• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court Sides With YouTube In Anti-Muslim Film Case

X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,609
Reaction score
32,220
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS/AP) — In a victory for free speech advocates, a federal appeals court says YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in favor of Google on Monday. The decision comes after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 ruling by three 9th Circuit judges. That ruling ordered YouTube to take down the video.
Click to expand...

Appeals Court Sides With YouTube In Anti-Muslim Film Case « CBS San Francisco

Seems like the right call to me. Anyone disagree with this?
 
100% the right call. they should obviously be allowed to take it down if they choose but unequivocally should not be forced to do so.
 
bg85 said:
100% the right call. they should obviously be allowed to take it down if they choose but unequivocally should not be forced to do so.
Click to expand...

You dont think the courts should be able to force youtube to take down a video at the request of the copyright holder?
 
Crovax said:
You dont think the courts should be able to force youtube to take down a video at the request of the copyright holder?
Click to expand...

article said it was an actor. the lawyer argued she had a copyright claim to it but that argument obviously didn't hold up with this court.

Actress Cindy Lee Garcia wanted “Innocence of Muslims” removed from the site after receiving death threats. Her lawyer argued she had a copyright claim to the low-budget film because she believed she was acting in a different production.

Google, which owns YouTube, argued Garcia had no claim to the film because the filmmaker wrote the dialogue, managed the production and dubbed over her lines.
Click to expand...
 
bg85 said:
article said it was an actor. the lawyer argued she had a copyright claim to it but that argument obviously didn't hold up with this court.
Click to expand...

Right but the issue is who holds the copyright, not a free speech issue.
 
Crovax said:
Right but the issue is who holds the copyright, not a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

if anyone who acts in a production can declare that they want that production banned or removed from publication because they don't like the message of it, that is a free speech issue.
 
bg85 said:
if anyone who acts in a production can declare that they want that production banned or removed from publication because they don't like the message of it, that is a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

thats not what was claimed, the actress claimed that she was deceived as to what the movie was and that entitled her to make a copyright claim
 
Crovax said:
thats not what was claimed, the actress claimed that she was deceived as to what the movie was and that entitled her to make a copyright claim
Click to expand...

okay. if anyone who acts in a production can declare that they want that production banned or removed from publication because they claim they didn't realize what movie they were in, that is a free speech issue. pretty much anything dealing with copyrights is a free speech issue. I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here.
 
bg85 said:
okay. if anyone who acts in a production can declare that they want that production banned or removed from publication because they claim they didn't realize what movie they were in, that is a free speech issue. pretty much anything dealing with copyrights is a free speech issue. I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here.
Click to expand...

copyrights are about property rights

and before you go all slippery slope this is a very unusual case because most movie productions are done with unions and contracts. So "anyone" who acts cant make that claim.

this link explains it more from the legal perspective

Deceived Actor in 'Innocence of Muslims' Likely Has Independent Interest in Movie | Bloomberg BNA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom