Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Youtube Your Rights Online

NASCAR Tries To Squelch Video of Spectators Injured By Crash 359

Posted by Soulskill
from the isn't-that-why-people-watch-nascar dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Dozens of fans attending a NASCAR race at Daytona Speedway were injured when a crash during the last lap triggered a chain reaction, culminating in the front section of Kyle Larson's car ricocheting into the fence in front of the stands (Larson escaped injury). While the footage accompanying the article is dramatic enough, an even more riveting clip showing the chaotic scene in the stands from up close was posted on YouTube, but was taken down after NASCAR claimed it violated their copyright . YouTube has since restored the fan's video. A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured. The race was an opening act for the main event, the Daytona 500, which officials say will proceed as scheduled. 'With the fence being prepared tonight to our safety protocols, we expect to go racing tomorrow with no changes,' Speedway President Joie Chitwood told CNN."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASCAR Tries To Squelch Video of Spectators Injured By Crash

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Next up any mention of NASCAR will cost you a dollah

    • by Seumas (6865) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:52AM (#42995739)

      That doesn't seem fair. Everybody knows NASCAR fans can't afford a dollar.

      . . . I'm a shitty person . . .

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Well, they can afford plenty of beer; I drink with a lot of NASCAR fans. There are NASCAR parties in most bars around here today.

        • I was expecting to see Randy Marsh in the video.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It shocked me to learn that NASCAR tickets are more expensive than NFL seats. The more you know.

        • by Sporkinum (655143) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @04:10PM (#42997321)

          Professional sports at the upper levels priced them selves out of the market years ago. Same with live concerts. I really don't know how they get so many people to pay so much for so little.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            You realize it's contradictory to say they priced themselves out of the market, and that they sell a lot?

            In fact, a lot of concerts could easily price tickets much, much higher, and still sell out. They have cheaper tickets to give their less wealthy, but devoted enough to be the first in line, fans a chance to come.

          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            I don't know but they have really gotten batshit on the pricing. when I was a teen i went to concerts almost weekly because you could easily afford to, now tickets in the nosebleed section often run close to a hundred bucks.

            And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit? I go to speedtest and it consistently shows I'm hitting 20Mbps and all the other video sites load and play perfectly but for the past week or so YouTube has stuttered like its on dialup no matt

            • by T-Bone-T (1048702)

              It isn't just you. My internet speed is actually quite low but YouTube pisses me off to no end. Trying to switch to a lower quality video often makes it load even slower! I wish people would stop using it. It isn't good anymore.

      • NASCAR fans are among the most loyal to their sponsors which is in part why the sport is so popular with them. They shell out a lot of money and will even switch brands when a favorite team/driver switches.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:34AM (#42995653)

    So is NASCAR going to have a rash of legal suits for false takedown notices?

    • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:40AM (#42995667)
      Didn't you get the memo, laws are for poor people.
    • by kermidge (2221646) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:46AM (#42995703) Journal

      Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

      • by SniffTheGlove (1261240) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:53PM (#42996039)
        I really wish that Google would do the right thing and prosecute these organisations, after all they all state "The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." If there is a false take down then under their own words of "under penalty of perjury" they should be prosecuted. If there is never any comeback on these organisations they will keep on pumping out false takedowns. Does not matter if these are automated takedowns done by software and the sender of the takedown states "under penalty of perjury" then they are liable.
        • by nametaken (610866) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:27PM (#42996229)

          Amen. And we really do need Google to do this, if even on behalf of (and with written permission of), the actual rights holders. Every system needs checks, and just dumping countless notices on a service provider and letting them be the arbiter, with no repercussions for bogus requests, is absolutely insane. There needs to be counterweight.

        • by dcollins117 (1267462) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:10PM (#42996485)
          Google doesn't have legal standing to file suit, that would be up to the owner of the video. He would also need to prove damages.
          • by dissy (172727)

            Proving damages is pretty easy. Google tracks ad views pretty well, and knows down to a fraction of a penny how much money was earned over what period of time. Extrapolate that over the time the video was down = amount of damages.

          • by GumphMaster (772693) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @05:52PM (#42998035)

            Perjury is a felony in the US (see 18 USC 1621) so one might expect the relevant government to intervene and prosecute. One might also be disappointed.

            • by Solandri (704621) on Monday February 25, 2013 @05:50AM (#43001389)
              Read the DMCA [cornell.edu] again. The relevant portion says:

              (3) Elements of notification.--
              (A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
              ...
              (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

              In other words, the perjury isn't for filing a copyright claim against a video you don't hold the copyright to. It's for filing a claim when you don't hold the copyright you claim is being infringed.

              Say I make a spoof video of the Oscar ceremony using completely self-shot footage and put it on Youtube, and it gets yanked due to a DMCA copyright claim saying I lifted video from ABC's broadcast of the ceremony. It's only perjury if the person filing the claim isn't authorized to file on behalf of ABC (the copyright holder for the Oscars broadcast). The fact that it's my own video is irrelevant. The claim is that I violated ABC's copyright, and as long as the person filing the DMCA claim is authorized to do it on behalf of ABC, they are safe from the perjury provision.

              The relevant section of the DMCA in this type of situation is:

              (f) Misrepresentations.-- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section --
              (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
              (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
              shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

              But good luck proving that they knew my video was original and not theirs when they filed the DMCA claim. All they have to say is, "Oh we're sorry, we didn't realize it was your original video, we thought it was a copy of ours" and they have no liability. The burden of proof rests with you.

              The DMCA was written at the behest of copyright holders and treats their responsibility very lightly. Given how long it's been since it's been passed, I'm starting to think the only way it'll ever be reformed to be more balanced is if people who own copyrights to similar media start filing DMCA takedown notices against media published online by the big studios and record companies.

          • by gl4ss (559668)

            Google doesn't have legal standing to file suit, that would be up to the owner of the video. He would also need to prove damages.

            no, they don't need to be. it was a dcma request, they could sue the ass off from nascar with no need from the original uploader. the original uploader could sue separately.

            nascar was interfering with googles site under false premise, lying about owning copyright to media shown on googles service. googles business was interfered with, they had the right to show the video and nascar claimed they didn't have - it's quite simple. I don't know how to put it any simpler, but if you were selling some very nice je

        • by _Ludwig (86077)

          All they’re attesting to with that clause is that they are the copyright owner or the owner’s authorized representative. Read it again; the oath doesn’t cover the actual validity of the infringement claim.

      • "Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?"

        I have wondered that myself. False takedown is an offense, after all. I want to see it enforced.

      • by MacDork (560499) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @10:30PM (#42999775) Journal

        Has any one, let alone some large corporate entity, every been sanctioned for false takedown?

        Diebold [aaronkellylaw.com] for one.

    • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:53AM (#42995745)

      A NASCAR spokesman has issued a clarification, saying that the takedown request was done out of respect for those injured.

      Wow. So doing things under false pretenses is now a legitimate form of showing respect to someone. I'll try to remember that, it might come in handy!

    • by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlie.hotmail@com> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:56AM (#42995765) Homepage

      So is NASCAR going to have a rash of legal suits for false takedown notices?

      No, AFAIK the DMCA laws state that you lose the right to file any more DMCA takedown requests if you fail to comply with the rules -- ie. filing takedown requests in bad faith, for example, would result in you losing the right to protect your content with any future requests. It does not make you liable for monetary compensation or place you in a position for lawsuits. In addition to that, no one seems to actually honor this side of the law -- Google certainly doesn't give a flying f*ck if someone abuses the DMCA as long as they get their pretty penny.

      • by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:20PM (#42995889) Journal

        No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.

        The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.

        There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Your outrage is misdirected. This wasn't a DMCA takedown this was a special power youtube gives to a special class of copyright holders to be the police themselves. Youtube can't override a DMCA takedown even if it was filed in bad faith only the person who posted the orginal can fight a takedown notice.

        If you want to be outraged; rage at youtube for giving NASCAR the power to pull videos and of course NASCAR for abusing their powers.
        But DMCA problem this is not; this is basicly an admin deleting a post t

      • You don't lose any rights by false requests. Here's what's illegal: You have to state under threat of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of some work. If the work that you claim isn't actually the one that is uploaded (for example if NASCAR believed that you uploaded their official video, but you uploaded one you shot yourself), that isn't punished. If they claim that you uploaded a video made by some TV crew and they own the copyright, but in reality the TV station
    • by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:08PM (#42995833) Journal

      I'm not sure they were false. Major League Baseball and I think most of the football chains have long considered anything that happens within their stadiums to be their copyright and trademark if documented.

      NASCAR could have the same legal position except they do not normally restrict the usage of fan generated content.

      • by sjames (1099) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:43PM (#42996709) Homepage

        I met a guy that considered the earth to be flat once, but I remain unconvinced.

        • by sumdumass (711423)

          I'm not really sure what you think has to do with it. It's all about what the person who filed the notice thinks. If they have a claim, then there is a claim. The validity of that claim might be questioned but it still doesn't negate the claim as far as the law is concerned.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:37AM (#42995657)

    "Respect" is an excuse for perjury and a violation of a federal law? I should try that one if I ever get I trouble. I was just being respectful.

    Oh, I forgot. The rules are different for large corporations. Carry on.

  • Slow mo video (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Liveleak has it, but you can't post racist comments on there unlike youtube.
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2c_1361717939

  • Yay Lawyers! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe U (443617) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:41AM (#42995669) Homepage Journal

    What's a little perjury when you have someone's best interests in mind, right?

  • by CaptainOfSpray (1229754) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:43AM (#42995679)
    So the takedown "was done out of respect for those injured."? Yeah, we lied about owning the copyright of newsfilm of a public event, in order to CMA, we didn't want to look bad or not caring about safety, we just wanted to suppress it all, so we invalidly exploited a stupid law. Who cares? We're important and those people injured are nobodies.
    • by sumdumass (711423)

      Where does it say they lied about the copyright?

      Major League Baseball asserted ownership of the copyright of anything that happened at their games. This has been long enough ago that a lot of other organizations have done the same. It has even withstood court challenges. If NASCAR asserts the same ownership at their events, then they could very well have a copyright ownership. Their lack of enforcement in the past does not forbid them from enforcement in the future, it just makes them a dick for selectively

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        DMCA oath applies to people who "believe" that they are the copyright holder. So, even if they are wrong, they probably did they believe they owned it, as they assert they do on the tickets.
  • PR already started (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fafaforza (248976) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:43AM (#42995685)

    I was watching their press conference (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/24/daytona-crash-fans-injured-race) and wondered why that Chit guy kept repeating how quickly and within protocol their people responded. I guess there's some question now, and they're already setting a stage for their defense.

  • by Seumas (6865) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:47AM (#42995705)

    If you watch the video, everyone's practically ejaculating as the wreck begins and more cars get involved. And then, suddenly, it extends into the spectator seating and then it's the worst thing in the world. I'm sorry for those who were injured, but there's something about that which just seems really gross. "Oh, dang Jimmy Bob John Paul Ricky Dicky Junior! Look at that amazing wreck and the cars flipping around and slamming into each other! This is what we come to see! Violence and destruction and people risking their lives potentially being injured for our enjoyment!" followed by "ermagherd, a tire! who do we sue?!".

    Don't misunderstand me -- the accident looked horrible, even though it wasn't clear who was injured and exactly to what extent, in the seats and I hope the spectators end up being okay and are justly compensated. It's great that the drivers were apparently okay. It's just that, as I watched the video, something about that sort of -- I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it -- which I found kind of gross.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Blood and Circuses.

    • Gross? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dan East (318230) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:14PM (#42995863) Homepage Journal

      I'm undoing my negative moderation of your post to reply to your comment. In case you don't understand the context of this video, it is the final lap of the race. Everyone is excited because it is a close race with a number of cars vying for the win. Perhaps you don't enjoy watching sports, or rooting for a particular person or team to win, but most people tend to get rather excited when a long competition comes down to the very end.

      For you to demean the spectators, and use terms like "practically ejaculating", simply shows me that you are detached emotionally from sporting events, which is a great source of entertainment and pleasure for a very significant number of people.

      If you find spectators getting excited over a winner of an event "gross" then I advise you to not attend sporting events or view videos of them, so as to not offend your sensitivities.

      • by Bagels (676159)
        I think Seumas is commenting in part on the announcers' apparent lack of concern for the safety of the drivers. Yes, the crash could be a pivotal moment in the race - but it's arguably a little warped to be audibly excited about an event that could lead to the injury/death of several of the people involved. It's a fair criticism, whether you enjoy the sport or not.
      • Re:Gross? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iCEBaLM (34905) <icebalm@NOSPaM.icebalm.com> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:13PM (#42996151)

        Except the loudest cheers where not when the cars were in sight, but when the crash began, including a loud "Ooooh, there we go!" from someone close to the camera.

        Nice try though.

    • You would question the base ethics and thus intelligence of spectators of a sport that fundamentally involves cars driving around in a circle [youtube.com] for hours on end?

      • by poity (465672)

        I'm not a fan of NASCAR (nor any vehicle racing sport for that matter), but banked circular tracks should be safer than road tracks. And if you want to poo-poo a racing sport, it should be rally racing. Driver and spectator injuries/deaths in rallying dwarf those seen in NASCAR, and that's just looking at Europe alone. There are ZERO safety considerations and even less intelligence in the spectators, who especially like to crowd around dangerous curves with nothing between them and the vehicles.

    • by houghi (78078)

      I don't want to call it hypocrisy, but I don't know what to call it

      Human nature?

    • It's like the Joker said ... It's expected some cars will crash, and some driver might get hurt. It's not expected that people on the other side of the chain link fence 10 feet away are going to get hurt.

      There is $100k+ of engineering per seat keeping drivers safe in these crashes. There $100k (maybe) of safety structure between cars and spectators. People pay for front row seats to experience the cars... If they pile up more safe brick walls, people can't see the cars... They can just watch on TV.

    • by poity (465672)

      Adrenaline probably. They're not fully conscious of the consequences at the moment of something spectacular happening. Same reason a violent tackle in in any contact sport is met with enthusiasm from fans -- that is until they realize the players are not getting up. Look at football (American and Euro) and rugby highlights and you'll see the same thing.

    • by sumdumass (711423)

      Well, First, I don't watch NASCAR on purpose. But you have to marvel at the engineering involved that allows cars to fly around a track as 160-200+ miles per hour speeds, often just inches away from each other, and when they do have an accident, the drivers walk away with little more then their wallets damaged better then 90% of the time.

      If you have to compare the wrecks on the track to wrecks that injure spectators, think of it more like watching kids driving bumper cars at the county fair verses your teen

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        We'd be able to eliminate 99% of fatalities on the road if we followed the same policies in private cars. But nobody wants the cost/weight hit of a safety cage, or the inconvenience of a 5-point seatbelt, or the cost of having professional medical help no more than 20 seconds away at all times.
  • by RichMan (8097) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:49AM (#42995723)

    As a penalty the next takedown request from NASCAR to youtube should require full documentation requiring a lawyers affidavit and full documentation of ownership of all material asserted to be owned and an full explanation of the way in which copyright is violated and a $10K deposit.
    Youtube may then take up to a week to process the take down request. An improper request will not remove the penalty and the deposit will be forfit.

    At least I can dream.

  • Perjury (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:52AM (#42995737) Journal

    NASCAR: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

    Youtube: "Our partners and users do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they contain content which is copyright infringing, which is why we have reinstated the videos."

    Youtube has more or less admitted that NASCAR committed perjury by filing the DMCA claim.
    Should be a slam dunk court case. Right?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sure. Now who is going to file charges? Nobody.
    • by Kjella (173770)

      If they used the DMCA yes, but as I understand it a lot of the big takedown senders - and I would assume NASCAR is one of them - have a private deal with YouTube to pull content, without formally issuing a DMCA notice. It's not required by law, but it's not forbidden by law either. Also your quote is very wrong, the legal text is:

      (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

      Only the last part is "under penalty of perjury", the rest only goes under "misrepresentation" in the law.

      Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
      (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
      shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright ownerâ(TM)s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:54AM (#42995753)

    Automobile violence in the US has been rising at an alarming rate for the last 60 years.

    Deaths by automobile are rising faster that the sun rise.

    We need the President and Vice President and leaders of both chambers of Congress to come together and remove the violent and death dealing automobile from our local, state and national pathways.

    There is no US constitutional amendment, clause or Executive Order that mandates an automobile for any US citizen.

    Death from the automobile is not 'pursuit of happiness.'

    The time has come to ... Kill the Car ... and let the people live.

    • by Seumas (6865) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:10PM (#42995847)

      You ignorant commie. The solution isn't to take cars away from people. It's to require ALL law-abiding citizens to own and carry cars. Especially teachers. Look at cities like LA, where everyone is extremely nice to each other, because everybody knows that everybody else is carrying an automobile.

      Sidenote: I love the second amendment and all, but c'mon - I got a chuckle. :P

      • by hedwards (940851)

        Indeed and let's not forget the fact that the numbers of people dieing on the roads has been decreasing in recent years.

      • by femtobyte (710429) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @06:00PM (#42998093)

        Perhaps there's some middle-ground solution? We could require all cars to be registered (and tracked in government databases), and operators to be licensed and trained. We could mandate insurance for drivers, and require new cars to be built with reasonable safety features (while grandfathering in older collectible models). Maybe even additional taxes on car fuels, beyond the sales taxes on ordinary goods? Limitations on car operation in school zones? Fines, loss of licensing, and criminal penalties for dangerous driving (even in cases no damage is done)? This way, people who have grown up in a driving culture, passed down from parents to children, can still responsibly drive cars for recreation and utility, while keeping unlicensed fleets of murder vehicles out of the hands of criminals. But perhaps I'm the crazy dreamer to think that society could ever agree to such a solution.

    • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:04PM (#42996459)

      Look, I understand your grief, but we need to be realistic about automobile violence. There are so many automobiles out there already, that change just cannot happen overnight.

      Automobile ownership needs to be public record. Then responsible newspapers can mine this data, and create interactive online automobile ownership maps. You will feel much safer if, with one patented click, you can see which of your neighbors owns automobiles.

      If automobiles are made illegal, only illegals will have automobiles. Just look at how many drugs and illegals are smuggled over the border from Mexico in automobiles every microsecond every day. If they are already using automobiles to smuggle other stuff, they might just as well smuggle the whole automobile, as well.

      However, a real solution to automobile violence could only be solved with a mechanical fix. As everyone knows, the biggest cause of automobile violence is a loose nut behind the steering wheel. But our society just does not have the will to fix that problem.

  • by tibit (1762298) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:57AM (#42995769)

    Look, you fuckers, you can't use copyright law "out of respect for the injured", mmkay? What kind of an idiot would come out with this line for an excuse? You did not send an "I wish it were so" takedown. You sent a takedown under DMCA, and you've just publicly claimed that you've perjured yourself! Just one more reason for me to otherwise ignore NASCAR.

    • by sumdumass (711423)

      They can if they own the copyright. It owuld be a distinction between why they normally do not assert their ownership to fan created videos and they are now.

      Now I'm not saying NASCAR is the owner, but Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games. If NASCAR is in the same legal position, you will find they are a valid owner regardless of failing to exert any rights to that ownership in the past. MLB has actually won this in court already.

