YouTube pulls video of Harry Reid hanging up on AP reporter
posted at 7:49 pm on October 12, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
For copyright infringement. Gateway Pundit thinks it’s further proof of YouTube’s left-wing disposition. What does he want them to do, though? They claim to have received a notice of infringement from the AP. If you owned YouTube and had a billion potential infringement suits in the pipe, would you go picking fights over whether a particular clip constitutes fair use or not? With a major media organization, no less? Or would you show your good faith by yanking it down ASAP?
Easy call.
I don’t doubt that AP sent them the infringement notice, either. The Reid land-deal story was an exclusive and the detail about the hang-up got picked up on Drudge. That was a hot little vid they were sitting on. Why not be greedy with it?
While we’re on the subject of YouTube bias, let’s clear something else up. Some people are under the impression that if enough users flag a video at YT as inappropriate, it’ll automatically be removed. (I know this because I was under that impression myself.) ‘Tain’t so. Nothing comes down off the server without management’s say so, which is why Michelle was so outraged about the double standard re: her videos versus the jihadis. It’d be one thing if a critical mass of nutroots morons was going around tagging her stuff; but that’s not how things work:
YouTube’s newest posting about such “flagging” came just a few days ago, as the political ad was making the rounds.
Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company’s customer support team to review.
“Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they’ve been flagged,” Maryrose said. “Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use.”
Robert Cox wrote today that the right is in danger of ceding the Internet battlefield to the left. A righty blogger IM’d me earlier to ask if I’d read the piece and what I thought about it in light of the YouTube squeeze. It would be a good idea, he said, if the right had a site of its own specializing in conservative video.
Er, yeah. I guess that would be a good idea.
Update from Michelle: Yes, good idea. Hmmm. By the way, I’m glad Robert wrote about the YT wars. One correction, though: YouTube did not revoke my account and did not pull all my videos. The conservative YouTubers group continues to grow (approaching the 3,000 mark!) and you can join here. Carry on…
Update: Want a little jolt of evening schadenfreude? According to one IP lawyer, YT’s bias might come back to bite it in the ass when the infringement suits begin in earnest:
“The problem is that the more they go into editorial control, the less they can rely on the DMCA to protect them,” said Randy Broberg, head of the intellectual property practice group at Allen Matkins LLP. “If you exercise editorial censorship, it becomes YouTube’s content, which would make them more liable.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Drudge reports that they pulled the All
lessbright video.Shucks, and I thought that was in good taste.
Kini on October 12, 2006 at 7:56 PM
No, I think it was just flagged as 18 and over.
Allahpundit on October 12, 2006 at 8:00 PM
Man, I called this one (scroll to the bottom). Since when has EwwTube ever been worried about copyright infringement? You almost don’t need a TV anymore.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 8:00 PM
They have to respond if they get an infringement notice. Most copyright holders don’t complain to them because they like the exposure having their videos on YouTube gives them.
Allahpundit on October 12, 2006 at 8:02 PM
There is a nice article on MM’s battle with these guys. LGF still cannot get on Google News after breaking lots of stories.
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 8:04 PM
I think you’re right here AP. I saw that headline at Drudge earlier too Kini, but I don’t think Drudge looked in to it enough, because the impression I got from the linked article was what AP just said.
RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 8:16 PM
Oh, plus I checked here at HA and the vid was still up.
RightWinged on October 12, 2006 at 8:16 PM
MM:
AP:
Dude, don’t even be tossing hints like that unless there’s something behind them.
bdfaith on October 12, 2006 at 8:17 PM
I think Robert Cox has a great idea: A site that shows right-leaning videos. Maybe they could get Michelle Malkin to record some videos (they don’t have to be long, just a few minutes or so). And maybe get other great looking conservatives (like Bethany from RealVerse) to do an occaisional story. Maybe even Mary Katherine Ham! Let’s see, what should this site be called?
rmgraha on October 12, 2006 at 8:27 PM
Did anybody ever read Michelle’s mission statement for this site?
Valiant on October 12, 2006 at 8:28 PM
rmgraha:
Cold Breeze? Warm Wind?
