Thursday, July 23, 2009

Mountaintop Removal Protest

Watch the video
Mountaintop removal protest at the Massey Twilight mine on June 19, 2009

Our first account is terminated - Veoh, since this is a repeat offense we are terminating your Veoh account for violating our Repeat Offender Policy.

And this is for a clear fair use video, and a clear abuse DMCA process.

Dear visionontv,

Veoh has received a notice from a copyright holder or otherwise discovered that the videos listed below and posted through your account contain material that is alleged to infringe on copyrights held by another party.

Posting infringing content on Veoh is a violation of our Terms of Service policies. As a result we have removed the videos from the Veoh service.

Additionally, since this is a repeat offense we are terminating your Veoh account for violating our Repeat Offender Policy.

If you believe this action is a mistake and you do have the right to post this content or have received permission from the copyright owner, you can file a DMCA counter notification. To learn more see our DMCA policy.

Infringing videos:

* Adbusters V. Canwest - Kevin Newman speaks!

If you have any questions please contact or see our FAQs.

The Veoh Team


Note: Please do not reply to this message. This e-mail was sent from a notification-only address that will not accept incoming e-mail.

Copyright 2009 Veoh Networks, Inc.

Friday, July 17, 2009

youtube removed this film as "inappropriate content"

Watch the video
"Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem" was made by award-winning journalist Max Rosenthal. It shows the reactions of a group of night revellers in Jerusalem to President Obama's Middle East initiatives. Many of the interviewees are American-Jewish visitors to the city. After 400,000 views on youtube, it was pulled as "inappropriate content", and Rosenthal would like to know why. He has received death threats and been accused of being a "self-hating Jew". We are re-publishing this film to many sites, including youtube, and are interested to see if this censorship happens again.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Ridley Road Market Under Threat

Watch the video
Residents and traders in Hackney fear Hackney Council's plan to redevelop the market.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Help with embed?

We are embedding the show player via i-frame on our new Liferay CMS Is there a way of having the full screen option within the i-frame (ie with no visible menus without hovering the mouse), but without autoplay? We would like to use this by having the videos default to full screen in the i-frame. Is there a way to have embeds start in full screen?

This gives us a nice photo with a play button, with controls on mouse roll over.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009


SchNEWS has cast our cynical eye over the HMIC (Her Majesty's
Inspectorate of Constabulary) report about the policing of the G20
protests, 'Adapting To Protest'. The HMIC say they welcome
feedback on the report. Well here's SchNEWS' take...

So why was this report commissioned? Maybe something about the
police being out of order, the fact an innocent bystander was killed
or that all this was caught on camera? In the words of the HMIC:
'The high volume of publicly sourced footage of the protests,
including the events leading up to the death of Ian Tomlinson, has
demonstrated the influence of 'citizen journalists'
- members of the public who play an active role in collecting,
analysing and distributing media themselves. Consequently, individual
and collective police actions are under enormous public

The report is more concerned about the perception of the police than
the police actions themselves. Police were initially pleased with
media coverage, but 'by the 5th April this was becoming more
critical. This intensified following the emergence of images relating
to the death of Ian Tomlinson.' One suggested solution to this
is to have 'embedded' journalists with police on the front
line! Police say they face 'dilemmas around using potentially
sensitive information connected with death or serious injuries at
public order events which may subsequently become evidence in legal
proceedings.' But this didn't stop them spinning a whole
host of lies over the death of Ian Tomlinson (claiming there was no
police contact, medics were assaulted, and he died from a heart attack
- SchNEWS 672).

We are told that in relation to the press there should be
'Awareness and recognition of the UK press card by officers on
cordons, to identify legitimate members of the press.' But what
use is a press card when police officers don't give a damn if
you are press or not? On April 2nd there was a Section 14 notice
(under the Public Order Act) issued to the press. A City of London
Police Inspector told the press to 'Go away for half an hour and
possibly come back to help us resolve this situation.' He was
acting on behalf of Commander Broadhurst who was top cop for the day
- so harassment of the press was coming right from the top and
being carried out by an Inspector. Yet the report makes no mention of
this - it is not a case of a few officers failing to recognise
press cards, it is a systematic abuse of the police's powers to
manage the news and restrict the freedom of the press (it's also
a shame more press don't stand up for press freedom and refuse
to cooperate with unreasonable police demands).

