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!

DMCA Takedown Notice Leveled Against Ohio Congressional Race Ad

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the jeff-gannon-is-my-stage-name dept.

Advertising 130

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.'"

cancel ×

130 comments

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

reasons for which are listed below..... (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841814)

Really only need one reason: First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Re:reasons for which are listed below..... (5, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841968)

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

Re:reasons for which are listed below..... (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841982)

And the Supreme Court held in Eldred v. Ashcroft (upholding successive extensions of a copyright term) that fair use is a key limitation keeping copyright from running afoul of the First Amendment.

Re:reasons for which are listed below..... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842380)

Not only extensions, but they also moved works back under copyright, stealing from the public domain. It also proved they are as bought and paid for as any politician.

Must be nice being a senator... (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842004)

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:Must be nice being a senator... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843030)

One quick phone call and your web site is back up again. I bet if it was joe sixpack it'd still be down.

If it was Joe Sixpack, he wouldn't have the first clue what this "MDCA" thing is or what copywriters have to do with internet video.

No consequences (5, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841838)

"...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 (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841868)

They just don't sue anyone who has the resources to sue back. I know I wouldn't launch a half million dollar legal battle if I had to swat down a DMCA request one afternoon.

Re:No consequences (2, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841974)

Congressional candidates tend to have strong connections to wealth and political power, and are often lawyers. The DMCA may have pissed off the wrong people, this time.

Re:No consequences (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842428)

Indeed, and by the time they actually get to court, the campaign has been over for some time. Which has been a problem around here. The BIAW has been violating campaign finance laws in WA state for some time, but by the time they get to the point where there being fined, it's an off year for elections and the people forget about it by the next election cycle.

Re:No consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33841894)

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.*




*I may be wrong.

Re:No consequences (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842012)

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 (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842116)

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 (2, Insightful)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842188)

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.

Only problem of that is that then all possibly controversial takedown notices will then be done by corporations. Who are persons, but have additional rights, like the ability to spend as much money as they like on political campaigns (unlike humans, who have sharp limits), cannot be imprisoned, cannot be drafted, and pay lower taxes.

Re:No consequences (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842388)

I do not see how that is a problem the lawyer, and his client, the CEO can serve the time.

Re:No consequences (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842810)

... will then be done by corporations. Who are persons, but have additional rights...

They are a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality and having its own powers, duties, and liabilities. I post this simply so you will stop comparing a corporation to a person as any validation of a point. Apples and Oranges.

like the ability to spend as much money as they like on political campaigns (unlike humans, who have sharp limits),

Corporations, labor unions and national banks cannot contribute directly to any candidate's political campaign. If the candidate receives a large check from Don's Widgets, this is illegal.
Checks from sole proprietorships and partnerships are acceptable. Members of the board can contribute, but often many contributions from the same board will trigger an investigation.

They can form what is known as a "political action committee" which can donate up to $5,000 per candidate.

cannot be imprisoned,

Tell that to the execs of ENRON...but in reality, while a corporation cannot be INCARCERATED, you CAN remove a corporation's liberties.

cannot be drafted, and pay lower taxes.

Who says they can't be drafted? President Obama took over a company because he didn't think it was being run right...whats to stop them during a time of war?

Depending on individual income, the marginal tax rate for the tax year 2009 ranges from zero to 35%.

Corporate taxation in the United States (for federal) ranges from 15% to 35%.

This information can be located by simple googling, which produces links to FEC.GOV, law.cornell.edu etc.

Re:No consequences (2, Interesting)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842326)

We just need to be more creative about it.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/swedish-man-may-pay-largest-speeding-fine-ever/ [autoblog.com]

Re:No consequences (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842434)

That was just what I was thinking. Perhaps we need to rethink the notion that fixed sums of money are representative of equality rather than fixed percentages of ones income.

Re:No consequences (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842468)

If you make minimum wage taking 1% of your income may impact your ability to eat. If you make even a modest wage taking 1% is barely noticeable.

Only taking time is equal.

