Wow, this is great news. Finally, the politicians who voted for this inane law now have to endure its consequences. Politicians are not above the law, that is a fundamental tenant of democracy. Does this mean that if McCain becomes president, he will promise us a DMCA repeal? Wishful thinking...

On the other hand, why doesn't McCain just make his own video website and point people to that? Oh yes I forgot, this guy doesn't even read email.

So let me get this straight, some copyright infringers (politicians) are more equal than others?

Where's the Orwell icon when you need one?

... won't make their own medicine go down any easier. Fair is fair. With some exposure - on both sides - to the teeth side of the silly law(s), at least they can no longer plead ignorance.

And there's always this: http://xkcd.com/488/

Tough shit for McCain. There should absolutely NOT be some exception to the law for politicians -- the DMCA is broken as written, and needs to be repealed. He should recognize this is the same crap everyone else using Youtube has to deal with and get it fixed, not just carve out an exception for himself.

The DMCA does NOT make any exemption for fair use, a copyright holder can request stuff is removed at any time for any reason under the DMCA, with no provision for fair use (the "provision" being that the poster can file a counterclaim and eventually get their stuff put back up.) In fact, some random guy can file a DMCA notice -- it's illegal to file a false notice but noone seems to be enforcing against DMCA claims by random third parties. McCain voted for it, he can frankly sit and spin as far as I am concerned.

follow their own laws? !)

That is classic. Their excuses for using copyright material is a great capper. Kudos for their chutzpah.

"McCain was among the Senators that voted in favor (sic) of the provision in 1998."

Not quite instant karma but close enough for me.

Paris, cos she understands about dodgy vids.

*clears throat*

*steps up to the microphone*

"Electile dysfunction!"

No? ...Ok then. As you were..

What on earth would anyone want to be looking at political crap on YouTube for? OK if I'm directed to a scathing clip as its always nice to see one of the buggers fall on their arse but the really interesting thing about this is that the man is a wealthy businessman with all sorts of advisors.

None of whom got a contract for him to use freely any clips of film of him taken by anyone.

Good job he's not going to have to deal with any financial stuff when he is in office. Is he?

I see... He understands that Youtube doesn't have the resources to immediately review all videos takedown notices are issued against, but he doesn't feel that it would be too much effort for them to make an exception for political candidates

I wonder if that applies to any other person the public has an interest in too? No? So what makes politicians so special? They create the rules - they can live by them, however inconvenient. I wonder how a presidential campaign openly based on "one rule for the rulers, another for the ruled" would fair?

It is morally wrong for members of governments to ask for exemptions from the law they apply to the rest of us. There is supposed to be one law for all -- common law.

This was something we straightened out with monarchs and their employees even before American independence.

It would be a giant step backward for the US to elevate members of its government to a position higher than the kings the authors of the US constitution wanted to prevent.

If US politicians think the DMCA is too strict, they should adjust it, they should adjust it for everyone.

the so-called use will cause irreparable harm to the artists whose work it is. The artists have already made it perfectly clear, the use of their work in that instance is unauthorized. And the artists have the right to say who can and can't use their work for clearly commercial purposes. It's called copyright. Claiming it's not commercial is just stupid. Because money is not the goal doesn't make it fair use. It's clearly not fair use.

not to ruin too many people's good for the goose == good for the gander fun, but he (or rather his campaign) is not asking to be exempt from the law, he is saying that the adds all fall under fair use, which i am fairly certain they do. and what he's saying is that although youtube can't possibly devote resources to find out if each video that has a complaint about it is a violation of the terms and services of youtube (including breech of copy rite), he'd like them to bother to figure out if major campaign ads are an actual breech before taking them down.

which is somewhat special treatment, but frankly probably should be done. he's even bothered to include his opponent in his request.

But fairs, fair, if these be the rules we all have to play by, then thems be the rules.

Tossers, if they think that their little poncing about should be treated any differently from anyone else's poncing about, well it just beggars belief.

Who the hell do these politicians think they are, little dictators in the making aren't they.

We have the technology to have a true real time democracy, I say we scrap all this old style farting, and mincing about with little elections, and we get down to everyone having the vote on everything and start a real democracy.

The revolution will not be televised and it looks like it won't be on youtube either.

... "timely" and "factual" information from McCain campaign? Film at 11.

Oh well, he can still use pieces of old Leni Riefenstahl movies to inspire America. Copyright should have expired on these.

The notion that McCain "doesn't read e-mail" is nothing more than an urban legend (he reads e-mail a lot, then dictates replies since his arm injuries make typing painful), and of course he wouldn't be setting up the server himself, he'd pay IT guys to set that up for him just like any other politician. Nor, of course, would being President allow him to repeal the DMCA anyway.

I agree politicians should not be given special treatment, though: the process does need safeguards, but they must apply to the rest of us as well as to them. Requiring those sending takedown notices to post a deposit which is forfeit if the notice is found to be wrongful, as well as allowing the poster a window (24 hours? Next working day?) in which to respond *before* the ISP acts, seems like a reasonable start.

Then he would file a proper counter-notice. Not some e-mail urging for them to brake the law by making a provision for politicians which isn't specified in the law itself.

You voted for these laws, suffer with the rest of us.

Sums it up nicely, I think. :)

Another rule for the rest of us?

Surely they should be paying the artist and publisher to use the music if it is used in promotional material. They have enough campaign money to do so!

So host it yourself and reject the take down notices.

The lousy bastards are so corrupt they don't even see what's criminal about their "solution". I'm only surprised there wasn't some kind of sweetener attached to the deal, unless there was an implicit threat in there. Why do yanks vote for evil? I suppose it's the same reason Thatcher got voted in three times, lack of education.

This isn't really a DCMA issue or a fair use issue though. It's about the McCain campaign, who have millions of dollars of funding at their disposal, just riping off whatever they want as if it's not freeloading for them to use other's work for their profit, but at the same time they are happy for others to be punished for doing exactly the same thing.

Don't make exceptions for stupid laws, just don't make stupid laws in the first place.

Agreed with Unitron above - we need orwellion icons to use! Where are our Ingsoc V's or the beady eyes of big brother?

Just keep filing the take down notices against him and you can effectively censor his right wing hate mongering bullsh!t.

At least it is highlighting the ridiculousness of DMCA takedowns.

Because lets face it when we complain nobody cares….. when somebody of the power and influence of John McCain complains it gets published on the news.

Maybe if they had listened to me when I complained about the racketeering banks we wouldn't be in the global mess we are in now.

Paris because she says 'Publish and be damned'

Nice to know that if the law was passed (even though DCMA should be taken off from the books) that one of the people that voted FOR it is caught for violating it. Besides the usual rumor mongering that his campaign engages in, being a music and video pirate shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

One law for us, one law for them, right?

Tough shit, buddy. I'm thoroughly enjoying the schadenfreud here. They're quite happy to take the lobbyists cash when it suits them, but they're shocked - shocked, I tell you, when the legislation they pass on behalf of their paymasters comes round and bites them on the arse.

Well, screw you, McCain. Reap what you sow. If you don't like it, well, don't infringe copyright, and get used to working within the legislation that the politicians passed.

Meanwhile, do they have any idea how much of a bunch of complete shits this makes them look like? In all likelihood they just don't care. McCain's just showing that he fully intends to continue Bush's legacy of doing whatever the hell he wants to do, ignoring the law and abusing the US's constitution.

Apologies for the tirade, but I've just finished reading Charlie Savage's excellent book "Takeover", and it's made me very angry indeed.

Nobody should be allowed to stop Sarah Palin speaking to the world. Grant McCain's wishes. Politicians are special exceptions.

It's the David Irving defence. Let idiots speak so you can see clearly that they are idiots. It's self-incrimination and quite funny too.

...but you can't just change the law to suit yourself. Other people have the same problems when using video content. Fair enough if you are stealing from someone and depribing them of the ability to make use of what they own.

However when it comes to news, you give that up when you broadcast it. You can't morally own the copyright on the news. If you have sent out a news report then people should be able to use that report when they comment on the news or when they use the news to illistrate a point.

By having the news agency own the news is like they own the truth bacause only they are allowed to use it.

I do think it would help if people did their own news gathering and not rely on the established agencies.

TUX because it's about doing your own thing.

schadenfreude

I mean, if the use really is *fair*, then presumably the rights holder would have no objection. It's hardly *endorsement* to let someone use a few seconds of background music, and they'd presumably be happy to extend the same generosity to the other candidate.

Paris, coz he didn't get her permission first either.