In the build up to the G20 protests, there were lots of media reports
anticipating violence. The report has a breathtaking omission:
'An article titled 'The Summer of Rage Starts Here'
was published on a popular protester website by a member calling
themselves London Anarchists.' But it totally fails to mention
that the phrase 'Summer of Rage' was coined by David
Hartshorn, who heads the Met's public order branch.
Also,?no mention is made of police blogs gleefully spoiling for a
fight, or Commander Simon O'Brien's boast:
'We're up to it and we're up for it.' Such
spin can only be designed to try and deflect blame from the police
themselves for ratcheting up the tension.

The report also conducted an opinion poll survey on the
public's attitude to the police and protesting (well, they need
to frame their PR correctly). It did admit that there was a split on
whether the police handled the G20 protests well, but did show the
public were largely favourable of the police overall. Also it showed a
distinct age and class bias, with young people and the working classes
being the least in favour of the police - reflecting the obvious
fact that the police are there for the rich rather than the poor and
likely to hassle youth.

Curiously, the report is illustrated throughout with rent-a-mob riot
porn photos: masked protesters, a fire, smashed windows, brew crew
with a bottle... but funnily no snarling riot cops without ID numbers
hitting people with truncheons!

There were some acknowledgements that the police did cock up on the
day - apparently we will see all Met officers displaying their
numbers in future (we wait with baited breath). The report is critical
of police planning for the day saying that a whole protest should not
be criminalised - it acknowledges that people have a right to
protest and that this should be protected under human rights law:
'the police, are required to show a certain degree of tolerance
towards peaceful gatherings... even if these protests cause a level of
obstruction or disruption.' How much disruption is a matter of
'debate' according to the report.

The police claimed they were at a disadvantage when it comes to
communication on the ground: they have to cope with a 'flexible
and responsive protest community which is capable of advanced
communication and immediate reaction to events on the ground. This is
in stark contrast to the traditional communication capabilities of the
police.' So let's get this straight - the police
have at their disposal CCTV street coverage, helicopters tracking
movements of crowds, radio communication equipment and a central
command bunker overseeing the whole operation and they are at a
disadvantage over us with mobile phones and a
make-it-up-as-you-go-along attitude on the ground?!

The most controversial tactic of all, 'kettling' gets the
thumbs up from the HMIC, which they qualify as being suitable as long
as it is proportionate - but police should let people leave the
areas if they er, like the look of you (ditch the black hoodie for a
suit?). The report recommends updating ACPO's public order
manual and says that the police need to adapt their public order
tactics. However, the police have already tried to deflect criticism
of their tactics, with Commander Bob Broadhurst, the head of the
Public Order Unit, laying the blame at the feet of inexperienced
ordinary police officers for the violent and repressive policing at
the G20. They ignore the whole issue of kettling and the fact that the
two most reported instances of police abuse (the death of Ian
Tomlinson and the blatant assault on Nicola Fisher) were committed by
the TSG - the Met's fully trained riot goons. The police are
still trying to spin the few bad apples line, when we know it's
the whole damn cart that is rotten.

* See full report at:

More information following the campaign against police violence,
inspired by Ian Tomlinson's death:

11th July 2009 Video Free Gaza Live from Spirit

Watch the video
VIDEO by Ishmahil Blagrove - RicenPeas Passenger among the Free Gaza 21. The following video is the last footage taken onboard the Spirit Of Humanity before its voyage, to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, was prematurely halted by Isreali special forces. It shows the atmosphere inside the cabin as the crew try to negotiate with the Isreali ship via radio.