Thinking…
Thinking…
Michelle on October 12, 2006 at 8:38 PM
I had saved some music videos to favorites and all of a sudden they were no longer available..it was the same artist, so I believe that as YouTube receives more publicity, you will see more items pulled….
Pam on October 12, 2006 at 8:50 PM
I’m schocked! Not
Catie96706 on October 12, 2006 at 8:50 PM
By the way, the music video were originally shown on MTV…
Pam on October 12, 2006 at 8:50 PM
A billion and a half. Lawyer magnet.
The Googlebeast’s strategy is pretty clear though.
Stephen M on October 12, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Check out this tool. He goes by the handle THEPAGANWOLF in the group. He added himself to Michelle’s conservative YouTubers group, in order to bring it down? He even disguises his voice and his face in his group submitted video.
I bet 5 bucks it’s Keith Olbermann… it’s sooo him.
SilverStar830 on October 12, 2006 at 9:12 PM
That guy is not a tool…he’s useless. Digitized his voice from an 80’s software tool? Any of us could have done better with soundforge or Samplitude in 5 minutes. But I think MM should let him stay. It would be entertaining :-)
PS – Really, the idea of a right YouTube? Or OurTube? What are we looking at here? Whos’ got server space and bandwith? I can muster up about a terabyte in storage. If all of us put in…think about it! I am sure we can muster up something between all of us.
lsutiger on October 12, 2006 at 9:54 PM
I don’t think that a conservative video site is the answer, at least with respect to the “ceding the battlefield” thing. What we need is a site that does what YouTube does, but which does it better and with no exclusionary bias. If there is some bias towards getting conservative stuff up, that’s fine (preferable, in fact).
We aren’t going to “win hearts and minds” (so to speak) if we are preaching to the choir. When a bunch of Daily Show types are hanging out on YT and see the Zucker vid in the most viewed list, that potentially helps us. If the Zucker vid is hosted on a site that hosts vids for conservatives, then those weak-minded, potential converts will never see it.
DaveS on October 12, 2006 at 10:00 PM
We could call it “TruView”. That way it could have a cool logo that featured the ‘T’ and the ‘V’.
/for what it’s’ worth…
techno_barbarian on October 12, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Hmmm…Conservative political discourse rated “R” at YouTube.
Ya know, if Michelle were to do a video segment in a bikini (or less), I doubt YT would restrict it.
.
GT on October 12, 2006 at 11:58 PM
I saw that..I am not so sure that an alternative to You Tube can’t be done..who thought CNN would have competition. When I was reading it, I couldn’t help but note for all of these aquisitions and donations…it really hasn’t had a positive effect on the outcome of elections(yet). It was my understanding that Murdoch was looking into entering this arena..
What will be interesting within the next few years will be to see if Google becomes an evil monopoly
Pam on October 13, 2006 at 12:41 AM
I’ve only got a few gigs of memory, and a few gigs of bandwidth, to spare, on my “big” shared server. But you know, if you need to park this or that, I’m all about donating to the cause.
Probably a worthless toss, but I figure one offers what one has.
Axe on October 13, 2006 at 3:34 AM
But Hot Air isn’t generalized video, in the sense of general contributions.
… simple software, really … flat datafile for member list … all indirected pages though; higher CPU load … simple compartmentalized upload routines, almost just FTP accounts with a glorified interface … indirected permalinks, so the videos need to be cataloged …
… damn it. So much for NaNoWriMo.
Axe on October 13, 2006 at 4:47 AM
When Michelle told me last night that her account had not been terminated I sent a note to my editor at the Examiner asking that they change the line:
“Her account was terminated and her videos deleted.”
to
“Her account may be terminated and her videos deleted.”
It is not central to my piece whether they took down one video or ten or whether they threatened her or actually carried out their threat – the point I was attempting to illustrate was their capricious (i.e. biased) invocation of YouTube policy suppress conservative speech.
With that said I want to address an important point that I have read elsewhere on the web as people have commented on my piece.
rmgraha wrote: “I think Robert Cox has a great idea: A site that shows right-leaning videos. Maybe they could get Michelle Malkin to record some videos (they don’t have to be long, just a few minutes or so). And maybe get other great looking conservatives (like Bethany from RealVerse) to do an occaisional story. Maybe even Mary Katherine Ham! Let’s see, what should this site be called?”