      And if y

  • Sorry but what idiot thinks that a Chain link fence can hold back a 200mph engine block? Up to the 20' mark above the wall should be 8" thick polycarbonate with large steel beams. Problem is that NASCAR hates spending money on safety of the fans.

    • by johnny cashed (590023) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:19PM (#42995883) Homepage
      In addition to the chain link fencing, there are four or five tensioned steel cables on the lower portion to give additional reinforcement.
      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:21PM (#42996193) Journal

        And if you look at pictures of the crash, the engine block got caught in those steel cables at the bottom.

        The safety officials are probably much more interested in how those tires got loose, because they've been dual tethered to the cars since a crash in 1993 launched a tire into the parking lot of a track.

        NASCAR has had an ongoing program of safety upgrades to the barriers and once they figure out what happened and how to prevent another penetration, it'll push forward their timeline for upgrading the fences.

      • Those steel cables were not in the way during the crash. Look carefully, the crash went thought a gate in the fence (hence no cables). The gate allowed the nose of the car to be sheared off upon hitting the pole closest to finish line. Luckly dropping the enigne at the foot of stands tangled with the fencing, but allowing for tires and othe junk to go into the stands.

  • by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:00PM (#42995809)
    Did you notice the guy shooting the video was 2 seats away from where the tire landed and he DID NOT SPILL HIS BEER. I'm not joking, check it out. That's some good redneck skills right there, man.
  • by Ice Station Zebra (18124) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:01PM (#42995811) Homepage Journal

    Is it a new programming language? Real nerds want to know.

    • nas = network attached storage
      car = first element of a dotted pair

      So someone had a pair of network attached storage devices, and the first one crashed. :-)

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:07PM (#42995831) Journal
    That's all very well and good, and may have even been a perfectly arguable justification for having the video pulled from Youtube (although it may have taken longer), but why couldn't they have just said that in the first place, instead of making up some copyright violation excuse? Now, instead of coming across like they actually might have even cared about the people who were hurt, this after-the-fact excuse sounds very wholly contrived, and not really a priority for them at all.
  • by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:20PM (#42995885)

    With the fence being prepared tonight to our safety protocols

    Hey, those protocols were sufficient the last time around, amirite?

  • Perjury (Score:5, Funny)

    by hduff (570443) <hoytduff&gmail,com> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:28PM (#42995927) Homepage Journal

    "We realized we perjured ouselves in requesting a DCMA takedown of a fan video of a crash where spectators were injured. It made us look bad and made racing appear unsafe for spectators and would hurt our business. Besides, the video showed a lack of respect for the Women, Veterans and First Responders who may have been injured. We support and love these dedicated American Heroes who sacrifice everything for this Great Country and would undoubtedly support us in our loving, caring, selfless decision. Since he drinks beer, President Obama is probably a big race fan and I'm sure Obama and Jesus would support us in this no matter what the law says. I know Jesus would forgive us." Speedway President Joie Chitwood told CNN.

  • It's nice to know NASCAR has a copyright on injuries to consumers of their product.

    Microsoft has a lot of license fees to pay.

  • it's a news event (Score:4, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <erauqssemitelcric>> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:32PM (#42995949) Homepage Journal

    fair use should apply

    it all happens on corporate property, but that doesn't trump the common news value

    this is a dangerous precedent if corporate PR trumps newsworthiness

    this is how and why western democratic ideals and freedoms are undermined by runaway financial power

  • Does not top years years 500 crash and fireball

  • Yes, I will even defend FOX News on this. This is absolutely newsworthy and applicable to freedom of the press. The extremely obvious reason why they want to suppress it is to minimize loss of fanship (though their fans have a pretty hardcore dedication, is that even possible anyway?) and loss of profit. Fuck off NASCRAP.
  • by CrAlt (3208) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:46PM (#42996725) Homepage Journal

    So in baseball if a fan catches a foul ball or home run ball the MLB lets them keep the ball.

    Now in NASCAR if you catch a tire or engine block are you allowed to keep it also?

One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan is that there never was a plan in the first place.

Working...