Uploaded March 2009 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
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.
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#amendmentx
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
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
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=283&invol=697
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:
extruther.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-resignation.html
Five Guantanomo detainees admit with pride that they helped plan 911:
nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/10gitmo.html?_r=2&hp
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.
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#amendmentx
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
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
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=283&invol=697
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:
extruther.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-resignation.html
Five Guantanomo detainees admit with pride that they helped plan 911:
nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/10gitmo.html?_r=2&hp
