The decision on whether to restrict content or remove it completely, as explained by Doris (based on Youtube's policies) is up to the copyright holder. Since IN is not the copyright holder for Eurosport and CBC coverage, I really don't see how they have any right to have those videos competely removed rather than just being blocked within their market. By getting those videos removed rather than just restricted, IN is certainly contributing to users' accounts being blocked.
I'm only just catching up on posts since friday so i've only dipped into that thread but found it interesting that Copyright owners can select the action they want. If indeed youtube can block videos by country then it does appear that IN are being heavy handed in their reaction.
I also agree with you that the argument that they are "copyright holder" in relation to videos that are not copied directly from IN is fairly weak. It depends on what (if any ) definition of "copyright holder" is at youtube. "Copyright holder" may mean the owner of the copyright in the original footage, or the holder of exclusive rights to broadcast copyright material. Don't forget that at the GPs there is very likely to be one master feed that is licensed to each broadcaster who is interested and they are then allowed to brand the feed and provide commentary etc. But the actual picture is the same. All licensees have to to play nice with the producer of the master feed!
In any event it does seem pretty harsh but then i can't really see how the youtube account owner has any chance to defend him/herself. Imagine the following interaction:
Youtube account user finds that some of his eurosport footage of a GP uploaded to youtube has been taken down as a result of IN's actions. Youtube account user complains to youtube that IN only has exclusive internet broadcast rights in the US and therefore the video should not have been taken down, rather blocked to the US. Youtube replies - but you have copied Eurosport footage for which you have no consent, you don't own the copyright in the europsort footage and are therefore in breach of our user terms by posting copyrighted material of which you are not the owner nor do you have consent to copy.
Where can the youtube account user take that? The fact remains that copyrighted material has been uploaded without the conset of the copyright owner. Whether or not the owner complains is moot, unless the copyright owner provides consent to the uploader of the material.
I suspect the best (and likely) only way that IN's heavy handed approach would be if Eurosport itslef officially takes the line that it seems to be taking which is "any advertising is good advertising" (given that their logo appears prominantly in all their coverage - it is all good advertising, that and the fact that the commentating team of Nicky, Chris and Simon is gaining much infammy (sp?) as fantastic commentators) then Eurosport should form that policy and then get in touch with youtube to challenge the approach taken by IN.
At the end of the day Eurosport could take this even further up the chain by going directly to the ISU to complain. I have no doubt that the Eurosport contract is worth far more to the ISU than the IN contract. Eurosport simply have deeper pockets.
Ant