CNN and CBC Sued For Pirating YouTube Video 222
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.
WTF does that mean? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:WTF does that mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF does that mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Youtube is a wholly owned subsidiary (Score:3)
Besides, Google+ is not a subsidiary of Google, neither is Youtube.
Incorrect. Youtube LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary [sec.gov] 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.
Alphabet doesn't exist yet (Score:2)
Youtube LLC is a wholy owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Read the news much?
Alphabet doesn't exist yet and even when it does Youtube LLC will still be a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc which in turn will be a subsidiary of Alphabet.
And yes I read the news. I also comprehend it.
Re:WTF does that mean? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
CBC has permission to do that though, from CNN. It's CNN that did not have permission to sublicense the way they did (or at all, who knows). So why this guy is suing the CBC is beyond me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why this guy is suing the CBC is beyond me
Because CBC infringed (likely unintentionally) by publishing the video without a valid license.
Re:WTF does that mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
dammit, Johnnie Cochran is going to be sooo pissed (Score:2)
I think it's like the Wookie defense, only with some actual merit.
Dammit, for the n'th time, it's Chewbacca defense!
Re: (Score:3)
Just because CBC was the victim of CNN's fraudulent relicensing, it doesn't relieve them of all liability. Even if they stopped using the video within the 10 days, it would still be copyright infringement since the license they bought wasn't valid. The fact that they did continue to use it just means a willful infringement case is much more likely to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not matter in the legal world.
CBC violated the copyright by showing it. So you go after CBC. If CBC can then say that they did this because CNN said they could. The court could then rule that the CBC has to pay and then the CBC can go after CNN or that CBC was acting in good faith and that the plaintiff needs to go after CNN.
Both are common outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
CBC has permission to do that though, from CNN. It's CNN that did not have permission to sublicense the way they did (or at all, who knows). So why this guy is suing the CBC is beyond me
IANAL, however I wonder... Last time I checked copyright law in the US (LOOONG ago), there were limitations on what you could do against infringing entities without the copyright being registered with the government. Perhaps Canada, where CBC is based, doesn't care if the copyright is registered with anybody and allows him to seek damages despite it likely not being registered. Of course to get damages from CNN he might need to register it, and I forget what the timing parts of the law are. Ahh well. Idle s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which falls apart entirely when the CBC used it after their invalid license expired.
Look at it this way, if they had a valid 10 day license from CNN, and kept using it after 10 days, they'd be using it without a valid license and CNN could have done something about it.
It gets really messed up when your defense that you had a license but continued to use it even after that (non existent) license expired.
They'd have been infringing no matter if the license was real or not.
So then how screwed up is it that, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that at this moment, it is only Cutia's allegation that CBC was using the video for a substantially longer period than what even the license CBC is claiming to have purchased would have allowed, and I did not read anywhere that this claim was corroborated by anyone else who would know.
Secondly, even if that were the case, then that might suggest that Cutia did not try and mitigate the damages against him quickly enough, and although it doesn't excuse the CBC for what they are alleged to have
Re:WTF does that mean? (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but as I understand it, you only need to register for a copyright if
* you want to be eligible to collect statutory* damages (as opposed to damages for actual loss) and attorney's fees
* you want the US custom's service to enforce your copyright claim (e.g., confiscating recordings)
You also need to register before you can file a copyright infringement claim in court (as opposed to a standard tort or civil claim). But since you can technically register your work anytime during the lifetime of the copyr
Re: (Score:2)
The summary just posts a link to a generic article about copyright. However media companies usually have blanket license agreements with providers that provide them rights so that they don't have to ask every time they want to use a video or audio clip. So mostly likely CNN has an agreement with Google that lets them use and transfer videos from YouTube. And CBC has the agreement with CNN that lets them use their clips for 10 days. (It's probably a reciprocal agreement that all news organizations have.)
Re: (Score:2)
If a burglar steals something and then sells it to you, that doesn't give you legal right of ownership.
Likewise, CNN may have offered CBC a license, but since CNN had no legal right to do so, CBC in effect received nothing legal from CNN and so CBC can be sued for use of the video without a license.
I should have been more explicit.
CBC doesn't actually have permission to show the video, but they also aren't guilty either.
To use the same theft analogy possession of stolen goods is only a crime if you knew the goods were stolen, when CNN sold CBC the license CBC had no reason to suspect that license wasn't legit.
Re:CBC received no valid license from CNN (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's how it works/is supposed to work.
The creator of the video isn't responsible for sorting out what arrangement CNN and CBC had, or whether they actually had one at all. In the still image arena, unethical businesses try making the claim that they licensed images from stock, or that they hired a web developer who stole the image (claiming that means they aren't legally responsible...). The law makes the person distributing the image/video responsible for making sure they have the right to, to cut throu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol
It Means Slashdot Sucks (Score:3, 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...
Settle (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly why the guy suing them should not settle, even if it means a lower pay day.
Re: (Score:3)
I would love to see crowdfunding for Cutaia to take this all the way through court. If he loses then the DMCA loses and he deserves something for accomplishing that. If he wins (or settles), he returns the money to those who funded him.