Re:No consequences (2, Interesting)

daniorerio (1070048) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842620)

why with the percentages, taking everything above minimum wage...

Re:No consequences (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843538)

Taking time from someone working a minimum-wage job means he can't work that day and could lose his minimum-wage job. Taking time from someone who would otherwise spend the time vacationing in five-star hotels is not the same thing, either.

Re:No consequences (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843906)

I would not be so sure.

99.99% of the population lives with no reserves and relies on various forms of insurance where our parents used to rely on savings. Whatever you get at the end of the month is spent by the end of next month. 1% of annual income will actually hurt nearly anyone out there. 5% for nearly anyone mean that you cannot meet your established spending commitments and need to reorg your credits. 10% - you can consider yourself bankrupt.

Re:No consequences (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842438)

Still not good enough. To some a $300 ticket might mean no food or at least going without other things they really need. This man will not suffer like that even with this ticket.

Taking an 8 hour day from his life would be just as fair as taking it from any other man.

time: not fair at all (2, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843226)

The effect of jail varies greatly with income.

Rich: Jail is yucky. It's boring, the food tastes like crap, and you can't play polo. When you get out, you can go back to your normal routine. (you have no job, the butler has kept the house nice, etc.)

Middle: Jail is a personal disaster of unimaginable horror. You lose your job. You are unable to even respond to your creditors, never mind pay them. You thus lose your car and your home. This likely means you lose a spouse and/or your children; the state will find adoptive parents for your children if your spouse doesn't just take them while moving in with his/her new lover. You will never gain the same sort of employment ever again, because you now have a criminal record. Your finances will never recover.

Poor: Jail kind of sucks sometimes. You might get a bad roommate, it's hard to keep facebook updated, and you have to do unspeakable things to get any drugs. On the upside you don't need to worry about finding food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and heat. All your needs are taken care of, and nothing much is expected of you. You almost certainly didn't have an intact family to begin with, so no loss there. If you are friendly you can even get special treatment, play games, lift weights, and so on. All in all, it's not such a bad deal.

Re:time: not fair at all (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843416)

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.

Re:time: not fair at all (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843812)

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure he was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Re:No consequences (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843728)

More appropriate is if you are the copyright holder and issue an knowingly "bad" takedown, then you should lose the copyright on the item in question. If they had to risk the copyright itself every time they defended it, they'd make sure they were right, not just issue a takedown on everything with a similar name (or obvious fair use)

Re:No consequences (2, Insightful)

lpq (583377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843914)

How do you send a corporate entity to jail?

Re:No consequences (3, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842124)

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.

Re:No consequences (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842230)

Problem is, you can't define "Blatant".

Closest you can come is, having any particular action overturned. If that alone resulted in an immediate monetary penalty it would bring most of this abuse to a very quick stop.

We can argue about the monetary amount. We can make it ascending, costing more an more for each overturned take down.

But I don't think you can void a companies patents or copyrights because one overzealous lawyer overreached. You can make it painful enough that management will demand to personally approve any such action.

Set a penalty level that gets management's attention, but still allows them to take down entire songs, tv shows, or what ever. Just make them be sure they are following the law.

Disbarment sounds pretty reasonable too.

Re:No consequences (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842454)

Sure you can. Depending upon the state there's something as "willful" violations of various laws. For instance here in WA, if you're setting up traffic control devices and you can't tell the inspector why you're not in compliance, that's a willful violation right there. As opposed to if you tell them the rational, then they'll either go along with it or issue you a much smaller fine. Probably even let you fix the problem without being cited.

I don't see any reason why that couldn't or shouldn't be done in other areas, like campaign advertisements.

Re:No consequences (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842884)

Sure you can define blatant, and I'd argue it can be defined quite easily. If you only file a single DMCA and that is overturned? that isn't blatant, you might have just been mistaken. You file a dozen and they get overturned something like 70% of the time? now THAT is blatant. And as for fines I'd say start at 10% of their GROSS income, and then work your way with continued DMCA abuse. i don't care if you make $3000 or $3,000,000, 10% ain't gonna be pleasant, and if it goes up in 2% increments with every subsequent abuse filed within the same year? THAT will make them think long and hard before spamming DMCA notices.

