The Anticult wrote:

Quote

Maybe once this is resolved, then whoever posted that video on YouTube will be able to go public, if he/she wants to.
They are a HERO for freedom of speech on the internet, and they are being harrassed by Landmark, and at least they have the EFF to help them.

This person would indeed be a hero, but perhaps that is the whole point of it all. Going public would ruin the reason EFF is defending this party in the first place. Rights of the ANONYMOUS individuals must be respected, and their privacy protected.

A question I have about Landmark’s actions: [b:611092f72d]Are they ready to face the scrutiny they could be subjected to now that this story has reached the major networks? [/b:611092f72d]

They have opened a can of worms that could really expose in a big way what they have been trying to hide by having the France 3 documentary removed from the Internet.

Scientology, whose actions Landmark has mirrored, tried this stuff previously and fell very badly flat on its face.

Quote
Brad69
This person would indeed be a hero, but perhaps that is the whole point of it all. Going public would ruin the reason EFF is defending this party in the first place. Rights of the ANONYMOUS individuals must be respected, and their privacy protected.

I agree 100%. Its an illegal and vicious assault on personal liberty by Landmark, and nasty harrassment of a person, for frivolous reasons.
That is what Landmark does best.

But if it ever went to court, and it became public, that person would be supported by everyone.
Maybe one day, the person will be able to proudly say, "I was the guy/gal attacked illegally by Landmark, and I beat them".

Quote
Brad69
A question I have about Landmark’s actions: [b:412bfdf0e4]Are they ready to face the scrutiny they could be subjected to now that this story has reached the major networks? [/b:412bfdf0e4]

They have opened a can of worms that could really expose in a big way what they have been trying to hide by having the France 3 documentary removed from the Internet.

Landmark is screwed. Hundreds of professional news people will now view the video, and some will get the bright idea to investigate Landmark in the US, also in an undercover way.
I think this will lead to a '60 Minutes' type expose' about Landmark.

All due to Art Schreiber's vicious and frivolous attacks. (which he appears to be trying to reverse, by negotiating with the EFF).
TOO LATE!

Geesh. I turn my head away for a moment and it all starts getting even more exciting. :wink:

I guess you could say that Art Schreiber has created his own reality.

(boom boom)

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the sushi.

:lol:

John

(this appears to be to original article that lead to the Reuter's article)

[publications.mediapost.com]

Google Video Sued For Copyright Infringement

by Wendy Davis, Friday, Nov 10, 2006 6:00 AM ET

GOOGLE VIDEO IS FACING A copyright infringement lawsuit, the company revealed this week in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit, filed in France, seeks $192,465 (150,000 Euros) in damages; it's based on allegations related to a documentary that surfaced on the site. Google said it removed the video as soon as it learned that owners hadn't authorized its release. "This is a small lawsuit over a single video that appeared briefly. We have procedures in place that allow copyright owners to tell us if their content is placed on Google Video without authorization. When we receive appropriate notice, we quickly remove the content from Google Video," the company said in a statement.

The lawsuit is believed to stem from Google's hosting of video clips. While this particular lawsuit doesn't appear to be related to Google's recent agreement to purchase video-sharing site YouTube for $1.65 billion, the case potentially foreshadows how Google will defend itself in any suits that arise out of the YouTube merger.

Some legal observers hold that Google will have solid legal ground to fight suits--at least in the United States--as long as the company removes copyrighted clips once the owner complains. But others hold that the law governing online copyright is ambiguous about whether Web sites are liable if companies sue without first giving the sites notice and an opportunity to remove copyrighted content.

Google News is now up to 117 articles, from all over the world.
Wait until the Saturday morning news cycle starts North America, and then globally.

Plenty of continuing excitement over at the CAIC. The web server is bucketing through lots of gigs of data transfer. The video page is now on 2165 visits and the transcript page is on 957 visits.

Lucky them, eh? (So glad it's not me. Don't know how I'd handle the attention!)

John

Why do you think the French decided to sue Google?

It appears that who specifically is suing Google in France has not been made public yet...Hopefully that info will come out soon.
Maybe the EFF will be able to find out.

But I wonder if it is the French networks lawyers trying to cover their own butts? After all, the lawsuit is modest.

But regardless, there is a connection between that lawsuit, and Landmarks actions in the USA, and it is getting large publicity.

One would have to suspect that Landmark is going after the Australians already too?

Maybe it's in retaliation for the search results on "French military victories"?

:lol: (ducking)

Okay. I'll be quiet now.

John