Re:Settle (Score:5, Interesting)
I WANT it to go to court and I want them hit with copyright violation and have the plaintiff use the same calculation that the RIAA and MPAA uses and demand $4.6 billion in lost revenue as they shared the video with millions of people.
The RIAA and the MPAA make up bullshit numbers. and it's time that same bullshit get applied to a corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
I WANT it to go to court and I want them hit with copyright violation and have the plaintiff use the same calculation that the RIAA and MPAA uses and demand $4.6 billion in lost revenue as they shared the video with millions of people.
Doesn't work like that.
I doubt the guy who made the video registered is work with the US Copyright Office before publishing it. As such, he can only use a court to force the infringing party to stop infringing, and can only expect to be paid his demonstrably customary rate for the material. Considering he probably makes a buck or two here and there, at best, for letting YouTube run ads before/on his material, there's no there, there. If, however, he did register the work, he then has the option of pursu
Re:Settle (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The plaintiff is an intelectual property lawyer
2. The use of the video was for profit
3. As the article says many other news outlets sought permission or licensed the clip but these two, despite knowing the clip was copyrighted, choose to use them anyway.
If Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $1,920,000 for making 22 mp3 available for download (not for profit) how much should these media be liable in this lawsuit? How many other videos they use without proper licensing and/or attribution?
This could be the first of many similar cases considering the media worldwide assume that if a video is available on Youtube they are free to reproduce them in their TV news and shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I would object to him being sodomized in prison until he bleeds out through his ass or anything, the guy's just an annoying git, but what makes you think he's not getting licenses?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between showing and criticizing portions of a video and blatantly copying the entire video and portraying it as your own. I don't watch Tosh these days but I've seen a few clips when he first aired on CC and if I remember correctly, he did have credits to the video creator and never showed an entire clip.
Likely Settle (Score:2)
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.
CNN and CBC likely will settle just to get rid of it, even if paying a lot. They know they'll lose, unless they have a licensing agreement with google, for example.
The big boys regularly use content others produce without disclosing who they bought it from. A random low-level independent or semi-independent media guy will get a call about his footage after a relevant disaster and then his material will magically appear on the news network as if they had done the work themselves, and the low-level guy will
Re: (Score:2)
No, CNN and CBC are going to drag this out until the guy has to either drop the suit or move into a cardboard box and use the money from selling his house to continue the suit. In the latter case, when they continue dragging this out until he has to sell the box and move under a bridge, they'll drag it out even further. It's like the story of you, your friend, and the bear (you don't have to outrun the bear ....) The broadcasters don't need to last until a judgment is made; they just need to last until he i
Re:Settle (Score:5, Insightful)
He *is* an IP attorney. He's going to go broke from...paying himself?
Re: (Score:2)
He *is* an IP attorney. He's going to go broke from...paying himself?
A good lawyer would never represent himself, and for good reason. You have to be able to control your passion as a lawyer and that can be difficult when you're representing yourself. Besides, he could go broke from not doing work for paying clients if he did represent himself.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a defendant? Sure. When you're the plaintiff? Not nearly so big a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers who say that are generally the ones who have faced someone representing themselves who a) aren't idiots, b) are literate, and c) understand how to use legal indexes to find relevant precedent. They're generally terrified of facing such an opponent again.
He obviously knows what he's doing, and he'll have about a hundred times as much time to spend on the case as his opponents.
Plus, odds are, he's part of a firm and gets representation for free anyway. If not, he certainly knows others specialized in
Take down their site (Score:5, Interesting)
File a complaint with Google and have them take their entire site of the index.
And in the YouTube description, (Score:4, Informative)
"I work as an intellectual property attorney"!
Surprised (Score:4, Informative)
I'm surprised to read this. CNN used one of my YouTube videos once, after they reached out to me to obtain permission. Bummer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not making that up. And no, I'm not giving you identifying info. I like to shoot time lapses and one of them was relevant to an article on their site. Sorry if that's hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like their web division uses good practices and their broadcast division does whatever they like.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it's 2015 and this is just coming up now, that's quite a leap to arrive at that conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Which way? They contacted you, so presumably that division cares. We know the broadcast division has done this before, from a lot of non-litigious complaining on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If there has been a lot of complaining about this then I stand corrected, never having encountered it before I didn't know it existed.
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Informative)
No, I'm not making that up. And no, I'm not giving you identifying info. I like to shoot time lapses and one of them was relevant to an article on their site. Sorry if that's hard to believe.
It was pretty easy to find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ [youtube.com]
Re:Surprised (Score:4, Funny)
Haha. Okay, I admit, you got me with that one.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, he's an IP attorney who posted it for profit. The case is a slam-dunk as it's willful infringement. It'll be quietly settled out of court and he likely will be able to retire if he so chooses.
Oh Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best of luck (Score:2)
Good luck with that... (Score:2, Interesting)
As the article quotes, the Standard Youtube license grants any Youtube user (including CNN) license to use, reproduce, sub-license and transfer any video posted on Youtube, whether for commercial purposes or not. Our plucky individual gave CNN and CBC the rights to use and reuse the video when he uploaded it.
