Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IOC Orders Blogger To Take Down Video

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the cone-of-ownership-descends dept.

Censorship 389

An anonymous reader writes "The International Olympic Committee has ordered a blogger to remove a video from his website showing the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. The IOC asserts that it owns all the rights to all images taken at the games, and only licensed broadcasters can use them. However, the blogger, Stephen Pate, points to a Canadian law that allows copyrighted images to be used in newsworthy cases."

cancel ×

389 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nothing new (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238816)

The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.

The Olympics are big money.

Re:Nothing new (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31238840)

Except to NBC

Re:Nothing new (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238882)

Except to NBC

Losing money by the tens of millions in a selfless act of colossal commercial miscalculation.

Re:Nothing new (5, Insightful)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239182)

Maybe if they'd listen to the viewers complaining Olympics after Olympics that we want less human interest stories and more events. Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts. If it means that we're not just watching Americans, fine! I know people living here from all over the world, we want to see everything, whether an American is involved or not.

Re:Nothing new (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239302)

Content from the events cost $$$ so the TV networks pad the coverage out with cheap human interest crap and trolling [smh.com.au] . Its been this way for decades. We all hate it and it not getting any better.

Re:Nothing new (4, Informative)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239340)

Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts.

Indeed. They really should have 3-4 channels that show nothing BUT Olympics during the two week span of the games, that way you could actually see all the events you want to see, plus they would probably still have time for "human interest" stories (gag) between events.

I don't have a DVR, and I don't plan my schedule around TV viewing, so I've missed a lot of games I would have liked to have seen. I was lucky to have happened to be sitting in front of the TV with the Olympics on when Lindsay Vonn had her gold medal run last week. That was great. But then look at how they botched the Canada/USA hockey coverage yesterday to show "ice dancing" or whatever instead. Seriously, folks?

As pointed out elsewhere, the NBC Olympic coverage has not kept up with how people want to consume media these days.

Re:Nothing new (4, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239398)

DVR? That wouldn't help at all. NBC has been time delaying tons of events, and doesn't list different events separately in their programming. It's a giant 3 to 6 hour block of "Winter Olympics", with no distinction on events shown.

Re:Nothing new (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239502)

DVR? That wouldn't help at all. NBC has been time delaying tons of events, and doesn't list different events separately in their programming. It's a giant 3 to 6 hour block of "Winter Olympics", with no distinction on events shown.

You know, you're right... it does show up in Comcast's channel screen as just a single block of "Winter Olympics" for several hours. That is pretty tricky/evil...

Re:Nothing new (1)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239552)

Funny enough we currently have 4 channels of winter olympics running.

Talk to your broadcaster, they have the option.

Re:Nothing new (4, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239618)

Indeed. They really should have 3-4 channels that show nothing BUT Olympics during the two week span of the games, that way you could actually see all the events you want to see, plus they would probably still have time for "human interest" stories (gag) between events.

That's the way it is in Canada for these games, but interest is huge because we're the host country. There are at least four networks (including NBC) showing non-stop coverage here, and I've heard some of the "specialty channels" are carrying some events as well. But I don't know if there is enough interest outside of the host country to justify the kind of coverage you are calling for.

This list [wikipedia.org] notes that NBC, Universal Sports, Telemundo, USA Network, CNBC, MSNBC are carrying at least some coverage in the US.

I don't know what kind of ratings NBC is getting for these games; I know it was a concern prior to the games starting, as they paid a record amount for the rights. The US is leading in meddles, so maybe interest is higher than anticipated.

Re:Nothing new (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238872)

Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws that give their trademarks such as the five-ring-design even stronger protection than a typical trademark. Basically, they're claiming they need NBCU/CBC/FoxTel/your-local-Olympic-broadcaster's money to put on the games, and therefore they need super-copyright. They have it now, it'll take an act of Congress to get rid of it.

Re:Nothing new (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239300)

Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws

      It used to be that hosting olympic events was a money-maker for the cities involved. However recently data shows that towns that host Olympics are actually losing out. I don't agree with "special privileges" for anyone, but it's understandable to see how they can happen where there is a source of income for the state. But when the state is trying to "protect" something that is actually costing tax payer dollars, it's time to repeal laws (or repeal the damned state).

