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.
royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute
This says they can use it, reproduce it, sublicense it, distribute it without paying royalties. Seems like this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Why is this on Slashdot?
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/
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.
File a complaint with Google and have them take their entire site of the index.
On the contrary. I think you should send money to MagickalMyst for misrepresenting his/her first post as your own!
"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...
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.
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.
As copyright stands now, maximalists have pushed it so far, the ONLY logical counter is to destroy the whole system and start over. I do not and will not respect copyright for the rest of my life. Everything from before 1986 should be in the Pubic Domain right now. Terminator, War Games, Vacation etc all should be free to the public TODAY. I gladly pay people for good works, i refuse to pay to perpetuate tyranny over man's mind.
Good-bye
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?
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.
Why is anyone in Canada paying for a video of snow?
...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.
Not after Harper wrecked the thing to pieces.
And even if they did, CBC should just turn around and sue CNN for misleading them into a dangerous situation.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
It would also mean that companies would be able to take formerly-GPL-licensed software, and close the source. This alone could stop many people from contributing: copyright allows for control over your work, and the protection given by the GPL (that it remains open) is what many people like. I for one am one of those people that'd be much more reluctant to publish stuff, even if not for profit.
The things like disassembly that are forbidden in the US, that's one of the aspects of bad implementation.
Nonsense, rolling back the time limit to a more reasonable 20-30 years would still allow creators to extract the vast majority of value from the vast majority of properties. Not that I'm holding my breath or anything. I too refuse to pay for IP that is more that 30 years old.
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
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
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.
The problem isn't really that I can't get a free copy of War Games. It's that if the movie company thinks that I infringe their copyright just because I uploaded a YouTube video with me showing all valid moves in tic-tac-toe they will take down that video with no questions asked.
Or as the case was with Bjorn Lynne, he release some of his songs under a free to use license. Sony used it as background music and then decided that Lynnes original work was copyright infringement and took them down.
Copyright as it stands now is absurd. If I baselessly or rightfully claim that a major record company is infringement my rights then I get slapped in the face. If a major record company baselessly decides that I infringe their right I also get a slap in the face. If They are right on the other hand I get fined into bankruptcy or put in jail.
Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.
Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube.
Incorrect. Youtube LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc. Large companies routinely are composed of a large number of smaller entities and Google is no exception. Youtube is ALSO a product but it is a corporation too.
They are just products offered by Google. They don't need to sublicense it to move it form one service or another.
Also incorrect. Just because both corporate entities are owned by the same company does not mean they automatically share the same rights or licensing to property.
there is no "cut." request anything you like. this just shows what's been used before
although...
they resisted the wiccans. and of course, they lost the suit
so yes, there are religious freedom-denying asshats all over
they cite the terminology "religious freedom," but with those two words, they seek to destroy actual religious freedom. pathetic morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, the Mickey Mouse extension was really meant to combat... Disney getting slightly lower profits from the merchandising. The actual creator being long dead, of course. It's telling that most creators are the ones that get the least benefit from copyright laws. They're hindered more than helped by it. Example: Paul's Boutique.
But feel free to defend the current 250 years of copyright... oh wait, that's up for the next time the copyright on Mickey Mouse threatens to run out. That's 2019, right? It will be interesting to re-read these arguments then.
I'm fine with people getting paid for creative work. I'm utterly horrified by the fact that companies run roughshod over the rights of the people with iron boots and it's apparently okay because "starving artists". Give me a break - they're not helped in the least by this.
No, I second the sentiment of the first party: I will *never* pay a dime for any form of intellectual property again, until copyright is back to sane limits (except cases where I cannot avoid it).
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)