YouTube Stands Up To IOC Over Free Tibet Video 187
Ian Lamont writes "The International Olympic Committee has withdrawn a DCMA takedown notice that targeted a two-minute long YouTube video of a Students for a Free Tibet protest at the Chinese consulate in New York. The video shows protesters gathering outside the building at night and projecting images of the Olympic symbol, 'tank man,' Tibetan riot footage and clips of victims of the Chinese police crackdown in Tibet. After receiving the request, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked if it really planned to pursue a claim. The IOC retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours. Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society praised YouTube for 'going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.'"
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60x3C43Qao [youtube.com]
Re:I have a mod point... (Score:3, Informative)
Best watched with the sound off. It's the same music all the way through.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:4, Informative)
It's a bit like the US really
Except in the US you can criticize the party in power without being arrested and hauled away by the cops.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:3, Informative)
Copyrights != trademarks (Score:3, Informative)
We shouldn't blame them for threatening legal action based on a text tag without even viewing the supposedly offending video?
But text tags are subject to trademark law. Come to think of it, I applaud Google for standing up to someone who tried to use copyright law to enforce a trademark.
Re:What did the IOC plan? (Score:4, Informative)
As to the free press issue, American reporters go to jail over politics, too [cnn.com]
No, American reporters go to jail for refusing to testify in front of a Grand Jury. Bit of a difference there. I would argue that we need a press shield law on the Federal level (my state has one) but there's still a difference between going to jail for contempt of court and being whisked away for investigating Governmental abuses or corruption.
the right to free speech is supposed to be the right to not speak as well
Actually, no, there is no right not to speak if you are subpoenaed to testify. You have a right against self-incrimination but if you are offered immunity (i.e: nothing you say can be used against you) then you don't have the right to refuse to testify. This is based on hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition.
Vimeo... (Score:3, Informative)
Vimeo has stood up to the Church of Scientology and the IOC. Their commitment to free speech is absolute. They are far more worthy of our support than YouTube, which regularly knuckles under to media companies whispering "Boo!" in their ears. Vimeo will not allow you to upload your rips of Battlestar Galactica episodes but they will stand by your right to free speech. Plus videos look and sound WAY BETTER there.