New Jersey Sues YouTube Over Crash Video

eldavojohn writes "The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) has sued YouTube and a number of other video sites for showing footage of a car crash that happened on the turnpike and was, therefore, property of the turnpike. The NJTA requested the footage be removed under the DMCA — which YouTube complied with — unfortunately, the video was copied to several other sites. The NJTA still seems to be targeting YouTube since YouTube 'did not try to prevent the very same video from being uploaded again by users immediately after it was purportedly removed.' We'll have to watch this closely and see if, even after you take down material violating the DMCA, you are at fault to any extent for people who already copied said material."

Comments

What copyright?

[russotto]

It's an automated camera system. There's no creative input. Thus, no copyright.

Re:What copyright?

[cortana]

OK then, it is a work of the government, paid for by the tax payers, and so should be in the public domain.

Re:What copyright?

[Kjella]

Except that no ISP is going to take that fight for their customer. They take it down, whoever wants to protest can file a counternotice and go after those who sent the takedown. I think it's been tested before that if you send a takedown for public domain material, most of them will just do it. Maybe, just maybe if you have a flag in your account saying "Being harassed by asshat, check takedown notices" they'll verify it but otherwise not. Wanna fight this? You post it, you have it pulled, you send counternotice which means they'll have to either sue or let it be restored. Then you and the ACLU or whoever take the fight. Right, wrong or otherwise the sane thing for an ISP is to comply, there's absolutely nothing for them to gain by becoming a party to any lawsuit.

Public roads

[Martix]

The turnpike was funded by tax dollars.

So as far as im concerned its public not private

My 2 Watts

p.s. file under DMCA abuse

Re:Public roads

[AlinuxNCSU]

We have other laws to protect private information: privacy laws, theft laws, even classified information laws. The DMCA is a copyright law. Copyright law is not meant to protect secret information, it's meant to protect the copying of published information. However, government works are typically in the public domain.

If they want to stop the dissemination of the video because it's classifiied or private, the NJ government can do that. But they can't use the DMCA (assuming you buy the GP's argument).

How?!

[raylu]

'did not try to prevent the very same video from being uploaded again by users immediately after it was purportedly removed.'

So...what was YouTube supposed to do? Seize control of the internet and delete all copies of the video?

The real issue?

[heyetv]

"The NJTA also is suing unnamed corporations and individuals who may have helped distribute the stolen video. "

Exactly -- who stole the media to begin with, and why aren't they looking more thoroughly into their own security problems, rather than spit lawsuits? Why are they unnamed, but the video sites are put right out there publicly? Detract attention from the real problem? The above quote is the very last sentence from TFA, and the only mention of how the video was leaked...

Re:The real issue?

[Doctor_Jest]

Because it's easier to illegally invoke the DMCA (god, why can't this law be struck down?) than to actually check to see if there's a mole or a "thief" inside the NJTA. (Rather than claim it's NJTA property, which by default is the people's property... since it is funded by taxes, they should've said it was for an ongoing investigation of a security leak.)

This is yet another example of the DMCA being improperly used by some corksoaking lawyer at the behest of another group trying to CYA for being stupid about security of their cameras... You're right... it's a diversionary tactic.

I wonder if a live feed of that camera's used anywhere? You know for TV traffic and that sort of thing?

Why is this copyrighted at all?

[Maximalist]

This just goes to show that the whole copyright system is absurdly broken.

A more reasonable legal tool for knocking this off the internet might be for the estate of the dead guy to sue under an right of publicity/invasion of privacy theory.

Some stuff doesn't belong in public circulation... but copyright is not the only way to control that sort of thing.

what are they trying to hide?

[nanosquid]

This was a public, newsworthy event, captured by a public camera. Not only is there nothing wrong with viewing and posting it, there is something decidedly wrong with trying to hide it. In fact, that's the kind of behavior you'd expect if they are concerned about getting sued (say, over dangerous tool booth design or signage).

Whether or not they are concerned about liability in this particular case, setting a precedent that governments can take down public footage of public, newsworthy events through the DMCA would be bad. This kind of video needs to be open to public scrutiny.

