wont care about the DMCA since it doesn't affect them for the most part. Once the videos are back, the DMCA will once again be "a much needed weapon to save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, it said so right here in this report".

Re:Oh please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381097)

The DMCA saved my job, and my company. No argument here.

Re:Oh please (1)

Endymion (12816) | about 6 years ago | (#25381143)

So you're saying your job and company are dependent on a highly out-dated business model? Perhaps you should spend some time and money investing in something that will last into the future better...

Re:Oh please (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381295)

So you're saying your job and company are dependent on a highly out-dated business model? Perhaps you should spend some time and money investing in something that will last into the future better...

You tell him!

The new business model/employment model is becoming groveling for handouts from Government. That's my new plan. While all of you are working your asses off for declining pay, especially in IT because IT - all of IT especially programming - is a commodity to be gotten anywhere for pennies on the dollar; I'll be collecting handouts from the Government that your tax dollars are paying for.

I tried the loser route of learning new skills, going to school and getting more degrees, but you know what? No one wants to hire a middle aged career changer.

So while your job is being sent overseas or becoming irrelevant because a company can get a free version (there's only so many service jobs for F/OSS to go around and they go overseas too.),I want you to know, I'm here sitting on my ass, Trolling Slashdot, rubbing in your faces that _I_ don't have to work and I'm just having a blast! I'm living the future of America!

So, thank you for working so hard.

Gotta go! My champagne spritzers an omlettes are ready. I also have to go to get another bottle of Johnny Walker Blue after my Mercedes is done at the shop. I'm having mink seat cushions put in and then I'm going to fuck a PETA chick on them.

Re:Oh please (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#25381117)

To think that the DMCA defenders would actually change their minds over this is ridiculous. T

Is it? John McCain is one the DMCA's staunchest defenders and has been even more so since courting the current U.S. Olympic Chair Throwing Gold Medalist Steve Ballmer to be on his cabinet.

Re:Oh please (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 6 years ago | (#25381457)

As a poster above said, just put political speech in the metadata of the media files that you are distributing & then let the fireworks ensue!

How many characters can you fit in the MP3 file format's comment field?

schadenfreude (1)

praxis22 (681878) | about 6 years ago | (#25380995)

They're only doing it because people are issuing take down notices for their on-line attack ads. They just can't get no love :)

Special Treatment (2, Interesting)

Spazztastic (814296) | about 6 years ago | (#25381009)

All he is looking for is special treatment. I guarantee if someone posted a video that was not beneficial to his campaign or even detrimental he would not hesitate to thank the DMCA act for taking down the video.

Go ahead and mod this flamebait, I just don't think he should get special treatment just because he's a presidential candidate.

HAHAHAHAHAHA (-1, Flamebait)

JamesP (688957) | about 6 years ago | (#25381015)

Cry me a River.

I absolute LOVE THIS.

Republicans pushed for this. Don't like it? TOUGH

That's what's called hypocrisy.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381043)

Republicans pushed for this.

Uh, you should look up the DMCA [wikipedia.org] . It's the part in the right column at the bottom, the one that reads

# Signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998

I think both parties are in agreement on copyright law, who ever has the cash gets to sue everybody else. Only when two giants like Viacom and Youtube go up against each other are they unsure of what to do.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA (5, Informative)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25381193)

here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.

What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 6 years ago | (#25381387)

here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.

What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.

People like the person you were addressing are a serious impediment to rational discourse on the internet. They are insulated by the web, and have created some sort of cognitive dissonance that hides the real world situation from themselves.

Typical fanboy behavior. Unfortunately, it applies to all aspects of society; Sports teams, cities, nations, ethnicities, OS, and obviously politicians all have their fanboys. What really bugs me is when people like him get so wound up in their own fanaticism that they begin to engage in the old practice of 'If I can't have it, then no one can.'

