Slashdot Mirror


NASCAR Tries To Squelch Video of Spectators Injured By Crash

An anonymous reader writes "Dozens of fans attending a NASCAR race at Daytona Speedway were injured when a crash during the last lap triggered a chain reaction, culminating in the front section of Kyle Larson's car ricocheting into the fence in front of the stands (Larson escaped injury). While the footage accompanying the article is dramatic enough, an even more riveting clip showing the chaotic scene in the stands from up close was posted on YouTube, but was taken down after NASCAR claimed it violated their copyright . YouTube has since restored the fan's video. A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured. The race was an opening act for the main event, the Daytona 500, which officials say will proceed as scheduled. 'With the fence being prepared tonight to our safety protocols, we expect to go racing tomorrow with no changes,' Speedway President Joie Chitwood told CNN."

89 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Next up any mention of NASCAR will cost you a dollah

  2. False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So is NASCAR going to have a rash of legal suits for false takedown notices?

    1. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't you get the memo, laws are for poor people.

    2. Re:False Takedown Notice? by kermidge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

    3. Re:False Takedown Notice? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured.

      Wow. So doing things under false pretenses is now a legitimate form of showing respect to someone. I'll try to remember that, it might come in handy!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Informative

      So is NASCAR going to have a rash of legal suits for false takedown notices?

      No, AFAIK the DMCA laws state that you lose the right to file any more DMCA takedown requests if you fail to comply with the rules -- ie. filing takedown requests in bad faith, for example, would result in you losing the right to protect your content with any future requests. It does not make you liable for monetary compensation or place you in a position for lawsuits. In addition to that, no one seems to actually honor this side of the law -- Google certainly doesn't give a flying f*ck if someone abuses the DMCA as long as they get their pretty penny.

    5. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure they were false. Major League Baseball and I think most of the football chains have long considered anything that happens within their stadiums to be their copyright and trademark if documented.

      NASCAR could have the same legal position except they do not normally restrict the usage of fan generated content.

    6. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.

      The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.

      There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.

    7. Re:False Takedown Notice? by SniffTheGlove · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really wish that Google would do the right thing and prosecute these organisations, after all they all state "The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." If there is a false take down then under their own words of "under penalty of perjury" they should be prosecuted. If there is never any comeback on these organisations they will keep on pumping out false takedowns. Does not matter if these are automated takedowns done by software and the sender of the takedown states "under penalty of perjury" then they are liable.

    8. Re:False Takedown Notice? by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amen. And we really do need Google to do this, if even on behalf of (and with written permission of), the actual rights holders. Every system needs checks, and just dumping countless notices on a service provider and letting them be the arbiter, with no repercussions for bogus requests, is absolutely insane. There needs to be counterweight.

    9. Re:False Takedown Notice? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      But IS covered in tasty red sauce!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    10. Re:False Takedown Notice? by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google doesn't have legal standing to file suit, that would be up to the owner of the video. He would also need to prove damages.

    11. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your outrage is misdirected. This wasn't a DMCA takedown this was a special power youtube gives to a special class of copyright holders to be the police themselves. Youtube can't override a DMCA takedown even if it was filed in bad faith only the person who posted the orginal can fight a takedown notice.

      If you want to be outraged; rage at youtube for giving NASCAR the power to pull videos and of course NASCAR for abusing their powers.
      But DMCA problem this is not; this is basicly an admin deleting a post they didn't like.

    12. Re:False Takedown Notice? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      You don't lose any rights by false requests. Here's what's illegal: You have to state under threat of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of some work. If the work that you claim isn't actually the one that is uploaded (for example if NASCAR believed that you uploaded their official video, but you uploaded one you shot yourself), that isn't punished. If they claim that you uploaded a video made by some TV crew and they own the copyright, but in reality the TV station and not NASCAR owned the copyright, that would be perjury and punished accordingly.

    13. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I met a guy that considered the earth to be flat once, but I remain unconvinced.

    14. Re:False Takedown Notice? by LMariachi · · Score: 2

      All they’re attesting to with that clause is that they are the copyright owner or the owner’s authorized representative. Read it again; the oath doesn’t cover the actual validity of the infringement claim.

    15. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?"

      I have wondered that myself. False takedown is an offense, after all. I want to see it enforced.

    16. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      I'm not really sure what you think has to do with it. It's all about what the person who filed the notice thinks. If they have a claim, then there is a claim. The validity of that claim might be questioned but it still doesn't negate the claim as far as the law is concerned.

