Celebrities, Big Corporations, and Copyright Strikes: Are YouTube Functions Being Abused to Silence Critics and Competitors

I'm not a copyright lawyer.  I don't play one on TV.  I know a little about copyright law from my law schools days.  So, definitely don't take anything I write here as legal advice. 

Dr. Drew Pinsky appears to have joined the list of celebrities and organizations who have abused a system created by YouTube, and other social media sites, supposedly to fight copyright infringement, in order to shut down criticism.  Pinsky, a practicing M.D. and Diplomat of the American Board of Addiction Medicine and the American Board of Internal Medicine, cultivated a celebrity persona over the decades with his appearances on various radio and television shows discussing medical issues.  He was recorded recently stating that from the beginning, he considered the coronavirus, SARS-CoV2 which causes the disease COVID-19, could be worse than the flu.  However, a YouTuber called DrDoops published a montage of clips dating back to February 4, 2020, where Dr. Pinsky claimed that the virus was "way less virulent than the flu."  The video on YouTube lasted a little less than five minutes.  A Twitter user, named, "Flatten the curve, not the webrant," going by the Twitter handle @web_rant, posted a two-minute version of the video on April 5, 2020.  YouTube had pulled the video off of its platform, citing copyright violations.  On Twitter, Dr. Drew responded to a user who had retweeted the video, stating, "Infringing copywrite [sic] laws is a crime.  Hang onto your retweets.  Or erase to be safe."  Some have interpreted Dr. Drew's response to be a veiled threat to seek criminal legal action against those who spread the video.

(To YouTube's credit, the company reinstated the video on April 7, 2020.)

YouTube raises revenue by selling ads to run before and during the videos posted to its site.  YouTube shares this revenue with users who obtain a certain amount of subscribers, and induce other users to view their videos for a minimum number of minutes.  However, users have, at times, incorporated materials copyrighted by others in their videos.  Copyright holders argue that it is unfair, and indeed illegal, for YouTube users to profit from copyrighted materials that the users do not own.  YouTube has responded with a method to report when a user has posted a video that contains copyrighted material.  The purported copyright holder fills out a copyright removal webform, and submits it to YouTube.  YouTube then removes the video from its platform.  YouTube gives the user a "copyright strike."  If YouTube gives that user three copyright strikes, it will terminate the user's account, delete all videos from that account, and ban the user from creating any new accounts.

Users who disagree with the action can challenge the copyright strike.  The user submits a counter notification.  YouTube will then determine whether the original copyright claim was valid.

Copyright law, however, can be complex.  Whether a video amounts to infringement may not be a matter of black and white.  The Fair Use Doctrine, for example, permits a person to use copyrighted material for commentary, criticism, parody, education and research.  What constitutes fair use is often a matter of detailed analysis of facts of circumstances.

Similarly, content may fall into the "Public Domain."  The public domain is the legal term for when a creative work may be freely used by anyone, without obtaining permission or a license from the creator.  This can happen because the legal protection granted to copyrighted material lasts for only a limited period of time.  When a copyrighted work falls into the public domain can be complicated, due to legislative action taken because certain entertainment outlets have lobbied Congress to keep their work protected.  A work can also be part of the public domain because the author intended it to be.  A work created by the federal government is also in the public domain.

The problem, many users claim, is that YouTube's system is subject to abuse.  Filing a copyright webform will almost immediately result in the video being removed.  YouTube's appeal process, these users claims, usually takes days, if not longer, to resolve.  In the meantime, the user is robbed of the ability to accumulate view time, and therefore ad revenue.  Where the video in question concerns a fast-moving current event, it effectively prevents the YouTube user from capitalizing on that event.  The process can also be abused by those who wish to silence critics.  More alarmingly, the lengthy process can be abused to drive competitive outlets, who are small users lacking the resources of multi-million dollar corporations, out of business.  Unscrupulous entities have been charged with buying the copyright of certain content, and then threatening small YouTube users with the possibility of a copyright strike, to demand exorbitant payments in order to avoid having the user's channel deleted.

