3 ms·

That’s not logical at all. What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and

That’s not logical at all. What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube but when it comes to people actually getting murdered it’s all of sudden not OK.

gruez 8y ago
>What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? What standing do they have to prevent distribution of the video?
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  A moral standing grounded in mutual respect we’d hope to receive ourselves? Or if you really want to be legalistic, their next of kin have the standing.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >their next of kin have the standing. That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) [2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was also illegal, but that's a stretch.
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      I’m not sure why you’re bringing the US into this when it’s about a crime that took place in NZ, and their requests for cooperation.
      - gruez 8y ago
        >I’m not sure why you’re bringing the US into this when it’s about a crime that took place in NZ because I'm not a new zealand lawyer, but both US and new zealand uses common law, so I'm using that as a point of reference. I'm not trying to say "it's x in the US therefore it's x in new zealand". If you can find an authoritative source that confirms what the legal status is, feel free to post it. >their requests for cooperation. The people posting/sharing those videos aren't going to comply with nicely worded "requests for cooperation". If they want something taken down, they'll need assistance of the legal system.
    - bitxbit 8y ago
      Well if we want to go down that road, the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark. And from my understanding (I don’t know since I refuse to and didn’t watch the video) there were minors in the footage. Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages. So, yeah, people cannot post and disseminate these videos even if the event occurred here in the US. In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies.
      - Amezarak 8y ago
        Under US law none of that matters - whether it occurred in a private place or whether minors were involved doesn’t matter. Even the shooter’s copyright claim, if he wanted to exercise it, would be irrelevant because of the news reporting aspect.
      - gruez 8y ago
        I was bitten by a sibling comment, so I'll preface this with: IANAL, this applies to US, but could apply to NZ as well. Feel free to correct me (with sources). >the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark The relevant doctrine here would be expectation of privacy[1]. You're right that it's not a public landmark, but I argue it's still a public place considering that there are dozens of strangers around and you can come and go as you please (they don't seem to check membership), thus you don't really have any expectation that it's private. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy >there were minors in the footage There is a legal doctrine that gives special treatment to minors? >Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages This could work, although you could argue that the poster himself isn't making any money so it's okay. Also, if this did work, I'd expect way more public freakout videos to be taken down off video platforms by their subjects, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. At the very least you could sidestep this issue by hosting it offsite or via torrent/ipfs. >In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies. This is only true because the author hasn't yet given explicit permission for people to use it. He's alive in jail right now, so this could easily be rendered moot by him proclaiming (via a lawyer) that he releases the video to the public domain (which I'm sure he would do). Even if he didn't give permission (eg. he got killed), copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the author (or his estate) can go after violators. The state sure wouldn't be able to send takedown requests using this method.
dekken_ 8y ago
> That’s not logical at all Yes it is. > What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? They don't get to decide that. > So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube. No
tomp 8y ago
There’s thousands of porn and prank videos online that don’t get taken down.

gruez 8y ago

>What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? What standing do they have to prevent distribution of the video?

Pharmakon 8y ago
A moral standing grounded in mutual respect we’d hope to receive ourselves? Or if you really want to be legalistic, their next of kin have the standing.
- gruez 8y ago
  >their next of kin have the standing. That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) [2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was also illegal, but that's a stretch.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    I’m not sure why you’re bringing the US into this when it’s about a crime that took place in NZ, and their requests for cooperation.
    - gruez 8y ago
      >I’m not sure why you’re bringing the US into this when it’s about a crime that took place in NZ because I'm not a new zealand lawyer, but both US and new zealand uses common law, so I'm using that as a point of reference. I'm not trying to say "it's x in the US therefore it's x in new zealand". If you can find an authoritative source that confirms what the legal status is, feel free to post it. >their requests for cooperation. The people posting/sharing those videos aren't going to comply with nicely worded "requests for cooperation". If they want something taken down, they'll need assistance of the legal system.
  - bitxbit 8y ago
    Well if we want to go down that road, the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark. And from my understanding (I don’t know since I refuse to and didn’t watch the video) there were minors in the footage. Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages. So, yeah, people cannot post and disseminate these videos even if the event occurred here in the US. In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies.
    - Amezarak 8y ago
      Under US law none of that matters - whether it occurred in a private place or whether minors were involved doesn’t matter. Even the shooter’s copyright claim, if he wanted to exercise it, would be irrelevant because of the news reporting aspect.
    - gruez 8y ago
      I was bitten by a sibling comment, so I'll preface this with: IANAL, this applies to US, but could apply to NZ as well. Feel free to correct me (with sources). >the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark The relevant doctrine here would be expectation of privacy[1]. You're right that it's not a public landmark, but I argue it's still a public place considering that there are dozens of strangers around and you can come and go as you please (they don't seem to check membership), thus you don't really have any expectation that it's private. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy >there were minors in the footage There is a legal doctrine that gives special treatment to minors? >Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages This could work, although you could argue that the poster himself isn't making any money so it's okay. Also, if this did work, I'd expect way more public freakout videos to be taken down off video platforms by their subjects, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. At the very least you could sidestep this issue by hosting it offsite or via torrent/ipfs. >In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies. This is only true because the author hasn't yet given explicit permission for people to use it. He's alive in jail right now, so this could easily be rendered moot by him proclaiming (via a lawyer) that he releases the video to the public domain (which I'm sure he would do). Even if he didn't give permission (eg. he got killed), copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the author (or his estate) can go after violators. The state sure wouldn't be able to send takedown requests using this method.

dekken_ 8y ago

> That’s not logical at all Yes it is. > What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? They don't get to decide that. > So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube. No

tomp 8y ago

There’s thousands of porn and prank videos online that don’t get taken down.