    17. Re:False Takedown Notice? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Fair use is a defense to a violation not and exception to controls. It works out in reality that it can be an exception, but only after the claim of a violation is made.

    18. Re:False Takedown Notice? by dissy · · Score: 2

      Proving damages is pretty easy. Google tracks ad views pretty well, and knows down to a fraction of a penny how much money was earned over what period of time. Extrapolate that over the time the video was down = amount of damages.

    19. Re:False Takedown Notice? by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perjury is a felony in the US (see 18 USC 1621) so one might expect the relevant government to intervene and prosecute. One might also be disappointed.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    20. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      And if the video was from a spectator's phone, then they don't own the copyright.

    21. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      It's covered in horsemeat, in Europe anyway, and that contains blood.

    22. Re:False Takedown Notice? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Google doesn't have legal standing to file suit, that would be up to the owner of the video. He would also need to prove damages.

      no, they don't need to be. it was a dcma request, they could sue the ass off from nascar with no need from the original uploader. the original uploader could sue separately.

      nascar was interfering with googles site under false premise, lying about owning copyright to media shown on googles service. googles business was interfered with, they had the right to show the video and nascar claimed they didn't have - it's quite simple. I don't know how to put it any simpler, but if you were selling some very nice jeans in your jeans-store-r-us and levi's showed up and said they pirated their design.. and you then found out that they in fact didn't after pullign them from the selves for the xmas season.. you would sue levi's. you wouldn't go and ask the guy who sold you the (totally legit) jeans to sue.

      google would also know exactly how many shows of the video they blocked(and could argue it had gone viral and would have had exponentially more hits).

      BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE DUMB FUCKS ALREADY PROMISED UNDER PERJURY THAT THEY CHECKED THAT THEY OWNED THE FUCKING CONTENT. so google should sue them - everyone should sue them - the fucking government should be sued for not suing them.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    23. Re: False Takedown Notice? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      so 1 of them should be modded +1 funny while the other being modded +1 informative

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    24. Re:False Takedown Notice? by jrumney · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I want to respect an injured person, I've been following the 20th century tradition of sending flowers to their hospital bed. I really must catch up with the times and issue some DCMA takedown notices on false pretenses in their honour instead, least they consider me old fashioned.

    25. Re: False Takedown Notice? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slaughter in the name of Jesus was 500 years ago. Slaughter in the name of Muhammed was 5 days ago. Smaller scale, granted, but it's too soon to joke about.

      I think you mean 5 years ago at most, unless you're willfully ignoring all the abortion clinic murders among other atrocities committed in the name of a christian deity...

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    26. Re:False Takedown Notice? by MacDork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

      Diebold for one.

    27. Re:False Takedown Notice? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative
      Read the DMCA again. The relevant portion says:

      (3) Elements of notification.--
      (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
      ...
      (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      In other words, the perjury isn't for filing a copyright claim against a video you don't hold the copyright to. It's for filing a claim when you don't hold the copyright you claim is being infringed.

      Say I make a spoof video of the Oscar ceremony using completely self-shot footage and put it on Youtube, and it gets yanked due to a DMCA copyright claim saying I lifted video from ABC's broadcast of the ceremony. It's only perjury if the person filing the claim isn't authorized to file on behalf of ABC (the copyright holder for the Oscars broadcast). The fact that it's my own video is irrelevant. The claim is that I violated ABC's copyright, and as long as the person filing the DMCA claim is authorized to do it on behalf of ABC, they are safe from the perjury provision.

      The relevant section of the DMCA in this type of situation is:

      (f) Misrepresentations.-- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section --
      (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
      shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

      But good luck proving that they knew my video was original and not theirs when they filed the DMCA claim. All they have to say is, "Oh we're sorry, we didn't realize it was your original video, we thought it was a copy of ours" and they have no liability. The burden of proof rests with you.

      The DMCA was written at the behest of copyright holders and treats their responsibility very lightly. Given how long it's been since it's been passed, I'm starting to think the only way it'll ever be reformed to be more balanced is if people who own copyrights to similar media start filing DMCA takedown notices against media published online by the big studios and record companies.

  3. Respect is an excuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Respect" is an excuse for perjury and a violation of a federal law? I should try that one if I ever get I trouble. I was just being respectful.

    Oh, I forgot. The rules are different for large corporations. Carry on.

    1. Re:Respect is an excuse? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      slashdots anon coward making takedown requests... no WONDER no one takes you seriously when you are always talking about frosty pisses

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  4. Slow mo video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Liveleak has it, but you can't post racist comments on there unlike youtube.
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2c_1361717939

    1. Re:Slow mo video by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 2

      That's why you should install Herp Derp for YouTube.

  5. Yay Lawyers! by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's a little perjury when you have someone's best interests in mind, right?

  6. Why do they think they can get away with this? by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the takedown "was done out of respect for those injured."? Yeah, we lied about owning the copyright of newsfilm of a public event, in order to CMA, we didn't want to look bad or not caring about safety, we just wanted to suppress it all, so we invalidly exploited a stupid law. Who cares? We're important and those people injured are nobodies.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  7. PR already started by fafaforza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was watching their press conference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/24/daytona-crash-fans-injured-race) and wondered why that Chit guy kept repeating how quickly and within protocol their people responded. I guess there's some question now, and they're already setting a stage for their defense.

  8. I'll tell you what's gross. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you watch the video, everyone's practically ejaculating as the wreck begins and more cars get involved. And then, suddenly, it extends into the spectator seating and then it's the worst thing in the world. I'm sorry for those who were injured, but there's something about that which just seems really gross. "Oh, dang Jimmy Bob John Paul Ricky Dicky Junior! Look at that amazing wreck and the cars flipping around and slamming into each other! This is what we come to see! Violence and destruction and people risking their lives potentially being injured for our enjoyment!" followed by "ermagherd, a tire! who do we sue?!".

    Don't misunderstand me -- the accident looked horrible, even though it wasn't clear who was injured and exactly to what extent, in the seats and I hope the spectators end up being okay and are justly compensated. It's great that the drivers were apparently okay. It's just that, as I watched the video, something about that sort of -- I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it -- which I found kind of gross.

    1. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Carma, in this case.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      You would question the base ethics and thus intelligence of spectators of a sport that fundamentally involves cars driving around in a circle for hours on end?

    3. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by houghi · · Score: 2

      I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it

      Human nature?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      It's like the Joker said ... It's expected some cars will crash, and some driver might get hurt. It's not expected that people on the other side of the chain link fence 10 feet away are going to get hurt.

      There is $100k+ of engineering per seat keeping drivers safe in these crashes. There $100k (maybe) of safety structure between cars and spectators. People pay for front row seats to experience the cars... If they pile up more safe brick walls, people can't see the cars... They can just watch on TV.

    5. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Funny

      No wonder there are crashes. What are ducks doing at a turtle race?

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fence height isn't the problem here. Looks like the object in this case got through it. (Which is why NASCAR tried to do the takedown for CYA purposes.)

      If you notice the footage, there were cables and some light fencing. However the cables had nothing to keep them together other than the widely spaced support posts. Looks like some other debris from the early part of the crash bumped the cables first which had them swing, this made the gap between the cables wide enough for a tire from a car crashing into the end of the wreck to thread its way through. The 70 pound wheel flying around 100MPH went right through the lighter inside fencing with no problem, since it only seems to be there to keep loose trash and stupid fans from going onto the track.

      They could probably fix it and make it less likely next time if they put some kind of cording at spaced intervals over the big cables. You know, so they wont swing apart and let big objects that they're supposed to block get through.

    7. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      We'd be able to eliminate 99% of fatalities on the road if we followed the same policies in private cars. But nobody wants the cost/weight hit of a safety cage, or the inconvenience of a 5-point seatbelt, or the cost of having professional medical help no more than 20 seconds away at all times.

    8. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Funny

      No wonder there are crashes. What are ducks doing at a turtle race?

      Um, quacking up?

      (*hastily exits room*)

    9. Re:I'll tell you what's gross. by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Of course, there are plenty of busy bodies who would then argue that if everyone had roll-cages in cars, they'd become reckless maniacs on the road, because they'd know they were invulnerable. :P

  9. Illegal take down request, penalty is ---- by RichMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a penalty the next takedown request from NASCAR to youtube should require full documentation requiring a lawyers affidavit and full documentation of ownership of all material asserted to be owned and an full explanation of the way in which copyright is violated and a $10K deposit.
    Youtube may then take up to a week to process the take down request. An improper request will not remove the penalty and the deposit will be forfit.

    At least I can dream.

    1. Re:Illegal take down request, penalty is ---- by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      The deposit should be sent to the actual owner of the copyright - not YouTube.

  10. Perjury by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NASCAR: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

    Youtube: "Our partners and users do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they contain content which is copyright infringing, which is why we have reinstated the videos."