David Pakman, for example, complained that big media outlets, such as CNN and NBC, filed copyright strikes against him when he broadcast live streams of congressional hearings through social media.  During the lead up to the impeachment of President Donald Trump, for example, Pakman would live-stream hearings before the House of Representatives, which were originally broadcast through C-SPAN, the congressional cable TV organization.  Because such public hearings show the workings of the government, they are in the public domain.  Nonetheless, large media outlets filed copyright removal webforms against Pakman, claiming the live-streams infringed on their copyrighted broadcast of the same material.

Pakman, who is a liberal political commentator, alleged that because of the actions of the media outlets, his live-streams of the hearings were removed from YouTube immediately.  He thus lost the opportunity to realize the revenue generated from the ads on those live-streams, upon which Pakman claimed he depended in order to be able to continue to broadcast his podcasts and other forms of commentary as his job.  Pakman charged that YouTube was in the back pocket of the big corporations, which engaged in this predatory behavior in order to drive small political commentators like him out of business.

YouTube users PewDiePie and Retroblasting have complained that celebrities and other YouTubers have filed copyright complaints with YouTube when they have disliked the criticism they have received through videos published on the platform.

Dr. Drew has apparently joined the list of those unhappy with criticism aired on social media, and responded by making copyright claims.  Ironically, Pinsky wrote a book entitled, "The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America."  Now it appears to be his narcissism that is playing a role in shutting down free speech on social media sites.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

References

DrDroops, "Compilation of all of the inaccurate, contradictory things that Dr. Drew has said about the Coronavirus," YouTube Video (April 2, 2020).

French, Leonard, "Dr. Drew DMCAs Critical Montage, Was It Fair?", Legal Masses with Leonard French (April 6, 2020).

French, Leonard, "The Injustice of Copyright - MxR Plays Extortion," Legal Masses with Leonard French (January 9, 2020).

Fuster, Jeremy, "Dr Drew Supercut of COVID-19 Gets YouTube Copyright Takedown," The Wrap (April 5, 2020).

Lee, Timothy B., "15 tears ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain," The Washington Post (October 25, 2013).

Pakman, David, "CNN AND NBC Drop Hammer on David Pakman," David Pakman Show (November 18, 2019).

Pakman, David, "We.re SHUT DOWN by Political Consultant OR Right-Wing Troll," David Pakman Show (February 26, 2020).

PewDiePie, "STOP DOING THIS! - Copyright Striking Criticism Etc," YouTube Video (January 11, 2019).

Pinsky, Drew, "About Dr. Drew," drdrew.com.

Retroblasting, "You Had Your Chance, Danoby," YouTube Video (February 10, 2020).

Retroblasting, "Danoby Doesn't Want You to Know This, I Have the Receipts," Bit Chute Video (February 10, 2020).

Stim, Rich, "What is Fair Use?", Copyright & Fair Use (Stanford University Libraries).

Stim, Rich, "Welcome to the Public Doman," Copyright & Fair Use (Stanford University Libraries).

Weiss, Norman, "YouTube reinstates viral video of Dr. Drew downplaying coronavirus that he had removed claiming copyright infringement," Primetimer (April 7, 2020).

Wodinsky, Shoshana, "YouTube's copyright strikes have become a tool for extortion," The Verge (February 11, 2020).

World Health Organization, "Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it."

YouTube, "Copyright Infringement Notification Requirements," YouTube Help.

YouTube, "Copyright Strike Basics," YouTube Help.

Trump's Narcissistic Desire to Use the Border Wall to Cement his Legacy Has Created a Cruel and Unnecessary Government Crisis

Two and a half weeks into the partial government has given Americans yet another opportunity to assess the leadership skills, or lack thereof, of its current President, Donald Trump.  While I am not a psychologist and don’t claim to be making a clinical diagnosis, Trump’s refusal to sign a budget that doesn’t appropriate $5.7 billion for a wall on the US-Mexico border only further shows his dangerously narcissistic tendencies.

