You Go Mavericks!

by publius

Via Lessig and Ars Technica, I see that the McCain/Palin campaign has a written a pretty sweet letter to YouTube complaining about bogus DMCA takedowns and "overreaching copyright claims." Good for them. Apparently several of the campaign's ads triggered DMCA takedown notices, and YouTube automatically complied (that's their policy).

The McCain team is requesting that YouTube instead do a manual review to see if the takedown notices are legitimate. In many instances, the campaign argues (correctly) that YouTube is removing advertisements clearly protected under fair use. Even better, the McCain camp at least mentions the First Amendment -- which I hope one day expands to strike down some of this copyright nonsense.

The problem, however, isn't that YouTube wants to remove a bunch of stuff. That's not exactly their optimal model. The problem is that the copyright law virtually requires YouTube to take these overbroad actions to avoid ridiculously obscene fines (the DMCA, which passed the Senate unanimously). So while I'm ecstatic that the McCain team is complaining about overbroad copyrights, an even better response would be to change the law that's causing all this mess in the first place.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"You Go Mavericks!"

This really needs a comma after "go," or it doesn't seem to make sense.

[publius]

ok - i'll bite gary. I'll say the comma is unnecessary b/c it's become a common phrase (slang or whatever you want to classify it as), so the meaning is clear without it.

[Gary Farber]

"i'll bite gary"

I rest my case.

[Gary Farber]

Also: Owww! Quit it!

Owww! Quit it!

[publius]

ha - touche

[publius]

oops, sorry

ha, touche.

[br]

Gary,

I think you meant "Also too."

[xanax]

"i'll bite gary"

I rest my case.

oh, bravo!

[Fraud Guy]

Of course, there are two problems with takedowns:

First, staying abreast of enough popular information and sites so that you can find and notify sites hosting your copyrighted information. While there are services that provide such searching for companies, a small to medium business/independent artist would be strapped to actually search for misuse of their product.

Second, the hosting sites of the world basically need to take stuff down without review. Where I once worked, we would send out a few dozen notices each week for misuse of IP to a well known auction site (on an average of 250 auctions per week of our product). The takedowns weren't for our product, but for misuse of our ads to sell our and unrelated product. Unless a site wants to direct a significant proportion of its staffing to takedowns, they have to automate the process to avoid backlogs and potential violations. My experience is that it is during the appeal phase where there is any meat or efficiency in reviewing takedown notices and rebuttals.

[Tony P.]

Publius eats shoots and leaves.

Incidentally, if DMCA passed the Senate unanimously in 1998, isn't this just another McCain flip-flop?

--TP

[joel hanes]

I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

[Jesurgislac]

With reference to the kindest interpretation of The Palin Report, isn't this just another example of your future rulers going after the individual instance that is inconveniencing them, instead of using the instance they know about as a motive to reform the law for everyone?

(By the way, bc, you never did return to answer this question:

Is that really what you believe, bc? That a state governor is entitled to misuse their powers against an individual, if only that individual is bad enough?

)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Incidentally, if DMCA passed the Senate unanimously in 1998, isn't this just another McCain flip-flop?"

No, if it passed 'unanimously', it means that they didn't hold a roll call vote, most likely because they didn't have a quorum, and all three Senators in the room thought it was a good idea.

[Ginger Yellow]

"First, staying abreast of enough popular information and sites so that you can find and notify sites hosting your copyrighted information. While there are services that provide such searching for companies, a small to medium business/independent artist would be strapped to actually search for misuse of their product."

If the argument is that stolen IP causes lost revenue, then to the extent that that is true it is cost effective to pay someone to police it. If it isn't true, then what's the justification for draconian laws like DMCA?

The real problem with takedowns is that, like UK libel law, it reverses the burden of proof. What's more, potential takedowners are on average far more likely to have the resources to issue notices than potential takedownees are to appeal. The penalty for unjustified notices is not much of a disincentive, judging from cases like the Web 2.0 suit.

[ff11]

"No, if it passed 'unanimously', it means that they didn't hold a roll call vote"

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

They did, and McCain voted for it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00137

[Adam]

Technically, the DMCA is not a copyright law. It's actually classified as a separate remedy.

[Lindsay K]

On the one hand, I hate the DMCA. On the other hand, it's somewhat delicious that McCain is being directly impacted. It's so rare that jackass senators are actually affected by the idiotic legislation they champion.

I doubt he or anyone in his campaign appreciates that fact though, and this makes me sad.

[Barbara]

What Lindsay K said. Cindy McCain's exposure to the DEA shows how neatly senators and their families tend to avoid the usual consequences meted out to the rest of us when our lives meet laws they passed. The same is true for judges who interprete those laws, which is why I am not sad for Judge Kosinski's little tempest regarding on-line pornography. Not that I want anything really bad to happen to him.

[Incertus]

I'm with Lindsay--if the laws are there, crappy as they may be, then there's some karmic justice in having them enforced against the people who passed them and didn't think about the potential consequences beforehand.

