brettski74 0 #26 May 12, 2010 Not sure if this is the same video, but based on the discussion, the following link seems to work and seems to fit the description above... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy8BIQcxdBg From the ground video at the start: QuoteThe only thing that can be bad about this would be if John blacks out... Methinks that everyone knew what was in store for this jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #27 May 12, 2010 It seems that as fast as we post the links they keep getting removed or made private. That link I posted has been removed already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #28 May 12, 2010 yet another reason why facebook and you tube are for little girls....... smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #29 May 13, 2010 My version is up on FB and Chris can post it somewhere if he wants. Cliff notes (summary for non-Americans): idiots staged a one sided riser release after (stable) line twists and cut the hung up riser with a hook knife. Based on the decision to cut the very stable line twists, the speed of figuring out what went wrong and the cutting of the riser with the hook knife (not to mention the lame, scripted exclamations from those involved) it's pretty obviously staged. I think I see one of the cutaway cables is not attached to the cutaway handle too and that's my theory on how they set it up. I'm thinking it was either posted to youtube by mistake (or made public by mistake) or they were actually dumb enough to think that people couldn't tell it was staged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ozzy13 0 #30 May 13, 2010 QuoteMy version is up on FB and Chris can post it somewhere if he wants. Cliff notes (summary for non-Americans): idiots staged a one sided riser release after (stable) line twists and cut the hung up riser with a hook knife. Based on the decision to cut the very stable line twists, the speed of figuring out what went wrong and the cutting of the riser with the hook knife (not to mention the lame, scripted exclamations from those involved) it's pretty obviously staged. I think I see one of the cutaway cables is not attached to the cutaway handle too and that's my theory on how they set it up. I'm thinking it was either posted to youtube by mistake (or made public by mistake) or they were actually dumb enough to think that people couldn't tell it was staged.http://www.facebook.com/index.php?lh=298eb3ff5e180fd9d52f6a9f28645cc1&#!/video/video.php?v=432417982673&ref=mf VideoNever give the gates up and always trust your rears! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #31 May 13, 2010 Says this is unavailable either because it has been removed or because of privacy settings. I've tried to watch quite a number of these videos but they seem to get taken down faster than they go up."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heatmiser 0 #32 May 13, 2010 face book search for daniel croft. It's on his wall, which is public What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #33 May 14, 2010 QuoteHello, We have removed or disabled access to the following content that you have posted on Facebook because we received a notice from a third party that the content infringes their copyright(s): ["Video" uploaded at "13:10 PDT" on "2010/05/11", "Staged canopy malfunction")] We strongly encourage you to review the content you have posted to Facebook to make sure that you have not posted any other infringing content, as it is our policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers when appropriate. If you believe that we have made a mistake in removing this content, then you can submit an appeal by filling out our automated form at http://www.facebook.com/copyright.php?dmca_counter_notice The Facebook Team I guess whoever made this video doesn't want people to know how stupid it was. I guess I'll just send the video to the USPA or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #34 May 14, 2010 Yea thats weird that you have the same name as heatmiser says the video belongs to.....maybe you could post the video again and ex plane it Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #35 May 14, 2010 I'm not posting it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #36 May 14, 2010 Same reason the last (my) youtube link came down so quickly...obviously someone doesn't want it up there. Doesn't change the fact that it's still out there... One on youtube...always on youtube..."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #37 May 14, 2010 QuoteSame reason the last (my) youtube link came down so quickly...obviously someone doesn't want it up there. Doesn't change the fact that it's still out there... One on youtube...always on youtube... http://chaos-laboratory.com/2007/08/30/top-31-free-alternatives-to-youtube-video-hosting-sites/ ("top-31-free-alternatives-to-youtube-video-hosting-sites") http://www.reelseo.com/list-video-sharing-websites/ (List of video sharing websites) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #38 May 14, 2010 Unfortunately that still doesn't change the fact that it's not my video and still falls under copyright laws... Sorry..."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #39 May 14, 2010 QuoteUnfortunately that still doesn't change the fact that it's not my video and still falls under copyright laws... Sorry... It may be argued that since it was originally posted by the owner in a public site, and then re-posted for principally educational purposes, that it falls withing the Fair Use exception. In fact, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if YouTube (or Facebook, etc.) removed the re-posted video because the video owner claimed it violated a copyright, and the person who re-posted it formally notifies YouTube/Facebook/whatever to restore the video because it is within the scope of fair use, it may be argued that the Act requires YouTube/Facebook/whatever to restore it within 2 weeks of the request. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtnesbitt 0 #40 May 14, 2010 Quote yet another reason why facebook and you tube are for little girls....... Really? Just Because someone wants to share something with friends doesnt mean they want the world to pick it apart and tell them how stupid they are without any background info. I mean people in this thread are going crazy and threatening to send the video to USPA....come on...seriously? I upload BASE videos all the time. I do it for my friends and family. I understand by putting them on the web that i am losing control and others can see the vids too. Do i care? No. However, if I posted a vid and a bunch of skydivers started reposting it places and trash talking me and the video then I will admit I would take the exact same action these guys did and try my hardest to not let people see it anymore. Why? Out of pure spite. Also to protect myself. I mean if people here are threating to go to the USPA then how do i know they also would send the video to the cops? Now what are we left with? NOTHING. We had what looked to be a staged jump in an attempt to prove or disprove something, and now we wont know the results because a few people decided to throw the term stupid around a few too many times. Was it stupid? I dont know, it depends on the background. I for one would be very interested in the results of an unsuccessful cutaway since it still occurs and is still killing