Watch the video
London - A new, beautifully-designed line of bottled water - this time not from the melting Alps, nor from faraway, clean-water-deprived Fiji, but rather from the contaminated ground near the site of the 1984 Bhopal catastrophe - scared Dow Chemical's London management team into hiding today. Twenty Bhopal activists, including Sathyu Sarangi of the Sambhavna Clinic in Bhopal, showed up at Dow headquarters near London to find that the entire building had been vacated. Had they not fled, Dow employees could have read on the bottles' elegant labels: B'eau-Pal: Our Story The unique qualities of our water come from 25 years of slow-leaching toxins at the site of the world's largest industrial accident. To this day, Dow Chemical (who bought Union Carbide) has refused to clean up, and whole new generations have been poisoned. For more information, please visit The launch of "B'eau-Pal" water came as Bhopal prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal catastrophe, and coincides with the release of an official report by the Sambhavna Trust showing that local groundwater, vegetables, and breast milk are contaminated by toxic quantities of nickel, chromium, mercury, lead, and volatile organic compounds. The report describes how a majority of children in one nearby community are born with serious medical problems traceable to the contamination. The attractive yet toxic product, developed by the Bhopal Medical Appeal and the Yes Men with pro-bono help from top London creative design firm Kennedy Monk (making-of video here), highlights Dow's continued refusal to take responsibility for the disaster. (Five years ago, the Yes Men impersonated Dow Chemical live on BBC World Television and announced that after 20 years, the company was finally going to clean up its mess in Bhopal. That hoax, which temporarily knocked two billion dollars off Dow's share price, is featured in the Yes Men's new movie, The Yes Men Fix The World, which opens in UK cinemas on August 11.) Though Dow has consistently refused to clean up the mess in Bhopal, they have taken numerous steps to clean up their image. In a recent press release, for example, Andrew Liveris, Dow's Chairman and CEO, noted that "lack of clean water is the single largest cause of disease in the world and more than 4,500 children die each day because of it." He went on to assert that "Dow is committed to creating safer, more sustainable water supplies for communities around the world." The Yes Men met Liveris' attempt to greenwash Dow's environmental record with a challenge. "Since Liveris earns $16,182,544 per year, he could give each of the children who die worldwide for lack of clean water $10 per day to buy Evian, Fiji Water, or Perrier," said Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men. "Or, for vastly less money, he could build them clean-water pipelines, like the ones that Bhopal so badly needs." Dow's greenwashing comes while Bhopal is experiencing an extremely rare drought, just three years after facing its greatest floods ever. "Even though people are already dying by the hundreds of thousands, and we know that climate change will kill many more, companies like Dow are not being forced to cut back on emissions," said the Sambhavna Clinic's Sathyu Sarangi. "Bhopal should be a lesson to the world - one we must learn before it's too late for all of us." The Yes Men have elaborate plans to contribute to the movement for meaningful action on climate change, beginning in early September and culminating at the December climate talks in Copenhagen. To contribute financially to these efforts (which of course we can't tell you about), please visit And if you live in New York and know how to sew, swim, get arrested, or pretty much anything else, please write to us. * B'eau-Pal water: * Information on Bhopal water study: Bhopal Medical Appeal Contact: Colin Toogood T: +44 7798 845074 * The Yes Men in the UK: Contact: Mike Bonanno T: +44 7940739950 * August 11 UK release of The Yes Men Fix the World: McAinsh Consulting Ian Thomson T: +44 7909 685077 E: Isabelle Knight T: +44 7717 152006 E:

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Fair use and Youtube - Canwest Media story

Dear youtube

visionOntv only publishes under a creative commons license, distributing films produced by a wide range of video producers for educational purposes and for no commercial gain.

This video ( is clearly permissible under conditions of "fair use". Rather than being a simple copy of copyright material, it is a creative remix which is "transformative", and which clearly falls under the rubric of criticism, comment, and news reporting. With regard to the last, the company complaining of copyright infringement had suppressed news of the legal judgment which found against them for refusing to show ads by the producers of this video. The producers and distributors are therefore perfectly justified under terms of fair use, and the publication of this film is strongly in the public interest. The days of media mega-corporations being able to suppress news unfavourable to them or their advertisers are, we hope, now over.

Please therefore put the video back on show, and remove the alleged copyright infringement from our records.

