Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#101

Post by [deleted] »

therealpygon wrote: post #99
Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why wou…

[deleted]

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#102

Post by mindslight »

therealpygon wrote: post #99
Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why wou…

They are not using logos to advertise their business. They are using footage of their business operations to promote their business. This footage happens to contain logos of other businesses, because those other businesses put their logos places where they might be incidentally filmed. Trademark law does not give one the right to police any time your logo appears, nor does it protect one from criticism.

Your analogy misses the mark. A more appropriate analogy would be someone taking a promotional selfie while walking down the street, which includes businesses' signs in the background.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#103

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zarzavat wrote: post #63
fuckaj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright

CCTV footage is not a creative work, it doesn't even have an author .

You’re correct, it is not copyright. It comes closer to me asking to use your computer to check my bank account and then emailing myself all your identify documents.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#104

Post by jofla_net »

mindslight wrote: post #93
Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

Talk about anticipatory obedience, read the rest of this thread. oof. This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply. There are no financial damages. The video is not classified. It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment). At best this is an internal policy viola…

It is, in its most true form, a modern-day sefdom, bound by soft power, hopelessness, and above all else an unquenchable aversion to risk. The risk part predicated upon the delusion that we are in end times and things couldn't be better, so don't rock that boat. It appropriately fills the void that religion used to.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#105

Post by soraminazuki »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19
johnhess wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on. if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though. here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.

> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges. Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to pr…

Stealing? Theft? Is there a god-given right for corporate or government interests to withhold lethal air crash footage from the public?

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#107

Post by Animats »

mindslight wrote: post #102
therealpygon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why wou…

They are not using logos to advertise their business. They are using footage of their business operations to promote their business. This footage happens to contain logos of other businesses, because those other businesses put their logos places where they might be incidentally filmed. Trademark law does not give one the right to police any time your logo appears, nor does it protect one from criticism. Your analogy…

One of the videos mentioned: "Speeding Trailer with 50,000lb of Melons Rolls Over & Rips Open"[1] It shows the practical problems of uprighting a trailer that's torn at the seams. There wasn't enough structural integrity left for a simple crane lift. So they needed inflatable air bags, wooden blocks, and multiple cranes to get the thing upright. Then they moved it a bit with the cranes to unblock a lane of the freeway ramp. Then it took tens of people from CALTRANS to unload 50,000 pounds of melons so the damaged trailer could be removed empty as one piece.

Everything that could identify the trucking company or even the source of the melons was blurred out, which is a lot of work for the towing company guy who does these videos between tow jobs.

There's no copyright issue; all pictures were taken by employees of the towing company.

There's no trademark issue; showing a logo for identification purposes is legal.

There's no customer confusion issue; it's clear that the towing company isn't in the melon business.

There's no trade secret issue; this was a very public event, on public property, with TV news coverage.

There's no intent to defame issue; the towing company was there because the California Highway Patrol called them to clean up the mess, not because someone didn't like the guy who rolled over his truck.

There's no right of publicity issue for a wrecked truck.

There's no ownership right to the video because the trucker didn't contract with the towing company; the California Highway Patrol did. (The trucker will be getting a big bill from the state.)

There's no issue of "interfering with police" - the cops called in the towing company and guided them to the scene.

There's nothing in IP law that applies here.

Just fear of YouTube.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M5RnQlSJ58

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#108

Post by therealpygon »

Animats wrote: post #107
mindslight wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not using logos to advertise their business. They are using footage of their business operations to promote their business. This footage happens to contain logos of other businesses, because those other businesses put their logos places where they might be incidentally filmed. Trademark law does not give one the right to police any time your logo appears, nor does it protect one from criticism. Your analogy…

One of the videos mentioned: "Speeding Trailer with 50,000lb of Melons Rolls Over & Rips Open"[1] It shows the practical problems of uprighting a trailer that's torn at the seams. There wasn't enough structural integrity left for a simple crane lift. So they needed inflatable air bags, wooden blocks, and multiple cranes to get the thing upright. Then they moved it a bit with the cranes to unblock a lane of the freewa…

That instance sounds like a clear cut abuse then, why isn’t a fine being sought as allowed?

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#109

Post by trogdor »

mindslight wrote: post #93
Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

Talk about anticipatory obedience, read the rest of this thread. oof. This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply. There are no financial damages. The video is not classified. It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment). At best this is an internal policy viola…

> This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply.

That is incorrect. Copyright generally does not attach to works created by federal government agencies. The same is not true for works created by state and other sub-national government entities.

Harvard has an online resource center where you can learn more about this.

See https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/

I do think it’s true that this particular footage is in the public domain.

>It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment).

FOIA does not apply to MWAA records. MWAA has its own access to public records policy that applies to its records. I have the unfortunate privilege of being a quasi-expert at dealing with MWAA and its records. I am one of three people to have ever appealed a MWAA Freedom of Information Policy all the way to arbitration.

(Bizarrely, binding arbitration is a requester’s final recourse. Unlike every other government entity that I know of, litigation is not an option if you think MWAA has not followed their Freedom of Information Policy.)

See https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/files/legacyfiles/freedo...

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#110

Post by jmpman »

Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

During the George Floyd death, the only place I could find the entire unedited footage was on liveleak, including when Floyd got into and subsequently out of the police cruiser. Nowhere else could I find that, and wondered why such an important event, triggering such outrage - didn’t have all the video available for everyone to view. A cynical person would suggest that the entire unedited footage conflicted with whatever narrative the media was pushing at the time.
Post reply on HN