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.
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.
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.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Google can theoretically sublicense it to other entities not related to Google. But I doubt that's what happened. Google has this clause so they can pick up awesome videos and use it in commercials without getting sued for infringement. As that would actually mean sublicensing the content from Google to a media firm. Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube. They are just products offered by Google. They don't need to sublicense it to move it form one service or another.
But yes, the Youtube Standard License give Google the right to sublicense and distribute not anyone viewing the videos. So if you download a video that's not yours on Standard YouTube License from YouTube and then upload it to your website without using the YouTube link you are actually pirating. If you use the YouTube container (ie it's actually streaming from YouTube) then you are getting a sublicense which is not pirating.
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
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?
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
I think the argument goes that CBC thought they'd obtained a 10-day license from CNN .. which CNN wasn't authorized to provide them ... but after this good-faith 10-day license lapsed (which wasn't really valid), the CBC continued to use the material ... meaning that, even if they had obtained an actual license, and acted in good faith, they stopped acting in good faith when they used it after the 10 days anyway.
So on day 11 you can no longer claim that you were using it under license if you knew you only licensed it for 10 days.
I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.
Up to day 10, you can say you got the license from CNN and if that was an invalid license then CNN misrepresented themselves, and you are a victim.
Use it after 10 days, and you can't even claim that. Now you'd have been willfully violating the original (but invalid) license.
The man does have a point. And I'm sure if you took a CNN video and used it improperly, they'd go all crazy. For them to suddenly claim "it was on YouTube so it's free" would be complete bullshit.
So, by doing what would have been a breech of license if CNN was allowed to give you a license then your unlicensed use of the video violated your license because your license had ended.
LOL .. yo dawg, I hear you like licenses.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
I'm not normally one to defend copyright suits ... and I don't have it in for the CBC ... but I think corporations need to be held to the same standard as they abuse us with.
Cutia owned a piece of copyrighted work, which was explicitly marked as such.
The hiding behind the license sold to you by a third part who didn't have the rights to sell you that license starts to get very thin.
So if it is a valid defense to say you bought a license in good faith but were lied to .. is it a valid defense for me to buy a pirated DVD and say I just thought it was a good price? I'm not convinced that would work for me.
And if the CBC used this for more than 10 days (say they left it on their webpage) ... can they then claim to be shielded by saying they acted in good faith when they used the video longer than their license?
I'm not a lawyer, and like you I don't know all the facts either.
But the ice starts to get pretty thin, and we also get into areas where corporations are subjected to a different interpretation of the law than we are. And that is completely crap.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.