It appears that the folks in the McCain-Palin campaign are a little bit ticked off at YouTube right now, over the removal of several of the campaign’s videos from the site after having received takedown notices from purported copyright holders.
YouTube is only complying with a law that Senator McCain himself voted for, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act - a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation which unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate in 1998.
Pursuant to the DMCA, website operators and internet service providers who qualify under the definition in the statute are provided with what is known as "Safe Harbor" from copyright infringement claims against the actions of their users. Essentially, once YouTube receives such a takedown notice, it has no choice but to comply or expose itself to potential legal liability and forfeit their Safe Harbor status, something I doubt they will do.
Now, while I agree that the few scant examples that have been provided do indeed sound like they are "paradigmatic examples of fair use", it is not for YouTube to make this determination. There is no chance that YouTube themselves would attempt to determine what is and is not Fair Use, regardless of how obvious or apparent it may seem, since that is something a judge would have to decide.
There is indeed a counter-filing mechanism available under the DMCA, but it is a little bit clunky - it allows for the content submitter to challenge the initial takedown notice, but the law provides for a 14 day window before the content can necessarily be reposted by the website or internet service provider. If, after having received a counter-notice, the original copyright holder has not filed suit in district court regarding the infringement during the 2 week window, then the content may/must be restored.
Of course, even if the counter-notice(s) are immediately filed, 14 days from now brings us quite close to the election, something that I am sure did not escape the attention of whomever filed these takedown notices. Senator McCain’s solution is to instead propose to exempt himself (and other politicians, I suppose) from this byzantine process that he apparently hadn’t any problem with saddling the rest of the American people with. Ridiculous.
So, John, here are some of the relevant Frequently Asked Questions about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act from the ChillingEffects.org website, perhaps someone in the campaign can educate themselves and their candidate about the process that he himself helped to institute.
Question: What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
Answer: The DMCA, as it is known, has a number of different parts. One part is the anticircumvention provisions, which make it illegal to “circumvent” a technological measure protecting access to or copying of a copyrighted work (see Anticircumvention (DMCA)). Another part gives web hosts and Internet service providers a “safe harbor” from copyright infringement claims if they implement certain notice and takedown procedures (see DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions).
Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?
Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider’s network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider’s network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
* The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
* The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an “information location tool” such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
* Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
* A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
* A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.
Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?
Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper “counter-notice” claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual’s objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
* The subscriber’s name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
* Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]