I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court of San Francisco County, California and I will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

I enclose your original take-down notification below.

Yours sincerely

Richard Hering (visionOntv)

Dear Member:

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Canwest Media Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:

Adbusters V. Canwest - Kevin Newman speaks!:

Please Note: Repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, please go to our Help Centre to access the instructions.

Be aware that there may be adverse legal consequences in your country if you make a false or bad-faith allegation of copyright infringement by using this process.

YouTube, Inc

Leonard Asper "Looped"!

Leonard Asper, Canadian Media mogul and boss of teetering-on-the-brink-of-fina ncial-ruin mega corporation Canwest gets looped by the doctor. Damn those abfunkers! Distributed by Tubemogul.

How to do open video - part 2 of 3

Great advice from people who did open video already. visionOntv's 1st report from the Open Video Conference in New York 19-20 June.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

G8 demonstrators clash with police in Italy

Vicenza, Italy 04/07/2009: the first big demonstration anti-G8.

G20 Fashion Special

The G20 protest is no anti-war march where everyone (more-or-less) knows what theyre there for. It is a confused affair - perhaps as confused as the hodge-podge of world leaders that make it up. At least with the G8 you knew your enemy - the same rich white men (plus a few Asians) that have been screwing over the planet since way back in the dizzle. This time we had the likes of Argentina and India thrown into the mix - the very same countries that have previously been screwed over by said rich white men and the deregulatory agendas that now have us all drowning in debt.

This confusion was reflected on the streets and although you had your stalwart anarchists that knew exactly what they were there for (smashing the old bill/bankers) most protesters were rightly angry, but a little directionless. Many people we spoke to didnt really know who the G20 were and what they were meeting about.

As such the event became as much a cultural phenomenon and social gathering as a demonstration over some very important, world changing issues. This was reflected in articles like this in Vice which completely ignored the issues and the fact that we found two people down there who were working for a marketing company doing research for brands. They were interviewing the different tribes and asking them what they were wearing in order to give a speech to their corporate daddies later that day. TRUE!

So here is our G20 Fashion Special. Dont hate us, hate the society that made us.

Friday, July 03, 2009


Jonathan's statement - In conclusion for the defence

Members of the jury. Thank you very much for your attention over the last couple of days.

I’ve been learning a lot about the court process as we go along, what is and isn’t allowed and what the various people’s responsibilities are, and the judge has been very patient with us in explaining the rules as we go along. I'm going to try to summarise why we feel that we are not guilty, why we feel that what we did was right, despite the very proper laws against obstructing trains, why we feel that it was the wrong decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute us in this case, and why we don’t feel that we are guilty of a crime for what we did.

I want to start by responding to your request for clarification yesterday about 'lawful excuse'. His honour may say that it's true that there are ways in law to make space for circumstances, to allow a bigger picture to be considered. This is a point of general principle in the law, because it gives laws the flexibility they clearly need to take account of things like context or motives - to distinguish between the deliberate and the accidental for instance.

These ways can have different names for different offences - so for example 'lawful excuse', which you asked about yesterday, applies only to the charge of criminal damage. For example, last September, a jury in Kent found six protesters not guilty of committing £30,000 worth of criminal damage to Kingsnorth coal fired power station, since the group were acting to prevent a greater crime...

[The judge cut Jonathan off at this point, instructing him that he could not talk about the decision of other juries.]

His honour may explain that there is a legal defence of 'necessity', that applies to most laws, and that it was on the basis of 'necessity'- the fact that we believed our actions were going to save lives and that we had to act - that we prepared a legal defense before this trial. Along with many legal professionals we were very disappointed by his honour's decision prior to the trial that this defence was not available to us in law.

Nonetheless we decided not to appeal against it. You may be wondering why we decided that. Yesterday I described how many of us are exhausted by a process that has gone on for a year already, and we felt we could not risk possibly losing our jobs and further disruption to our families, by extending it any more, especially when an appeal would be putting our case before more judges. We felt that either way we would have to put our case before a jury, and ask them – ask you - to find us not guilty of obstructing a train. We felt that you the jury would be free to decide on the facts of a case as you find them - and not just the ones his honour tells you are relevant.