Re:No consequences (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842014)

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?

In Lenz v. Universal [wikipedia.org] , a U.S. district court ruled that failure to consider applicable defenses such as fair use before filing an OCILLA notification is misrepresentation.

Re:No consequences (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842140)

What was the penalty levied against Universal?

Re:No consequences (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842190)

As I understand it, that is to be decided later. Federal civil courts move slowly.

Re:No consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843076)

In other words.. probably not.

Re:No consequences (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842018)

Should be easy in theory to file a DMCA takedown request using false information, maybe by impersonating a real company. That way the trail leads back to a dead end. I'm actually surprised we haven't heard of this type of "information warfare" yet.

HEX

Re:No consequences (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842236)

Why haven't people been systematically doing this to everything ever since the DMCA was passed?

Re:No consequences (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842464)

Because that's illegal under the same provision. It's just as illegal as if you misrepresent the material as belonging to you, whether you pretend it belongs to you, or you pretend to represent whomever it is that owns the material.

Re:No consequences (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842544)

Of course it's illegal, but since when has that stopped illegal measures being used in "information warfare"? DDOS attacks are illegal, however they are used all the time. It seems to me the DMCA is ripe for abuse by this method, I don't like what you say so I file a forged DMCA takedown request, which at the least forces you to go through the hassle of getting your content re-instated. Can someone point me at a news article regarding this happening already?

HEX

Re:No consequences (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843560)

It seems to me you've struck the civil disobedience nail on the head for getting this abomination of a law gutted. If everyone did this to all the political ads, then maybe the politicians would figure out how much of a pain in the ass they are being passing this trash.

Okay, so I'm not actually going to do that because I don't want to fight that fight. I'm fairly sure you're with me. It'd serve them right, though, wouldn't it? At least the members of the US Congress who voted the DMCA in? If the CDA ever comes back (it will) they'll probably put in a complaint that forces a takedown without due process, too. So then people could charge all political ads as indecent. What a hoot that'd be.

Countersuit? (1)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841842)

Umm... so are we going to see someone getting hit with some sort of countersuit, since they've clearly misused the DMCA takedown process? Or is this one of those things where you can spew out accusations willy-nilly without your victim having any sort of recourse besides getting their video reinstated?

Countersuit possible in theory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33841994)

Portion of DCMA taken from http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a
notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that
material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification,
is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred
by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.

In other words yes there is a potential for penalty, but proving damages in a political case is going to be very hard.

Re:Countersuit possible in theory. (5, Funny)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842152)

No, that should be pretty simple.

"Your Honor, Defendant's misrepresentation caused me to lose an election for the US Senate. This has cost me a Senate seat; as damages I would like Defendant to sign over to me one of its paid-for senators."

Re:Countersuit possible in theory. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842470)

Therein lies the problem, the BIAW was just fined a half million dollars for campaign finance violations in an election which, IIRC, was in 2008, making it a worthwhile gamble to try and weasel around the requirements.

Re:Countersuit possible in theory. (3, Funny)

ignavus (213578) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843558)

No, that should be pretty simple.

"Your Honor, Defendant's misrepresentation caused me to lose an election for the US Senate. This has cost me a Senate seat; as damages I would like Defendant to sign over to me one of its paid-for senators."

That's what I call "an Aye for an Aye".

Re:Countersuit? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842500)

The problem isn't just the knee-jerk reaction we get that politicians use the DMCA to chill what's clearly fair use, but the bigger problem is that the party in question doesn't hold copyrights to the original works of that actor in the first place.
That isn't just DMCA abuse, but copyright fraud; claiming to hold copyrights to other people's works.

Unless there have been some radical changes since last week, the same people have earlier claimed that copyright violation is theft...

What, you didn't mean that it's theft when applied to politicians, Sir? Well, now, what's sauce for the goose...

Fair use? (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841860)

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? (3, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841888)

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.

Re:Fair use? (2, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842166)

But the baffling thing here is that this isn't some big company demanding a political ad be removed; it's a tiny film studio. And the film in question is free on the internet.

It just seems like there has to be a missing piece to this story.

Re:Fair use? (3, Interesting)

atfrase (879806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842528)

But the baffling thing here is that this isn't some big company demanding a political ad be removed; it's a tiny film studio. And the film in question is free on the internet.

It just seems like there has to be a missing piece to this story.

Is it really that baffling? Let me take a stab at that missing piece:

Campaign manager: Hey tiny film studio, how do you feel about perjuring yourself to shut down this ad that's making us look bad? We'll owe ya one, and we have this funny feeling the perjury won't be prosecuted anyway.
Tinyfilmstudio: A corrupt congressman in my debt? Yes please; consider it done.
Campaign manager: I knew we'd see eye-to-eye on this one.

Re:Fair use? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842064)

It parodies the values trying to be represented or sold to the US public during an election cycle.

Re:Fair use? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842220)

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?

You are interfering with the actor's ability charge a fee to shoot a new commercial where he admits he is an actor.

See #4 in 17 USC 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use [bitlaw.com]

I'm only half joking, BTW.

Fair use must be considered (2, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841870)

And the Strickland campaign might want to point out this ruling in Lenz v. Universal Music [eff.org] where the judge said that copyright holders must consider whether the use of the material constitutes fair use under copyright law before filing their takedown request.

Re:Fair use must be considered (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841914)

Well, sure, but all the filing party must say is that they -think- that, all other things having been considered, their copyright has been infringed. No evidence required, just an accusation.

R & D please? (5, Funny)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841878)

Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name? That way I'll know if I should be up in arms at this vile abuse of the DMCA or giddy with excitement that it was wielded this way. ;-)

Re:R & D please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33841912)

Strickland-D and Kasich-R, FYI.

Also, why can't you do both? 'Round these parts we call that there cognitive dissonanace. It's all the rage in politics these days!

Re:R & D please? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842022)

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:R & D please? (3, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842350)

A fake steelworker is nothing compared to a fake candidate from a fake party: http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20101007/NEWS01/101007081/Democrats-Adler-campaign-backed-Tea-Party-candidate [courierpostonline.com] There are other similar attempts [examiner.com] except nobody from Reid's team is spilling the beans yet.

Re:R & D please? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842452)

They both do this crap. Stop voting for D or R. They are both just the servants of the corporations that bribe/lobby them the most.

Re:R & D please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843864)

... and the GOP has been backing Green Party candidates in Dem districts for years.

Nothing new under the sun.

teleprompter jockey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842950)

A fake person selling fake policy to the down home American everyman.

Better than an authentic Nobama downing every American home? Your choice I guess.

Re:R & D please? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841920)

The fact that they are politicians should be enough. I want to see sponsors logos on their suits like race car drivers. So we can see who they really work for.

Re:R & D please? (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841944)

The fact that they are politicians should be enough. I want to see sponsors logos on their suits like race car drivers. So we can see who they really work for.

That's a fantastic idea! Too bad anyone who would want to implement this would never have the funding to get into office to propose it.

Re:R & D please? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841970)

I have for years being trying to figure out how to get myself into office. Not as a real politician, because my ideas are often bad, but only as a way to stop things I know suck. I would vote only no, or abstain basically.

Also no contributions to me ever, would be my thing. I am not rich enough, and if I was no non-rich man should ever vote for me.

Re:R & D please? (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841990)

That's a hell of a campaign slogan, "I'll vote against things that suck!"

You got my vote.

Re:R & D please? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842034)

I can see it now: Oral sex banned in his district...

Re:R & D please? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842106)

No, Oral Sex is an awesome idea,

I would vote for making sales of Oral Sex legal. I would vote against any law attempting to make prostitution illegal as I know those laws are bad.

As the great orator Carlin once said, "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Re:R & D please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842186)

Heh my uncle did that in a small town. He continues to be re-elected because of that VERY stance. He made it mandatory 1 day a week work weeks for the mayor at min wage.

Re:R & D please? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842342)

I actually like voting a universal obstructionist into office, especially at the local level. Damn glad I don't get the government I pay for.

Re:R & D please? (2, Funny)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843218)

I actually like voting a universal obstructionist into office, especially at the local level.

No, you probably don't.

"We have a bill to fix the contacting process for fixing potholes, which used to be automatically awarded to the mayor's brother's company. This bill will greatly reduce our costs and improve the quality of our roads." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"

"We have a bill to remove an obsolete ban on interracial marriage from the books. It will finally bring out jurisdiction in line with the 20th century, and end a boycott that's been hampering our tourist industry." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"

"We have a bill to decriminalize all consensual crimes." "No! I'm a universal obstructionist!"

Re:R & D please? (4, Informative)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841956)

John Kasich [wikipedia.org] is the Republican nominee, running against Democratic incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland [wikipedia.org] .

MPAA news complex (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842026)

Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name?

It doesn't matter. The DMCA was a bipartisan measure that passed both houses of the Congress through a voice vote. Because MPAA studios share corporate parents with the mainstream news media [pineight.com] , both Republicans and Democrats exploit this conflict of interest to stay in office.

Re:MPAA news complex (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842048)

Both are the same party, they just fight about certain issues that are in there best interest to never have resolved. Don't think this is because they just can't get it done, they just don't want too. Those political footballs are too important. The Ds and the Rs are like Microsoft and Apple. Two sides of the same damn coin who's only real reason for not being one party/company is to prevent any real competition from springing up.

Re:R & D please? (0, Offtopic)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842030)

"Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name?"

You say that as if there's a significant difference between the two. There isn't - they're both out to re-purpose your money toward their own ends, and build up their own power and control over your life.

Re:R & D please? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842080)

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/10/copyright-abuse-ohio-governor-election [eff.org]
"In response, the Ohio Democratic Party promptly published a YouTube video capitalizing on this, illustrating its point with short clips from Redden's acting career."
Seems the Republicans wanted a slick 'pro' feeling ad and paid for it.

Re:R & D please? (0, Troll)

tomhath (637240) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842110)

Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name?

The fact that they're missing tells you that the guy who is correct is the "R" and the one who got caught in a lie is "D". Otherwise it would have been called out for you. But of course that's the point you are making...

Re:R & D please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842174)

wow, i hope parent gets modded up to serve as an example for partisan whiners.

Re:R & D please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843078)

Does America still do R&D? I thought it was all outsourced to China...

Re:R & D please? (2, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843188)

Sure, here you go.

Strickland - RD
Kasich - RD

Censorship (4, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841884)

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 (4, Insightful)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842112)

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:Censorship (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842242)

The only thing I am undecided on is which third party to vote for. I don't care about their stance at all, just who is the closest to getting recognized as a real party. Both the Ds and the Rs are a bunch of liars who sold out to the rich corporate interests long ago.

Re:Censorship (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842524)

Except it's not the politician using the DMCA to censor. It's the film studio that owns the movies they used clips from. So in this case the Streisand effect is the desired outcome. Nobody noticed or cared what movie it was. But now the film studio is all OVER the news ;)

It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman! (1, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33841930)

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

Re:It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman! (4, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842144)

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

Link to the video (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33841972)

It would be nice to have it in the summary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48YAEcKZeU [youtube.com]

Re:Link to the video (1)

ludwigf (1208730) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843948)

If you would have RTFA you would have noticed it contains the video. PS I didn't, so thanks for the link.

Republicans (1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842024)

Republicans can't run on facts, so they flail against Democrats using censorship. What a shameful way for Republicans to use their power gained by insisting they've got the monopoly on values and freedom.

It's not a congressional race! (5, Informative)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842308)

As an Ohioan, I know Ted Strickland-D is the Governor of this state and John Kasich-R is running against him for Governor.

MOD PARENT UP AS INFORMATIVE (1)

forand (530402) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843026)

Parent is correct also please allow us to mod editors down for not catching blatant factual flaws.

Oh, it gets even BETTER! (3, Informative)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842332)

So apparently a user called "KC Allen" claims on the Vimeo page for the parody-of-the-ad [vimeo.com] that

The Ohio filmmaking community is outraged by a web ad published to YouTube, sponsored by the Ohio Democratic Party. The ad is an attack in response to a recent commercial from the Kasich camp, in which a local actor portrayed a man out of work. The ODP ad features clips from films in which the actor has appeared, in violation of copyright.

Setting aside the incredible hubris associated with speaking for the entire filmmaking community in a state (heck, at least he could have tried to claim something about speaking for a particular group of filmmakers in Ohio, were he the spokesman or president of the body), I am quite appalled at the shoot-from-the-hip nature of his alleged copyright infringement claim.

KC Allen continues:

One film, from Arginate Studios was produced in 2010 as part of an international film contest based in Washington DC, the 48 Hour Film Project, while the other was produced by Whiskey Tent films. No permission to use the clips was asked for or granted by the filmmakers or other responsible, legally permitted parties.

I hope when he says "responsible" he mean "people responsible for granting rights," not "people who act responsibly." I mean, the latter case is kind of a judgment call, no? :-)

And I fully appreciate his (likely) factual claim that no permission was asked for or granted. Of course (as others have pointed out), the authors of the parody work might have a strong fair-use defense.

The filmmakers of the state of Ohio demand an immediate public apology for this lack of respect and egregious violation of their hard work and professionalism.

Here we go again, speaking for a group of people without any evidence that you have the authority or position.

What, do you want me to claim that the Computer Programmers of the Whole Internet demand an immediate public apology from the filmmakers of the State (capitalizing the proper noun) of Ohio?

Then you have the witty comeback from "Modern Esquire":

You're right because no independent film maker has ever splice in footage from other films, tv shows, music, etc. It's called Fair Use. Which is part of the copyright law. There's absolutely no legal basis for your complaints. None.

Well, I wouldn't say "none," because I'm not a copyright lawyer, but yes, it does look like there's a pretty strong defense here.

Then, someone named "Sam" apparently knows the actors and decides to chime in:

You are seriously going to argue that actors don't have the right to not appear in political attack ads based of their completely unrelated narrative work?

I'm not talking about Chip here... if it was only Chip and actually used to illustrate his acting career... you know by including his work with larger companies like 'safe auto' and appearance on 'Lost' instead of editing a string of insults... which according to you add to the debate... I'm talking about Rick and the girls who are clearly recognizable. They have nothing to do with this and now their faces are stuck on an attack ad which nearly the entire central ohio film community finds offensive.

I've got to give Sam credit for at least saying "nearly the entire central ohio film community" as compared to KC Allen's bit of hyperbole. I'm also quite sympathetic to what Sam sees as a potential defamation against "Chip" and "Rick" and the women who feature in the clips. I can be a bit disconcerting to see your video chopped-up and used in a different fashion than it was originally intended. But on the flip side, I believe all of the clips used are from commercial productions, and there's got to be very little expectation of privacy or prevention of people doing things protected under Fair Use with these commercial clips.

Okay, then you get the crazies (or just people trolling?)

Peter John Ross:
This ad is blatant violation of copyright laws and whoever made this should be flogged for using someone's creative work without permission.

What kind of person does this? And I thought politicians were scum...

Flogged? Like, really? If this is the voice of Ohio filmmakers, then I have to point out that you're presenting an image of a bunch of exaggerating, ultra-copyright-protectionist bastards. Basically, you sound like poster boys for the Jack Valenti, militant, "VCR-is-the-boston-strangler," sect of the MPAA. Hopefully that's what you were going for!

Here's a comment (ostensibly) from one of the filmmakers who worked with Chip:

Whiskey Tent Films:

I created video that was used in this ad. They are using my creative work without my permission. How is this not a violation? If a third party created a design or animation that I in turn used in my film without giving credit, I would be in the wrong legally. Does this not fall under the same rules?