Re:Nothing new (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239424)

Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws

Except he's citing a Canadian law. If he's based in Canada, then he's probably got a home-run case.

If he's *not* in Canada, dude's fucked. Just because the games are taking place here doesn't mean he'd be covered under Canadian copyright laws. Unfortunately, tfa didn't say, that I saw, and I can't be assed to look it up.

Re:Nothing new (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239462)

Watch all the geeks hyperventilate as they pant out "Streisand Effect... Blaw, blaw, blaw..." like the IOC gives a shit. It's about money, folks, the IOC couldn't care less about "how it makes them look". And really, very few people will even be aware of this guy, even with your precious "Streisand Effect". The truth is, "The Games" are (today) a joke.

Re:Nothing new (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239476)

They have it now, it'll take an act of Congress to get rid of it.

Or an act of the courts protecting the constitutional rights of the people.

Re:Nothing new (2, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238936)

If my son/father/whatever had his head broken in a million pieces (or whatever happened, I didn't see the vid), I sure would appreciate a powerful organization working to take it down.

Yeah, IOC is usually ridiculous in their claims and I almost always have an opinion against them, but in this case, I think someone's life should probably be worth a little more than goreporn. Why does such a video need to be hosted and why should someone have the right to make money off of the death of another person? If I were the family, I'd be pissed too.

Take the vid down, FFS

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238966)

If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.

Re:Nothing new (5, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239258)

Yes I agree, but he could offer to take it down out of concern for the families privacy rather than because the IOC has asked him to. Take the Moral high road and keep your freedom of speech at the same time. why not, you lose little. Blog about it by all means but the goreporn value is pretty nil anyway.

Re:Nothing new (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31239430)

Excuse me, but over here in my opinion, I want my (Mature enough to see it) children to see this video and hear that sickening CLANG so they will think twice about doing something fast and reckless.
My stomach turned over twice watching this man die, but it can not be undone. And furthermore, why do they have fucking steel I beams bordering this track? Shouldn't
a luge track be surrounded by marshmallows, giant pillows, air bags, etc......

Re:Nothing new (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239592)

If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.

I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."

It's my opinion however that "not showing someone dying" should not be enforced by law, enforced by corporate interests, and especially not barred by copyright law used as a weapon by corporate interests. Blogger showing it was bad, IOC was even worse.

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239010)

Not proud of it but I've seen it. In this case there isn't anything gore at all, he comes to a complete stop: immediately. The problem is that today it is this video, tomorrow it may be something less clear cut. As every persons definition of "good" and "bad" is different you have to take the good with the bad. Agree or not with this particular case the proper thing to do is lump it under censorship as the law for newsworthy items is pretty clear and deal with that as an issue. You're not going to like everything - that is the point.

Re:Nothing new (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239044)

Darn it, forgot to close a bold tag after "censorship" and of course I don't preview. Forgive me.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

blai (1380673) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239078)

> I sure would appreciate a powerful organization working to take it down.

Why do you care?
Why are you free enough to care?

Re:Nothing new (5, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239090)

Because it shames the IOC's claim that it was only the luger's fault that he died. if you watch the video, you see that a basic miscalculation (misjudging the sled's speed when correcting the trajectory) caused him to an inside wall. After that came about 1 second of flying through the air, and hitting a metal pole with his head and upper back. It was pretty much game over after he hit the inside wall. There was absolutely nothing he or anybody else could have done once he overadjusted the trajectory of his sled.

That's the tragedy, and that's why it needs to stay up: the course was designed with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away. If the downhill was held by running the skiers around large, unprotected metal poles, people would be in an uproar - and justifiably so.

Sometimes, deadly videos are important to illustrate the deadly consequence of other people's actions.

Re:Nothing new (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239190)

Not to lunge off topic or anything but I think you dramatically miscalculate his airtime. He was airborne for no longer than .3-.4 seconds.