 

Like many narcissists, Trump is manipulative.  He has shown his character for taking advantage of people’s weaknesses for his own benefit.  For example, all during the presidential campaign Trump insisted that not only would he build a wall, but that Mexico would pay for it.  Having Mexico pay for the wall was never even a remote possibility.  But the claim won him cheers ad accolades from his supporters.  Now that it is clear that Mexico will not be paying for the wall, Trump is manipulating the ignorance of trade agreements and how tariffs work among his supporters to make the claim that Mexico really will be paying for the wall.

 

Trump argues that by scrapping NAFTA and concluding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Mexico will be paying for the wall through tariffs paid to the United States.  Let’s breakdown the inaccuracies of this claim.  USMCA did not really scrap NAFTA.  Rather, it built upon NAFTA structures to adjust some of the agreed upon tariff rates.  In fact, trade agreements are not really a vehicle for a country to raise revenue.  Government typical enter into trade agreements to try to open more markets for its exporters by having their counterparts lower their tariffs.  The United States attempted to open more markets for US agricultural goods, for example, by getting Canada and Mexico to lower their tariff rates.

 

At any rate, governments do not pay tariffs.  Importers do.  Importers need to make a profit, so they typically pass the tariffs of to the consumer in the form of higher prices.  Even where US tariffs increase, Mexico will not be footing the bill.  US consumers will.

 

Moreover, USMCA is not yet part of US law.  To become US law, Congress will have to act.  Either 2/3 of the Senate must ratify it as a treaty, or both Houses of Congress must approve implementing legislation, just as they did for NAFTA.  Until Congress acts, the USMCA has no effect on US law.

 

However, many Americans lack the very specific knowledge of how trade agreements and tariffs work.  Trump is manipulating that ignorance to make it appear as though he is living up to his campaign promise.

 

Trump is attempting to  manipulate the racially-based fears of his supporters to support his refusal to sign legislation to fund the Government unless he gets his wall.  In defending his desire for a wall, Trump cherry-picks cases where heinous crimes were committed by undocumented aliens.  In doing so, Trump creates the impression that all undocumented aliens are violent criminals.  This is consistent with his claims during the campaign that Mexicans are rapists and murders.  He and his supporters ignore statistics showing aliens, including undocumented aliens, commit fewer crimes than native born US citizens.

 

Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of empathy for those adversely affected by the shutdown.  Indeed, through some of his public statements, Trump appears to be saying that those suffering because of the shutdown are getting what they deserve because of their lack of support for him.  He has tried to change lexicon of the debate, calling the shutdown a “strike” in closed door sessions with congressional leaders, as if to shift the blame on the governmental employees.  He has noted that most of the workers furloughed or working without pay are Democrats, as if to say that they deserve what they get for supporting the opposition party.  He has shown little concern for the 800,000 who may be going without a paycheck.  Moreover, he has given no attention to the government contractors, who will not only be going without a paycheck, but who, unlike government employees, will not receive back pay.

 

This is another example of Trump’s manipulation of the ignorance of his supporters.  Many of his supporters, who do not understand how government works, have been quick to argue that since only non-essential employees are being furloughed, it shows the government is too big and ought to be cut.

 

The fact is, Trump is using an immoral tactic essentially to extort something he wants, but for which there is little support, for the sake of creating his legacy.  A government shutdown is immoral because it adversely affects people who have no role to play in the debate over the border wall.  Government employees risk falling behind in mortgage payments, utility bills and other bills because of a lack of a paycheck.  Some employees risk losing health insurance for dependents.

 

Yet, it is being viewed as simply just another tactic to get something out of Congress despite fierce resistance.  The last government shutdown, for example, was forced upon the United States by the Tea Party, who demanded the showdown over funding the Affordable Care Act.  Because the Tea Party saw that as a successful demonstration of its power, it has become just another arrow in the Republicans’ quiver.

 

It is particularly egregious where polls have shown that a majority of Americans oppose the border wall.  In fact, Trump clearly made tough immigration enforcement a hallmark of his message in the mid-term elections, which resulted in the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives.  Yet, while Republicans like to point out that elections have consequences, they refuse to accept the consequences of losing the House, which include a lack of political support for the wall.