But thanks for looking up the vote totals. I like to see that sort of information tossed back at these fanatics at every opportunity regardless of claims to any political ideology.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about 6 years ago | (#25381361)

Hypocrisy is ignorant people who are clueless to the facts. Both parties are culpable in passing this abomination.

study shows most of us don't matter to megasloth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381027)

totally expendable we are. things may change though, you can 'play' along if it suits you.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...you're share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

What's good for the goose... (4, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | about 6 years ago | (#25381033)

McCain voted for a bill (the DMCA) that made service providers responsible for doing an immediate takedown of content alleged to have been improperly posted regardless of the merits of the complaint if they wanted the fullest protections the law could provide. Complaining when a company is complying in full with that law hardly seems fitting.

It's almost a shame the Obama campaign isn't submitting more content (defensible as fair use) that could be mechanically considered to infringe themselves; if this were the case, there would be less perception that YouTube is pushing a political agenda via their takedown process.

Re:What's good for the goose... (3, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 6 years ago | (#25381257)

DMCA aside, videos published on the web don't *have* to be published through YouTube. If you don't like your publisher's policies, change publisher or publish it yourself. Americans are always very protective of the free market, and this is an example of why it is a good thing - there are alternatives to YouTube, use them.

Re:What's good for the goose... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25381437)

Obama doesn't HAVE to submit to anything to youtube. He already has the youth vote locked up, and plenty of young people to submit stuff FOR him, without even being asked). McCain is the one who is desperate to make himself relevant to the youth vote. That's why he's so concerned about anyone taking down his videos from the one venue where he might actually reach some voters under retirement age.

Bunch of damn pinko commies (2, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | about 6 years ago | (#25381061)

They don't seem to realize that this is John McCain they're dealing with not some nobody prole.

Re:Bunch of damn pinko commies (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25381465)

He should hire some lobbyists to get this "DMCA" law repealed. Doesn't he understand how politics works?

here's... (2)

cosmocain (1060326) | about 6 years ago | (#25381071)

...the whole letter [eff.org] . While it's an interesting read - does anybody know if McCain voted pro-DMCA?

Re:here's... (1)

Sebilrazen (870600) | about 6 years ago | (#25381151)

Senate voted unanimous consent with the House's passage. So for all intents and purposes, yes he voted for it.

Re:here's... (1)

RichiH (749257) | about 6 years ago | (#25381173)

Of course he did.

Re:here's... (1)

drfireman (101623) | about 6 years ago | (#25381607)

Typical lawyer letter -- pretends to genuinely believe youtube has no good reason to take down the videos, when in fact they do.

I don't know if any lawyers are reading this, but if so, can someone explain what the word "automatonically" means?

Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it... (3, Insightful)

Endymion (12816) | about 6 years ago | (#25381081)

If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!

I'd say you could potentially gain back some of your totally trampled credibility by suddenly proposing a repeal of the DMCA with your senate position, but I somehow doubt that such a miracle would occur...

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381133)

Because he was for it before he was against it.

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it... (1)

east coast (590680) | about 6 years ago | (#25381365)

If pushing to reform the DMCA is all it will take to put a real dent in his current voter deficit than God help us all.

Seriously, in light of all the other issues we currently have going on it's not that big of a deal. Even if the problems we face today (the economy, energy crisis, so on and so forth) are really just a problem of perception it's still causing a real rift in society.

And given the high pro-DMCA vote, I doubt even if McCain or Obama ripped into the law with a zealot-like fury that it would get anywhere beyond a revision that would make political material exempt.

In some ways it's good to see a bit of backlash only because it will keep the legislatures eyes open to the potential for future technology to be marginalized by wide sweeping laws such as the DMCA but I don't know how much this single incident will have a long term effect on the minds of those on The Hill.

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381515)

If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!

Do you expect him to read every bill that he votes for?

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it... (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | about 6 years ago | (#25381517)

If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!

Easy there. At the time he had no idea what the internets was.

A politician's solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381131)

...would be to amend the DCMA to exempt political speech, perhaps by pre-registering certain users as exempt from takedown.

There, now the freedom to post campaign ads is unaffected.

Did he support that? (1)

Jodka (520060) | about 6 years ago | (#25381203)

McCain was a senator when the DMCA was enacted. Did he vote for it?

Re:Did he support that? (1)

faedle (114018) | about 6 years ago | (#25381265)

It passed the Senate unanimously.