I'm not nitpicking as this difference in airtime is significant when it comes to reaction time and his ability to deflect his trajectory. At that speed, putting his arms in front of himself would have done little, but had he been going slower he could have sacrificed his arms to protect his head or torso. They say the average persons reaction time is a half second or so, but in the video he doesn't even get his hands in front of his head. He likely knew he was going to hit the column mere milliseconds before he died.

Re:Nothing new (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239280)

Good point. I took the airtime from memory. I'm not even sure he could have put his arms in front of him if he tried - he hit pole the with his back side. So even going slower would have made only a negligible impact on his ability to brace himself somehow... The only thing that could have saved him was if he had been going slow enough to not flip over the barrier. And that wouldn't have been even close to an Olympic competition speed.

Re:Nothing new (1)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239282)

He likely knew he was going to hit the column mere milliseconds before he died.

Actually, thankfully in this case, conscious awareness is even slower than reaction time. He never knew what hit him, I would think.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239418)

He did, however, know he was in deep shit.

Re:Nothing new (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239336)

Yeah but at my local water slide you can't come off in that way because its a long pipe. People go in one and and hopefully come out the other end but you can't sell TV coverage of that. Maybe they should experiment with cameras inside a tube or channel.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239434)

I don't see a reason why they couldn't have some sort of plexiglass or other clear covering that comes up higher, so if someone is ejected from their sled they hit the plexiglass and fall back into the run, rather than hitting something (like a pole) outside of it.

Also, it is very tragic that he died, but this is also a good time to realize that sports like this are inherently dangerous and sometimes this is the outcome, no matter what precautions are taken (say the pole had been padded, who knows if he would have lived, been paralyzed, or still died). I think the athletes are more accepting of this outcome than their families. I cycle a LOT during the summer, and I hate to think what would happen if my front tire were to fail while going down a hill at 35 MPH, for example. It doesn't stop me from participating in a sport that I love though, and I imagine with pro athletes it's probably the same.

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239092)

Do you think they want to cut it out to "protect the family of the deceased"? They care about the reputation of their precious cash cow. And that ain't the athletes. They're just the necessary evil to milk the whole deal.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239116)

I saw it on the NBC nightly news the day that it happened. The national news.

I was somewhat horrified.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

bdwlangm (1436151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239164)

They played video of him dying repeatedly on CTV here in Canada, I'm sure the American networks had it too. They linked video from their webpage. Is the IOC doing anything about that? I tend to think they should all stop showing it out of respect, but really the IOC aren't doing the right thing, they're just protecting the value of official Olympic coverage.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239360)

Agreed, censorship argument aside, he's an ass for putting it up in the first place. Sounds like he's using an 'omg freedom of speech!' argument as an excuse for being a douche. And so far most of /. seems to be buying it... I was hoping for better here, honestly.

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238948)

The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.

The Olympics are big money.

I think this actually IS a new low for the IOC. They're going to profit from the images taken at the games, that's normal.

Ordering a blogger to take down video would be pretty low and stupid as is: as if someone is going to watch someone's blog instead of the games on NBC or whatever. That's absurd. A blogger is no competition.

What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?

Jesus.

Were it not the IOC I would assume this was done in the name of taste. People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this. But it being the IOC, and seeing as they just claimed Lindsey Vonn's name (or exclusive rights to use it in advertising... whatever...), I have to think that this is -at best- an attempt to set a precedent that absolutely all video from the olympics are absolutely the IOCs property, and can't be shown anywhere. More likely, they're going to try to sell the video to news organizations and want a fucking monopoly.

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239024)

I shudder to think what the IOC might be able to get away with should ACTA become law. It's a shame how far we've strayed from its original purpose. Copyright was never supposed to enable this kind of abuse.

it's == copyright's (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239048)

I meant to say "it's a shame how far we've strayed from copyright's original purpose."

Re:Nothing new (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239032)

What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?

I think that's not quite what's happening here. I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get. They're hoping to lose as little as possible after this tragedy.

They're still (predictably) overreaching here though.

Re:Nothing new (3, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239132)

I think that's not quite what's happening here. I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get. They're hoping to lose as little as possible after this tragedy.

So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239318)

So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.

It's the difference between hiring a hit man and hushing up a family suicide.