 

Trump has ignored all of this, just so he can push for the wall to have tangible proof of his legacy in American history.  The shutdown is a very selfish use of an immoral tactic for something that does not have strong public support.

 

Indeed, Trump’s mistake is that he has failed to learn from history.  There is strong and vocal support for the wall among hard core Trump supporters.  Trump has chosen to play to his base by projecting an image of being tough on immigration enforcement.  But, Trump engaged in the same tactic leading up to the mid-terms.  He used news coverage of a large group of Central Americans traveling together through Mexico in an attempt to apply for asylum in the United States to incite fear among his supporters of the caravan.  He labeled Democrats as soft on immigration enforcement and supporters of open borders.  In the end, his party lost the majority in the House, giving Democrats a power base upon which to oppose the President.  There is no reason to believe that playing to his base will be any more successful here.

 

As usual, Trump has made this dispute about him.  While he attempts to avoid responsibility now, claiming Democrats won’t give him what he wants, he can’t escape that the government shut-down has real world adverse consequences on people who have nothing to do with immigration policy.  Because Trump is such a wild card, there is no way of telling whether he will back down and attempt to paint it as a victory, or let the shut-down drag on and continue to cause widespread pain.  One can only hope that Trump can overcome his stubborn streak, agree to legislation to re-open the government, and continue to negotiate immigration reform without holding the welfare of government employees hostage.

 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Be Wary of Voluntary Police Interviews

Last Night's Better Call Saul was brilliant.  It was brilliant in many ways, but I am only going to focus on one for the purposes of this blog.  And that concerns a police tactic that I am all too familiar with, and that I wish many of my clients understood before they spoke with the police.  It's a tactic I'm not particularly thrilled with, since it is an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and hang a person by their own petard under the guise of "consent."

I'm about to talk about the details of the episode, so here is the mandatory SPOILER ALERT.  If you haven't seen the February 22, 2016 episode entitled, "Cobbler," and you've DVRed it or intend to catch one of the encore showings, don't read below.

***SPOILER ALERT***

I love Mike Ehrmantraut. We know from Breaking Bad that he is a former Philadelphia Police Officer who had his own trouble with the law.  He's not above profiting off of criminal activity.  But he's smart, and having been on the inside, he knows police tactics.

Enter Pryce, an employee at a pharmaceutical company who tries to make a little money on the side selling pharmaceutical grade drugs to street criminal Nacho Vargas.  In season one, Pryce hires Ehrmantraut to be his bodyguard for the drug exchanges.

Pryce gets a bargain in Erhmantraut, but doesn't realize it.  When Mike balks at going to a meet in Pryce's new gaudy Range Rover, Pryce fires him.  In his naivety, he then lets Vargas see his car, thereby giving Vargas the information he needs to rip Pryce off.  By the end of episode one, Pryce has reported a break-in at his house to the police because his beloved baseball card collection was stolen.  Of course, the police get suspicious of Pryce's car and the reason for the break-in.  When Pryce is out of the room, they find his hiding spot in the baseboard behind the couch.  But, of course, there is nothing they can do about it right then and there.

In episode two, we meet Pryce again as he comes to the police station for an interview with the police.  Unknowingly, he once again becomes the luckiest stupid criminal alive, as he runs into Mike, who is the parking lot attendant.  When Mike realizes why Pryce is there, he pulls him aside to tell him why he should not speak with the police.

As Mike explains, the police are suspicious.  At this point they have nothing.  So they invite Pryce in to speak with them voluntarily.  They intend to be friendly and lull him into a false sense of security.  Then they will pounce on him and try to get him to confess the illegal activity that made him the victim of the break-in in the first place.  Pryce is reluctant to believe this, but agrees to leave the station when Mike promises to get his baseball card collection back.

