The video has been replaced with the following text:
Copyright of what? Stupidity in public? Arrogance? What a crock!!!
That's okay, there's plenty of places to post a video on the Internet.
Apparently, the Daily News was too quick to praise YouTube. Too bad. Now YouTube is going to be drawn into the controversy as well for chickening out.
From YouTube:
Some examples of copyrighted content (although not all) are:
-TV shows
-Including sitcoms, sports broadcasts, news broadcasts, comedy shows, cartoons, dramas, etc.
-Includes network and cable TV, pay-per-view and on-demand TV
-Music videos, such as the ones you might find on music video channels
-Videos of live concerts, even if you captured the video yourself
Even if you took the video yourself, the performer controls the right to use his/her image in a video, the songwriter owns the rights to the song being performed, and sometimes the venue prohibits filming without permission, so this video is likely to infringe somebody else's rights.
-Movies and movie trailers
-Commercials
-Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else
How a personal video made with a personal camera in a public place falls into that definition is beyond me. It doesn't matter. They'll never stop it.
8 comments:
Well, we'll just have to keep posting it all over the place, particularly where national media can find it, and especially after this.
Whoever is behind the video being pulled down, they've now dug a deeper hole.
I love the internet. This thing could be posted on so many websites so fast...logarithmic amplification as validation of free speech. Keen.
Besides, what would be infringed, anyway? The WSU logo on someones shirt?
WSUcollegerepublican: Who filmed the video? I noticed two cameras at one point and when John Streavas asked about the video, the woman said she was with Cable 8. If it was Cable 8, the film belongs to the university. If that is the case, you can still access it because it belongs to a PUBLIC university, but only after taking the proper steps.
If the film was entirely private with permission granted by the filmmaker, you probably have an even stronger defamation of character case.
Cougster: Pardon me if I don't believe everything said or printed in the Evergreen.
The very act of someone suppressing this video raises suspicion.
Let's see if Raul Sanchez and his Center for Human Rights people are really there for their claimed purpose.
hey, where do I find the video now?
Try here:
http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2006/11/let-it-ring-again_116346617493065955.html
Post a Comment