Rand Paul

Oops. Robotized Copyright Claims Yank Rand Paul's Announcement from YouTube


:\, indeed.

As I write this, visiting Rand Paul's official YouTube page to watch his presidential announcement today will lead to disappointment. Not by the content, but rather the fact that it has been yanked from YouTube over copyright claims. Philip Bump over at The Washington Post explains the culprit:

Why? Did Rand Paul quote liberally from Waka Flocka Flame in his announcement? Did he hum Ween's "Freedom of '76" while praising the virtues of freedom?

No, the answer is almost certainly something else. Blame robots.

YouTube has a system called "Content ID," which allows the owners of copyright on material to automatically censor unlicensed use of said material. As described here, YouTube automatically matches videos against a big database of copyrighted material, including music, when the video is submitted. Then, copyright owners can, if they wish, block a video from being viewed.

During his announcement on Tuesday, Rand Paul entered and left to the song, "Shuttin' Detroit Down," as Business Insider notes. The song is a twangy lament about the state of the economy that dates back a few years; the copyright stamp on the YouTube video reads "(c) 2009 WMG." WMG, of course, is Warner Music Group.

These robotic claims are a bipartisan issue. The same thing happened to the Democrats at their national convention in 2012. It's a little funny and no doubt will be fixed soon, restoring Paul's video online, but it's actually a serious and frustrating issue. Frequently these copyright claims from big publishers are completely disconnected from any concern or interest in "fair use" and end up abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's procedures, created for removing pirated content from the Internet, to—intentionally or not—engage in online censorship.

UPDATE: Rand Paul also has a video posted today talking about Internet freedom, appropriately enough. Watch below:

NEXT: Rand Paul and the GOP's Foreign Policy Civil War

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The robots believe their airborne cousins might be out of a job if Paul is elected.

    1. It seems like there’s been a bit of droning on with regards to robots and Rand Paul of late.

  2. OT: Facebook comment. I drank it in. Don’t really see how it’s surprising or inherently bad.

    “You are 2.5x more likely to be a rich adult if you were born rich and never went to college that if you were born poor, against all odds, went to college and graduated.” – Pew’s Economic Mobility Project

    Drink that stat in

    1. You mean wealthy families pass on their wealth? I’m shocked!

      1. Also believing wealth can be acquired. So many poor people really believe there is no way for them to improve their lot in life.

      2. Much turns on the definition of “wealth”, as well.

        1. And “college”

    2. That’s startlingly low, IMO.

      At least, when I think ‘against all odds’, the numbers ‘3:1′ don’t generally come to mind. Kinda makes it seem like the ol’ sheepskin is still a magic ticket to the upper 25:%.

      1. Soon we’ll all be in the top 25 percent! Wait a minute…..

      2. This guy also once posted an Liz Warren video like it was a profound speech. All of a sudden he started posting stupid shit like this about a year ago, I don’t know what happened to him.

        1. One of my high school teachers has pretty much gone off the progressive deep end over the last couple of years. At first he was just complaining about how hard it is to find a job or keep a job if he did find one. Now it’s all Bernie Sanders quotes, Blue Nation Review memes and Occupy Democrats lists. Sad really, he was a really good at his old job.

        2. How is that surprising or interesting at all.

          The hilarious part is, it almost seems like he thinks 1:1 would be a good thing and has little concept of the fact that when the ratio becomes 1:1 a diploma becomes worthless. When someone with a college diploma is just as likely to create/hold on to a fortune as someone without one who had the money handed to them…

          It’s almost like it’s just, “Rich people have (yet another) a bigger number.” to him.

          If you couldn’t hold your wealth and pass it on to your kids (and I’m actually kinda pro-statist on the latter topic), what’s the point in getting the degree?

          1. Until every generation is successively lifting itself out of self/parentally-imposed poverty, equality has not been achieved.

    3. you were born poor, against all odds, went to college and graduated.

      That doesn’t even make sense.

      1. My three siblings were born poor. Via scholarsips, they went to college and grad school. My brother received a Ph.D. from UCLA and did post-doc at Columbia. All of it paid for with schlarships, fellowships and grants. My other two siblings have graduate degrees. All three siblings are now 1%ers. Too bad, when they could have just been victims, complaining about the inherent unfairness of it all.

        1. schlarships??? WTF???

          1. Don’t forget scholarsips

            You must be the kid who against all odds went to college but didn’t become magically rich afterwards.

    4. And the odds really aren’t all that bad against a poor kid going to college.

      But, yeah. How is that surprising or interesting at all. And how does it have anything to do with economic mobility? There are many places you can be economically between poor and rich.

      1. And it is beside the fact that most degrees don’t teach students valuable real world skills. Having these do nothing to help your income and will probably hurt you much more due to the debt incurred to get said degree.

        1. Funny, I was just on a conference call with the Bar Committee that I’m on and we were talking about ways we (practicing attorneys) could help new lawyers overcome the completely inadequate education/training most law students get in law school.

    5. To the saps who were born rich but aren’t rich later in life: what did they do wrong? That’s vastly more interesting information.

