Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Your Rights Online

IOC Orders Blogger To Take Down Video 389

Posted by kdawson
from the cone-of-ownership-descends dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The International Olympic Committee has ordered a blogger to remove a video from his website showing the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. The IOC asserts that it owns all the rights to all images taken at the games, and only licensed broadcasters can use them. However, the blogger, Stephen Pate, points to a Canadian law that allows copyrighted images to be used in newsworthy cases."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IOC Orders Blogger To Take Down Video

Comments Filter:
  • Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

    by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunity.yahoo@com> on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:40PM (#31238816) Homepage

    The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.

    The Olympics are big money.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Except to NBC

      • by Tiger4 (840741)

        Except to NBC

        Losing money by the tens of millions in a selfless act of colossal commercial miscalculation.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fredjh (1602699) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:14PM (#31239182)

          Maybe if they'd listen to the viewers complaining Olympics after Olympics that we want less human interest stories and more events. Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts. If it means that we're not just watching Americans, fine! I know people living here from all over the world, we want to see everything, whether an American is involved or not.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

            by MichaelSmith (789609) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:26PM (#31239302) Homepage Journal

            Content from the events cost $$$ so the TV networks pad the coverage out with cheap human interest crap and trolling [smh.com.au]. Its been this way for decades. We all hate it and it not getting any better.

            • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

              by Brian Gordon (987471) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @12:01AM (#31240528)

              Nobody's posted the video link, so I'm top-posting.

              This [njnnetwork.com] is the specific video he was ordered to take down.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by paeanblack (191171)

              TV networks pad the coverage out with cheap human interest crap

              Then make the human interest crap part of the games.

              Seriously. Make it an event. Stand all of these athletes up, have them tell their sappiest, most heartwrenching story, and give the best one a gold fucking medal. They are all trying to outdo each other anyway, so let's make this competition legit.

              The medal-count weenies will love it too. The conspiracy-theorists get another judged sport to bitch about. The wannabes can sit at home telling ever

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

            by mcsqueak (1043736) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:29PM (#31239340)

            Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts.

            Indeed. They really should have 3-4 channels that show nothing BUT Olympics during the two week span of the games, that way you could actually see all the events you want to see, plus they would probably still have time for "human interest" stories (gag) between events.

            I don't have a DVR, and I don't plan my schedule around TV viewing, so I've missed a lot of games I would have liked to have seen. I was lucky to have happened to be sitting in front of the TV with the Olympics on when Lindsay Vonn had her gold medal run last week. That was great. But then look at how they botched the Canada/USA hockey coverage yesterday to show "ice dancing" or whatever instead. Seriously, folks?

            As pointed out elsewhere, the NBC Olympic coverage has not kept up with how people want to consume media these days.

            • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

              by blackraven14250 (902843) * on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:35PM (#31239398)
              DVR? That wouldn't help at all. NBC has been time delaying tons of events, and doesn't list different events separately in their programming. It's a giant 3 to 6 hour block of "Winter Olympics", with no distinction on events shown.
            • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

              by multisync (218450) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:58PM (#31239618) Journal

              Indeed. They really should have 3-4 channels that show nothing BUT Olympics during the two week span of the games, that way you could actually see all the events you want to see, plus they would probably still have time for "human interest" stories (gag) between events.

              That's the way it is in Canada for these games, but interest is huge because we're the host country. There are at least four networks (including NBC) showing non-stop coverage here, and I've heard some of the "specialty channels" are carrying some events as well. But I don't know if there is enough interest outside of the host country to justify the kind of coverage you are calling for.

              This list [wikipedia.org] notes that NBC, Universal Sports, Telemundo, USA Network, CNBC, MSNBC are carrying at least some coverage in the US.

              I don't know what kind of ratings NBC is getting for these games; I know it was a concern prior to the games starting, as they paid a record amount for the rights. The US is leading in meddles, so maybe interest is higher than anticipated.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by BikeHelmet (1437881)

              As pointed out elsewhere, the NBC Olympic coverage has not kept up with how people want to consume media these days.

