Free Speech issue?

[Alum81]

I'm not a regular to Youtube.com, but I usually click on the links from this website showing sooner highlights. However, I clicked on a link from another site to watch the Clinton Interview with Wallace from Sunday and got this message:

This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission.

Every video that has been put on youtube about this interview has been pulled!


Now, my question is this:
1) Does this happen often with major news networks on youtube content?
If not,
2) Is Fox News the one wanting this content not aired, or
3) Is Bill Clinton the one causing this to be stifled?

From everything I've seen and heard, Clinton did a melt down and my feeling would be Fox would want all this free advertisement, so I can't see them wanting it blocked. On an aside, this line of questioning is no different than Bush gets anytime he meets the press for a White House q&a. I don't see how this was an end run against Clinton either, since he surely should have known that he was going on a network talk show that wasn't going to toss him softballs.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I'm not a regular to Youtube.com, but I usually click on the links from this website showing sooner highlights. However, I clicked on a link from another site to watch the Clinton Interview with Wallace from Sunday and got this message:

This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission.

Every video that has been put on youtube about this interview has been pulled!


Now, my question is this:
1) Does this happen often with major news networks on youtube content?
If not,
2) Is Fox News the one wanting this content not aired, or
3) Is Bill Clinton the one causing this to be stifled?

From everything I've seen and heard, Clinton did a melt down and my feeling would be Fox would want all this free advertisement, so I can't see them wanting it blocked. On an aside, this line of questioning is no different than Bush gets anytime he meets the press for a White House q&a. I don't see how this was an end run against Clinton either, since he surely should have known that he was going on a network talk show that wasn't going to toss him softballs.

1) Yes.
2 & 3) Moot.

[Paperclip]

I got the same message looking for a South Park clip that had previously been there.

[nanimonai]

Unless the federal government had it taken off, it's not a free speech issue.

[Vaevictis]

Unless the federal government had it taken off, it's not a free speech issue.

Even *if* the federal government had it taken off (ie, court order), it's probably not a free speech issue.

Fact is, that interview is a copyrighted work. The person who put it up on YouTube probably didn't have the rights to redistribute the work; ergo, copyright violation, law breakage, and a swift removal by YouTube as soon as Fox News requests it.

And as far as Fox News not wanting it aired goes, it's really that they don't want it aired without getting their cut. YouTube (obstensibly) makes some money by streaming the videos, Fox wants a piece of that, and isn't getting it.

[Hatfield]

to protect their copyright interest they have to go after everything (whether they want to or not)

Bill Clinton would have no leverage in getting it pulled as he isn't the "owner" of the clip

[Vaevictis]

to protect their copyright interest they have to go after everything (whether they want to or not)

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that that is not the case with copyrights.

I know it's true of trademarks, and possibly trade secrets, but according to my understanding copyrights are a different beast.

If you fail to go after someone for copyright infringement, my understanding is that you can ALWAYS require them to cease distribution at some arbitrary point in the future (assuming the copyright duration hasn't expired). However, due to various legal concepts (I'm thinking latches here), if you failed to take action early, you may have rendered yourself ineligible to collect damages.

Trademarks are the ones where you really have to be aggressive -- if you fail to protect the trademark, you can lose it and never be able to protect it again.

[Frozen Sooner]

Maintenance of copyright does not require vigilant defense.

Maintenance of trademark does.

Copyrighted material does not become generic through dilution.

[Hatfield]

yes, i meant trademark.

mea culpa.

jerkies.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Unless the federal government had it taken off, it's not a free speech issue.

Thank you, Lord! Someone who really understand the First Amendment! Forever and endless mega-kudos to nanimonai!