Members Music Calgary Posted October 21, 2008 Members Share Posted October 21, 2008 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10066738-38.html YouTube has rejected a request from John McCain's presidential campaign for a legal review of political videos that are the subject of deletion requests. The Google-owned company said Tuesday evening in a response to McCain's organization (PDF) that it could not give campaigns special treatment and that it was "not in a position to verify" whether infringement complaints made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were legitimate or not. The McCain camp is upset that some of its political ads and videos, which used brief snippets of news broadcasts and other copyrighted material, have been the subject of DMCA takedown requests after they appear on YouTube. What happens when the fatcats come up against copyright law? Simple... They try to change the rules, but only for themselves... Let them eat cake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 21, 2008 Members Share Posted October 21, 2008 No, I think Cake is on record against McCain using their songs, too. (I could be wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Music Calgary Posted October 22, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 22, 2008 HAW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted October 22, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 The YouTube video was a McCain campaign ad defending Sara Palin. It used a sound clip from Katie Couric about sexism in the campaign, and NBC News claimed that its use violated their copyright. McCain's campaign committee said that it fell under the Fair Use provision of the copyright law. The problem was that what Couric said wasn't about Sara Palin, it was about Hillary Clinton. Taken out of context as such, the network claimed that their copyright material was used in a misleading manner and therefore wasn't Fair Use by any standards (the standards for which are actually quite limited). You can listen to an NPR Morning Edition article about it (Real Audio) here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WRGKMC Posted October 22, 2008 Members Share Posted October 22, 2008 NPR is very left wing. I dont put too much trust in them if theyre defending NBC. NBC ratings are so bad I dont know why they just dont pack their tents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members yermej Posted October 22, 2008 Members Share Posted October 22, 2008 If they can't muscle their way out, the only recourse is to file a counter notification with Youtube to have the video restored (which Youtube must honor). This amounts to McCain's campaign stating, under penalty of perjury, that they haven't violated anyone's copyright. Then it would be up to CBS (Couric is with CBS, right?) to sue if they really felt they had a worthwhile case against the Fair Use claim. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Well, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted October 22, 2008 Members Share Posted October 22, 2008 It's my understanding that any music after its original release is fair game for licensing by anyone. I know mine is. I don't understand the Foo Fighter's gripe that their music was used without their consent in a McCain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted October 22, 2008 Members Share Posted October 22, 2008 It's my understanding that any music after its original release is fair game for licensing by anyone. I know mine is.Maybe I misinterpreted the story.Best, John:cool: Sounds like you are thinking 17USC115 stuff - compulsory license for non-dramatic musical works The work in question isn't musical in nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted October 22, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 It's my understanding that any music after its original release is fair game for licensing by anyone. I know mine is. This is the Compulsory License. It says that the author must offer a license for his music once it's been published. But it doesn't regulate the terms of the license. The Beatles limited the number of books of their music by setting an unusually high license fee. I don't understand the Foo Fighter's gripe that their music was used without their consent in a McCain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.