And that is the tactic I wish my clients understood.  I have met many people who have been invited to the police station just to talk.  The police promise, "look you're not in trouble.  We only want to understand what happened." They may even say, "If you did nothing wrong, you'd be doing yourself a favor."  If you go in, they proceed to ask questions for hours, wearing you down.  They hope you don't realize you can have a lawyer.  They may even say, "Hey, if you didn't do anything wrong, why do you need a lawyer."  And then the conversation continues . . .  voluntarily they claim.  At no time do they tell you that you can get up and leave.  And if you do, again they ask, "Why are you in a hurry?  We only want to understand what happened.  You're not in trouble now."  So you stay, and worn down, you give the police the confession they want. 

In court, statements from such an interview are difficult to suppress.  The police will claim that no one was under arrest, that the person was free to leave, he just chose to stay and tell us what happened. 

The moral of the story is quite frankly don't trust the police if they ask you to come in for a "voluntary" interview, and claim that you are not trouble.  In truth, they only do this when they suspect criminal activity, but have no proof that they can use in court.  They are looking to trick you into giving a confession without a lawyer present, and then claim that the constitutional rights do not apply because it was voluntary.  While you may believe you have anything to fear, in reality any such contact should only be done in the presence of a lawyer representing you.

A Salute to the Bravery of Escaping Domestic Violence

I want to salute the bravery it takes for a woman to take the affirmative steps necessary to escape domestic violence. 

You'll pardon me if I'm a little emotional as I write this today.  I just spent two days helping women who escaped from domestic abuse in Central America present their stories to Asylum Officers in the hope that they can gain the protection of U.S. law.  The stories have gotten me angry, and I need a constructive way to express that anger.

Sure, there's the obvious targets of my anger:  The SOBs who thinks nothing of treating their women like punching bags, or worse yet, like punching bags who had better have food on the table when I walk into the house drunk or stoned at 3:00am.  The men who feel it necessary to hold a machete tho their woman's throat to show them who's boss.  Who feel it necessary to use the most vile and foul language to constantly terrorize and tear down their women.  Who do all of this without regard to the fact that their children are in the room, watching and learning.

I'm also angry at the machismo culture that pervades much of Central America.  The culture that says a woman's identity is tied to that of her man, that says she is nothing without her man, that treats her as nothing more than property.  It's a culture where girls are trapped by decisions they make at 15 or 16, when they choose a man to be with, only later to find out his violent side when it's too late.  Of course, that's assuming the teenage girl hasn't been abducted by some SOB who thinks nothing of stalking and kidnapping in order to find a woman to tend to his needs.  It's a culture where families won't intervene in a "domestic dispute," because, well, this is the man you chose to be with.  It's a culture that adopts laws that say the right things, after all, we don't want to run afoul of the United Nations.  But, when it comes time to enforce those laws, the police are nowhere to be found.  Or, the police listen to a report of domestic abuse, only to do nothing.  Or maybe, they will arrest the guy, only to release him the next morning, angry enough to go back to his woman to teach her a lesson for making him spend a night in jail.  A culture that traps a woman, making it next to impossible for her to strike it out on her own, to make her own living without being dependent on a man.

But I'm also angry at the snot-nosed kid sitting behind the desk, who can't be more than thirty at the most, making my clients live their stories over and over again.  Worse yet, when human memory isn't perfect (as it rarely is), picking apart miniscule little holes, throwing the woman off their tracks as they try to tell their stories.  Using tiny misstatements as reason to doubt credibility.  Picking on those misstatements instead of taking in the clear emotional pain that is clearly being expressed at the mere mention of their ex-partner's name.  Using the fact that the these women do feel trapped, and for that reason did not come forward earlier, as further reason to doubt their stories.  Failing to realize that just as emotionally painful it is to retell the story in front of a total stranger, it is also painful to share that story with loved ones.  failing to understand that their very attitude is one of the reasons victims of domestic abuse don't come forward or try to escape.

I'm angry because someone has trained this snot-nosed kid to be this way.  Someone has trained him to suspect everyone seeking asylum in this country as just being a liar looking to stay in the United States the easy way.  Someone has trained him to be cold-hearted and skeptical.