    Youtube has more or less admitted that NASCAR committed perjury by filing the DMCA claim.
    Should be a slam dunk court case. Right?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Perjury by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure. Now who is going to file charges? Nobody.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  11. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    That doesn't seem fair. Everybody knows NASCAR fans can't afford a dollar.

    . . . I'm a shitty person . . .

  12. Stop Automobile Violence Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Automobile violence in the US has been rising at an alarming rate for the last 60 years.

    Deaths by automobile are rising faster that the sun rise.

    We need the President and Vice President and leaders of both chambers of Congress to come together and remove the violent and death dealing automobile from our local, state and national pathways.

    There is no US constitutional amendment, clause or Executive Order that mandates an automobile for any US citizen.

    Death from the automobile is not 'pursuit of happiness.'

    The time has come to ... Kill the Car ... and let the people live.

    1. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      You ignorant commie. The solution isn't to take cars away from people. It's to require ALL law-abiding citizens to own and carry cars. Especially teachers. Look at cities like LA, where everyone is extremely nice to each other, because everybody knows that everybody else is carrying an automobile.

      Sidenote: I love the second amendment and all, but c'mon - I got a chuckle. :P

    2. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Look, I understand your grief, but we need to be realistic about automobile violence. There are so many automobiles out there already, that change just cannot happen overnight.

      Automobile ownership needs to be public record. Then responsible newspapers can mine this data, and create interactive online automobile ownership maps. You will feel much safer if, with one patented click, you can see which of your neighbors owns automobiles.

      If automobiles are made illegal, only illegals will have automobiles. Just look at how many drugs and illegals are smuggled over the border from Mexico in automobiles every microsecond every day. If they are already using automobiles to smuggle other stuff, they might just as well smuggle the whole automobile, as well.

      However, a real solution to automobile violence could only be solved with a mechanical fix. As everyone knows, the biggest cause of automobile violence is a loose nut behind the steering wheel. But our society just does not have the will to fix that problem.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Stop Automobile Violence Act by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps there's some middle-ground solution? We could require all cars to be registered (and tracked in government databases), and operators to be licensed and trained. We could mandate insurance for drivers, and require new cars to be built with reasonable safety features (while grandfathering in older collectible models). Maybe even additional taxes on car fuels, beyond the sales taxes on ordinary goods? Limitations on car operation in school zones? Fines, loss of licensing, and criminal penalties for dangerous driving (even in cases no damage is done)? This way, people who have grown up in a driving culture, passed down from parents to children, can still responsibly drive cars for recreation and utility, while keeping unlicensed fleets of murder vehicles out of the hands of criminals. But perhaps I'm the crazy dreamer to think that society could ever agree to such a solution.

  13. I'll tell you what's gross-Gladiators. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blood and Circuses.

  14. Perjurious fuckers... by tibit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look, you fuckers, you can't use copyright law "out of respect for the injured", mmkay? What kind of an idiot would come out with this line for an excuse? You did not send an "I wish it were so" takedown. You sent a takedown under DMCA, and you've just publicly claimed that you've perjured yourself! Just one more reason for me to otherwise ignore NASCAR.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    1. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      They can if they own the copyright. It owuld be a distinction between why they normally do not assert their ownership to fan created videos and they are now.

      Now I'm not saying NASCAR is the owner, but Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games. If NASCAR is in the same legal position, you will find they are a valid owner regardless of failing to exert any rights to that ownership in the past. MLB has actually won this in court already.

      And if you otherwise ignore NASCAR, I'm not entirely sure why you are upset over this as the content has been restored.

    2. Re:Perjurious fuckers... by tibit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That maks MLB and NFL fuckers too. Thanks for clearing it up for me, not that I was ever in love with large scale U.S. sports anyway.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  15. Good rednecks in action by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did you notice the guy shooting the video was 2 seats away from where the tire landed and he DID NOT SPILL HIS BEER. I'm not joking, check it out. That's some good redneck skills right there, man.

  16. What is this nascar? by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is it a new programming language? Real nerds want to know.

    1. Re:What is this nascar? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      nas = network attached storage
      car = first element of a dotted pair

      So someone had a pair of network attached storage devices, and the first one crashed. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  17. "out of respect for those injured"? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    That's all very well and good, and may have even been a perfectly arguable justification for having the video pulled from Youtube (although it may have taken longer), but why couldn't they have just said that in the first place, instead of making up some copyright violation excuse? Now, instead of coming across like they actually might have even cared about the people who were hurt, this after-the-fact excuse sounds very wholly contrived, and not really a priority for them at all.