There should never ever ever be any exemption to any law just because you happen to be a politician. If you don't think the law should apply to you, then why should it apply to anyone else? McCain cosied up to the MPAssA and got burned. Maybe there's a lesson here for all toady politicians?

Saves us thinking they actually give a shit about the law anyway.

So they passed a law that came back to bite them in the arse. Brilliant. I hope the don't make exceptions for scum... er... I mean politicians, or if they do, then they just pull the whole damn DMCA thing.

Generate a fake twat-o-tron-esque takedown notice whenever anyone posts a video to YouTube with the word McCain in it.

Sorry, chip-eaters, this is worth it.

There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who was just robbed and a liberal is a conservative who was just arrested. It seems also to apply to a person who has had their ip stolen and a person who has been victimised by bad ip-protection legislation.

Excuse me but how can anything related to a Republican candidate be considered 'not commercial use'?

Or is he suddenly going to stop taking bungs from corporations?

Here's a nice example of what we can expect from McNugget in office. Fascist hypocrisy is all the rage in democratic politics these days.

No one likes you McCain, get over it.

FFS - is he WILL use other people's stuff in his YouTube videos, what does he expect?

"Warner Music Group demanded YouTube remove a McCain video that uses the 1967 Frankie Vallie song "Can't Take My Eyes Off You." CBS wanted a YouTube video removed that used a clip from Katie Couric. And Fox News had a similar complaint about a McCain video that used a clip about the financial crisis."

I mean, we all have to worry about getting clearances for stuff!!!

Reap as you sow.

Politico hoisted by own petard? This is good stuff.

Go on, John, beg some more. How much do you want it?

at the end of the day, it's events like this, which will curb and push back the ludicrous laws that have fallen thick and fast in the last decade ...

Politicians who voted for it THEN, suddenly waking up and realising it applies to them NOW.

I wonder in the coming years, how many retired politicians will find themselves the victims of their own laws .....

"We're politicians. We're your betters. Feel sorry for us. We want everyone's toys. Gimmegimmegimmegimmegimme. No you can't have your ball back"

'kin' really?

A politician asking to be granted a little extra privilege - I assume he thinks he's earned it with all his 'service'. An end to this entitlement culture for those with overinflated egos and underdeveloped talent would be nice.

How about actually fixing the law instead of creating special privileges for politicians.

Besides, this is complete bunk: "there is no justification for depriving the American people of access to important and timely campaign videos during that period" - web delivered video content doesn't *have* to be published through You Tube - if you don't like your publisher's policies you are free to go use a different one (or do it yourself). Isn't this, after all, what the advantage is supposed to be of a free market?

This has got to be one of the funniest things ever.... :D

...it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

... to get a well known phrase or saying.

Petard, Hoist, One's, Own, By.

Obviously McCain is one of those politicos who think they have special privileges (the word derives from "private law"!) and that the sort of legislation they pass is only for the "little people" to obey.

Claiming the videos are examples of "fair use" because they are non-commercial and factual is pretty laughable. Politicians are as commercial as anyone, and less factual than anyone.

Also, every week we get some other band coming forward to say the McCain bunch have nicked their tunes.

All in all, McCain should just stop weeping and suck it up like his constituents have had to.

Then I can start my own political party and post what the hell I want :-)

Actually, McCain's party is not requesting DMCA immunity, contrary to the frothing masses. His party is noting that YouTube's response to DMCA take-down notices is apparently automated and near immediate, but its process for re-posting after a counter-notice is lengthy.

Indeed, this is not asking for an exception under the law, and most certainly not specifically for his party, but asking that YouTube consider political campaign ads as a priority in the counter-notice process.

Frankly, if YouTube is willing to host and promote political campaign ads, debates, and the like, thus giving them extra effort, then I believe such promotion adds credence to the legitimacy of this request.

And as for McCain starting his own website to host videos, why should he? The frothing masses have already declared him a loser for not being personally involved in technology, and yet here his campaign is going to the place where everyone goes to view videos. Had he set up his own website and placed his videos there solely, he would have been classed as ignoring the masses. I do not see a win in this situation, especially against those who would already discount his every action.

Regardless of whether I support McCain, Obama, Paul, Barr, or whomever, the bottom line is that the frothing masses are tossing around bad arguments.

Paris, a member of the frothing masses.

