YouTube clip the IOC didn’t want you to see

August 19, 2008

 

 The Times recently carried a piece reporting on the plethora of legal issues underlying a major sporting event such as the Olympics. Indeed, the piece might have been headlined “Beijing Bonanza for Lawyers”, so busy are m’learned friends in connection with the event.

A lawyer’s art was perhaps behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown request sent by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to YouTube in recent days over a Tibetan protest video. The request, reported here by Journalism.co.uk, initially met with compliance by YouTube. However, the video hosting site then thought better of its decision, and questioned whether the IOC was entitled to file a DMCA request. It also contested the notion of copyright infringement in the protest video.

The upshot is that the IOC has withdrawn its takedown request, and the video is now back on YouTube. You can see it below, but be warned – it contains some graphic and disturbing images.

[display_podcast]

Several commentators, including Corynne McSherry at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have criticised the IOC’s action, saying, for example, that “It’s never OK to use improper copyright claims to take down legitimate, non-infringing content, but such takedowns are particularly galling when they are timed to directly interfere with the impact of a political message.” Others, among them Anthony Falzone of Stanford Law School, have praised YouTube’s conduct as an example of an information-sharing intermediary which “did the right thing” and acted to safeguard freedom of expression.

It strikes Blade that Falzone is right, but that the IOC’s actions might have backfired. By issuing an evidently spurious takedown request and then backtracking, the IOC has put its attitude to freedom of speech under the spotlight. This matter becomes one for debate and analysis. Doubtless, the greatest show on earth must go on, and so it will, just as we might reflect that sometimes it pays not to fire off that lawyer’s letter.

Image of Free Tibet protest in London above courtesy of Dantesinferno on Flickr.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

Not so right said Fred

February 2, 2012
fred hat

So Farewell, then, Sir Fred Goodwin.

Now you are just Fred.

Not Right Said Fred, but plain Fred.

The Forfeiture Committee did for you.

No one had heard of it before,

But Dave said it had to act, and it did.

Trouble is that no one knows what to think.

Is it ‘Alas, poor Fred‘,

Or ‘Hurray! Sir Fred is dead!’?

We don’t know.

Do you?

By A. Mob, aged 1,378 and a half.

London Goes AWOL

January 31, 2012
CNN

STOP PRESS:

Fed up with being stuck on the Thames in south-east England, London yesterday decided to move. In a dramatic gesture which augurs ill for the Olympics, the city upped sticks and relocated to East Anglia.

Lawyers were not consulted about the move, and the city’s precise motivation remains unclear. However, financiers fear that London’s decision is a sign that it wishes to downsize. Moreover, a source from London said: “We no longer want to be Britain’s seat of power. If the Scots can deregulate, why can’t we? East Anglia is a nice place where nothing happens. It’s time for a quiet life. Please respect our right to privacy.”

Elsewhere, Birmingham did not do anything, but Manchester was seen to be packing its bags. “There’s an opportunity for us,” said Manchester. “We can become London.”

East Anglia said: “We don’t mind. It’ll be refreshing to be associated with something other than fens and flatness.”

A cartologist at CNN, which broke the extraordinary news, was later fired.

An excellent ad if ever there was one

January 25, 2012
legovader

We seem to be visually led this week but sometimes words proliferate far too much and letting an image do the talking is no bad thing. That’s another way of saying that ACCESS Agency’s work with Lego is absolutely top drawer.