I'm angry because just as the Board of Immigration Appeals releases a precedential decision that makes it clear that women who are trapped in abusive relationships that they cannot leave can indeed seek the protection of U.S. asylum law, critics, like those at the Daily Caller and Brietbart, who see it as nothing more than a way to open the flood gates to people who would flout our immigration law for the purpose of obtaining federal benefits.  Critics who would probably think nothing of telling me that all I've done is to assist those illegals in an effort to obtain amnesty.

And yet, it is in the face of all this that women like my clients had the courage to leave and seek protection.  They risked their lives leaving violent men, men who often continue to seek them out and threaten harm.  They risked their lives on the trip north, often knowing that the very Coyotes who are helping get into the promised land are going to rape them before leaving them off at the Rio Grande.  They face their fears over and over, telling their stories to their friends, their families, their lawyers, all before reaching the skeptics in the U.S. Government.

So pardon me if today I am a little angry, angry at a system that requires women to be brave in order to flee domestic violent and seek refuge in a place like the Untied States.  A system that likely exacerbates the emotional and psychological damage that has already been done.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
(571) 551-6069 (ESP)
wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.com

Asylum Granted to Honduran Victim of Domestic Abuse

Today, Arlington Immigration Court Judge Thomas Snow granted asylum to a woman from Honduras who was a victim of domestic abuse.  For a little over two years, the woman suffered physical, mental and economic abuse at the hands of her common law husband, who threatened to find her and kill her if she ever attempted to leave.  The woman was only able to escape when a neighbor intervened to pull the husband off of the woman as the husband was attempting to choke her after an argument over the husband’s mistress.  Taking the neighbor’s advice, the woman made the treacherous journey through Guatemala and Mexico to the United States.  Once in the United States, the woman was taken into custody by Border Patrol, and placed in removal proceedings.

As counsel to the woman, we submitted evidence demonstrating that Honduras is a deeply-rooted patriarchal society, where women get their identities first from their fathers and then from their husbands.  For a single woman living alone, access to credit and good jobs is virtually impossible.  As a result, women become dependent on their husbands, and are often treated like property and abused.  The State Department, in its annual human rights reports on Honduras, reports that rape and domestic abuse are significant problems in Honduras, as is femicide, or the murder of a woman by her significant other.  In 2008, the State Department cited statistics showing that 90% of femicides in Honduras went unpunished.

Victims of domestic abuse receive little help from governmental authorities.  According to Claudia Herrmansdorfer of the Center for Women’s Rights in Tegucigalpa, the police tend to treat domestic violence as an issue that should be resolved by the couple, and do not intervene.  Likewise, prosecutors tend not to bring cases of domestic violence to court.  This means that women in an abusive relationship in Honduras receive little, if any, protection from the government.

Asylum can be granted where an applicant can show that she fears that she will be persecuted if returned to her home country because of one of five protected categories:  (1) political opinion; (2) race; (3) religion; (4) nationality or (5) membership in a particular social group.  For victims of domestic abuse, the difficulty had been to fit the reason for the abuse into one of these five categories.  In 1999, the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected an asylum application where the applicant claimed to be part of a particular social group defined as “Guatemalan women intimately involved with abusive Guatemalan male companions who believe that women are to live under male dominance.”  In 2001, the Attorney General exercised his discretion to reverse the BIA’s decision, and remand it back to Board for reconsideration.  No published opinion has resulted from that remand.

The recent trend, however, has been to grant asylum to victims of domestic abuse.  In this case, both the Immigration Judge and the attorney for the Department with Homeland Security agreed with us that the woman was part of a particular social group defined as “Honduran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationship.”  Indeed, the DHS attorney did not oppose the asylum application, allowing the Immigration Court proceedings to run smoothly.  The woman was not required to recount her emotional tale of abuse in court, but was asked only to affirm the truthfulness of her asylum application under oath.  The DHS attorney also asked questions of the woman to make sure that no statutory bars to asylum, such as criminal and terrorist activities, applied in her case.

Having been granted asylum the woman may now live and work in the United States legally.  In one year, she may apply for permanent residency status, which could eventually lead to U.S. citizenship.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com