Re:what are they trying to hide?

[nanosquid]

An accident is a traumatic event, and it can be argued that a compassionate society is not going to make it's chief form of entertainment watching such tragedies.

Quite to the contrary: a compassionate society wouldn't try to hide suffering and death under a blanket of silence. There is nothing shameful about either dying or other people taking an interest in it; in a compassionate society, that is what people do. What is shameful and incompassionate is that people like you are trying to insulate themselves from these natural events.

If one believes that the highest form of art is sneaking up to a window and filming a neighbor in a compromising position, then there is no problem with this video.

Now you have slipped from bad arguments to pure demagoguery and name calling: what, please tell, does voyeurism have to do with documenting a news event on a public highway?

We were such in a hurry to film every innocuous act, that we did not set up a proper legal framework to control the flow of the footage, so we use the DCMA, a blunt and largely ineffective tool, to close the barn door after all the horses have escaped.

We have a legal framework, and it applies here: in some places, you have an expectation of privacy, in others, you don't. If you drive on a public highway, you have no expectation of privacy. And, in fact, the reason this video appeared in the first place is because the NJTA didn't recognize privacy rights in the first place: they released the video to the press, after all. All they are complaining about is that it has received wider distribution than they originally intended.

Misleading Slashdot Article

[Shajenko42]

The Slashdot article does not make it clear that the video was taken using NJTP property. On first reading, I thought that someone used their own camera to record this, and New Jersey was somehow claiming copyright on anything that happened on the turnpike.

Re:Background on the crash

[Kadin2048]

He shouldn't have. Unfortunately, the restrictions against people who have seizures are so strict, that many people who occasionally have minor seizures fail to report them, because it can be ruinous to lose your driver's license. (Lose license = lose job, lose house, etc.) There's very little middle ground.

This guy shouldn't have been driving, but it's not really surprising that he was. The system as it is, only punishes people who have seizures and are honest about it.

Re:video of the crash

[The Dobber]

Of course said nitwit might have been an off duty police or fireman, perhaps a first responder. Or maybe just an ordinary citizen, more concerned with helping others than the potential of being injured.

You keep to yourself, snug and safe behind the keyboard.

Re:video of the crash

[mad flyer]

In europe you are told, when you avoid an accident, to CLEAR the way as much as possible before giving any assistance if you think you might be of any help. We are in a case where there was police cruiser right behind, it was at a place with people working on site and that have access to phone or priority channels with police/firemen or their headquarter. And the car was a fracking fireball. Since toll both have video surveillance it might not even be necessary to stay and give testimony. Absolutly no reason to stay around whatsoever...

Or you can stop get hidden in the smoke and be the first in a pillup...

Re:video of the crash

[lena_10326]

He had seizures. But even if he didn't he might have had a heart attack or some other diabling condition with sudden onset.

Anyone with a history of seizures should not be driving. It's a terrible thing to do. It's on par with drunk driving. In fact, it's WORSE than drunk driving because a drunk has impaired reasoning, but this man was stone sober when he started up his car. If he had plowed into a mini-van full of children would you defend him?

You going to blame him for that?

Yes.

Re:video of the crash

[KudyardRipling]

Has anyone noted that many of the newer cars & trucks use pulse-width modulation for the brake/running/turn tail lamps? There is perceptible flicker from these. I work in the computer repair industry and my specialty was CRT displays at one time. I know about things like refresh rate on CRT displays vis-a-vis phosphor persistence. Use a short persistence tube in a chassis that has a slow refresh rate and flicker will result. This flickering has resulted in triggering epileptic seizures in prone individuals. Similar warnings are posted on video games and VR helmets. If these tail-lights are causing seizures in previously **undiagnosed** as well as diagnosed individuals, we will soon have a flicker test administered by one's personal physician or DMV MD as a condition for initial and renewal licenses. The LED based emergency lights on police vehicles are very irritating. This sort of pseudoranmdom strobing could trigger such a reaction and thus pose an unintended danger.