The Necessity of Fair Use and Why Using the DMCA To Remove Defamatory Videos Is Improper

Some people believe that copyright law should be used as a substitute for libel law. They claim that they have the right to DMCA any video that they believe is libeling them. To hell with all the other considerations of whether or not a video is within Fair Use. If its libelous—they contend—then this is sufficient to prove that the video falls outside of Fair Use.
In this video I explain why substituting libel law for copyright law is a bad idea. It is also something that I doubt Congress ever intended.
The following video exposes faith healer Peter Popoff as a fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBCiPfqFeY


Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to enact copyright law. It does not explicitly state that Congress has the power to enact libel law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8

The Congress shall have power. . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendm...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


From a Wired magazine article about libel on the internet

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/07/autoadmit

One idea gaining traction among legal thinkers would be DMCA-like legislation permitting victims of defamation to issue take-down notices, asking ISPs and websites to remove false and damaging user posts. If the service complies, it would be immune to any legal action.


New York Times v. Sullivan

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZO.html

"That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive,""

NEAR v. STATE OF MINNESOTA

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=283&inv...

In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this footing it yet stands. . . . Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of everything, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness? Had "Sedition Acts," forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?


One 911 Truther comes to the realization that the movement is all Bullshit:

http://extruther.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-resignation.html

Five Guantanomo detainees admit with pride that they helped plan 911:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/10gitmo.html?_r=2&hp

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• defamation
• libel
• DMCA
• Fair
• Use
• inmendham
• lawsuit
• Irish282
• Logansperman2
• Dynacatlovesme
• 911
• Truthers
• Peter
• Popoff

[YanmingYuMusic]

this is a good video, you explain yourself pretty well, not sure why you're getting some hate

[runodef99]

why should we listen to someone who wears a mask?

[MsOneiroi77]

Popoff as an example is the perfect point that he's an absolute creep people who cling to hope should not give up modern medicine in order to pray away the disease. If they want to pray they can do so while taking treatment. Poppoff aside fair use of his video is justified in a critisism of his actions in an educational sense.

[ifurn0]

Oh no! One person left the truth movement! God save both you and me! :/

[ifurn0]

What's your view of 'Niels Harrit'?

watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

(Evidence of nano-thermite - WTCs)

'Twoofers' are cool. Not all of them, but most.

[themaskedanalyst]

Thanks SabatogeKitty. Much appreciate the kind words.

[themaskedanalyst]

Thanks, it's always good to have feedback from someone who is knowledgeable in this area. Even though you are in a different jurisdiction, it is still good to hear I'm not totally off the mark.

[themaskedanalyst]

Thanks ladyabaza. I really appreciate your comment!

[themaskedanalyst]

The comments by the Troofers are comparatively tame next to what you saw from the Doomers. The biggest difference betwteen the Doomers and the Troofers is that there was a definite date which passed that prooved the Doomers were full of shit. We can laugh at them now that there cult is dead.

There will be no defining event that will get the die-hard Troofers to give up their cult.

[themaskedanalyst]

A lot of the Doomers were motivated by profit--they had doomsday books to sell, or they were selling canned beans and survival supply. But some were motivated by pure fear.

It got really ugly with the Doomers threatening to kill the Pollies if y2k turned out to be a disaster.

The Doomsday Y2kers, like the Troofer movement, was a cult. They didn't want to listen to the computer and engineering experts who told us it wouldn't be so bad. Evidence meant nothing to them.