      1. They didn’t diversify?

      2. MacauVegasRenoAtlantic Cityauto erotic asphyxiation.

    6. I noted something: It doesn’t tell you what the people actually do. Let’s say the kid of a rich family becomes, say, a computer programmer without graduating from college – like Mark Zuckerberg, the son of a dentist and a psychiatrist, or Bill Gates, the son of an attorney. Both those men didn’t graduate, both came from wealthy families, both became super-rich through their own efforts.

      This is yet another example of leftist credentialism. They assume someone who went to college must be ‘better’ than someone who didn’t and never stop to consider that a lot of those rich kids might have taken over the family business or gone into a line of work that didn’t require a degree, but remained wealthy through their own efforts. On the other hand, a poor kid could go and graduate college with a shitty nonsense degree.

      Just knowing the state of their college graduation tells us nothing about them.

      1. Exactly. Having a degree doesn’t tell you anything. Unless the kid got a degree that teaches him/her skills valuable in the workplace (and that still doesn’t guarantee the kid will utilize those skills), that degree will probably hurt their ability to build wealth by saddling them with massive debt.

        1. This is also clearly a WE NEED MORE SOCIALISM type of post. Whenever I see one of those, I like to point out that there was a study out of Sweden which found that the descendants of the Swedish aristocracy of the 1800s are something like 5X as likely as the general population to be in a professional career, like a doctor or lawyer.

          So grand and glorious Sweden has a pretty large gap in success based primarily on the state of your family 150 years ago. This implies to me that it isn’t possible to rectify this ‘unfairness’ through the use of government since such issues persist in virtually every country.

          1. This implies to me that it isn’t possible to rectify this ‘unfairness’ through the use of government since such issues persist in virtually every country.

            You just lack faith. If we simply barred certain people from certain professions based on their ancestry and wealth, hey presto!, problem solved. That ‘total’ in ‘total state’ is no joke.

          2. Socialism has the effect of freezing the current haves and have nots in place.

            There’s a reason why in the late 19th century, a significant percentage of aristocrats decided to take up the mantle of socialism/progressivism as a way of striking out at the nouveau riche.

      2. And if you were born rich enough, and had parents generous enough that you get a trust fund or significant inheritance, all you have to do to be rich in adulthood is not be completely stupid with your money.

        1. Trust funds were invented specifically to keep stupid people away from their own money, as well.

    7. File that under meaningless statistic. 2.5 times more likely than what? That person should quote that actual mobility rates, not merely a ratio that is meaningless without more context.

  3. Bear in mind that a false DMCA claim is, in theory, perjury. Guess how often that’s been enforced!

    1. Hahahaha tell me another one

  4. Did he hum Ween’s “Freedom of ’76” while praising the virtues of freedom?

    Should’ve gone with “I Can’t Put My Finger On It,” to keep up the “most interesting politician” theme.

    1. Or “Mister Would You Please Help My Pony?”

      1. No way. Poop Ship Destroyer or nothing.

  5. And this is why true libertarians don’t believe in IP.

    1. My favorite one of these silly episodes is something I blogged about a couple of years ago:


    2. You’re not a libertarian, dumbass.

      1. You’re not the president of libertarianism.

        1. She’s an individualist anarchist. Like me. Not a libertarian.

          1. Why is this not libertarian?

            Follow-up: who cares?

            1. Well, your mom, for one.

            2. Follow-up: who cares?

              Bo. A lot.

          2. That’s a TRUE libertarian though, innit? I mean, i got to individualist anarchism by following libertarianism to its logical conclusion.

        2. He told my dad he was.

      2. I’m not your frienddumbass, pal

  6. I wish that Paul would knock off with the “Dr. Paul” stuff. If you’re feeling around my colon for polyps, I’m happy to call you Doc. But I sure as hell don’t need or want a Doctor President.

    1. Wait, you get emails from drrandhpaul@gmail.com too?

      1. Wait, does the H stand for Hussein?

    2. I think it is a way to say “I’m smart” without saying I’m smart. But I agree with the sentiment.

      1. Or a way to say I’m not a career politician without actually saying it.

    3. So if you needed eye surgery Dr. Paul would be cool?

      I don’t have a problem with medical doctors using Dr. all the time. I look askance at folks with PhDs calling themselves Dr.

      Besides, it differentiates him from Walker …


      1. PhD = Doctor of Philosophy

        I could care less if either use Doctor all the time. It is a title both groups worked for. Quit othering PhD’s, man!

        1. When I shout “Someone get a doctor!” I’m not looking for a Archaeologist. I thought everyone knew the D in PhD was for Doctor so I wasn’t really trying to claim they hadn’t worked for the degree. If you’re giving a lecture or writing a paper by all means use Dr. John Doe, PhD. If I meet you at a bar and you introduce yourself as Dr. John Doe I’ll think your an ass. YMMV.

          1. If I meet you at a bar and you introduce yourself as Dr. John Doe I’ll think your an ass

            This goes double for Judges. Why must I call you Judge Doe, I don’t get to be called Ditch Digger Smith.