That's why we've been trying to get across to you as much information as we can about why we did this. It's up to you to decide whether what we did was necessary. I would like to emphasise to you that we believed and we still believe that it was urgently necessary to do what we did, and proportionate to the scale of the problem, that the consequences of that train taking coal into Drax are so serious that any reasonable person would understand our reasons for stopping it. To help explain why we were so sure of the links between Drax's activities and deaths around the world we had expert witnesses lined up to talk to you about the immediate and ongoing harm that Drax's emissions cause. However from what evidence we have been able to get across to you, with his honour's indulgence, we hope that you can see that these facts speak for themselves, and our actions, though harmful, were indeed necessary to try to stop a greater harm. And if you agree with that then you still have a legal right – as the jury - to find us not guilty.

You’ve heard it said already I think, that the judge decides about the law, but the jury decide about the facts.What does that mean? It means you the jury can decide as you see fit. You the jury have a constitutional right to follow your own judgement and not necessarily follow the judge's directions to find us guilty. In other words, you get to make the final decision. In law this principle is called the jury's power of nullification, and it's been a right that has been regularly used over the years when juries have felt the law has been applied harshly, or inappropriately, or unjustly, or incorrectly.

Perhaps I can explain this with a quote from a very senior judge, Lord Denning. He said:

“This principle was established as long ago as 1670 in a celebrated case of the Quakers, William Penn and William Mead. All that they had done was to preach in London on a Sunday afternoon. They were charged with causing an unlawful and tumultuous assembly there. The judge directed the jury to find the Quakers guilty, but they refused. The Jury said Penn was guilty of preaching, but not of unlawful assembly. The Judge refused to accept this verdict. He threatened them with all sorts of pains and punishments. He kept them 'all night without meat, drink, fire, or other accommodation: they had not so much as a chamber pot, though desired'. They still refused to find the Quakers guilty of an unlawful assembly. He kept them another night and still they refused. He then commanded each to answer to his name and give his verdict separately. Each gave his verdict 'Not Guilty'. For this the judge fined them 40 marks apiece and cast them into prison until it was paid. One of them Edward Bushell, thereupon brought his (case) before the Court of the King's Bench. It was there held that no judge had any right to imprison a juryman for finding against his direction on a point of law; for the judge could never direct what the law was without knowing the facts, and of the facts the jury were the sole judge. The jury were thereupon set free.”

Now this was affirmed as recently as 2005, in relation to the case of Wang, where a committee of Law Lords in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, concluded that: “there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty”. So you do have that right to decide for yourselves. And unlike in 1670, his honour won't be able to fine you, or put you in prison for making what he sees as the wrong decision.

There have been many cases over the years where juries have decided, on reflecting more broadly, to find people not guilty despite directions from the judge. We got some legal advice about the legal situation in a case such as this, and our lawyers told us of some of the other cases where this has happened. For example, the case of Zelter and others who were accused of damage to an aircraft about to be used for bombing civilians…. In all of these and others the judge said that the defendants admitted the offence and so must be found guilty. But the jury chose to look outside the limited view of the court room, and to find them not guilty.

The freedom that you have, that the legal system allows juries, is what enables the law, where necessary, to move forward. It is what allows you to look beyond the confines of this court to the wider world, and to make a judgement based not just on law, but to make a judgement based on justice. Justice is the force that underpins and breathes life into the law, and it is your role as the jury to see that justice as you see it is done.

We all know that times change, and what was acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. You have heard of how it was once legal to own other people, how it was illegal for women to vote. Well one way or another we are going to have to stop burning coal and move on from the fossil fuel era. And that means that the law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect.

We are not trying to tell you how to decide. We are only trying to say that it is up to you, and we are grateful for that.