[NonyNony]

On the one hand, I hate the DMCA. On the other hand, it's somewhat delicious that McCain is being directly impacted. It's so rare that jackass senators are actually affected by the idiotic legislation they champion.

Actually, for me those are both on the same hand.

Hopefully some legislators on "both sides of the aisle" will see what happened here and demand to make some changes to the DMCA - explicit protections of political speech (not just campaign ads - political. speech.) would be a good start.

[von]

Even better, the McCain camp at least mentions the First Amendment -- which I hope one day expands to strike down some of this copyright nonsense.

I realize that you're talking loosely, here, but talking about an "expanding" First Amendment was fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

Also: "I'll bite Gary" requires a comma, but "You Go Mavericks" does not necessarily. The problem with the first sentence is that it's unclear whether "Gary" is the addressee or a direct object. A comma clarifies which is intended. The same problem doesn't exist in "You Go Mavericks", however. Mavericks can't be the direct object of "You go". Because a comma doesn't add anything to "You Go Mavericks", it's not required.
(All IMHO, of course.)

[von]

Of course, Gary still wins the thread.

[Nell]

Brett: if it passed 'unanimously', it means that they didn't hold a roll call vote, most likely because they didn't have a quorum

Is that lame snark or a bold display of ignorance? I'm guessing the former, since the whole concept of 'quorum' is to prevent votes being cast without a minimum number present.

[Gary Farber]

Everyone get their bets down.

You, go Mavericks.

Me, I'll go Knicks.

Von, go Celtics.

I also go Pogo.

And cuckoo for Coco Puffs.

[Phil]

No, if it passed 'unanimously', it means that they didn't hold a roll call vote, most likely because they didn't have a quorum, and all three Senators in the room thought it was a good idea.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong about, well, everything, Brett? I mean, you say these things with such presumed authority and as if you actually believe them, and yet I've never once seen you say something actually correct unless by accident.

[Phil]

"You Go Mavericks" = "Hook 'Em Horns"

No comma in the latter, no comma in the former.

[Anarch]

But Phil: "Hook, 'Em Horns"!

[Nell]

Googling for a possible comma-containing version of 'Hook 'em Horns!', I came up empty. But there's this somewhat unnerving low-affect version:
Hook 'em... Horns.

Good thing there are only three ellipses; more make Gary's head explode.

[Gary Farber]

This sports stuff is all foreign to me. Are there "em Horns" and "en Horns"?

[Gary Farber]

"Good thing there are only three ellipses...."

One ellipsis; three dots.

[spartikus]

Now that's a Maverick!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Is that lame snark or a bold display of ignorance? I'm guessing the former, since the whole concept of 'quorum' is to prevent votes being cast without a minimum number present."

It's neither snark nor ignorance. I'm pointing out that the chief purpose of voice votes in the legislature is to evade quorum requirements, by not having a roll call which would reveal the lack of a quorum.

There's simply no justification for voice votes with modern technology, evading quorum requirements is the only point in continuing to use them.

But I will admit to being impressed by the DMCA passing by a genuine unanimous roll call vote. Man, I didn't think Disney had the budget to buy off ALL of them!

[Nell]

Well, we'll have to disagree on this as well, bbm. The primary purpose of a voice vote is to make it impossible for constituents and other interested parties to tell how a particular member voted. The Senate really doesn't have a problem achieving a quorum when needed, and C-SPAN makes it impossible to hide the empty periods.

[Nell]

My apologies, Brett; I meant to address you, not blogbudsman.

[Carleton Wu]

Incidentally, if DMCA passed the Senate unanimously in 1998, isn't this just another McCain flip-flop?

Yeah, I was just thinking that if only they could get the ear of some influential Senator- even better, one with a history of reaching across the aisle to form consensus... oh, nevermind.

There's simply no justification for voice votes with modern technology, evading quorum requirements is the only point in continuing to use them.

There's also evasion of responsibility, when senators all know something is a good idea but no one particularly wants to go on the record over it. Or maybe they're in a rush to get business done and just do a voice vote to get something over with quickly. Or maybe there's a traditional element.
It's kinda cute how you think that three Senators can get together and pass a law and no one else can do anything about it, though. Maybe just one guy could do it...
Fade In: Floor of the Senate. Streetlights show through the windows.
Sen Coleman: 'night Ted
Sen Stevens: See you tomorrow
exit Sen Coleman
Sen Stevens pauses, looks around the room...
Sen Stevens (quickly): VoiceVoteByUninamousConsentRenameWashingtonDC
toSenatorstevensvilleAllInFavorSayAyeAyeMotionPasses!
Exit Sen Stevens

[mjm]

By coincidence, I'll soon be flying in to Ronald Reagan Senatorstevensville National Airport. I'll then take the Senatorstevensville Metro to Union Station to meet a friend arriving from Baltimore Senatorstevensville International Airport.

[crack]

I still think Youtube is more content provider than tool. DMCA really needs to be reformed, but reforming it so youtube can profit on other peoples IP isn't the way to go.