Today, for the first time ever, I deleted a post because of political interference.
Moments after I posted about radical Republicans and their bigotry, I found that that the YouTube video I linked to had been deleted due to a “copyright claim”. None of us can now actually watch the video to decide for ourselves, so you’ll have to take my word for this: I can’t be sure, but I bet the person behind the phony takedown demand is one of the Republican/teabagger bigots shown in the video.
It works like this: The person who is otherwise a total nobody is shown spouting blatantly racist bullshit, realises that may affect his political ambitions, and so he files a completely bogus copyright complaint. He thinks his “image” is copyright, even though he was at a PUBLIC event (because it was a public event, his appearance is absolutely not copyrightable).
Perhaps the fellow who filed the takedown order regrets having spouted racist nonsense that normal people are no longer permitted to see. Maybe be realises that he was not only a total jackass, but a moron as well. But that’s no excuse to try and censor a truth about oneself that one finds uncomfortable.
So, I’m betting that this person is a typically racist teabagger who was caught out and panicked. He decided that censoring the truth was the best way to go, as teabaggers do, and the result is you can’t see what I’m talking about—at least, not yet.
This story is not over.
Update: I've restored the post, since the larger points were still valid, and it wasn't necessary to see the video to understand those points.
4 comments:
I swear that hardly anyone understands copyright, and sites such as YouTube, have almost always found 'better safe than sorry' the default solution.
You're absolutely right. One of the major flaws in the deeply flawed Digital Millennium Copyright Act is the de facto presumption of guilt: Someone claims their copyright was violated and sites (like YouTube) just roll over and take the complainer's word for it without doing any investigation.
The burden of proof then falls on the wronged party, the one whose video is taken down (NOT the person falsely complaining). That can be costly—far too costly for a YouTube video.
So, people like wingnut teabaggers can file unfounded complaints with no consequences. With such an easy, no cost, zero risk way to suppress criticism of them, I'm surprised they haven't used this tactic more often.
That's too bad, because I have this great quote from Vonnegut:
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too."
Well, D, you save that up because the original topic will return…
Post a Comment