Re:Nothing new (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239330)

That's because your livelyhood doesn't depend upon the reactions of viewers to negative content. I see their point and remember that someone's cash cow is giving a lot of people their milk and bread.

Re:Nothing new (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239208)

I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get.

You've got to be kidding. The only reason to watch the luge or bobsled is to see what happens when something going really, really fast slides off the edge of the ice.

I mean, they run one at a time, so there's no competition except the clock. They all follow pretty much the same path down the same course. The only real difference is how well they start and ... IF they finish.

If NASCAR races was just to see how fast someone could drive and give the trophy to the fastest, they wouldn't be 500 miles long and the cars wouldn't all run at the same time. And nobody would watch. Same for knickers-clad fanbois sledding downhill.

They're still (predictably) overreaching here though.

They're doing one (or both) of two things. They're protecting their intellectual property by objecting to ALL infringing uses of that property so it doesn't look like selective enforcement, or they're protecting their hinies from lawsuits from the family of the luger by limiting the display of the death in public.

Re:Nothing new (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239034)

The IOC released this video to the major news sources after the accident happened, then NBC announced the day after that they'll not be showing it again in the remainder of their coverage, and other sources had their limited rights expire. Without the IOC being so nice and sharing the video, it would have been seen by a lot fewer people.

Re:Nothing new (4, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239036)

More than likely they hope to bury it. It's not exactly a shining-star moment in the Olympics. I'm sure they'd prefer people forgot about it and moved on.

Re:Nothing new (2, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239240)

It's not exactly a shining-star moment in the Olympics. I'm sure they'd prefer people forgot about it and moved on.

      Yes it's much easier to pay lawyers to try to shut everyone up than actually fix a dangerous track that has injured several other athletes.

Re:Nothing new (1, Interesting)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239292)

Yes it's much easier to pay lawyers to try to shut everyone up than actually fix a dangerous track that has injured several other athletes.

Except they did change the track, whether it fixed all the possible problems or not, nobody knows. But even so, imagine a luge track with no danger at all. Yawn. What else is on the telly, Madge?

Re:Nothing new (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239342)

So I take it you watch car/motorcycle races just for the crashes, too?

Re:Nothing new (2, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239640)

Whoever modded my comment flaimbait doesn't understand the difference between "real life" and real flamebait.

Yes, when I watch cars going around in a circle for hours and hours, I'm waiting to see the crash. That's what most people are doing. There is no other reason. Like I said, if we were looking to reward the fastest guy, we'd run them one at a time and use a stopwatch. Much safer. (They DO that during the time trials. Notice how the time trials rarely make it to the telly? The only time I've ever seen time trials broadcast is years ago right before Indianapolis, and that was close to Indy and during the otherwise boring holiday weekend.)

If we were looking for the best driver, we'd run them one at a time so he wouldn't be forced into choosing the worst path just to keep hitting someone else. So just why DO we run them all at the same time, on the same course, for hours upon end, if we aren't looking for the times when they crash?

That's human nature. "Predictable" doesn't glue eyes to the telly. If every stone thrown during a curling match went exactly where it was intended, eyes would glaze over by the end of the first end and nobody would watch that, either.

I'd like to ask you (5, Insightful)

ElusiveJoe (1716808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239494)

People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this.

Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?

Re:I'd like to ask you (1, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239638)

Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?

I'm not the IOC, nor am I trying to prevent you from watching it, so calm down, don't get your tinfoil undies in a knot. I'm just saying it's pretty tasteless to gawk at a tragedy like that. I'm also not trying to claim a moral superiority here. I was tempted to watch it myself, and I have seen other videos that were similarly tasteless. So go ahead, you'd be no worse than I am, but I do think it is tasteless, just my opinion.

Time-sensitive value. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239450)

The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.

The Olympics are big money.

Ah, correction. The Olympics are big money at the relevant time, which pretty much means live broadcast, or about a week after.

After that, you can pretty much find all those copyrighted high-dollar value images and video for rent at your local library.

And to be honest, the IOC should start realizing that they could use all the publicity they can get these days. Night after night of figure skating doesn't bode well for the younger generation with an attention span of about 37 seconds.

