TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

[FRED]

You may have noticed that the iTulip video "Housing Market Revisionist" that shows TheStreet.com's James Cramer switching his position on housing is no longer available on YouTube.

TheSteet.com claimed copyright infringement and YouTube removed it. Here is our position.

To: DMCA Complaints
From: Eric Janszen, President iTulip, Inc.
Subject: Video Removed: Copyright Infringement
Date: August 16, 2007

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing as the legal representative of the YouTube user itulipdotcom, the recipient of this notice.

We were notified by YouTube that the following itulipdotcom video has been removed by reason of Copyright Infringement.

TheStreet.com's James Cramer housing market revisionist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk44peDjLjU

It is our view that the video is covered under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (the video is available for free)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work; (appears elsewhere on youtube)
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (less than 50% of the original clip)
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (the non itulip commented version of the clip is available elsewhere for free on youtube)

We assert that TheStreet.com wants this video removed because it is critical of TheStreet.com show host James Cramer, the subject of the piece. One of the main tenets of the fair use doctrine is to permit the use of copyrighted material for the purpose criticism, comment, and news.

We respectfully request that the video be replaced as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Eric Janszen
Founder & President
iTulip, Inc.
www.itulip.com
eric@itulip.com

Please go to the poll and watch the iTulip hosted version of the video and vote. We'd appreciation your opinion.

We are especially interested in the opinion of the lawyers among our members.

If you'd like to tell YouTube how you feel, send an email to copyright@youtube.com.

Thank you.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

We are especially interested in the opinion of the lawyers among our members.

Thank you.

Shit, lawyers are so busy making new capital they aren't interested on reading how to invest it on places like iTulip, and besides they are probably in the law library researching cases at $500/hr.

If you really think you might have a legal beagle amongst us who would answer, I believe you would best agree to remit a retainer so they can at least talk to you at $500/hr to gain a clearer understanding of exactly what it is you are asking, and then perhaps you will get an answer after they research it at $500/hr.

Edit: in my opinion there is little about Cramer that is worth arguing.

[bill]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

might help:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004815.php

the entire list:
http://www.eff.org/cgi/search-proxy....nt&btnG=Search

[FRED]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

Shit, lawyers are so busy making new capital they aren't interested on reading how to invest it on places like iTulip, and besides they are probably in the law library researching cases at $500/hr.

If you really think you might have a legal beagle amongst us who would answer, I believe you would best agree to remit a retainer so they can at least talk to you at $500/hr to gain a clearer understanding of exactly what it is you are asking, and then perhaps you will get an answer after they research it at $500/hr.

Edit: in my opinion there is little about Cramer that is worth arguing.

Jim, we need to change your title to Chief Cynic.

We have at least a dozen lawyers that we know of among our 3,200+ members. Several have provided their opinions for free over the years, to support our efforts.

But this is pretty simple, tho. How many $$$ is iTulip depriving TheStreet.com of by using video they are otherwise, without the iTulip commentary, giving away for free on YouTube?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say TheStreet.com took one of EJ's interview videos and commented on it in a critical way. We might not like it, but that is not an infringement of copyright law. And if they said good things in their comments, well, we'd be very happy about their "infringement."

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

Jim, we need to change your title to Chief Cynic.

We have at least a dozen lawyers that we know of among our 3,200+ members. Several have provided their opinions for free over the years, to support our efforts.

But this is pretty simple, tho. How many $$$ is iTulip depriving TheStreet.com of by using video they are otherwise, without the iTulip commentary, giving away for free on YouTube?

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say TheStreet.com took one of EJ's interview videos and commented on it in a critical way. We might not like it, but that is not an infringement of copyright law. And if they said good things in their comments, well, we'd be very happy about their "infringement."

The world needs lots more cynics. In fairness to lawyers, they are not the only professionals of which I am cynical.

[FRED]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

The world needs lots more cynics. In fairness to lawyers, they are not the only professionals of which I am cynical.

A Mary Poppins Optimist you're not. Thank god.

"Six occupations," says Harris, "are perceived to have 'very great' prestige by at least half of all adults -- firefighters (61%), scientists (54%), teachers (54%), doctors (52%), military officers (52%), and nurses (50%). They are followed by police officers (46%) priests/ministers/clergy (42%) and farmers (41%).

"By way of contrast, the list includes ten occupations which are perceived by less than 20 percent of adults to have "very great" prestige, with two of these under 10 percent. The lowest ratings for "very great prestige" go to real estate brokers (5%), actors (9%), bankers (10%), accountants (11%), entertainers (12%), stockbrokers (12%), union leaders (13%), journalists (13%), business executives (14%), and athletes (16%)."

Brokers At Bottom of Prestige Poll

They do not appear to include lawyers in the survey.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

A Mary Poppins Optimist you're not. Thank god.

"Six occupations," says Harris, "are perceived to have 'very great' prestige by at least half of all adults -- firefighters (61%), scientists (54%), teachers (54%), doctors (52%), military officers (52%), and nurses (50%). They are followed by police officers (46%) priests/ministers/clergy (42%) and farmers (41%).

"By way of contrast, the list includes ten occupations which are perceived by less than 20 percent of adults to have "very great" prestige, with two of these under 10 percent. The lowest ratings for "very great prestige" go to real estate brokers (5%), actors (9%), bankers (10%), accountants (11%), entertainers (12%), stockbrokers (12%), union leaders (13%), journalists (13%), business executives (14%), and athletes (16%)."

Brokers At Bottom of Prestige Poll

They do not appear to include lawyers in the survey.

The study must have been done by lawyers. Why is there a category of "lawyers jokes" all of which disparage lawyers? It suggests some truth to the negative aspects of lawyering. The lack of such jokes for other professions suggests the other professions have been better at hoodwinking the public, and it is a fact the US public is highly ignorant--doubt that--consider political shit that we have.

[dimitris]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

This is one that screams for fighting back:

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9717780-7.html

If EFF is right, Geller could face legal liability and be forced to cough up some cash. In an earlier case, EFF managed to extract $125,000 from Diebold for misusing the DMCA takedown process.

Have you contacted the EFF about this?

[qwerty]

Meta-Video and Fighting Fund needed

1.How about a catchy video about this matter (freedom of the press, Cramer needs protection, etc) posted on YouTube with a snappy google search for people to get to your own hosted video.

2. Find out the chances of an EFF/Geller-type suit and costs (it's maybe a cookie-cutter case) and then you ought to pass the hat around here for contributions to a fighting fund.

Here's a chance for some actual action. We could make a fuss and maybe help clue in a whole lot more people.

[Guest]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

Qwerty - It's one thing to consider the satisfaction of pinning Cramer's ears back on this issue - but going actively in search of a legal recourse may be sub-optimal as a response for a non-profit such as iTulip.

There are opportunities to apply some discomforting pressure in reply. Cramer's move to block this video broadcasts he has some 'sensitivities' about the inconsistencies in his recorded positions over the past year - that much is painfully clear.

Perhaps the best use of iTulip's volunteer attorney members would be to limit oneself to obtaining their most careful advice on the legal safety of pursuing the following action :

Find a way to aggregate into a single URL either there or at a suitable alternative beyond iTulip's pages - a series of public posts (ours) which address this topic specifically. This collection of posts must be concentrated into one location for coherence of message.

All contributor posts should rigorously follow a very limited, carefully moderate template script (no outbursts!) - all posters simply reiterating the bare bones of the issue - enumerating the questionable objections on copyright terms as E.J. outlined, and making a careful note of Cramer's hypersensitive response in requesting YouTube ban a video which limited it'self to pointing out that his prior public statements flatly contradict his current ones.

It should be reiterated why this expression of views is pertinent and permissible: Because his job nominally consists of advising the public, hence flatly contradictory statements constitute compromised advice.

The question is to be put to a wider public - whether they believe that they, the general public, as a collection of individuals in principle retain the right to a scrutiny and discussion of Cramer's record without being subjected to a gag on the matter at locations such as YouTube.

By simply exercising the right of the community at large to publically observe that "Cramer doth protest too much" to iTulip's original video, the issue is kept in the public eye and is almost as effective as the banned video itself.

Cramer wants to gag the issue - this would deny that, while leaving iTulip corporation entirely out of it.

A 'virtual picket line' by individual readers here confines itself to reiterating these simple points yet provides very little target for legal entanglements.

It shines an uncomfortable spotlight on what we may euphemistically call Cramer's 'little inconsistencies'.

What would be good is if one or two hundred of the millions who browse this website would adhere to this and submit posts - but the posts must all be coordinated within a careful content guideline - which eliminates any risk of the topics providing any further grounds for Cramer to legally object.

It's just an idea. But if iTulip sets it up, I'll contribute.

There must be many people here who could lend some very significant voices to this comment. Only the form, location, and coordinated content needs figuring out.

[FRED]

Re: Meta-Video and Fighting Fund needed

1.How about a catchy video about this matter (freedom of the press, Cramer needs protection, etc) posted on YouTube with a snappy google search for people to get to your own hosted video.

2. Find out the chances of an EFF/Geller-type suit and costs (it's maybe a cookie-cutter case) and then you ought to pass the hat around here for contributions to a fighting fund.

Here's a chance for some actual action. We could make a fuss and maybe help clue in a whole lot more people.

You are on the money, Mr. Qwerty! We already have one in the works.

It's a TheStreet.com Approved Cramer Video followed by an appeal to raise $$$ for the Cramer legal defense fund. The goal: $1.

[FRED]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

Qwerty - It's one thing to consider the satisfaction of pinning Cramer's ears back on this issue - but going actively in search of a legal recourse may be sub-optimal as a response for a non-profit such as iTulip.

There are opportunities to apply some discomforting pressure in reply. Cramer's move to block this video broadcasts he has some 'sensitivities' about the inconsistencies in his recorded positions over the past year - that much is painfully clear.

Perhaps the best use of iTulip's volunteer attorney members would be to limit oneself to obtaining their most careful advice on the legal safety of pursuing the following action :

Find a way to aggregate into a single URL either there or at a suitable alternative beyond iTulip's pages - a series of public posts (ours) which address this topic specifically. This collection of posts must be concentrated into one location for coherence of message.

All contributor posts should rigorously follow a very limited, carefully moderate template script (no outbursts!) - all posters simply reiterating the bare bones of the issue - enumerating the questionable objections on copyright terms as E.J. outlined, and making a careful note of Cramer's hypersensitive response in requesting YouTube ban a video which limited it'self to pointing out that his prior public statements flatly contradict his current ones.

It should be reiterated why this expression of views is pertinent and permissible: Because his job nominally consists of advising the public, hence flatly contradictory statements constitute compromised advice.

The question is to be put to a wider public - whether they believe that they, the general public, as a collection of individuals in principle retain the right to a scrutiny and discussion of Cramer's record without being subjected to a gag on the matter at locations such as YouTube.

By simply exercising the right of the community at large to publically observe that "Cramer doth protest too much" to iTulip's original video, the issue is kept in the public eye and is almost as effective as the banned video itself.

Cramer wants to gag the issue - this would deny that, while leaving iTulip corporation entirely out of it.

A 'virtual picket line' by individual readers here confines itself to reiterating these simple points yet provides very little target for legal entanglements.

It shines an uncomfortable spotlight on what we may euphemistically call Cramer's 'little inconsistencies'.

What would be good is if one or two hundred of the millions who browse this website would adhere to this and submit posts - but the posts must all be coordinated within a careful content guideline - which eliminates any risk of the topics providing any further grounds for Cramer to legally object.

It's just an idea. But if iTulip sets it up, I'll contribute.

There must be many people here who could lend some very significant voices to this comment. Only the form, location, and coordinated content needs figuring out.

There is a well done web site that does this called cramerwatch.org.

Of course, iTulip has been at this for a loooooong time.

[qwerty]

Legal Defense

Qwerty - It's one thing to consider the satisfaction of pinning Cramer's ears back on this issue - but going actively in search of a legal recourse may be sub-optimal as a response for a non-profit such as iTulip.

It's not so much getting at Cramer.

It's primarily the principle of the thing. A site like this can't just roll over when subjected to this kind of pressure.

Second, what a wonderful, promotional opportunity a legal riposte, not necessarily a full court scene, would provide. At least find out from a lawyer how to squeeze as much bang for the buck out of this.

[rj1]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

For whoever creates these iTulip videos, I have a suggestion for you.

Use dailymotion.com.

It's pretty much a YouTube, but is based in Paris, France. There is some copyrighted material on there, but since no one (in the U.S.) knows about dailymotion, corporations don't know that their material is streaming on this site and therefore cannot complain about it.

FYI for the future.

[bart]

Re: TheStreet.com claims copyright infringement. YouTube agrees. Do you?

There is a well done web site that does this called cramerwatch.org.

Of course, iTulip has been at this for a loooooong time.

Jim Cramer is the subject of this weeks Barron's cover story - Shorting Cramer

...

It's those stock picks that caught our attention. Cramer, by all accounts, had a stellar career as a hedge-fund manager. And he is held out by CNBC as the guy who can help viewers make big money. But a comprehensive and careful review of his stock picks by Barron's finds that his picks haven't beaten the market. Over the past two years, viewers holding Cramer's stocks would be up 12% while the Dow rose 22% and the S&P 500 16%, according to a record of 1,300 of the CNBC star's Buy recommendations compiled by YourMoneyWatch.com, a Website run by a retired stock analyst and loyal Cramer-watcher.

We also looked at a database of Cramer's Mad Money picks maintained by his Website, TheStreet.com. It covers only the past six months, but includes an astounding 3,458 stocks -- Buys mainly, punctuated by some Sells. These picks were flat to down in relation to the market. Count commissions and you would have been much better off in an index fund that simply tracks the market.

...