April 25, 2009

"Founding Bloggers' incorporation of the CNN footage was clearly for the purpose of criticizing and commenting on Roesgen's reporting..."

"... which has come under heavy fire in the conservative blogosphere (and even from a former CNN reporter) for her hostile interactions with tea-partiers."

Ah! A perfect copyright vs. fair use fight. Go to the link for a crisp, clear explanation of the law and the DMCA procedures.

And let's all enjoy the CNN-embarrassing video one more time:

(Via Instapundit.)


Peter V. Bella said...

The story is the talking head who made herself the story. She was, through her words and actions, protesting the protesters. She was not asking questions, she was defending a position.

When embarrassed by her behavior, instead of firing her, the network- you know evil, greedy, big business- fights back.

I wonder if they would have done this if that video was very popular instead?

The Drill SGT said...

I agree Peter.

Althouse, the best little clip is this one:


Jeremy said...

Teabag versus GASBAG:

Shane Murphy, Freed Pirate Hostage, Slams "Disgusting" Rush Limbaugh

04/24/09 06:30 PM

Shane Murphy, second-in-command aboard the ship seized by Somali pirates this month, is happy to be home. But he's not happy to be sharing turf with land-lubber Rush Limbaugh, who politicized the pirate affair by referring to the pirates as "black teenagers."

"It feels great to be home," said Murphy in an interview with WCBV in Boston. "It feels like everyone around here has my back, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh, who is trying to make this into a race issue...that's disgusting."

Limbaugh made the remark to suggest why President obama might have appeared preoccupied at church on the day of the operation to rescue the ship's captain, who was taken hostage by the pirates until Navy SEAL snipers shot them in a daring rescue effort.

"He was worried about the order he had given to wipe out three teenagers on the high seas," Limbaugh said. "Black Muslim teenagers."

"You gotta get with us or against us here, Rush," Murphy said. "The president did the right thing...It's a war....

It's about good versus evil. And what you said is evil. It's hate speech. I won't tolerate it."

Chip Ahoy said...

Odd, how the worst bits of the things I drive out of my life are brought back in repeatedly by the things that I welcome, like a pet cat that presents a rodent as a gift.

LonewackoDotCom said...

The full Rush comments are here. As could be expected, "liberals" have trouble understanding what words mean.

Regarding CNN, I made a video showing problems with one of their debates and added it as a video reply to their video. CNN or Youtube then deleted both of my reply video from the list of video replies. See one of those videos here.

Regarding the current issue, hopefully they'll succeed. However, the far better way to oppose both BHO and the MSM is to push this plan. The fact that I have to repeatedly point out that my plan is far superior to sending tea bags is indicative of just how far along we are on the road to Idiocracy.

Bruce Hayden said...

I love this: "So, CNN could sue Founding Bloggers for copyright infringement -- but I consider that unlikely. CNN's lawyers know the law of fair use, and that they would be unlikely to prevail in an infringement suit against Founding Bloggers. And remember: CNN -- like all TV news organizations -- relies heavily on fair use every day, using clips from competitors, and even YouTube, in its own broadcasts. So even a "victory" over Founding Bloggers would result in long-term damage to CNN's own interests."

And then: "Founding Bloggers could also sue CNN. Section 512(f) of the DMCA allows the target of a takedown notice to seek damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, against the sender for "knowingly materially misrepresent[ing] ... that material or activity is infringing." While such cases are difficult to win, one court has held that the sender must take into account fair use when deciding whether to issue a takedown notice. Founding Bloggers can also sue for a declaratory judgment, asking a court to issue an order stating that its video is a non-infringing fair use."

So, if CNN doesn't back off, they may find themselves funding a suit against their attack on fair use, and if they do win, may not get attorneys' fees, but would more likely find themselves contrained in their own newsgathering by a weaker Fair Use doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Very apt, Michael. Right on topic.

Why the name change?

Peter Hoh said...

CNN deserves any and every embarrassment provided by this videotape.

Ben Sheffner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben Sheffner said...

To Bruce Hayden:

Just to be clear, Founding Bloggers could sue under 512(f) even if CNN does "back down," either by withdrawing its takedown notice, or by doing nothing in the face of FB's counternotice (in which case YouTube would re-post the video). A cause of action under 512(f) accrues as soon as the copyright owner submits a DMCA notice that contains the misrepresentation.

For example, in the Lenz v. UMG case (about the dancing baby), I believe what happened is that Lenz submitted a counternotice, and UMG did nothing -- but Lenz still sued under 512(f), and survived a motion to dismiss: http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey, the liar Jeremy showed up, as usual, to post some drivel and blather that has nothing to do with the thread.