              But pirates rejoice, because EZTV's coverage has been perfect. :P

            • Two points:

              • The IOC should broadcast every single event live on the Internet. Especially in the summer Olympics, there are so many things going on simultaneously that you only gets bits and bobs of any single event. Less popular disciplines often get no television coverage at all - even though there are cameras and announcers at the events.
              • Secondly, they could and should make all recordings of all past events available for viewing via the Internet.

              The IOC could still get their advertising revenues, and eve

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:47PM (#31240038) Homepage Journal

            You've got it exactly right, fredjh.

            Seriously, they need to just show one event after the other. None of the backstory. None of the human interest bullshit. They think that just because most of the skaters are gay and the snowboarders are high that everybody who watches it is going to be more interested in a soap opera than exciting sports action.

            It's actually quite insulting and condescending of the networks to assume that to get women or gays to watch sports they have to show this kind of fluff. Actually, a couple of the most gonzo sports geeks I know are queer and last night when I was watching USA whip Canada in hockey at the neighborhood sports bar, I distinctly heard them jeering at all the human drama crap.

            Interestingly, this couple I'm describing were mocking the hell out of the male figure skaters for their slightly less than manly attire. You know that when you're dressed so gay that even gay people make fun of you, you're way out there.

            • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)

              by commodore64_love (1445365) on Monday February 22, 2010 @11:03PM (#31240138) Journal

              I like the human interest "crap".

              Otherwise it would be just a bunch of strangers moving around on screen. At least this way we know the motivations behind the athletes. For example I would not have known that one Canadian skier was motivated by his brother's Down Syndrome to push even when he's in pain.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Five Bucks! (769277)

              USA didn't 'whip' Canada. Ryan Miller is just a very good goalie... 93% save percentage while Brodeur didn't do as hot with 82%.

              We'll see in the finals.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by hodet (620484)
              Amazing how every winning athlete has bounced back from drug addiction or some other horrific accident or near death to overcome all and stand on the podium. Equally annoying to me are the commercials on CTV "yes I am Canadian". Can there not be one commercial without a majestic snow covered mountain in the background or somebody enjoying a bonfire out in the wilderness. Good grief, I like camping too but this is not all we do while chugging enormous quantities of beer.

              Oh and lol at the Liza Minelli th

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

      by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:45PM (#31238872)

      Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws that give their trademarks such as the five-ring-design even stronger protection than a typical trademark. Basically, they're claiming they need NBCU/CBC/FoxTel/your-local-Olympic-broadcaster's money to put on the games, and therefore they need super-copyright. They have it now, it'll take an act of Congress to get rid of it.

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dunbal (464142) * on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:26PM (#31239300)

        Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws

              It used to be that hosting olympic events was a money-maker for the cities involved. However recently data shows that towns that host Olympics are actually losing out. I don't agree with "special privileges" for anyone, but it's understandable to see how they can happen where there is a source of income for the state. But when the state is trying to "protect" something that is actually costing tax payer dollars, it's time to repeal laws (or repeal the damned state).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jandrese (485)
          Yeah, the cities "lose money", but it seems to me that a lot of that is due to the city moving up civil works projects that were otherwise on the back burner just because they want to put on the best face for the Olympics. Plus, at the very least you tend to get a bunch of Olympic level venues that the locals get to use after the games are over. Heck, Rio is even reusing the housing in the Olympic village as low cost housing for the poor. Low cost housing is something that they would have lost money on a
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      If my son/father/whatever had his head broken in a million pieces (or whatever happened, I didn't see the vid), I sure would appreciate a powerful organization working to take it down.

      Yeah, IOC is usually ridiculous in their claims and I almost always have an opinion against them, but in this case, I think someone's life should probably be worth a little more than goreporn. Why does such a video need to be hosted and why should someone have the right to make money off of the death of another person? I
      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:54PM (#31238966)

        If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sbeckstead (555647) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:22PM (#31239258) Homepage Journal
          Yes I agree, but he could offer to take it down out of concern for the families privacy rather than because the IOC has asked him to. Take the Moral high road and keep your freedom of speech at the same time. why not, you lose little. Blog about it by all means but the goreporn value is pretty nil anyway.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Take the Moral high road

            If that blogger had given a damn about the moral high road, he wouldn't have posted the video in the first place. Please note that the day it happened, NBC announced that they would not be airing the footage again and that the man's father has said that he doesn't want to watch it. The only reason to post it was so that ghouls could get their vicarious thrills over and over again by watching a man DIE.

            • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Surt (22457) on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:08PM (#31239696) Homepage Journal

              Because, you know, having a fascination with death, the end of us all, the foundation of every major religion, makes you evil.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              >>>If that blogger had given a damn about the moral high road, he wouldn't have posted the video in the first place

              Here: http://www.fatalfailblog.com/ [fatalfailblog.com]

              I'm not posting this because I'm a "ghoul" but because I think it's educational. When I first saw how twisted/dismantled these humans were, simply because of a car crash, it got me to thinking that I don't really need to drive 85 to get to work. 60-65 mph will still get me there in a decent amount of time, and if I impact anything, there will be ab

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

            by haruharaharu (443975) on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:11PM (#31239720) Homepage

            Yes I agree, but he could offer to take it down out of concern for the families privacy rather than because the IOC has asked him to. Take the Moral high road and keep your freedom of speech at the same time. why not, you lose little. Blog about it by all means but the goreporn value is pretty nil anyway.

            What privacy? The dude died during the olympics - this isn't a private matter. And if you need to take something down, then you don't have free speech. Sure, it's poor taste, but it's also news.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I would take it down (for the family's sake)...

            And then immediately replace it with another video of a different luger (perhaps one that crashed but survived). I will not cave-in to demands that I limit my free speech rights, otherwise companies could use copyright to censor uncomfortable things. Like Toyota claiming copyright over a video of one of their cars going off a cliff. Or Marlboro claiming copyright over an advertisement of an actor who later died from smoking-related cancer. Or Microsoft cla

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

          by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:55PM (#31239592)

          If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.

          I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."

          It's my opinion however that "not showing someone dying" should not be enforced by law, enforced by corporate interests, and especially not barred by copyright law used as a weapon by corporate interests. Blogger showing it was bad, IOC was even worse.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:43PM (#31240008)

            I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."

            I don't. You might argue that there is a scale on one end is grandma baking apple pie and the other end is something like a snuff film.
            But the death of an athlete on the field at the olympics is nearly as important as the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, maybe even moreso depending on your perspective.

            My point being (a) its real grey to begin with, nowhere near a clear line and (b) the circumstances of a death affect the offensiveness of its publication.

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

        by headkase (533448) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:58PM (#31239010)
        Not proud of it but I've seen it. In this case there isn't anything gore at all, he comes to a complete stop: immediately. The problem is that today it is this video, tomorrow it may be something less clear cut. As every persons definition of "good" and "bad" is different you have to take the good with the bad. Agree or not with this particular case the proper thing to do is lump it under censorship as the law for newsworthy items is pretty clear and deal with that as an issue. You're not going to like everything - that is the point.
        • by headkase (533448)
          Darn it, forgot to close a bold tag after "censorship" and of course I don't preview. Forgive me.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by blai (1380673)
        > I sure would appreciate a powerful organization working to take it down.

        Why do you care?
        Why are you free enough to care?
      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

        by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:04PM (#31239090)

        Because it shames the IOC's claim that it was only the luger's fault that he died. if you watch the video, you see that a basic miscalculation (misjudging the sled's speed when correcting the trajectory) caused him to an inside wall. After that came about 1 second of flying through the air, and hitting a metal pole with his head and upper back. It was pretty much game over after he hit the inside wall. There was absolutely nothing he or anybody else could have done once he overadjusted the trajectory of his sled.

        That's the tragedy, and that's why it needs to stay up: the course was designed with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away. If the downhill was held by running the skiers around large, unprotected metal poles, people would be in an uproar - and justifiably so.

        Sometimes, deadly videos are important to illustrate the deadly consequence of other people's actions.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:03PM (#31239652)

          You have to keep in mind that the Canadian lugers had been practicing on the course for two years prior to the games, without serious incident. While it's not fair to place blame solely on the shoulders of the luger in this case, it also isn't fair to suggest that the course was designed to be a deathtrap or "designed with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away". The course was designed to be fast and challenging, though some argue it was perhaps too fast.

          The guy make a mistake, and it cost him his life, and that's tragic. The course was designed maybe 10kph faster than the norm, which may have magnified the impact of his mistake. Though based on the general negative raction the other lugers had to moving down the starting position, I'd say any claim that the incident happened solely because the course was expressly designed to be a death trap are more than slightly exagerrated. Lugers like challenging and they like fast even more. they absolutely love a combination of fast and challenging, otherwise they woudn't be hurling themselves down a track at 140+ kph, would they?

          And the skiing example? I reckon you didn't catch the womens' alpine downhill last week, where a huge portion of the skiiers whiped out, including Anja Paerson (most decorated aline skiier, all time) botching her landing and rolling something like 200 meters to the finish. She got up on her own eventually, others had to be airlifted out. Nobody argued that the course was designed to be a death trap. The skiiers may have commented that it was a tough course, but not one, especially not the ones who didn't make it all the way down, so much as suggested that it was meant to be dangerous. They knew going in that it was a tough, technical course.

          The risk of injury (or worse) is something you're well aware of and accept in any sport than involves moving downhill at breakneck speed while requiring hairpin maneuvering. You might as well argue that the luge, bobsleigh, skelleton and alpine skiing as sports, are "with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away" since they all involve hurling oneself down at breakneck speeds, while requiring pinpoint accuracy in maneuvering. The athletes were well aware of what the sport entails and the risks involved were when they signed up. Let's throw in the ski jump as well, $deity knows you can break your neck vaulting yourself 90-100+ meters at high speed. And hell. the figure skating system should be redesigned as well, after that poor Candaian girl got kicked sqaure in the face by her partner.

          This isn't about "covering up" their "shame". It's about tastelessness. A news articl would have sufficed, and picture of the aftermath would have been plenty. but a video of someone hitting a pillar at 150KpH? It's certainly more attention grabbing, I'll give 'em that.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

            by indiechild (541156) on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:39PM (#31239962)

            I think it's outrageous that courses are designed with such an obvious lack of safety precautions. If the wall had been higher, he wouldn't have slammed into the pillars. In every other industry such a lack of OHS would be damning, yet it's acceptable here for some reason.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @12:31AM (#31240706)

            I'm a downhill skier myself. I'm well aware of the risks in skiing, and am amazed at the crashes that these athletes walk away from. However, there's a very specific reason why there are no trees on the course, and why there's netting all around. People crash, and these things are designed to minimize catastrophic injuries if something does go wrong. Finally, skiers have far more control over speed and direction than the lugers.

            And yet, you won't find large metal beams around a corner of a downhill course - or anywhere that isn't protected by netting or foam.

            Yes, Canadian lugers practiced without any deaths. But if you look at the track, what happened to the Georgian luger was a guaranteed event once the sled hit the inside edge. Just because no one else had died before doesn't mean that the track was designed in a fashion that minimized risks. Just shaving the inside of the track to make it impossible for the sled to just rid up and over would have drastically reduced the speed.

            As for your examples of what else should be redesigned - again, there's a difference between designing something to be more dangerous than necessary and changing the sport. Raising the wall, putting padding on, cutting the inside corner - none of that would have reduced the speed or the difficulty of the course. All the other examples you provided change the sport. Understand the difference.

            This isn't about "covering up" their "shame". It's about tastelessness. A news articl would have sufficed, and picture of the aftermath would have been plenty. but a video of someone hitting a pillar at 150KpH? It's certainly more attention grabbing, I'll give 'em that.

            Really? The video is the only thing that demonstrates conclusively what happened. Everything else is hear say and assumption. I'm glad the video exists, because it allows me to cross-check claims and understand assertions.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)

          by jayveekay (735967) on Monday February 22, 2010 @10:16PM (#31239772)

          The luge course has walls along its length to keep the lugers within the confines of the track. The height of the walls is higher at some points of the track. I would guess that the baseline wall height is 4-5 feet. At the point where the Georgian luger went over the wall there was 2-3 foot high extension. The Georgian luger cleared this extension just barely, allowing him to exit the relative safety of the track. [Once a luger traveling at high speed leaves the confines of the track the result is uncontrollable and quite likely catastrophic for both the luger and anyone he hits.]

          The next day the walls along that portion were raised substantially higher.

          My question is: How does a luge course designer determine how high the walls should be in order to ensure that lugers are kept contained to the track? Is it based on "gut feel" or some mathematical analysis?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Sometimes, deadly videos are important to illustrate the deadly consequence of other people's actions. --

          Other times, as in this case, they're great for driving up hit counts and ad revenue. I don't disagree, but let's not get so lost in high ideals that we forget the reality of how the video was being used (I checked - njnnetwork does host clickthrough ad content). In that context, this usage of a DMCA takedown makes sense and is completely appropriate.

          If you're using it to report news or even give commentary on news, fine. If you're using it to give commentary and make some money off of it along the way,

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by tomhudson (43916)

            In that context, this usage of a DMCA takedown makes sense and is completely appropriate.

            Sorry, but a DMCA takedown notice doesn't make sense. The site is Canadian (so no DMCA, lack of jurisdiction), and the use of the video conforms to Canadian copyright laws wrt news.

            DMCA notices only affect 5% of the worlds' population.

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:04PM (#31239092)

        Do you think they want to cut it out to "protect the family of the deceased"? They care about the reputation of their precious cash cow. And that ain't the athletes. They're just the necessary evil to milk the whole deal.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maxume (22995)

        I saw it on the NBC nightly news the day that it happened. The national news.

        I was somewhat horrified.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ChinggisK (1133009)
        Agreed, censorship argument aside, he's an ass for putting it up in the first place. Sounds like he's using an 'omg freedom of speech!' argument as an excuse for being a douche. And so far most of /. seems to be buying it... I was hoping for better here, honestly.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by GIL_Dude (850471)
          What exactly were you hoping for? Agreement that censorship is good? I think most agree that it may be in poor taste, but should be allowed as censorship is worse than poor taste. Wasn't there a famous quote that covers this:

          I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall. I think most folks here are of the opinion that blocking material that may be objectionable to some is much worse than allowing it to stand on its own.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:53PM (#31238948)

      The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.

      The Olympics are big money.

      I think this actually IS a new low for the IOC. They're going to profit from the images taken at the games, that's normal.

      Ordering a blogger to take down video would be pretty low and stupid as is: as if someone is going to watch someone's blog instead of the games on NBC or whatever. That's absurd. A blogger is no competition.

      What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?

      Jesus.

      Were it not the IOC I would assume this was done in the name of taste. People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this. But it being the IOC, and seeing as they just claimed Lindsey Vonn's name (or exclusive rights to use it in advertising... whatever...), I have to think that this is -at best- an attempt to set a precedent that absolutely all video from the olympics are absolutely the IOCs property, and can't be shown anywhere. More likely, they're going to try to sell the video to news organizations and want a fucking monopoly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Adrian Lopez (2615)

        I shudder to think what the IOC might be able to get away with should ACTA become law. It's a shame how far we've strayed from its original purpose. Copyright was never supposed to enable this kind of abuse.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hatta (162192)

        What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?

        I think that's not quite what's happening here. I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get. They're hoping to lose as little as possible after this tragedy.

        They're still (predictably) overreaching here though.

        • Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)

          by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:08PM (#31239132)

          I think that's not quite what's happening here. I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get. They're hoping to lose as little as possible after this tragedy.

          So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.

          • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

            by wealthychef (584778) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:28PM (#31239318)

            So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.

            It's the difference between hiring a hit man and hushing up a family suicide.

      • The IOC released this video to the major news sources after the accident happened, then NBC announced the day after that they'll not be showing it again in the remainder of their coverage, and other sources had their limited rights expire. Without the IOC being so nice and sharing the video, it would have been seen by a lot fewer people.

      • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dhalka226 (559740) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:58PM (#31239036)
        More than likely they hope to bury it. It's not exactly a shining-star moment in the Olympics. I'm sure they'd prefer people forgot about it and moved on.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Dunbal (464142) *

          It's not exactly a shining-star moment in the Olympics. I'm sure they'd prefer people forgot about it and moved on.

                Yes it's much easier to pay lawyers to try to shut everyone up than actually fix a dangerous track that has injured several other athletes.

      • by ElusiveJoe (1716808) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:44PM (#31239494)

        People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this.

        Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?

  • by Tiger4 (840741) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:42PM (#31238838)

    all the time, everywhere. We are the IOC.
    We are the Voice of Control.
    You will respect our Authoritay.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)

      Well, IOC, for all I care you can keep it.

      Could you keep it far away so at least the TV channels ain't clogged with your crap and I could actually watch something interesting.

  • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:43PM (#31238856) Homepage

    Link to video please.

  • Queue "Streisand Effect" in 3... 2... 1...
  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:44PM (#31238868)

    I'm quite sure the IOC (and other major sports promoters) would like the copyright on every image taken, but I've never understood what their legal basis for making such a claim would be. Do they require that everyone attending sign an agreement assigning all rights in any recordings they make to the IOC, or something along those lines?

    • by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday February 22, 2010 @08:49PM (#31238908)

      Do they require that everyone attending sign an agreement assigning all rights in any recordings they make to the IOC, or something along those lines?

      Haven't read the back of a sports ticket lately? Every sports league claims copyright over their event, and the right to use your image while you're there. You'll find your Bluetooth not working because 2.4 GhZ unlicensed band devices are being jammed... and if you talk on the phone too long you'll find an usher making sure you're talking about something other than the game.

      Looks like we've got the "1984" baseball season about to start...

  • If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.

    • by Yvan256 (722131) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:00PM (#31239052) Homepage Journal

      Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.

      If you comply with laws from all over the world then you can't post anything online.

    • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:01PM (#31239064) Homepage

      Remember, if you're a copyright holder, you'd better be prepared to suck it down. The internet is a global network, and the law varies all over the world.

      Fixed it for you.

    • by GasparGMSwordsman (753396) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:26PM (#31239296)

      If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.

      Under your logic, you could be tried and punished for any speech offensive to other countries, say Iran or North Korea. You better hurry and make sure everything you have ever posted online is blocked from everywhere that it might be illegal!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fishthegeek (943099)
      Being Canadian he is under no obligation to enforce or even care about the laws in the U.S. or OZ for that matter. While I find it a little distasteful it's his right and if the blogger wants to put it up there then more power to him.
  • Isn't it just great.

    Not only do we get to make copies of our own stuff, even if it means bypassing DRM, but we get fair use too.

  • Important point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rueger (210566) on Monday February 22, 2010 @09:07PM (#31239110) Homepage
    The IOC is above Canadian law. They are allowed to ignore Canadian human rights laws, can force venues to rescind non-smoking regulations, and are able to take over lands, streets and buildings at will.

    Anyone who has worked within the VANOC orbit knows that VANOC and the IOC believe that all others must bow down before them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PFAK (524350) *

      Pretty much, I've been documenting on and off for the past while the various (negative) things that have been happening with the games. It's a shame really.

      My (somewhat) compiled list is available at http://peterkieser.com/vancouver-2010/ [peterkieser.com]

"Right now I feel that I've got my feet on the ground as far as my head is concerned." -- Baseball pitcher Bo Belinsky

Working...