...was actually worth listening to, he wouldn't need background music, especially not music used against the wishes of its creators.

MLK, Churchill, JFK, etc seemed to manage perfectly well getting their point across without musical backing, but then their point was possibly more inspiring than:

"Elect me and my dubious sidekick and then we'll do what our friends pay us to do"

Politics is meant to be about important things, not music-backed soundbites at the intellectual level of a wrestler's entrance into an arena full of drooling morons.

Pay YouTube to hire the extra staff required and they can look at your videos first and see if they are fair use or not.

Pay now and they should have the staff in sometime in the next three weeks.

You made your digital bed...

now lie in it.

(pun not originally intended, but kept after review ;) )

Repeal the DMCA!

if you and your party don't like Youtube's TOS then go somewhere else. The guy claims it would be a great benifit to let politicians be heard ABOVE the rest of us. FFFFFFFF!@$. You wonder why that's offensive to the rest of us? The internet is one of the few places democracy still has a pulse. Maybe this isn't the place for you?

It's very nice to see the Senator hoisted by his own petard.

Since the poor man has been burned by a law he helped pass (see http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00137), he should of course do everything in his power now to see that he is exempt from its enforcement.

It's not fair when Congressional Representatives and Senators have to live with the laws they pass too! (Usually, they are exempt -- as is the case with laws regarding workplace safety, equal employment opportunity in the workplace, minimum wage laws, etc.)(see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html?promoid=googlep).

Bob: "Politicians are not above the law, that is a fundamental tenant of democracy."

You are wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.

Keith T: "It is morally wrong for members of governments to ask for exemptions from the law they apply to the rest of us. There is supposed to be one law for all -- common law."

Still wrong.

Matthew Neuder: "he (or rather his campaign) is not asking to be exempt from the law"

If You Tube has a policy in place that is compliant with the DMCA, and McCain and his band of merry men want priority in the application of the DMCA, that is asking for preferential treatment. That per se is not requesting an exemption from the law, but it is kind of a step in that direction, don't you think. Further down that slippery slope comes the exemption for politicians.

Anonymous Coward @ 3:44: "Tossers, if they think that their little poncing about should be treated any differently from anyone else's poncing about, well it just beggars belief."

It does indeed beggar belief. But still, politicians have always been exempt from the laws they just weren't that into (like laws regarding workplace safety, equal employment opportunity in the workplace, minimum wage...)(see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html?promoid=googlep)

James: "I agree politicians should not be given special treatment, though: the process does need safeguards, but they must apply to the rest of us as well as to them."

No. Sorry, fail.

Giles Jones: "One rule for them... Another rule for the rest of us?"

Got it in one.

Jonathan Keith: "One law for us, one law for them, right?"

Yay for you too.

Wayland Sothcott: "...but you can't just change the law to suit yourself"

Ummm... why not? He's a Senator. The law is inconvenient to politicians. The DMCA was voted in by the Senate on a 99-0 vote, and in the House by another unacceptable margin (I don't feel like looking it up). Other politicians are hardly likely to disagree with something that would make their campaigning life easier. So, why wouldn't an amendment to the DMCA pass on those terms? You wouldn't even need to add the amendment to a related bill. Just tack it on to something you know that everybody has to pass (as they do with most pork barrel spending). Voila, instant DMCA exemption for politicians.

Ed Blackshaw: "There should never ever ever be any exemption to any law just because you happen to be a politician."

Haha. FAIL.

Anonymous Coward @10:05: "at the end of the day, it's events like this, which will curb and push back the ludicrous laws that have fallen thick and fast in the last decade ..."

What makes you think that?

Anony Mouse: "'kin' really?"

Yes.

Alan The Sequel: "Indeed, this is not asking for an exception under the law, and most certainly not specifically for his party, but asking that YouTube consider political campaign ads as a priority in the counter-notice process."

Technically true. But they are heading in that direction by asking for a "priority".

This really is most excellent news!!

I hope this passes soon. After which I would invite you to join me in sending a notarized letter to your local newspaper announcing your intention to run for some sundry office.

Voila! You is now a politician and free to ignore the DMCA.

My coat? It's the one with the running for office button.

I mean really, does anyone with a clue go to YouFOOL? I doubt posting political messages online will be of much value to any politician. Experience has shown that bribe money and empty promises are how you get elected in America.