Respect the law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31238826)

Oh good. I'm sure that now that they know the law, they will leave the blogger alone, out of respect for the law.

All images, of all things, in all places, (2, Funny)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238838)

all the time, everywhere. We are the IOC.
We are the Voice of Control.
You will respect our Authoritay.

Re:All images, of all things, in all places, (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239106)

Well, IOC, for all I care you can keep it.

Could you keep it far away so at least the TV channels ain't clogged with your crap and I could actually watch something interesting.

I want my Streisand effect NOW! (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238856)

Link to video please.

Re:I want my Streisand effect NOW! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31238926)

Link to video please.

IF ever there was a need for goatse site.

Re:I want my Streisand effect NOW! (4, Informative)

Alaren (682568) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238992)

Here's the crash [totalprosports.com] .

No idea how much more there was on the blog. Most news channel links I found via Google have taken it down, and it has been pulled from YouTube.

Re:I want my Streisand effect NOW! (4, Informative)

choongiri (840652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239094)

Re:I want my Streisand effect NOW! (2, Insightful)

nemesisrocks (1464705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239358)

From another source:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lazyjock/117509.flv [amazonaws.com]

Using Amazon S3 is pretty good way to ensure that when this gets modded +5, it's still available.

I'd hate to be the guy who's paying the bill on that bucket...

streisand's log, stardate... (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239598)

While we're at it, could we please have a round-up of the olympics screw-ups to date? It's hard to find such a thing between the official coverage and the unofficial coverage of the allegedly greatest olympics screw-ups of all time. It might be "too soon" to include this luge track fail (uncovered steel poles? they don't even allow those in NASCAR, where you get a crash cage and a magical carbon fiber bumper!) in those lists, but I think it qualifies. What else goes on this year's list?

Mirror please! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238858)

Queue "Streisand Effect" in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Mirror please! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31238902)

Cue! It's Cue! Not Queue for fuck's sake you dolt.

Re:Mirror please! (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238924)

Sorry... I've been writing software for 25 years, and my fingers pretty much automatically spell it "queue"... what's really sad is that somebody on slashdot has corrected me for this same exact mistake before! But hey... without spelling Nazis, how are we going to learn?

Re:Mirror please! (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239170)

Spelling has been a remarkably unimportant part of my education.

I can just mash the keyboard, and either Google "Did you mean", or spelling nazis correct it.

Re:Mirror please! (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239294)

Queue the spelling Nazis?

Re:Mirror please! (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239436)

The queues that you write in your software probably are spelled "queue": that is, a sequential list of items, generally typified by a first-in, first-out progression. Example: I queued for hours = I lined up for hours.

But cue, from the context you used it in, is a signal indicating that a particular action should be performed. Example: cue the lights = turn the lights on.

Homophones (words that sound the same but have different spellings/meanings) are one of the (many) banes of the English language. Homonyms (same spelling with different meaning) are even worse. For instance, "cue" could either have the definition above, or refer to a stick used to poke balls around a pool table.

Re:Mirror please! (0, Redundant)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239646)

Example usages: I waited all day in the bus cue, but 9:30 bus never came.

Whereas... Queue played by John de Lancie is a character in Star Trek, who appears in Star Trek: The Next Generation, the all-knowing, all-powerful Queue.

Also, Cue implementations are commonly based on insertion order as in first-in, first-out (FIFO) cues or last-in, first-out queues (LIFO cues are also known as stacks).

Re:Mirror please! (0, Offtopic)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239534)

while ( 1 )
{
if ( (q=&streisand_effect_queue)->length == 0)
continue;
implement(q->head);
q->pop();
}

Re:Mirror please! (3, Funny)

adonoman (624929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238930)

No, he meant queue. We're all busy spreading the latest iPhone jailbreak exploit right now. They'll have to wait in line for their turn to be Streisanded like everyone else.

Re:Mirror please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31238950)

Maybe there are multiple videos lined up and waiting to be "Streisand Effect" ed.

Re:Mirror please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31239054)

http://www.njnvideo.com/njn/?p=995

If wishing made it so... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238868)

I'm quite sure the IOC (and other major sports promoters) would like the copyright on every image taken, but I've never understood what their legal basis for making such a claim would be. Do they require that everyone attending sign an agreement assigning all rights in any recordings they make to the IOC, or something along those lines?