I actually find this particular comment very telling. I think the problem is that small filmmakers are getting the impression that they can't use any video footage from the "big boys" in their productions, and not understanding the protections granted by Fair Use, so they're telegraphing that misinformation onto others who might use their own work.

As much as we might want to attack the filmmakers in this situation, it sounds like they're the ones that really need our (and the EFF's). The more that they are able to protect their own Fair Use and parody rights, the better precedent that will set when us (really) amateurs try to put up some of our own silly films on YouTube or Vimeo.

Then we have "Peter John Ross" who thinks, well, this:

Actually, I have consulting an Intellectual Property Lawyer. This is a clear violation and it does not qualify for fair use. The merits as described in some blog are inapplicable to this video and it's usage. Those are for WORKS OF ART, not commercials for financial gain, which politcal ads fall into.

Use of ANY PART of someone's copyrighted works, not even in the whole, is illegal without permission of the copyright holder.

First, cite the lawyer (name and exact quote), please?

Second, Fair Use defense doesn't have anything to do with financial gain (or lack thereof).

Here's a short blurb from Wikipedia about Fair Use:

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.

More from Mr. Ross:

The copyright holder has the sole right to decide if they want their copyrighted work to make a political point.

That just seems completely at odds with the Fair Use defense. Whether or not this particular video is covered is a separate issue, but political commentary/parody has been covered by a Fair Use defense previously, so I'm going to have to believe the Courts and not Mr. Ross here...

And enough about the "theft" crap:

"...I will not support theft of intellectual property.

It's not theft, dude, it's copyright infringement. If you're really a professional filmmaker, please talk like a professional.

The same example can be used with many rappers whereby no matter how small a sample they used, they have to obtain permission AND credit the original works used in their new composition.

Do you think the original samples are covered under Fair Use?

Then, it just gets surreal. Mr. Ross decides to take it up a notch, creating his own parody-of-the-parody:

Peter John Ross:
Here ya go kids!

vimeo.com/15675627

Enjoy my video covered by Parody and Fair Use laws!

This video features pictures of politicians with the words "child molesters, al qaeda supporters, tax-evading embezzlers, and neo nazi terrorists" underneath them. Then the video cuts to a screen with the explanation:

We aren't saying anything negative about these politicians.

Those are just words and unrelated pictures."

I mean, just... wow! Some aspects of that video might be covered under Parody/Fair Used, but it's entirely possible that the portions in which he associated politicians with words might be classified as libel [wikipedia.org] .

All together, a very enjoyable story!

Re:Oh, it gets even BETTER! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842424)

As someone who has been to Ohio it would not surprise me if he was the only filmmaker in the state.

Is there a problem here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842700)

Some hate speech is also political speech, yet the best and brightest journalists remove it in a flash.

Hence, since when did banning political speech become a problem?

Is it just me.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843146)

...or does it seem like not much of a scandal that an actor would be in a commercial. Doesn't this happen all the time? I hope the guy on JG Wentworth commercials really isn't the CEO of the company.

Re:Is it just me.. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843694)

You would want an actor to prevent any 'blow back' vs if you where to select Joe Public.
Actors have a vested image in keeping their image clean long term.
Joe Public could have drug issues, could over medicate, could have non mainstream faith issues, be in a cult ect.
What would happen if Joe Public where to be exposed spending the payment from the ad on hard drugs or be funding a brain washing cult ect?

Challenge (1)

emt377 (610337) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843168)

Clearly it's fair use if the clips are short enough. They should dispute the notice.

no different than thailand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843632)

sounds exactly like Thailand where the lese majeste law is (ab)used to silence political opponents and people critical of govt and/or military.

What seems to be lost in the noise is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843766)

Does anyone think that Strickland hasn't run a commercial with an actor claiming to be a bus driver, cop, waitress etc.

Fact is that at least 90% of the people doing commercials like this will come off badly on TV. If they didn't they'd be ... well ... actors.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>