The folks at TownHall.com made a similar point to me last night about how their readers can create blogs just like at Daily Kos. Same with the folks at the RNC.
This is to miss the point entirely. HotAir and Townhall make USE of tools/software/services built by the left to get out a conservative point of view. Hugh Hewitt and Michelle are not CREATING those tools/software/services.
The question I am asking is whether it matters that the tools/software/services that everyone on the web is using are developed, owned and run by those on the left. Citing examples of conservatives USING those tools is not responsive to my point.
I would add further that it might not matter if we could be certain that there would also be an even playing field. But we can’t.
We already know that Google News was caught flat out lying about how they determined which blogs to include in Google News search results (they said it was all done by computer algorithms when it later came out they manually selected the blogs to include – and (surprise) there are many more liberal blogs than conservative).
We have YouTube apparently targeting conservative content.
When asked by newbies “where to start” if they want to read blogs, most bloggers will say “go to Technorati”. I know I do. But if you go over to Technorati right now you will see ads inviting you to view the “favorite blogs” of various “bloglebrities”. And guess what, you can count on one hand the number of conservative bloggers who have been asked to “share” their favorites list with Technorati visitors.
Can a conservative USE Technorati? Sure. Can a conservative upload or view videos on YouTube? Sure. Can a conservative search the web using Google News? Sure.
Is that same thing as OWNING Technorati, YouTube and Google News and having the editorial discretion to decide which content gets what placement within those sites and services. Not be a long shot.
rcox1963 on October 13, 2006 at 8:00 AM
I called this the second the video made its way onto Youtube. Oddly enough, there appear to be a great number of AP videos on Youtube that are still available for viewing.
thegreatsatan on October 13, 2006 at 10:36 AM
I like TruView a lot.
The whole idea of a free press was not a fairness doctrine where all ideas must get equal time. It was an open market where no one could be prevented from distributing a newspaper. Newspapers did not have to use measured polite language or give their enemies a break, they just could not burn down the competitor.
At that time the nation was small, and anyone had a chance of distributing their newpaper to the citizens of their city. The citizens could choose not to read your postings.
But today’s media isn’t open to everyone. Broadcast and cable are limited to a select few who have a lot of money and are granted license by the state. I can’t put a show on FOX or NBC. The so-called public participation areas of cable have frizzled and were loaded with requirements and censorship.
If you want to reach a lot of web users you need dollars for bandwidth.
YouTube was a great concept. It made available bandwidth to everyone. As long as everyone was allowed on, no matter how stupid, banal, or irritating (obscenity and criminality excluded) trolls, puppets and other slammers were diluted.
I got to see tons of stuff everyone else had thought too stupid to show, like mindless kitten vids, amateur comedy and the opinions of so many who just weren’t cute enough to be admitted to the private media club. I love it.
Plus I got to see Michelle’s editorials without depleting her pension fund.
But GoogleTube is something else. I no longer use Google because of the loaded searches. To an extent you can still beat the system if you have the hours to spend in lost pathways of the database. People in China are still getting web info, despite the fishnets laid out. But it wears me out.
Even an uncorrupt search engine has imperfect indexing. We need a true TruView. Then it will be good for as long as it too avoids the temptation to control.
“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Ben Franklin 1787
entagor on October 13, 2006 at 12:21 PM
That it’s up to a manager to pull a video … of course this was my suspicion. The same thing happens at FR, freerepublic.com, via Jim Robinson.
Many a post that have been merely hot headed comments have been promptly handled by banning the user. Other FR users will come out and say “What gives” – “That was not trolling or Hot Headedness“. The FR response, “Who cares, Banned & PWNED”!
Move on…
They claim private property. I’m sure Google/You Tube will even check your email in their server if as FreeRepublic was accused – “It’s private property”. FR never refuted the claim.
ar_basin on October 14, 2006 at 12:34 AM
LAND SCANDAL: Reiding disorder.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Comment pages: