Skip to main content

View Diary: Klingenschmitt does it again. Right Wing Watch suspended. Petition signatures needed. (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How the hell is YouTube terminating the whole RWW (21+ / 0-)

    account and not just blocking the videos related to this "Chaps" asshat?

    That's what the MPAA / RIAA have brought upon us… a "nuke first, question later" enforcement policy -- essentially allowing douchebags like Dr. Chapstick to "swat" anyone they disagree with.

     

    "If the Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.” -- Mitch McConnell, 17 Nov 2006

    by here4tehbeer on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:56:02 PM PST

    •  And that is exactly the problem (16+ / 0-)

      Who is minding the store over there and how are people like Klingenschmitt able to get away with this without a review of the merits of their complaints?

      •  I will respond in short form as I happen (19+ / 0-)

        to be the registered dmca agent for my business. By law, we are not allowed to play judge, jury nor executioner. I'm not defending YouTube, but they did go through massive suit recently, so they automated the entire DMCA process. Essentially, no one human is looking at the claims. This is both a blessing and a curse to be honest. The blessing is that they are upholding the letter of the law to protect their Safe Harbor status, the curse is that no one is really reviewing these claims.

        As a note, the RWW can simply file a counter-claim to force YouTube to allow access again to the material. Once a counter-claim is filed, by law, they must allow access again, which would force Klingenschmitt to take this to court to force it offline.

        I can go on for hours as the absurdity of the DMCA / Safe Harbor laws, and how they are in the TPP, but I sit on both roads, both as a content creator and a business owner who deals with User Generated Content, so I tend to see both sides of it.

        It is every person's obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what they takes out of it. - Albert Einstein (edited for modern times to include everyone by me!)

        by LeftieIndie on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:17:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't seem that it would be difficult (9+ / 0-)

          to flag repeat abusers for individual scrutiny, but then again, I'm not versed at all on DMCA/Safe Harbor laws.

          •  Technically, yes it can be done, and we've (11+ / 0-)

            been known to do it in our business. We don't like witch hunts in our service designed to drive people out. But that requires a bit of a human touch.

            While a business can not block anyone from their service that carries UGC, they can definitely scrutinize the forms. Under an automated system however, it's designed to be legal from get-go, which is the only place an agent can put the brakes on by actually ensuring what is filed is legal. Beyond that, we're not allowed to do a single thing other than to remove the "offending" material. However, as expeditious as we are with removing content, we're also just as expeditious once a counter-claim is filed. That's a corporate stance though for us, YouTube can take a bit more time, but only up to a "reasonable" amount of time to put the material back.

            YouTube also has a choice here, which obviously they have decided to just remove the accounts. We don't do that until the 2nd offense is filed against someone, and if the 1st one was not counter-claimed. They can still counter-claim the filing and get reinstated to the service, but that rarely happens after I'm done investigating whether they are blatantly violating copyright infringement. Needless to say, I'm pretty thorough. We simply remove the content itself, and allow time for the party to file counter-claim, and if it doesn't happen and they get another report, the account then becomes suspended.

            It is every person's obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what they takes out of it. - Albert Einstein (edited for modern times to include everyone by me!)

            by LeftieIndie on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Is RWW (4+ / 0-)

          filing a counter claim that we know of? I'd imagine they're on top of this.

          I like to hide mine in the crack of a turkey.

          by DoobyOne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:28:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  All the videos on the RWW feed come up with this: (6+ / 0-)
          The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.
          So either Chapstick has complained multiple times (this is actually the second time he's had their channel shuttered) or multiple people have complained multiple times (which I'm sure is more accurate given the parties involved).

          Since this is Chapstick's second punch, and it's almost guaranteed that RWW will once again make YouTube reinstate their channel, I guess Chapstick will indeed have to take this to court -- which I'm gonna guess he'll be disinclined to do as he's running for office (for Pete's sake :)

          "If the Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.” -- Mitch McConnell, 17 Nov 2006

          by here4tehbeer on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:37:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Similar things happen on Facebook and Twitter, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steveningen, BYw

          and for similar reasons, but under a different guise.

          These platforms, I'd assume due to their sheer size along with threats of litigation, have felt it necessary to take the "all or nothing" approach to content SWATing.  

          Funny, though, how broadcast political ads don't seem to suffer this same fate.  

          "If the Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.” -- Mitch McConnell, 17 Nov 2006

          by here4tehbeer on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:26:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong, it would not force Klingenschmitt to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          here4tehbeer

          take it to court as all he would have to do is file yet another takedown for the same material.  That is one of the weaknesses of the DMCA, there is nothing to prevent repeatedly filing takedown requests for the same thing.  I guess RWW could sue Klingenschmitt but as the part about the material being infringing is merely "in good faith" it would be very hard to win as "good faith" does not require you to do any checking and can be a simple as "it came to me in a dream".

          Oh, and there is nothing that requires that they put the material back up after a counter notice either but if they don't then they might be liable for damages.  Since it is a free service there are no damages and thus it may be easier to just ignore the counter notification and keep the account suspended/terminated anyway.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:05:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  At which point they should probably stop using YT (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Throw The Bums Out

            and go with a dedicated, "private" CDN... though obviously that can get pricey if they need a lot of bandwidth / month (which I don't believe they would but I've not researched it at all).

            “I think the President is entitled to an up-or-down — that is simple majority — vote on nominations, both to his cabinet and to the executive branch and also to the judiciary.” -- Mitch McConnell, 2005.

            by here4tehbeer on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:30:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site