It is silencing political speech

From the article, "DMCA takedown policy is "silencing political speech" by removing non-infringing political videos."

Yes it is. But, Youtube is following the law. The DMCA doesn't allow Youtube any authority to ignore notices even if they are obviously bogus, it's up to the other person to file the counternotice. The DMCA is broken and needs to be significantly overhauled (to recognize rights) or repealed. It's poor showing of McCain to ask for an exemption specifically for polticians, he should get "a taste of his own medicine" just like everyone else and fix it. He did vote for it after all.

I plan to vote Libertarian personally.. I don't believe in the hard core "repeal all taxes" etc., but they would move things the other way at least. The Democrats and Republicans are both for a larger government and restrictions on people's freedoms. They split hairs over WHY they are for this, but the outcome is the same.

Some pigs...

are more equal than others.

Particularly if they are wearing lipstick.

Hahahahahaha

A lesson for all politicians there - what you vote for to keep your paymasters happy may come back to bite you. Once he's back being a full-time senator, hopefully he can introduce a bill to remove the more stupid aspects of the DMCA.

The DMCA says silence, ask questions latter.

He didn't have a problem voting for a law that silences first and ask questions latter.

Its like the Judge that ruled that you have to privacy rights to your garbage, then had reporters digging through and reporting on his trash.

Political ignorance

>I plan to vote Libertarian personally.

Voting for McCain, then?

You DO know that Nader is the only reason Shrub got in (twice!), right?

Unfortunately, so-called "protest votes" don't work under this system ...

Y,y,y, I know, Nader's switched parties (again) ...

Grr...

This is pretty disgusting: McCain, whose campaign is worth several million dollars, wants these legal reviews which (we can only assume) will take several days, so that the adverts that he posts, which are quickly made to argue a certain point at a certain time, can be up for the whole time that they are usefull to McCain. If the DCMA takedown notice is served instantly the adverts are useless.

I've got a solution: PAY THE PEOPLE WHOSE WORKS YOU ARE TRYING TO PROFIT FROM. Then the problem will go away.

The Biter Bit

McCain seems to think that laws, like taxes, are for the little people. Maybe he thinks he should be exempt because he voted for it.

However, after last night's TV debate, it could all be moot - looks like McCain has had his [oven-ready?] chips.

(But my 'conspiracy theorist' side says that it only takes one armed balm-pot... something that the Republican side has no shortage of.)

@jake

Not all of the world beleaves the idea "Voting for a third candiate is thowing your vote away". Voting for Obama to spite Bush (which is what this is about) would be a protest vote, not voting for the person you beleve in dispite the fact that they have no chance.

Perhaps if people stopped being told "you are wasting you time voting for the third way" the US system might become a bit more democratic.

sad

if the guy is so dependent on a free video sharing site inorder to win votes, then I feel very sorry, sorry,sorry for him. It's a free service and if he don't like then, then let him set up his own video sharing/promotional site for his election campaign.

Or how about, paying for television commercials?

So let me get this straight..

McCain voted in favour of the DMCA and now that it inconveniences him he wants special treatment?

What a politician!

ptard host

enought said

'Merkins don't do irony -

but if they did....'

This is wonderful.

Get the lot orf !!

Does this mean that If I email in an obection to every single video on YouTube, that they will take the lot down, and then wait 10-14 days before even looking at whether my objections were valid. That is, if they still have a complany by then LOL

Music Piracy

At a previous poster: I was under the assumption that the McCain campaign had all the relevant rights to play whatever music they wanted. You pay the PRS, you can play music. Isn't it that Simple?

cry

cry me a river mother fucker.

You get the law you deserve.

One rule for us...

When their GOP grandfathers passed the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, they did so with the assurance that they would not have to suffer the effects of prohibition. Wayne Wheeler, master lobbyist and founder of the Anti Saloon League, who drafted and guided both pieces of legislation into law, was an eminently practical man, prepared to do whatever it took. This included assuring lawmakers that they would not be sacrificing their own cellars and pleasures, and informing rich southern whites that the law would only target blacks, moonshiners, and anyone who offended respectable folks by coming into town drunk. The top of society carried on drinking unmolested, and the Senate bar in Washington DC was kept supplied with seized liquor.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more similar examples.

Political banckruptcy

McCain could have just asked for the videos to be put back up... but perhaps there is a reason why he didn't. Takedown notices don't just allow copyright holders to remove infringing material, they also serve the function of allowing innocent people have slanderous and factually incorrect material removed without having to go to court. The burden of evidence is thus placed on the poster, rather than the subject of the video.

In terms of political material, if McCain posts (questionable) statements about Obama then Obama can protect himself by having the videos removed if he doesn't like them. McCain can then go to court and prove the statements are true, in which case the videos will be put back up. Freedom of speach should be protected, but its also important to protect citizens against damaging lies. Perhaps the motivation behind McCain's letter is that he wanted to be able to post videos about Obama that he couldn't back up in court.

I'm confused!

How can taking someone else's work, and using it to catch people's attention to advertise yourself be 'Fair Use'? He WANTS to win the election (which will get him loads of money). Nothing to do with him wanting to be a great benevolent leader at all. So, he should get on and pay the producers of the music/media the license fee.

Vote McCain, vote for a theiving, bullying git (not that the rest of politicians are much better, at least they don't seem to shout as loud).

Obama too?

If this was the case, then Obama would also be allowed.... And I bet McCain will try and get Obama taken offline ;)

@paul

It _is_ a waste of time until you (and the Brits) switch your electoral system to proportional representation.

@Paul @Uncle Slacky

> Not all of the world beleaves the idea "Voting for a third candiate is thowing your vote away".

Re-read what I typed. Belief has nothing to do with maths.

Slacky:

If Shrub hadn't won in 2000, he wouldn't be where he is today. If Nader wasn't on the ballet in 2000, Gore would have won (which of course would have brought its own issues). You can spin it any way you like (or any way you've been told to spin it), but them's the facts as I see it.

Hmmm, I wonder...

...if this were our saviour Obarmy whether there would be so many snarky remarks here.

@ Amweaver and James

"...use songs and content from primarily Democratic-leaning bands - and his licences PROBABLY DO NOT cover worldwide electronic reproduction via teh intarwehb tubes - he might stand a better chance, and used entirely Republican-supporting musicians instead.

So, that's... Ted Nugent, Ted Nugent, The Nuge, some more Uncle Ted and Ted Nugent."

And Kid Rock. Mustn't forget Kid Rock. Even though the rest of the world already has...

"...if this were our saviour Obarmy whether there would be so many snarky remarks here."

Irony is irony; it knows no political bounds or loyalties. A bigshot political figure votes for a law and then finds himself inconvenienced by it, and has the cajones to go crying for special treatment...well, it doesn't really much matter which side of which fence he's on, in my book.

OMG!

"depriving the American people of access to important and timely campaign videos"

Is that in the Constitution? I expect it soon will be...

'lol'

Yeah, Youtube cares so much about fairness that the (inexplicably) 2nd most watched video EVER on their site [Avril Lavigne's Girlfriend] moved into the #1 MOST WATCHED VIDEO EVER spot on youtube, during the time that the video should have been taken down because AVRIL LAVIGNE FANS were OPENLY CHEATING to bump her video counts up to break into the number 1 spot.

They made it their aim to get the count up by leaving their computers on overnight every night to constantly refresh the page and watched as the count jumped up by millions. They did this with her other videos too.

This has been going on for about a year and was officially exposed a couple of months ago and brought very much to Youtube's attention, yet Youtube refuses to remove the video for violations.

It was certainly reported enough times. Makes you wonder.