Now if CNN or CBC tried to issue a DMCA take-down on a video they had downloaded from YouTube, I'd definitely sue their asses.
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
$150,000 (Score:2)
$150,000 fine per individual they broadcast the video too.
Payday (Score:2)
The headline in a couple of months: Video file owner and lawyer gets a nice payoff to drop charges against big corporations.
Nothing changes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
just when I my mod points are gone so I can not mod this as offtopic.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
...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 [imgur.com].
Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)
i was looking at the options awhile ago, it's actually a pretty cool list of symbols:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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
Re: (Score:2)
infinity symbol (?)
I would guess at a symbol for rebirth or reincarnation.
Re: (Score:3)
there is no "cut." request anything you like. this just shows what's been used before
although...
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're suffering from tyranny because you can't get a free copy of War Games? If you want the system to change, you need a better argument than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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 b
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That may be a bit extreme. Still, just last night I was reading Breakfast of Champions, published in 1972, so 43 years old. And I had some ideas for a novel that would make heavy reference to it. And then I tossed it out because it won't be out of copyright for another 60-ish years or so. It's an artistic loss for the world, that I can't incorporate something older than myself into a new work. My lack of freedom to use that creative source is a sort of suffering from tyranny, isn't it? And if a bunch of peo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is about more than just whether you can make a copy of some silly 1980's movie to watch with your friends. What if you wrote a novel with some basic plot about people falling in love. Then someone changes a couple paragraphs to make it a pro-racism (or pro-life, or pro-vim, or whatever other holy war you are on the opposite side of) tirade and distributes it freely. No matter how much you dislike media companies, it is hard to say that authors should have no rights over their work for any amount o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not proposing absolute author control either. Remixes have a place, and maybe non-commercial, non-political redistribution rights should be forced to be given under fairly liberal terms.
But here you have a case of a guy who took some video, and then some large media companies come along and make money off from it without even original source attribution. Don't you think he should have some sort of recourse to say, "hey you can't do that!"? Without some kind of copyright, how would someone know which i
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the originator gives/sells off some control, they should have exclusive constrol for a limited time. Most will agree the timeframe should be smaller, but no, don't take away the originator's control. It's the only leverage s/he has.
Really, only the SW fanbois and grls would notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It get everything I want, when I want, for free.
I wonder if you'd have the courage to sit across the table from one of your pet art slaves and say, "I really like the first two books in your series. Can't wait to rip off the third one, too. So, get back to work! Create the entertainment I want, and try to be quick about it. I'm itching for some more free stuff. Thanks for being so creative there, Mr. Entertainment Slave!"
The same conversation with the thousand people it takes to risk huge amounts of money and spend years making a movie, please.
And
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrights are fine, arguably good (the beloved GPL stands and falls with the existence copyright: no copyright, no GPL, and that accounts for pretty much all open source licenses and Creative Commons licenses).
The way copyrights are implemented nowadays however, is bad. In particular the protected period is way too long.
Re: (Score:2)
the beloved GPL stands and falls with the existence copyright: no copyright, no GPL
No GPL, and it becomes lawful for dedicated amateurs to disassemble, document, and distribute proprietary programs.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Yes - copyright is good (Score:2)
Copyright is good now? Ok. Got it.
Let us go way back into the mists of time. Copyright granted pretty much one thing, and one thing only. Copyright guaranteed that IF - that really big, huge IF - anyone should make a profit off of any given work, then the AUTHOR should share in that profit.
That is only reasonable.
Where copyright has gone so very wrong is, the moment privileged, entitled individuals assumed that they were intitled to some kind of profit for every work they produced.
So, yeah, if a corporate entity is making money off of som
Re: (Score:2)
> Copyright granted pretty much one thing, and one thing only. Copyright guaranteed that IF - that really big, huge IF - anyone should make a profit off of any given work, then the AUTHOR should share in that profit.
I;m afraid you're looking at a very skewed history of copyright. Many of the earliest copyrights were about editorial control of the published documents, particularly the Bible. There was a very real fear that later Bibles would make free translations for local cultural or religious belief
Re: So.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually copyrights have always been good. The extensions of copyright are bad. The making copyright infringement a criminal verses a civil offense is bad. The limiting of moving between media like ripping CDs and DVDs for personal use is bad. The massive awards for file sharing are bad.
Laws that help content creators get paid are good.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score:4, Insightful)
Clue: First Sale Doctrine currently does not apply to digital copyrighted works.
You can thank MPAA, RIAA, Disney, CNN, CNBC, Fox, CBS, NBC, Sony...
Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'll have to be the zealous nutter who says that's a crock. My property does not cease being my property because someone who doesn't own it tells a lie.
In your case, your sister should be out a car and money and have a civil and criminal case against the guy who sold her the car, thereby committing fraud against her. The original owner should get his car back, which was his property all along. The thief should go to jail.
I expect with a little more legal effort, your sister's claim to the car wou
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're wrong.
CNN and CBC could have embedded it as a YouTube video or shown the YouTube video, but could not extract it from YouTube and show it outside the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use only applies if you credit the work AND only use portions of it (portion is not legally defined except that it is not 100%). At least according to the content lords that own CNN/CBC