Slashdot Mirror
CNN and CBC Sued For Pirating YouTube Video
vivaoporto sends word that in a rare case of an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement, a New York man has sued news networks CNN and CBC after they took a video of his from YouTube and broadcast it on the air without licensing it. His video shows a winter storm in Buffalo generating huge amounts of lake effect snow. The man, Alfonzo Cutaia, decided to enable monetization on his video, selecting the "Standard YouTube License," "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of [the video]. All other rights are reserved to the copyright owner and standard copyright laws and exceptions apply." Cutaia says the CBC used his video with their logo on it. The CBC confirmed this, and said they received a 10-day license from CNN, who had no legal right to do so. His lawsuit now accuses them both of "intentional and willful" copyright infringement.
"I work as an intellectual property attorney"!
I'm surprised to read this. CNN used one of my YouTube videos once, after they reached out to me to obtain permission. Bummer.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
They left out the most important preceding section of the license paragraph:
you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide...
an individual taking on large corporations for copyright infrigement happens all the time. The corporation sends an army of their internal legal staff to stand around in a courthouse arguing semantics and dragging their feet until the plaintiff simply runs out of cash and has to go back to his proletariat wageslave job.
what is rare is an individual receiving any settlement, acceptance of wrongdoing, judgement, or even a trial outside of arbitration in these circumstances. You see, unless you're a corporation then the meat of copyright law is largely designed as punitive retribution against your blithe transgressions against a cartel media system. its not actually designed to or even intended to be taken to its logical conclusion by joe sixpack.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It means that Youtube doesn't have to pay him royalties and can share it with daughter/sister companies, eg. Google+.
It does not mean that CBC can sweep in, drop their logo on the video and call it theirs.
They can if they had properly licensed the video from CNN, from what I can tell the issue is that CNN had no right to license the video to CBC.
I stole this Sig
Says the anonymous coward....
Yo Zippy, CBC infringed regardless. More to the point it said 10 days license from CNN and used it for more than 10 days. So even *if* they thought they could use it lawfully they exceeded the terms.
...the display of all religious artifacts on public land...
Wow - maybe we should remove all those Christian artifacts (specifically, crosses) from Arlington National Cemetery to satisfy your lust for de-Christianizing all government property, eh? ;)
Have you been there? The monuments aren't crosses. They're just tombstones. The individual buried can have different logos be they crosses, stars of david, or symbols denoting atheism.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
i was looking at the options awhile ago, it's actually a pretty cool list of symbols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
humanist, native american medicine wheel, wiccan pentacle, the farohar of zoroastrianism, infinity symbol (?), and a whole bunch of sects, obscure and mainstream
my favorite is a split between landing eagle and hammer of thor
but yeah, the asshat you responded to doesn't even know what he is talking about. even if the tombstones were crosses, then stars of david, muslim crescents, pentagrams, etc., would obviously also be allowed
which is the whole point of the comment the asshat was responding to: not to *censor* the christian cross, but to point out that christian symbols don't have a monopoly on public display
religious pinheads always frame more choices (homosexuals getting married, wiccan symbols allowed in public, women being able to control their own bodies rather than being forced to obey theocratic dictates, etc.) as some sort of persecution. as if denying someone a religious monopoly == persecution? it's a pridefully ignorant blind spot, stoked by propaganda and fearmongering demagogues: "if christianity isn't the only religion allowed, then da evil gubmint is out to destroy all christians"
fucking ignorant, yet firmly believed by many assholes: "if my ideology does not dominate, then it must mean i am being persecuted." no, religious freedom means "i can choose to follow any religion i want" not "someone in authority is 'free' to impose its religious beliefs on people against their will"
so when people cite "religious freedom" when opposing homosexuality. no, you fucking moron, religious freedom never meant, and never will mean, that you have the "freedom" to impose your beliefs on someone else. in fact that's pretty much the exact opposite understanding of what freedom is. yet "religious freedom" is the term they use when they wish to deny the freedoms of others! pathetic and sick
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The license only grants though permissions when they "access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service"
I don't think there were playing it live from a YouTube page or through an authorized YouTube API application, so they were in violation of the license.