people."If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghost47 18 #41 May 14, 2010 QuoteIn fact, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if YouTube (or Facebook, etc.) removed the re-posted video because the video owner claimed it violated a copyright, and the person who re-posted it formally notifies YouTube/Facebook/whatever to restore the video because it is within the scope of fair use, it may be argued that the Act requires YouTube/Facebook/whatever to restore it within 2 weeks of the request. I haven't read or really thought about the DMCA in years, but how could the act require them to restore it? Aren't they private companies, able to remove what they choose for whatever reason they choose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #42 May 14, 2010 Quote Quote In fact, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if YouTube (or Facebook, etc.) removed the re-posted video because the video owner claimed it violated a copyright, and the person who re-posted it formally notifies YouTube/Facebook/whatever to restore the video because it is within the scope of fair use, it may be argued that the Act requires YouTube/Facebook/whatever to restore it within 2 weeks of the request. I haven't read or really thought about the DMCA in years, but how could the act require them to restore it? Aren't they private companies, able to remove what they choose for whatever reason they choose? My reference was a bit abbreviated. Basically, the Act says that if a host initially removes or diables a posted work because it receives a copyright complaint from an alleged copyright owner under the Act's "notice and takedown" procedures, but SUBSEQUENTLY receives a "counter-notice and restore" demand from the original poster, the host must (a) promptly notify the alleged copyright owner of the dispute and (b) replace/restore the disputed material within two weeks, UNLESS the matter is referred to court (i.e., a lawsuit is filed). (If a lawsuit is filed, then the host is allowed to keep the material down either until the lawsuit is resolved in the poster's favor, or the lawsuit is dismissed, or a court issues an order directing the host to restore the work, whichever comes first.) As I said, my first reference was more abbreviated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #43 May 14, 2010 So, did the original owner retract their copyright claim or am I missing something in the wording of that? I'm not the original owner if that's what you though..."When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danielcroft 2 #44 May 14, 2010 I'm not going to do that, I was just irritated that original poster was obviously aware of this thread and not willing to justify their actions. Do they have to? No. If you want background, the responsible person knows about this thread and isn't willing to give it. We had the video but apparently criticism caused the the vigorously remove any instance of the video. There are plenty of reasons (IMO) to call the jump in the video stupid, not least of which was the pathetic attempts to act like it was real. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #45 May 14, 2010 QuoteSo, did the original owner retract their copyright claim or am I missing something in the wording of that? I'm not the original owner if that's what you though... No, the original owner did not retract the copyright claim, but anyone who re-posted the video on YouTube, or Facebook, etc. and had it removed can contact the host, and request that it be restored under the fair use provision. The host must then notify the copyright owner; and unless the host is advised that the matter has been referred to court (lawsuit filed), the host must restore the video within 2 weeks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #46 May 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo, did the original owner retract their copyright claim or am I missing something in the wording of that? I'm not the original owner if that's what you though... No, the original owner did not retract the copyright claim, but anyone who re-posted the video on YouTube, or Facebook, etc. and had it removed can contact the host, and request that it be restored under the fair use provision. The host must then notify the copyright owner; and unless the host is advised that the matter has been referred to court (lawsuit filed), the host must restore the video within 2 weeks. Once we knew it was a hoax, can we really claim fair use on educational grounds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtnesbitt 0 #47 May 14, 2010 Andy, Forgive my legal ignorance but wouldnt fair use be irrelevant here since we are talking about reposting a video to a website that makes a profit from selling ad space on the pretense of using the content to attract people?"If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #48 May 14, 2010 QuoteAndy, Forgive my legal ignorance but wouldnt fair use be irrelevant here since we are talking about reposting a video to a website that makes a profit from selling ad space on the pretense of using the content to attract people? I don't think so, since the poster is not posting it for a commercial purpose. Key in on the poster, not the host site (as long as they are separate entities). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #49 May 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, did the original owner retract their copyright claim or am I missing something in the wording of that? I'm not the original owner if that's what you though... No, the original owner did not retract the copyright claim, but anyone who re-posted the video on YouTube, or Facebook, etc. and had it removed can contact the host, and request that it be restored under the fair use provision. The host must then notify the copyright owner; and unless the host is advised that the matter has been referred to court (lawsuit filed), the host must restore the video within 2 weeks. Once we knew it was a hoax, can we really claim fair use on educational grounds? Sure: "Hey, everyone - check this video out. Never do what this twat did, especially if you're not jumping a tersh." That makes it an ejumacational purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtnesbitt 0 #50 May 14, 2010 Below is an example from wikipedia. I know, that doesnt make it fact, but it is a similar situation. Where the poster did not intend to make a profit yet a judge still said it didnt qualify as fair use: "But a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial. Free Republic, LLC, owner of the political website freerepublic.com, was found liable for copyright infringement in L.A. Times v. Free Republic for reproducing and archiving full-text versions of plaintiffs' news articles even though the judge found the website minimally commercial. She held that "while defendants' do not necessarily 'exploit' the articles for commercial gain, their posting to the Free Republic site allows defendants and other visitors to avoid paying the 'customary price' charged for the works." " So, i would interpret this in this situation as, although we are claiming fair use under education, by reproducing the video on YouTube, or even this site, where profits are made, it would be an infringement. If I am wrong in my assumption it is due to my legal ignorance, just trying to connect the dots. "If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