  18. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It shocked me to learn that NASCAR tickets are more expensive than NFL seats. The more you know.

  19. Gross? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm undoing my negative moderation of your post to reply to your comment. In case you don't understand the context of this video, it is the final lap of the race. Everyone is excited because it is a close race with a number of cars vying for the win. Perhaps you don't enjoy watching sports, or rooting for a particular person or team to win, but most people tend to get rather excited when a long competition comes down to the very end.

    For you to demean the spectators, and use terms like "practically ejaculating", simply shows me that you are detached emotionally from sporting events, which is a great source of entertainment and pleasure for a very significant number of people.

    If you find spectators getting excited over a winner of an event "gross" then I advise you to not attend sporting events or view videos of them, so as to not offend your sensitivities.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Gross? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NASCAR is not a goddamn sport. You have rules that you have to follow while driving? Welcome to every fucking public road in America -- we're all athletes! Mooo MOOOO MOOOO FUCKING MOOOO goddamn manatees watching dumbshits drive in circles. More beer for the narwhals while they watch their "sport" ... the word means nothing anymore.

      So, for you, a 'sport' is something practiced in the nude without any implements, tools or other artifacts of modern life? So naked Christians thrown to the lions in early Rome was a 'sport'? Interesting outlook on things.

      Motor sport racing, while silly on a lot of levels (NASCAR especially) requires quite a bit of athleticism from it's participants. YOU try to muscle a 5000 pound vehicle at close proximity to others going close to 200 mph for several hours. YOU probably couldn't get the thing out of the garage without having a heart attack. Ignorant Bozo.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Gross? by Bagels · · Score: 2

      I think Seumas is commenting in part on the announcers' apparent lack of concern for the safety of the drivers. Yes, the crash could be a pivotal moment in the race - but it's arguably a little warped to be audibly excited about an event that could lead to the injury/death of several of the people involved. It's a fair criticism, whether you enjoy the sport or not.

      --
      --- Bwah?
    3. Re:Gross? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except the loudest cheers where not when the cars were in sight, but when the crash began, including a loud "Ooooh, there we go!" from someone close to the camera.

      Nice try though.

    4. Re:Gross? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Part of it not being a "sport" is that no, he likely couldn't even try. Football and such, you can find a ball and run around. You can get the "official" ball if you like, and there are piles of "regulation" fields around to play on. So you can approximate the "sport". Nascar is a "sport" where you have to pay millions of dollars to play, and there is no real analog, aside from some "amateur" organizations generally filled with people who laugh and don't consider Nascar a sport either.

      Nascar is a sport like sitting in a sauna is a sport. You sit. You sweat. *yawn* all done.

    5. Re:Gross? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Beginning a sentence with a conjunction ("And you attempt") is also an incorrect usage.

      William Blake says you're full of shit. And Shakespeare agrees.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Gross? by daemonenwind · · Score: 2

      Millions to play? Excuse me, your ignorance is showing. You should probably zip it.

      NASCAR is the pinnacle of Stock Car Racing, and yes, you're as likely to compete there as you are to make the FC Bayern Muenchen Team. That said, all over the USA, during warmer weather, people not sponsored by Go Daddy or Budweiser or Sprint race their cars.

      Check here, for instance: http://www.racingin.com/Track/upcoming-schedule.aspx

      Or read Wikipedia's article on Dick Trickle, who dominated semi-pro dirt-track before his short NASCAR career. You might just learn something.

    7. Re:Gross? by M2616 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Autobahn isn't shit comparatively, straight line speed is easy. Like most guys I like to drive fast, we all think we can do it because we've driven down the interstate at 100-150 before. I was given a gift certificate once for Richard Petty so of course I thought it was going to be great. Not so great, the constant G's wear you down quickly. the visibility in the turns is non existent. Its very disconcerting when you have to fight to see more than 4 or 5 car lengths ahead of yourself when you are buried in the banking, there isn't any equivalent. Driving the Pikes Peak race would be less stressful. Cresting over a hill is fun, if you've done this on a motorcycle and gotten air you know what I mean negative Gs are a great sensation. Pushing inside a hill with NO visibility at that speed fighting against G's is terrifying. If anybody thinks they could compete with 42 other cars for 500 miles should first try walking into a cage with 42 hungry lions first. Point is its a deadly serious competition, everything else is just a sport as they say.

