>>You seem to think any collection of royalties from an allegedly legit YouTube video with Kim Davis is "OK".

If there's a legal agreement entered into by two willing parties after legal advice, of course it's OK. If (for example) you entered a 6 month lease and decided after a month that you want to live in a different school district, it doesn't matter how highly you value your reasons: they don't void the agreement you entered into.

>>But the problem is one of derivation. Sullivan can't get worked up about Huckabee using the first 40-some seconds of the song....and yet have no problem with the Kim Davis video (which features Huckabee and the song). It's absurd.

If performing rights are managed by one of the huge conglomerates who sign deals with Youtube, Survivor is bound by whatever terms they agreed,

>>(And by the way, re: Standard youtube policy, the details are actually more than what you described. I actually spoke with someone who works with Google, but I'll get into that later).

Hopefully they can supply an agreement where Survivor has the right to knock out individual clips. What I see is that the tune is identified and attributed, meaning it's part of Youtube's content identification arrangement and Survivor has signed up with one of the megas to manage its online copyright.

/Edit/ as of right now, I'm not seeing the song identified in the clip. ?!