So, yes.

Body of the letter (2, Informative)

will_die (586523) | about 6 years ago | (#25381217)

Re:Body of the letter (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 6 years ago | (#25381483)

Interesting stuff. They have a point in that there is no automatic requirement to take down content upon receipt of a letter. That said, YouTube has a point in that they should not be forced to be the judge and jury as to whether or not the content is, in fact, infringement. What if they didn't take it down and the original complainant went to court, and the court found it infringing? YouTube would then be liable for the infringement as well, when it would be much cheaper for them in the long run to simply take down the video in the first place.

The main problem with the DMCA takedown provisions is that they force the provider to assume guilt on the part of the uploader, lest they become liable for the possible infringement later shown in court.

Re:Body of the letter (1)

tbannist (230135) | about 6 years ago | (#25381677)

Besides, there are people who are just looking for a reason to sue YouTube. And that would be just about every single media company in existence. If they can bankrupt YouTube that means they get another chance to own the pipe as well as it's contents, which provides strategic advantage to their content.

Suck it up and deal with it like everybody else... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25381237)

You guys came up with the dumb law and voted for it. Oh, wait, I know a solution. It's a crazy idea, but maybe a bunch of legislators like yourselves might get together and CHANGE THE FRICKING LAW?

And, no, I don't mean emending it to make special exceptions for politicians and different rules for every other citizen.

Money!! (1)

g0es (614709) | about 6 years ago | (#25381325)

I see this going down like this. McCain will complain about fair use and the DMCA, the RIAA and friends will "lobby" and all of a sudden McCain's camp will stop complaining. It would probably go down the same way for Obama. I don't beleive that the candidates are really the issue, just part of the system, I blame the parties. The political parties in this country have really mucked things up.

Blame youtube (1)

Vexorian (959249) | about 6 years ago | (#25381391)

Fox and CBS send the notices, but... let's blame youtube, I mean, McCain campaign fighting with Fox News would have been so awesome, but they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that...

Obama foresaw this and prevented it (4, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 years ago | (#25381425)

Anyone remember this article?
Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates [slashdot.org]

That is when I started liking the guy. Seems like he was even more prescient than I thought.

Want to end the campaign now? Ask this: (5, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 6 years ago | (#25381447)

I would love to have this question asked at tonight's debate.

"Senator McCain, your campaign is complaining that it is being unfairly censored by the DMCA. How do you reconcile your complaint when you yourself voted for this exact measure?

I'm no Obama supporter, but I'd love to watch him answer that question.

Ha Ha! (2, Insightful)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | about 6 years ago | (#25381519)

Hey McCain,

Its your bill, in at least the fact that you voted for it?

Since you're a Senator are you going show some genuine spine, and sponsor legislation to change or repeal that POS?

Pot, meet Kettle (1)

barbergeek (1131269) | about 6 years ago | (#25381531)

"Oh, so THAT's what Fair Use means."

Oh the ironey of it all!! (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about 6 years ago | (#25381547)

It must really suck when a law you voted for doesn't work out the way you like.

The law of unintended results.

Figures... it only matters if it's THEIR videos... (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | about 6 years ago | (#25381611)

Why is it that politicians don't give a damn about an issue even though millions of people protest it, speak out against it, etc, until they are affected? How long have we been saying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000 was evil? Since, I don't know, maybe 2000??? And did they ever care?

So politicians don't care, but the second a politician is affected by an injustice, they speak out about it, protest it, etc? Wow, talk about slow. Maybe if the politicians cared about these issues BEFORE the issues are written into injust laws, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

How many YouTube videos have been removed using the truly unjust DMCA Act? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Remember those anti-Scientology videos, that used free speech to get the message out about the (cult) of Scientology? The ones that got removed by the thousands because some guy filed 3,000 DMCA takedown notices?

And the politicians don't care about 3,000 protest videos being deleted from YouTube, but they sure as hell get their lawyers and press people to issue statements denouncing the DMCA Act due to a few removed campaign videos.

(I do at least give him credit for issuing a statement)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?