News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

UPDATE: Well this is strange. YouTube reinstated all deleted Clinton videos without explanation. Even stranger than that is the fact that they actually restored the video pages I deleted per their request!

I received e-mail notice minutes ago from the esteemed Ms. Underestimated. Sure enough mine is back up along with all the others.

It would be nice to know what happened here. Hopefully it is somewhere along the lines of Fox News having second thoughts. This incident has been great for their coverage and the words “Fox News” have been plastered all over the internet as well as lending itself to considerable water cooler talk.

=============================
Original Story - Sep 25, 2006 2:53 CST
If you haven’t been made aware yet you may notice that all copies of the Fox News Sunday Bill Clinton - Chris Wallace interview on YouTube have been removed (search Clinton Fox Wallace and click on any video link that is returned). This was done via a DCMA complaint that was filed by Fox News Network, L.L.C. against the YouTube web site. This will certainly change the way people report the Sunday talk show news. I note that there are a few stragglers out there but most have ceased to exist. It appears that the key to the DCMA related search and purge may have been videos with the search term “Fox News”.

I am not a lawyer and I believe that Fox does have the right to have the interview removed in this case. Clinton’s outburst in the interview would be hard pressed to be considered Political speech. He is no longer a sitting President and his comments were directed at Chris Wallace, Fox News and Bush’s neocons in general.

Political Speech in and of itself likely does not give one permission to snap segments of a video broadcast and post them on a website in any event.

It is apparent that Fox News will milk this for all its worth. You now have to watch a video advertisement on Fox before you can get to the actual Clinton interview.

But there is a broader question here. What delineates the line between fair use and political speech? There are sure to be many answers to this question depending on who your lawyer is and who you are criticizing (and in what forum). Washington is filled with many (too many) high priced lawyers who can sue you into the poor house regardless of whether or not the speech is protected.

It is a wonder to me why this particular video is the target of removal. Is it because of Bill Clinton’s connections or is it simply a matter of Fox news trying to cash in on the popularity of this debate? Fox certainly didn’t have a problem with people promoting the interview in advance of the Fox News Sunday show.

Unfortunately this is a question that I will ask from afar because I want to keep things legal. All in all I think the days of video blogging on the Sunday shows will become a thing of the past. This is one more reason for me to turn them off and tune into talk radio.

Update: I think this action was always looming and it was a matter of time before something like this happened. I have heard of small incidents but never of something on this scale. You will also note that the YouTube clip linked off of this Slate magazine article is still up at the time of this writing.

The bigger question still remains. The DCMA gives a lot of weight to the originator. But are people who posted the video on their own servers also required to remove the video under this particular DCMA? I would say that the answer is no unless they were specifically requested to do so.

This is not legal advice and the fact that someone has not been asked to remove the video does not remove them from the liability of hosting the video.

In a strange twist the DCMA came into law under Bill Clinton’s pen in 1998. The way in which the video was removed is a classic example of the DCMA as designed. Fox addressed the company hosting the material rather than the individuals who posted it. This makes sense because YouTube provided the technology to post the material and provided the pipe. Hence you could potentially have all posts removed with one DCMA.

In the end I believe this should wake people up. All media falls under some sort of copyright rules, whether it be in the public domain where the material may be freely accessed to royalty free stock images where you pay a fee for their use. I believe we are at the beginning of these laws being used as a tool as opposed to being at the end.

Others : See it While you can - Slick Willies Days of Rage

Still more fallout on analysis of this episode. Wizbang has a roundup in More on Clinton v. Fox News.

 Send this post a Friend  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS