Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Media Youtube Your Rights Online

NASCAR Tries To Squelch Video of Spectators Injured By Crash 359

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This discussion has been archived.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 Gaygirlie ( 1657131 ) <> on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:56PM (#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 tibit ( 1762298 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @12:57PM (#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 johnny cashed ( 590023 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:19PM (#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 sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @01:20PM (#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.

  • by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @02:21PM (#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.

  • by NatasRevol ( 731260 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @03:04PM (#42996451) Journal

    But IS covered in tasty red sauce!

  • by dcollins117 ( 1267462 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @03:10PM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2013 @05:47PM (#42997565)

    LOL you have never been to a NASCAR race then, while races attract all types, there is definitely not a lack of money at the events. I highly recommend going to a race, they are a blast.

  • by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @07:13PM (#42998189) Homepage

    And if the video was from a spectator's phone, then they don't own the copyright.

  • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @07:34PM (#42998369) Homepage
    so 1 of them should be modded +1 funny while the other being modded +1 informative
  • by MacDork ( 560499 ) on Sunday February 24, 2013 @11:30PM (#42999775) Journal

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

    Diebold [] for one.

  • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday February 25, 2013 @06:50AM (#43001389)
    Read the DMCA [] 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.

COMPASS [for the CDC-6000 series] is the sort of assembler one expects from a corporation whose president codes in octal. -- J.N. Gray