N.J. Turnpike Authority hops ride on 'Let's sue YouTube!' bandwagon

YouTube just can't seem to keep those lawsuits off its back. The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has sued the massive video-sharing portal for copyright infringement concerning a widely-circulated video of car crash footage that was taped with an NJTA camera.

The crash in question took place on the N.J. Turnpike on May 10 and resulted in one fatality. The NJTA's complaint, a copy of which was obtained by CNET News.com, says that "the video serves no worthwhile purpose and shows a tremendous lack of common human decency towards the family of the victim." It's not clear as to how YouTube users got their hands on the NJTA footage in the first place. The complaint says that it was intented to be confidential and was "wrongfully misappropriated and disseminated."

YouTube apparently complied with the NJTA's initial takedown notice. Unfortunately, by then, other YouTube users had re-uploaded the video, and the NJTA's complaint claims that YouTube made no effort to prevent other users from uploading the same video. The lawsuit additionally encompasses NextPoint LLC, the company that owns video-sharing site Break.com, as well as several other individuals and corporations that have not yet been named.

The U.K.-based site LiveLeak.com was also included in the lawsuit, but the NJTA dropped it from the list of defendants when it successfully removed the video.

(Originally linked via eWeek)

[JCPayne]

YAWN -- What about the Freedom of Information Act

It is sad when even the government doesn't have anything better to do....

[arangod]

That's the wrong lawsuit

In addition to the NJTpkA lawsuit the family should be suing the NJTpkA for releasing the recording. The NJTpkA should be more concern with finding out how the recording was made available to YouTube users. The NJTpkA is trying to cover the fact that there is a potential security concern by jumping on the copyright infringement wagon. How did the recording get out and who has access to these recordings?

[Renegade Knight]

Access to Video

Hopefully anybody who askes has access to these videos. However if privacy is a concern...that should be addressed by the law.

In the end even if privacy is a concern, videos such as these are useful to car makers, roadway engineers and the like. Even the public (don't drink and drive...speed kills...etc.).

It's one thing to design and test things to NCHRP 350 standards. It's another to see how things react in the real world in non controlled conditions.

[cao_black]

Geez!

The NJTA's complaint, a copy of which was obtained by CNET News.com, says that "the video serves no worthwhile purpose and shows a tremendous lack of common human decency towards the family of the victim."

And how is this different from the evening news??? Besides, wouldn't that be considered a public camera since it was paid for with taxpayer dollars?

[baivab]

Good!

Very good - what NJTP is doing. There are folks who died in the accident. Turning it into a freak show for teen crowd to watch and cheer on the pretext of Freedom of Information - that's B#$LLS. YouTube should be shut down.

[Renegade Knight]

BS? Hardly.

One persons freak show is another persons inpiration to become an engineer and prevent these kinds of accidents and make cars safer.

Did you ever stop and ask yourself why there are cameras to begin with if the video they take can't be used for anything?

If the video is disrespectful to the fatality then it should never have been taken. If it isn't, and it has a purpose then it should.

[protagonistic]

RE: 'Let's sue YouTube!'

It is always easier to sue and to try to suppress the information
than it is to try and fix the problem. Looks like NJ has been taking
lessons from the software industry.

[OscarWeb]

Don't know where they got the video?

While I have not personally seen this mentioned video, how about the live NJTA traffic cams?

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/nj-conditions-cams.htm

[Alexandra Chisholm]

Terms of use?

The reaction to this story surprises me, because the videos are
taken for security purposes. This is not the RIAA scrapping for
money, it's a government agency trying to draw a line between
selectively-used personal information and a Big-Brother free-
for-all. I assume (hope!) that security videos on highways, on
streetcorners, in the subway, at banks, etc., have regulated
terms of use, in which case, the NJTA is probably covering its
you-know against a suit from the family or another party. Yes,
we pay for the taking of those videos, but is that the same as
granting carte blanche to their distribution? What I find funny is
the reaction, because if we were talking about a (legally
recorded) phone call as opposed to a video, people would be up
in arms over the privacy violation. Just my 1.5 cents.

[Alexandra Chisholm]

PS -

I meant to say, as a conclusion, that the real issue here is that the
information was illegally obtained/leaked, and that it is the NJTA's
OBLIGATION to try to stop further illegal distribution of what was
intended to be protected personal information.