Comments on: How Google did the right thing with the NASCAR crash video, and why it matters

By: Smalliw

Smalliw — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:04:15 +0000

I wonder how many of us actually pause & consider the rights of those injured & the families of those affected in these situations. Instead of that it appears that the most important rights (violated) were the rights of the spectators who couldn’t initially tell their story. Freedom of the Press & Copyright MUST be championed at all costs? Are you serious, is that truly the priority here? The words ‘horrific crash’ hardly register in these comments. Would you scream for Freedom of the Press or the sanctity of Copyright if it was your family that was injured (maybe killed via a horrific crash) – or would you beg for privacy? This isn’t fiction people, it’s not Tron. Tend to your wounded; reconsider the safety aspects & act on that to reduce future risk. This was not a simulation nor an exercise for your Ethics 101 class. It was life & sometimes, it would appear, our perspective fails us. Social media forum or not; are we better people with our smart phones?

By: Jonh

Jonh — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:38:10 +0000

Meanwhile, NASCAR is releasing its video of the incident to global news services – probably at a price. It made the BBC News here in the UK. I may sound cynical. but controlling media access to the available footage only increases NASCAR’s opportunity to control the story.

By: kempton

kempton — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:11:37 +0000

Very insightful post.

By: edmundsingleton

edmundsingleton — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:00:01 +0000

In America if it bleeds if leads…

By: Antone Johnson

Antone Johnson — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:02:04 +0000

The law requires that content be taken down “expeditiously” if it is the subject of a proper take-down notice under Section 512 of the Copyright Act. It doesn’t define “expeditiously,” and in practice, that often means a couple days (or more). There’s nothing about “ASAP” in the act.

By: Antone Johnson

Antone Johnson — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:51:41 +0000

All well and good but this isn’t like the days of network TV. A video clip posted on Vimeo, DailyMotion or whatever other site can easily go viral and be reposted to many other sites. Something this newsworthy would be propagated by tweets, Facebook posts, you name it. People need to be reminded that alternatives to YouTube exist.

By: edmundsingleton

edmundsingleton — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:47:51 +0000

Let freedom of information ring even on YouTube…

By: Zato Gibson

Zato Gibson — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:17:47 +0000

“We should all know by name the best YouTube alternative that will take its own sweet time (within the limits of the DMCA) responding…”

YouTube did what it is REQUIRED to do under the DMCA, to remove the video ASAP after receiving a claim from the copyright owner. NASCAR legally does have a copyright claim in this case.
The video was reinstated because BOTH parties quickly learned (at internet speed) that the removal was more damaging to BOTH their corporate rear-ends than anything in the video.

By: jak

jak — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:11:41 +0000

keninca, Good points. I don’t object to the law you proposed making terms printed on tickets not constitute a binding agreement, but then we get into defining a ticket. I am not a lawyer, does buying a ticket really bind you to it’s terms in the same way a signed contract does? Google’s lawyers seem to think it does not since they denied the takedown.

Could this problem be solved by removing laws (starting with the DMCA)?

By: keninca

keninca — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:09:05 +0000

jak, requiring a signature will not be feasible for most sales. It would be complicated for on-line purchases, and would slow down entry into live events. Also, what happens when the buyer is under age? Do you just not sell to them?