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.
More like "copyright sucks, but it won't change until the bad actors abusing it get it applied back at them."
It's kinda like how Christians (weirdly) try to stuff the Ten Commandments down the throats of everyone by sanctioning the display of all religious artifacts on public land but then repeal the law once Satanists start trolling them with their own memorials on government grounds. Same basic idea.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
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.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
No...copyright is a complex tool and like any tool has both good and bad uses. Which is why we should debate openly the exact provisions of what terms best fulfill the Constitutional prescription for copyright, balancing the desires of the creator and short term and long term good to society. The false dichotomy of "no rights for artists who don't want their work used for evil propaganda" and "no copying for 8 million years after the death of the artist or the destruction of the earth, whichever is longer" helps no one.
Clue: First Sale Doctrine currently does not apply to digital copyrighted works.
You can thank MPAA, RIAA, Disney, CNN, CNBC, Fox, CBS, NBC, Sony...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license, CBC should be able to sue CNN no less successfully, and for no less than the same amount they were sued for, for falsely representing their authorization to license it to them in the first place.
The simpler thing, of course, is to simply hold CNN directly liable for all of CBC's calculated damages.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Not even close. I barely even use Netflix. Im talking about the idea that after 28 years, We The People are supposed to OWN those works. That was the bargain, it is the price for us granting limited monopolies. In the age where creating is easier than ever, we are on track to permanently extend copyright forever which is pure insanity and counter to the aims and purpose of copyright.
Good-bye