            1. Senator Jackass, 15 years after retiring from the Senate…

          2. Agreed, but if I meet a surgeon at a bar and they introduce themselves as Dr. John Doe, I’ll also think they are an ass. You get to substitute Dr. in contexts where you would otherwise use Mr./Mrs./Ms. Anything else is just bragging.

      2. Or does it…

        Paul left Baylor early, without completing either his Bachelor’s degree in biology or in English,[22] when he was accepted into the Duke University School of Medicine. At the time, Duke did not require an undergraduate degree for admission to its graduate school. He earned a M.D. degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.[23]

      3. Well, it depends. My friend with a PhD in elementary partivle physics, I call him “Doctor” with all respect implied. My friend with a PhD in Ethnography, I sometimes rib about it.

        1. My friend with a PhD in Ethnography, I sometimes rib about it.

          Good point. There are a lot of less than “Doctor-esque” PhD dissertations out there.

      4. For me it was the army of (Ron) Pualtards always saying “Dr. Paul” that ruined it.

      5. Pretty much where I am, kilroy.

        Any PhD wants to get shirty with me and insist I call him “doctor”, I will just tell him it goes both ways. As the holder of Juris Doctor degree, I’ll call him doctor if he calls me doctor.

      6. This is something I’ve never understood. What exactly makes medical doctors solely deserving of the title Doctor? If the title Doctor is meant to indicate mastery of a certain subject, my PhD is every bit as legit as an MD. Ditto if it is supposed to reflect some sort of effort involved.

        1. Medical degrees are ostensibly more difficult to obtain. A proposition I wouldn’t have quarreled with until I got to see a Medicaid clinic first hand.

          1. I don’t really get that either. I mean, maybe some PhDs are relatively easy, but 3 years of med school vs 5 years of grad school (and I know people who through no fault took 6 years) doesn’t seem all that bad.

            1. Med school is normally 4 years, plus residency, and any additional education for your specialty/board certification, and when it’s all over you’re (in theory anyway) competent to start dispensing drugs, cutting up living human bodies, etc. It’s not to downplay anyone’s achievements, but 4 years of school followed by 2 solid years of 18+ hour days saving people’s lives seems more impressive to most people than holing up in a studio apartment for 3 years glued to LexisNexis and banging pretentious art students. Not all PhD’s are created equal, either.

    4. What about Doctor Girlfriend?

      1. im pretty sure she goes by Doctor Mrs The Monarch now

    5. Which title did he work harder for? Doctor or Senator?

    6. If he still practices (which I think he does), then I’m fine calling him doctor.

    7. If you’re feeling around my colon for polyps, I’m happy to call you Doc.

      Given that he’s an opthomologist, I think calling him Doc while he’s suspiciously feeling around your colon for anal polyps is functionally the same as calling him Doc when he’s campaigning for POTUS.

      But if an eye doctor is indeed feeling around your colon for polyps, the sodomy is concrete evidence of his cosmotarian bona fides.

      1. As long as pot and Mexicans are involved somehow, sure.

    8. The general rule of thumb in academia is that you should call PhDs “Dr.” but any PhDs that insist you call them “Dr.” are dickheads.

      1. IMO, that’s the polite, academic rule of thumb. When you ‘career’ advancement isn’t dependent on their judgement, anyone who lays claim to a Ph.D. is a dickhead and anyone who asks to be called ‘Dr.’ is just begging to be called one.

        1. Playing ball is part of my job.

          Academics aren’t the worst. Filmmakers are the fucking worst.

          1. What is Nicole, chopped liver?

          2. Playing ball is part of my job.

            As someone who has spent a decent chunk of life away from his own kids cleaning up after Ph.D.s and settling squabbles between post-docs… I understand.

  7. When robots can figure out the intricacies of “fair use”, that will be a terrifying day.

    1. So they’ve been “warning.”

    2. My bots have my libertarian interpretation of it down pretty pat.

      But I agree, when robots get coded to the progressive mindset about there never being enough regulations to penalize all the privately held HDD space in existence, things will get scary.

      1. By law all bots should receive libertarian programming. It’s the most sure way to keep the bots functioning within Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics.

      2. Bots programmed to mimic to a progressive mindset. I can not think of anything more terrifying.

        1. See Siri Re: Abortion clinics. You don’t have to program them to mimic the mindset. You just have to have the mindset (or lack thereof in the specific example) while programming and it will seep into the code.

          1. Exactly.

  8. Current MoneyBomb at $315k

    The pitch email from Rand Paul went straight to Spam in Gmail.

    1. The tech wizards are sure to give Rand the usual treatment? Or Rand needs to get with the program and create headers that’ll send his emails straight to the inbox?

      1. Ever since I made the mistake of giving $100 to Ron Paul in 2012 I’ve gotten tons of Republican donation emails delivered directly to the Gmail inbox. One of the metrics they use to categorize spam is that other Gmail users marked the sender/content as spam. There are plenty of other ways it can get marked as spam but it does make me wonder.

        1. Lots of wonder in the world. It’s a wondrous world for sure.

  9. And Rand wears a purple shirt and tie in the Internet Freedom video. Neither Red nor Blue but purple. 😀

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.