  20. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by johnny+cashed · · Score: 3, Informative

    In addition to the chain link fencing, there are four or five tensioned steel cables on the lower portion to give additional reinforcement.

  21. "to our safety protocols" by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    With the fence being prepared tonight to our safety protocols

    Hey, those protocols were sufficient the last time around, amirite?

  22. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by hedleyroos · · Score: 2

    I was expecting to see Randy Marsh in the video.

  23. Perjury by hduff · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We realized we perjured ouselves in requesting a DCMA takedown of a fan video of a crash where spectators were injured. It made us look bad and made racing appear unsafe for spectators and would hurt our business. Besides, the video showed a lack of respect for the Women, Veterans and First Responders who may have been injured. We support and love these dedicated American Heroes who sacrifice everything for this Great Country and would undoubtedly support us in our loving, caring, selfless decision. Since he drinks beer, President Obama is probably a big race fan and I'm sure Obama and Jesus would support us in this no matter what the law says. I know Jesus would forgive us." Speedway President Joie Chitwood told CNN.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  24. it's a news event by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    fair use should apply

    it all happens on corporate property, but that doesn't trump the common news value

    this is a dangerous precedent if corporate PR trumps newsworthiness

    this is how and why western democratic ideals and freedoms are undermined by runaway financial power

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. Too bad, NASCRAP by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    Yes, I will even defend FOX News on this. This is absolutely newsworthy and applicable to freedom of the press. The extremely obvious reason why they want to suppress it is to minimize loss of fanship (though their fans have a pretty hardcore dedication, is that even possible anyway?) and loss of profit. Fuck off NASCRAP.

  26. Re:Their "safety protocols" are crap by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

    And if you look at pictures of the crash, the engine block got caught in those steel cables at the bottom.

    The safety officials are probably much more interested in how those tires got loose, because they've been dual tethered to the cars since a crash in 1993 launched a tire into the parking lot of a track.

    NASCAR has had an ongoing program of safety upgrades to the barriers and once they figure out what happened and how to prevent another penetration, it'll push forward their timeline for upgrading the fences.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  27. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, because nothing says "being a good guy" like trying to render first aid to someone when you're drunk and don't know the first thing about first aid.

    He should've just elbowed his way through there, grabbed a pocket knife from someone, and done surgery right there in the stands.

  28. foul ball? by CrAlt · · Score: 3, Funny

    So in baseball if a fan catches a foul ball or home run ball the MLB lets them keep the ball.

    Now in NASCAR if you catch a tire or engine block are you allowed to keep it also?

    --
    I have to return some videotapes...
  29. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Sporkinum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Professional sports at the upper levels priced them selves out of the market years ago. Same with live concerts. I really don't know how they get so many people to pay so much for so little.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  30. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You realize it's contradictory to say they priced themselves out of the market, and that they sell a lot?

    In fact, a lot of concerts could easily price tickets much, much higher, and still sell out. They have cheaper tickets to give their less wealthy, but devoted enough to be the first in line, fans a chance to come.

  31. Re: Nascar .. cha ching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    LOL you have never been to a NASCAR race then, while races attract all types, there is definitely not a lack of money at the events. I highly recommend going to a race, they are a blast.

  32. Re: Nascar .. cha ching by Seumas · · Score: 2

    I'm on to you. You just want me to get hit in the skull with a massive NASCAR tire.

  33. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    I don't know but they have really gotten batshit on the pricing. when I was a teen i went to concerts almost weekly because you could easily afford to, now tickets in the nosebleed section often run close to a hundred bucks.

    And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit? I go to speedtest and it consistently shows I'm hitting 20Mbps and all the other video sites load and play perfectly but for the past week or so YouTube has stuttered like its on dialup no matter what res I set the video to. I have asked those around me and they are all seeing the same thing, I get told "Oh thank God I thought there was something wrong with my PC" but I've tried 4 different PCs and the results are the same, stutter city. So I am just curious if others are seeing this or if its only in my area.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  34. Re: Nascar .. cha ching by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    while races attract all types,

    Yeah, and they like both types of music at the bars near NASCAR tracks: country and western.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  35. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by T-Bone-T · · Score: 2

    It isn't just you. My internet speed is actually quite low but YouTube pisses me off to no end. Trying to switch to a lower quality video often makes it load even slower! I wish people would stop using it. It isn't good anymore.

  36. Re:Nascar .. cha ching by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

    NASCAR fans are among the most loyal to their sponsors which is in part why the sport is so popular with them. They shell out a lot of money and will even switch brands when a favorite team/driver switches.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!