I want you to think back to that situation of there being a person on the tracks ahead of that train going on its way to Drax. Members of the Jury, it may sound like a strange thing to say but in truth there is a person on the branch line to Drax. The prosecution have not challenged the facts we presented to you on oath about the consequences of burning coal at Drax. 180 human lives lost every year. 1000 species lost forever. There is a direct, unequivocal, proven link between the emissions of carbon dioxide at this power station and the appalling consequences of climate change. That many of those consequences impact on the poor of other nations or people in Hull we don’t know should not in any way negate the reality of this suffering. We got on that train to stop those emissions, because all other methods in our democracy were failing. Just because we don’t know the name of the person on the tracks or where they live or the exact time and day of their dying, does not in our view mean they are less worthy of protection.

We don’t dispute that there’s a law against obstructing trains. We don’t dispute that obstructing trains is a crime and should continue to be a crime. We just argue that in this case, we should not be found guilty of a crime for trying to block this train on its way to Drax.

On Tuesday the prosecution argued that what we did was quite simply a crime, and as a result we should be found guilty. They were trying to suggest that if you find us not guilty, the whole world would fall apart. We argue that the more likely route to the whole world falling apart is if we continue burning coal in the enormous quantities that it is being burnt at Drax.

His honour may say that we have been telling you stories, that we are trying to introduce emotions into the trial to distort the evidence. But we have been telling you the facts. If those facts move you, that's because they are moving, and they are what moved us to do what we did.

Maybe I've talked too long, but here's the crux of the issue. There are three routes to finding us not guilty, and if you agree with any one of them, it's enough to bring in that verdict. One, we had a defence in law, of necssity, that we had to do what we did, because it was necessary and proportionate and we believe we still have it, and it's for you, not the learned judge, to decide. Two, that our motives and our actions are connected, that it does matter why we were on that train. We haven't been able to bring the witnesses we wanted to show there was a direct connection, and so you haven't been able properly to judge whether what we did was right. Therefore there should be enough doubt in your minds to find us not guilty. Three, finally, most importantly, we urge you to bring common sense into this case. You are the people to do that. When you look at everything, everything you have heard in this court, but just as importantly, everything outside it as well, we are not criminals for doing what we did, and you can find us not guilty.

We are happy to be judged by you, the jury.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

How to do open video part 1 - how NOT to

Great advice from people that did open video already. visionOntv's 1st report from the Open Video Conference in New York 19-20 June.

Is this the set top box we have been (long) waiting for?

BitTorrent On Your TV For Less Than $90.00

Written by enigmax on July 01, 2009

Numerous BitTorrent-enabled TV devices are jostling for position next to your TV these days, but a new entrant to the market attracts the eye not because of what it has, but for what it doesn’t. CinemaCube is a BitTorrent-enabled set-top box that goes for the less-is-more angle, at a price most people can afford.

CinemaCubeWeighing in at a svelte 1.5 pounds and a compact 8.2 x 5.5 x 1.8 inches, CinemaCube is a brand new HD multimedia BitTorrent-enabled set-top box.

CinemaCube connects to your regular TV. It has an HDMI port and supports HD content up to 720p. It has all the usual analog and composite connections, S-Video and S/PDIF and plays back a multitude of formats including Xvid, DivX, AVI, H.264, MP4, MP2, RMVB, WMV, MP4, MKV, JPEG, BMP and PNG. Audio formats are also supported including FLAC, AAC, OGG and WAV.

Crucially for TorrentFreak readers, all of the above media can be acquired via the machine’s built-in BitTorrent client or from your existing PC archive via the built in 10/100 network socket.

Of course, there are many other set-top style boxes with these type of capabilities these days but what sets CinemaCube out from the competition is what it doesn’t have.

For starters the device doesn’t have a built in hard drive. Instead, CinemaCube has USB 2.0 connectivity which means that you can use your own external units or take advantage of small and cheap USB memory sticks which simply plug in.

For green-minded individuals, due to the lack of a hard drive CinemaCube doesn’t have a thirst for power consumption either, using only 10 watts of electricity when downloading via BitTorrent.

Perhaps most importantly, the device also lacks a big price tag. Unlike other admittedly higher-spec boxes, CinemaCube from brite-View costs just $89.99, putting it in reach of even the most frugal BitTorrent user.