Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Jersey Sues YouTube Over Crash Video

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the express-written-consent dept.

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."

10 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. What copyright? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:What copyright? by cortana · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  2. Public roads by Martix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Public roads by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

  3. How?! by raylu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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?

    --
    Maurice Wilkes, debugging, 1949
  4. Why is this copyrighted at all? by Maximalist · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  5. what are they trying to hide? by nanosquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Misleading Slashdot Article by Shajenko42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Background on the crash by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  8. Re:video of the crash by The+Dobber · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.