Re:If wishing made it so... (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238908)

Do they require that everyone attending sign an agreement assigning all rights in any recordings they make to the IOC, or something along those lines?

Haven't read the back of a sports ticket lately? Every sports league claims copyright over their event, and the right to use your image while you're there. You'll find your Bluetooth not working because 2.4 GhZ unlicensed band devices are being jammed... and if you talk on the phone too long you'll find an usher making sure you're talking about something other than the game.

Looks like we've got the "1984" baseball season about to start...

The IOC is above THE LAW! (1)

ipquickly (1562169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238900)

Madam Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon ruled that the women ski jumpers were indeed discriminated against by the International Olympic Committee's decision to keep them off the 2010 Olympic calendar, but added that the Switzerland-based IOC was beyond the reach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

from CTV. [ctvolympics.ca]

That's one reason I'm not watching them.

Re:The IOC is above THE LAW! (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238920)

Well, you may (perhaps justifiably) object to their discriminatory stance, but they're hardly "above the law". You're essentially claiming that any court in any country should be able to have jurisdiction over any company in any other country. I'll pass on that one, thanks.

Re:The IOC is above THE LAW! (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239014)

Madam Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon ruled that the women ski jumpers were indeed discriminated against by the International Olympic Committee's decision to keep them off the 2010 Olympic calendar, but added that the Switzerland-based IOC was beyond the reach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

from CTV. [ctvolympics.ca]

That's one reason I'm not watching them.

The problem is the want to use the law, specifically copyright law, to force the blogger to take down the video. That means the IOC would have to take the case to court, so this wouldn't be a case about the application of the law to the IOC, but rather to the blogger.

Link to video (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31238918)

Malware warning. Do not follow. (2, Informative)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238952)

The linked website is a source of malware. Do not follow the above link.

Mod down (1, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238976)

Warning GNAA link.

Locality blocks... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31238982)

If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.

Re:Locality blocks... (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239052)

Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.

If you comply with laws from all over the world then you can't post anything online.

Re:Locality blocks... (3, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239064)

Remember, if you're a copyright holder, you'd better be prepared to suck it down. The internet is a global network, and the law varies all over the world.

Fixed it for you.

Re:Locality blocks... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239186)

If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA

      I'm sorry to hear that your map only contains Canada and the USA, however I must point out that there are quite a few more countries in the world and the draconian US copyright laws don't apply in them.

Re:Locality blocks... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31239260)

...yet.

Re:Locality blocks... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239198)

The difference is that the internet is not a broadcasting medium. It's not up to the sender to push his message to the receiver. It's the receiver who has to actively request the information. The difference is the same as with physical goods. If I send merchandize to a country where I may not send it to, I'm breaking the law, even if said goods are legal in my country. Contrary, if you come to my country, take the goods and transport it at your request to your country where these goods are illegal, you're breaking the law. Basically a sign telling people "you're in violation of international copyright if you view this from any location but X" should suffice.

Yes, I'm aware that often the law does not follow this logic. Not because it made sense in some sort of way, only because it's easier to deal with one sender instead of thousands of recepients.

Re:Locality blocks... (5, Informative)

GasparGMSwordsman (753396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239296)

If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.

Under your logic, you could be tried and punished for any speech offensive to other countries, say Iran or North Korea. You better hurry and make sure everything you have ever posted online is blocked from everywhere that it might be illegal!

Canadian Copyright Law (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239040)

Isn't it just great.

Not only do we get to make copies of our own stuff, even if it means bypassing DRM, but we get fair use too.

Re:Canadian Copyright Law (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239522)

Fair Dealing, not Fair Use. Different concepts, different results. You'd not believe the people who push for fair use to be adopted in Canada.

You know who? Lobby groups funded by the US copyright holders. That tells me about everything I need to know about adopting Fair Use in Canada.

Important point (2, Interesting)

rueger (210566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239110)

The IOC is above Canadian law. They are allowed to ignore Canadian human rights laws, can force venues to rescind non-smoking regulations, and are able to take over lands, streets and buildings at will.