> "The revolution will not be televised and it looks like it won't be on youtube either."

But I bet it gets photographed by Google Street View.

I thought it was 'hoist *on* your own petard' (which is probably even more painful than getting one's Schlausen cut off).

Mine's the one with "Art Fern" written inside the collar.

"Other politicians are hardly likely to disagree with something that would make their campaigning life easier. So, why wouldn't an amendment to the DMCA pass on those terms? You wouldn't even need to add the amendment to a related bill. Just tack it on to something you know that everybody has to pass (as they do with most pork barrel spending). Voila, instant DMCA exemption for politicians."

Two points: (1) Given that a large number of our elected representatives don't actually read the entire text of pending bills or can't spend enuough time on them to think far enough ahead to realize the ramifications, you are most likely correct. (Politicians don't have to pass IQ tests either, just be charismatic.) HOWEVER, (2) something which may cost businesses money as Mycho suggested and may be perceived by the people as a self-serving grab for power/privlege will most likely fail. The media would lurrrrv it and twist it all around as the previous comments suggest if they noticed that questionable amendment. At least I, for one, would hope so.

Is that the campaigns license the music through the BMI (http://www.bmi.com), as they are supposed to. The "copyright infringement" claims are all politically motivated by people knowing that it takes weeks for the campaign to prove it did in fact have a valid license.

Politicians good, people bad.

Selective laws are the tools of dictators, it is the litmus test of a legal system to see if it is corrupt or not, just one selective law is enough to prove that a legal system is corrupt.

There are loads of selective laws now, it has gone beyond a joke, if we really did believe in liberty and freedom as a populace we would rise, but I don't think most of us care enough to do it.

"not to ruin too many people's good for the goose == good for the gander fun, but he (or rather his campaign) is not asking to be exempt from the law,"

Sorry to ruin your world view, but if he's asking YouTube not act on DMCA notices, because his videos are 'fair use'. He IS asking to be exempt from the rules.

Rules are, YouTube receives DMCA, YouTube takes down video until further notice. Same rule for everyone. If he doesn't like it, he should make offer to make amendments to the rules. Not ask for exemptions.

If this guy doesn't understand this, he should definitely not be fit to be in any position of government (not in anything that's supposed to be a democracy anyway).

The petard, being a primitive explosive device, is inclined to hoist the unwary user by application of rapid exothermic reaction to pantalooned posterior.

By analogy of analogy, McCain lit his Acme Roadrunner Seeking Rocket - Wile-e-Coyote style - and found, after retreating to some convenient natural cover, that some improbable series of unseen but hilarious events has led to him being the victim of his own genius.

Sort of.

It makes a good diversion during the intermission but the truth is far less simple.

In any case, we can only hope he will throw up a handheld sign reading "YIKES!" and cut to the money shot but more likely he will stand his ground, a thousand feet above the sprawling desert landscape, defying gravity by sheer forceful conviction that nothing at all is wrong. Perhaps if he runs in mid air fast enough he will make it back to the safety of solid ground? Lets watch on...

I am in a smartarse mood today - i wonder where this will take me?

At first I was thinking along the lines of: It's not fair that he should demand special treatment, however it's understandable considering he is not an ordinary user and thus has the problem of millions of people trying to sabotage his videos etc. Which normal people don't have..

Then I thought WAIT. It is not Youtube's job to HELP MCCAIN WIN the election.

Mccain (or whoever) joined the site, which is not a tool to put out presidential videos, it's actually a silly site which no professional should use. So they must abide by the silly sites 'regular people' rules and actual purpose, if they want to BE part of it (which is just to share videos) and if they attract trolls, that's just part of the deal when you use websites connecting lots of ordinary people.

If he doesn't like the behaviour of the users he is trying to get to watch the videos, then he should put them in a more appropriate place. Like his own god damned website!

I am sick of politicians etc invading Youtube, a fairly simple concept website, and trying to turn it into a propaganda machine and/or money making opportunity.

NO LAWS or special treatment should come about over something as stupid as a video getting temporarily suspended from a website; a process which is part of the site's normal operating.

If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he f*** off like we all have to do when a website is being unfair to us, and more annoyingly (something that is probably not happening to him...) the unfair website ignores our complaint emails. I wonder how he have would have reacted if he was signed upto faceparty when they decided to banned all pedos/people over 36 ?