YouTube sued over Denny flic
p2p news / p2pnet: New entertainment cartel favourite YouTube is being sued for, “allowing its users to upload copyrighted video footage,” including the beating of trucker Reginald Denny during the 1992 riots.
Los Angeles News Service and owner operator Robert Tur say one version of the Denny beating uploaded by a YouTube user was viewed and downloaded 1,000 times via the site, states the Hollywood Reporter Esq, going on to quote Tur’s lawyer as saying:
"The scope of the infringements is akin to a murky moving target, in that videos uploaded are not identified by copyright owner or registration number but rather by the uploader’s idiosyncratic choice of descriptive terms to describe the content of the video – tags – making it extremely impractical to identify plaintiff’s copyrighted works.”
Tur has spent millions to protect his copyrighted works, says the lawsuit, and he claims, "YouTube.com is not merely Grokster redux, For unlike the peer-to-peer file sharing systems at issue in the Grokster case, YouTube provides the computer servers and ‘world-class data centers’ which allow users to upload video clips directly to YouTube’s servers."
Tur is demanding $150,000 “for each work infringed upon” and a court order stopping YouTube from allowing his work on the site, says DVD-Recordable, adding:
“YouTube, which on Friday announced that its users are now viewing more than100 million videos per day, could not be reached for comment.”
" Never Forget the Rodney King Riots of 1992," says a YouTube post. "With the voice dub of Martin Luther King in the background. Totally chilling stuff."
Also See:
cartel favourite – NBC buys into YouTube, June 28, 2006
Hollywood Reporter Esq – L.A. News Service Sues YouTube Over Beating Video, July 17, 2006
DVD-Recordable – News Station Sues YouTube Over Copyright, Jul;y 18, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 18th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Good.
It’s about time.
What do I mean by that ??
One of the true reasons for copyright clampdowns ( one that some claim only paranoiacs believe, btw ) is rearing it’s ugly head.
History.
Some positive, some negative, on video, audio, written pages.
History nearly always offends, or threatens someone, because
history contains winners, losers, heroes crooks and thieves.
Some very wealthy and powerful people would very much like
some aspects of history forgotten, at very least , hidden.
Strong copyright laws can make that happen .. just like this.
Got incrminating or sensitive video ?
Copyright it, and wait for someone to pay you to keep history hidden, until it is ultimately forgotten.
There was a quote about what happens when the past is forgotten … can’t seem to remember it ..
July 18th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
What’s this guy’s problem anyway? YouTube’s videos are streaming videos only, no downloads, so exactly what’s wrong with viewing this video?
So what we can’t even view significant newsworthy moments anymore? These kinds of lawsuits shouldn’t be allowed! I believe the video is now gone from youTube, so now noone will get to see what all the fuss is about.
There should be a service where only the author is allowed to delete videos posted, and these greedy people need to stop complaining already. It’s not like watching a video is going to suddenly make you lose your house or something, good god!
July 18th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
So, why exactly is this good?
You think the public is going to realize this (”One of the true reasons for copyright clampdowns”) in any numbers and THEN a reasonable percentage of those who do actually vote, speak out, or do ANYTHING to affect a change? I hate to say it, but I think you are dreaming.
“History? Bah, booooring. Who’s on ‘Idol’ tonight?”
Doomed to repeat it?
Yup.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:18 am
I Probably AM dreaming .
But I will keep dreaming, and hoping.
And I will NEVER stop trying.
July 19th, 2006 at 4:48 am
The guy’s problem is that somebody is distributing his work in a way that he did not consent to. That’s a legitimate beef. You’re allowed to view signifigant newsworthy moments, sure…in the way the person who made them decides. That’s what copyright is all about. Some stuff is in the public domain, and really, perhaps major news event footage ought to be in the public domain by default. But that’s not how the law works.
It’s not about greed, it’s about control over his work. He has the right to control the distribution of his work. You’re not entitled to a free copy just because it’s easy to duplicate a bunch of 0s and 1s. Youtube isn’t entitled to continue to distribute a person’s copyrighted work against their will once they’re made aware of it.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:20 am
“He has the right to control the distribution of his work.”
Actually it seems that the issue is not distribution but public performance. Selling movies via DVD is distribution. Showing the movie on television is performance.
Admittedly, to show a non public domain movie or song on television requires a license from the copyright claimant (owner) or claimants if the copyright is owned by more than one claimant.
But here lies the problem.
Whereas for songs and movies there are simple traditional mechanisms for determining who is the claimant and where you can get a license for the performance, for news videos, speches, such a mechanism does not exists. Also for news videos, news reports, speeches, etc. it is not clear who a copyright owner may be as it is not possible to do a search at the Copyright Office. To begin with these have no names or author names like a song or a movie to do the search.
Then there is the problem as to who owns a video or recording. The person holding the camera or a microphome, or the actors who are seen or heard or the owners of the venue where the actors were?
For exampe, if the President gives a speech at a convention and it is videotaped simultaneously by three television stations. Who owns the copyrights to the three casically identical video fotage? The Presdent? The convention organizers? The television companies? Or is it public domain because the actor (the President) is considered to be working for the federal government, which by laws cannot claim copyrights?
I find it highy questionable that a video of policemen doing their job of beating up a citizen in a public place can belong to an accidental passerby who just happened to have a camera handy and who did not organize and paid for making the scene, and who did not ask the actors for permissionto videotape their perfomances nor is sharing the profits with the actors. The root question is who is the creator, the actors or the button pusher (camera owner)?
In movies, actors sign a work for hire agreement, meaning that they will not claim that their work’s results as belonging to them. Did the actors in the cops-beats-citizen scene sign a work for hire agreement with the button pusher (camera owner)?
Pretty confusing, right?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
July 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
“There was a quote about what happens when the past is forgotten … can’t seem to remember it ..”
The quote is “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” It is attributed to American poet and philosopher George Santayana (1863 – 1952.) It is inscribed over the doorway to the concentration camp museum in Dachau.