Anyone who has worked within the VANOC orbit knows that VANOC and the IOC believe that all others must bow down before them.

Re:Important point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31239364)

Oh come on, don't bring VANOC into this, let them have their fun - they will all be out of jobs in a week.

Here is the link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31239122)

Luger Dies [njnvideo.com]

my 2 cents (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239216)

Um, they don't seem to make those tracks safe at all if someone crashes.

Hopefully it's a matter of taste (1)

nickrout (686054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239230)

If many sites have taken the video down I hope that is a matter of good taste rather than bullying by the IOC. What public interest is there in seeing someone die a painful death? We must remember that just because members of the public are interested, that doesn't make release or dissemination "in the public interest".

Re:Hopefully it's a matter of taste (2, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239604)

It's in the interest of Olympic athletes to keep it online so everyone can see that the track was badly designed. They built one of the fastest luge tracks ever and just assumed that nobody would ever jump the wall. They were tragically wrong, and it was avoidable. Wrapping the steel pole he collided with in foam would probably have been sufficient to save his life, though he wouldn't have escaped without injury. Installing a higher section of non-iced wall, possibly made of clear plastic, would have prevented him from colliding with the pole at all. He might have been able to finish the track, and his time would have been abysmal for making the mistake he made that took him off the ice, but at least he would have lived.

But you don't have to take my word for it, because the video is online and you can watch what happens and judge for yourself.

Alternatively, if you don't care what happens to Olympic athletes, the video is online, so you don't have to see it if you don't specifically follow a link.

Re:Hopefully it's a matter of taste (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239644)

What public interest is there in seeing someone die a painful death?

To determine if the IOC was lying when they said the death was entirely the luger's fault. And in fact, they were; they did nothing whatsoever to protect an athlete who made an error in that spot. They apparently wrapped those poles with pads (among making several other changes) immediately after the accident occurred... well, also after they claimed that it wasn't their fault. The action and the statement are at odds, and this video proves why. It is very much in the public's interest to find out what kind of criminals their government has been consorting with.

An anonymous reader writes?? (0, Redundant)

The nickname 'Ryan' (1695302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239338)

An anonymous reader writes "The International Olympic Committee has ordered a blogger to remove a video from his website showing the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. The IOC asserts that it owns all the rights to all images taken at the games, and only licensed broadcasters can use them. However, the blogger, Stephen Pate, points to a Canadian law that allows copyrighted images to be used in newsworthy cases." ???An anonymous reader writes??? ???An anonymous writer writes???

Its wrong to have pillars that close to the track. (0, Flamebait)

jobst (955157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239490)

It is wrong to have pillars that close to the track and Stephen Plate shows this to the rest of the world.
Period!
No discussion!
It is absolute stupid the way the track was designed and that is the flaw. The guy would not have died if its was not for the pillars.
You could compare that to have trees around a racing circuit directly beside the track and no run off area ...
Bugger off IOC and let the rest of the world see what is wrong so it can be prevented next time.

IOC CYA (2, Insightful)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239554)

The IOC hours after the deadly crash immediately said (before an legitimate investigation could even begin, let alone finish) that it was the luger's fault, and that there was nothing wrong with the course, even though there were numerous complaints about the course prior to the crash. So even though the IOC said there was nothing wrong with the course, and that it was luger-error, they immediately wrapped the posts with pads, built taller walls throughout the the course, and then started the lugers lower down on the course, in order to slow them down.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to say, "The course is fine," and then also get to change it immediately after a crash.

I love to watch the Olympic athletes compete, but the IOC has been a bunch of corrupt bastards for decades.

maybe legal but... (0)

nadaou (535365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31239608)

It is arguably legal spread to this video / snuff films, but it is in truly terrible taste. My guess is that the IOC is more concerned with protecting the traumatized family and friends of the victim, and due to the disproportionate way laws are structured copyright is the best legal tool they have to throw at it. That is not to say that they are not total jerks and hyper-protective of their monopoly on Olympic images, but in this case you must give the benefit of the doubt that copyright is of secondary concern to stopping genuine cruelty.

"just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
(aka "grow up")

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>