This opinion post is related to the poll:
Several versions of the video have been posted at youtube. Each time, they have been brought down because "copyright infringements" claims made by WNDU-TV. Some estimate that several dozen videos had been removed from youtube (even though the same videos were still available at other video sharing sites).
But the law was on the side of the youtube activists, and thanks to one dedicated youtuber, one video has definitely been restated at youtube. Read on to see how...
Here is a very nice video by one youtuber with a summary of the "copyright war" waged on youtube between WNDU and youtube activists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md3hsIo3NWY&
[Edit: I notice that even this video has been taken down - for "terms of use violation", even though the video didn't include any original footage by WNDU-TV...]
WNDU is a small, local TV network. They have been covering various events from Roseland for a long time. I do not dispute the copyright claims. However I do wonder about their precise motivation for using that claim to ask google/youtube to take down the videos. Do they feel that spreading this 5 minute video clip is hurting their business interest? Or do they have other reasons not to publicize this sorry affair? I simply don't know.
I thought it was strange though that edited videos, with commentaries, were being removed by youtube. I would have thought the people who edited the videos could have claimed Fair Use.
Here is what Badcase says in his latest version of the video (heavily edited by himself, with a prominent link to WNDU):
This is a updated version of the one that was removed. All aspects of fair use laws are met in this version. It is only a small amount of footage in relation to the entire work,it is transformative, educational, not for profit, and does not hurt the market of the copyright holder instead it will benefit the copyright holder by increasing traffic to their site.
If this is removed or my account deleted I will seek legal action for the violation of my lawful rights to freedom of speech.
I would have more cause for legal action against youtube if you remove this clip than WNDU would have if you leave it up.
However, even this video was soon removed from youtube. Soon after, on September 25th, the author sent youtube this this counter notification:
To whom it may concern,
This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a
complaint received about my web page(s). The pages in question are:http://youtube.com/watch?v=qF8m8VTcwW8
My response to this complaint is as follows:
My use of the material is legally protected because it falls within the
"fair use" provision of the copyright regulations, as defined in 17 USC
107 http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#107. If the
complainant disagrees that this is fair use, they are free to take up
the matter with me directly, in the courts. You, the ISP, are under no
obligation to settle this dispute, or to take any action to restrict my
speech at the behest of this complainant. Furthermore, siding with the
complainant in a manner that interferes with my lawful use of your
facilities could constitute breach of contract on your part.This communication to you is a DMCA *counter notification* letter as
defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3)
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap5.html#512I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief
that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken
information, misidentification of the material in question, or
deliberate misreading of the law.My name, address, and telephone number are as follows:
[name, address and phone number removed]
I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the
judicial district in which I reside (or, if my address is outside the
United States, any judicial district in which you, the ISP, may be found).I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.
My actual or electronic signature follows:
Having received this counter notification, you are now obligated under
17 USC 512(g)(2)(B)
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap5.html#512 to advise the
complainant of this notice, and to restore the material in dispute (or
not take the material down in the first place), unless the complainant
files suit against me within 10 days.
The author told me:
This will force one of two things, either WNDU will have to try to take
me to court and prove infringement, or YouTube has to restore the video
10 to 14 days from now.
Indeed, within 2 weeks, the video has been restored at youtube. WNDU had failed to reply to the counter notification. So thanks to BadCase, a dedicated activist who understood the law, the video of the incident is available to a wider audience.
In any case, the unedited videos can be viewed at the WNDU web site. An additional problem, though, is that their videos require a more recent version on Flash that I currently cannot install on my computer. So, without the people who posted the videos on youtube, I would not have been able to see the videos at all.