IOC Orders Blogger To Take Down Video 389
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."
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Except to NBC
Re: (Score:2)
Except to NBC
Losing money by the tens of millions in a selfless act of colossal commercial miscalculation.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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, Informative)
Its only top posting if you turn off the threaded view.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
And this [njnvideo.com] is the actual video file; shift-click to download.
Can you say, Streisand effect?
I knew you could...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
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:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
> The US is leading in meddles
Certainly. Iraq... Afghanistan... hard for anyone else to compete!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oops. Floydian [meddle.org] slip.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
The US is leading in meddles, so maybe interest is higher than anticipated.
Yes, we're some of the best meddlers around!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Live channels on the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Two points:
The IOC could still get their advertising revenues, and eve
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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, Funny)
You also watch Oprah, right?
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Funny)
That wasn't your gun you were cocking, son, that was a blow dryer.
Now don't you have to run? I think Bravo is going to re-broadcast a Liza Minelli special. Shoo!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Oh and lol at the Liza Minelli th
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a Canadian citizen reporting on a Canadian sporting event, his domain is registered to a Charlottetown, CA address via a Canadian name register. So far he's got a good case to give the big FU to the IOC (which I wholly support).
Unfortunately it looks as though his site is hosted in Chesterfield, USA (according to cqcounter's visual traceroute), so the IOC may be able to leverage a shut down at the hosting provider. Sometimes it's unfortunate that the Internet is international.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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)
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. 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)
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)
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:5, Informative)
No amount of padding in front of the beams would've made a difference, going from 140+ km/h to zero in a fraction of a second.
What they needed was a higher wall to deflect any crashing luger downward so they'd stay on the luge track itself.
Which, incidentally, is what the Olympic organizers did immediately after. While at the same time claiming the death wasn't caused by the track, but driver error. That just disgusted me; yeah, it may have been driver error, and it was a freak accident how he hit the inner wall just so to launch out of the track, but the track was not blameless no matter what the organizers say.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you care?
Why are you free enough to care?
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>but in the video he doesn't even get his hands in front of his head
Since he hit the steel beam with the back of his head, and human arms don't bend backwards like that, the suggestion you offer would not be possible. The man was doomed, and even if he had superhuman reflexes, there's nothing he could have done to stop his head from slamming against that steel beam.
Of course you would have known this yourself, but since the IOC is censoring the video, there was no way to double-check it prior to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see a reason why they couldn't have some sort of plexiglass or other clear covering that comes up higher, so if someone is ejected from their sled they hit the plexiglass and fall back into the run, rather than hitting something (like a pole) outside of it.
Also, it is very tragic that he died, but this is also a good time to realize that sports like this are inherently dangerous and sometimes this is the outcome, no matter what precautions are taken (say the pole had been padded, who knows if he wo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lose a tire at 35? I've done that. Lost all - literally, not figuratively - of the skin on my chest. Still have scars from it, though it happened 30+ years ago. Skin makes a terrible brake pad. Keep the rubber side down, as they say. :-)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
I saw it on the NBC nightly news the day that it happened. The national news.
I was somewhat horrified.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
NBC only showed it two or three times. Then, they announced that they wouldn't be showing it again. It's a shame that CTV didn't follow their lead in this.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
it's == copyright's (Score:2)
I meant to say "it's a shame how far we've strayed from copyright's original purpose."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, when I watch cars going around in a circle for hours and hours, I'm waiting to see the crash. That's what most people are doing. There is no other reason. Like I said, if we were looking to reward the fastest guy, we'd run them one at a time and use a stopwatch. Much safer. (They DO that during the time trials. Notice how the time trials rarely make it to the telly? The only time I've ever seen
I'd like to ask you (Score:5, Insightful)
People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this.
Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?
All images, of all things, in all places, (Score:3, Funny)
all the time, everywhere. We are the IOC.
We are the Voice of Control.
You will respect our Authoritay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I want my Streisand effect NOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Link to video please.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Link to video please.
IF ever there was a need for goatse site.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I want my Streisand effect NOW! (Score:5, Informative)
From the site in TFA:
http://www.njnvideo.com/njn/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/luge_accident2.flv [njnvideo.com]
From another source:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lazyjock/117509.flv [amazonaws.com]
streisand's log, stardate... (Score:3, Interesting)
While we're at it, could we please have a round-up of the olympics screw-ups to date? It's hard to find such a thing between the official coverage and the unofficial coverage of the allegedly greatest olympics screw-ups of all time. It might be "too soon" to include this luge track fail (uncovered steel poles? they don't even allow those in NASCAR, where you get a crash cage and a magical carbon fiber bumper!) in those lists, but I think it qualifies. What else goes on this year's list?
Mirror please! (Score:2)
Re:Mirror please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mirror please! (Score:4, Funny)
If wishing made it so... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:If wishing made it so... (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:If wishing made it so... (Score:5, Informative)
Locality blocks... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Locality blocks... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you comply with laws from all over the world then you can't post anything online.
Re:Locality blocks... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Locality blocks... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Canadian Copyright Law (Score:2)
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)
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)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Madam Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon ruled that the women ski jumpers were indeed discriminated against by the International Olympic Committee's decision to keep them off the 2010 Olympic calendar, but added that the Switzerland-based IOC was beyond the reach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
from CTV. [ctvolympics.ca]
That's one reason I'm not watching them.
The problem is the want to use the law, specifically copyright law, to force the blogger to take down the video. That means the IOC would have to take the case to court, so this wouldn't be a case about the application of the law to the IOC, but rather to the blogger.
Malware warning. Do not follow. (Score:2, Informative)
The linked website is a source of malware. Do not follow the above link.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in the interest of Olympic athletes to keep it online so everyone can see that the track was badly designed. They built one of the fastest luge tracks ever and just assumed that nobody would ever jump the wall. They were tragically wrong, and it was avoidable. Wrapping the steel pole he collided with in foam would probably have been sufficient to save his life, though he wouldn't have escaped without injury. Installing a higher section of non-iced wall, possibly made of clear plastic, would have pr
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd better go now, I have a midterm tomorrow.
Re:Its wrong to have pillars that close to the tra (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, here we are discussing it. I think it is fine for pillars to be that close, on a track for a sport that is participated in voluntarily and with full knowledge that those pillars are there. All it would have taken is for the lugers to say "we aren't going down that course with those pillars there", if it were so clear that the pillars shouldn't have been there.
It is absolute stupid the way the track was designed and that is the flaw. The guy would not have died if its was not for the pillars.
The guy would not have died if he didn't get on a tiny little sled and push himself down the start of an icy half-tube where the only exit other than the far end was off the side and into hard metal objects.
Lugers can still die if they take a wall too high and capsize, smashing their heads into the solid ice track.
If you want to remove all means of death in the sport of luge, you might as well not luge at all. In fact, you won't be luging. You'll have to have a solid tube filled with soft water (instead of the open ice-caked half-tube). That's the "thrill ride" at a water park. How exciting. And someone could still drown if they aren't careful.
You could compare that to have trees around a racing circuit directly beside the track and no run off area ...
How about solid concrete walls at most car race tracks?
Bugger off IOC and let the rest of the world see what is wrong so it can be prevented next time.
Next on NBC, the 2046 winter olympics. At 8PM, the US and Canada face off for the snowball fights, followed by the mackeral slapping contest between Great Britain and France. At 11PM, Greece and Latvia compete in 'walk around the block', and then Bolivia and Japan face off in a rematch of the famous 2042 "fill the slurpee cup as full as you can without spilling" contest. Stay tuned...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is wrong to have pillars that close to the track and Stephen Plate shows this to the rest of the world. Period! No discussion!
And yet, here we are discussing it. I think it is fine for pillars to be that close, on a track for a sport that is participated in voluntarily and with full knowledge that those pillars are there. All it would have taken is for the lugers to say "we aren't going down that course with those pillars there", if it were so clear that the pillars shouldn't have been there.
Of course the athletes can choose not to participate. However, most athletes have been training for years for this event, so the threshold for not participating is really high, even if they had a pool of sharks with friggin lasers at the bottom. Just because you don't have to participate, doesn't mean that the security measures can be inadequate. Simply raising the walls doesn't make the sport equivalent to kitten hugging
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This assumes that the sun would not exist were it not for you, so that you could actually copyright the sun and all audio-visual representations thereof.
I guess I'll know for sure tomorrow, because it's night time here now. If the sun doesn't come up tomorrow, I'll know I violated the DRM you put on it...
The fact that the s