The law must be known and knowable. Is it a life sentence or is it execution as in cruel and unusual punishment? Could you sue for a sports injury while playing soccer where you slide tackled and claim $103,000.00? I'm a high school MVP soccer player who knows how to slide tackle opponents and there is a certain amount of potential injury that is consistent with the game that we accept and to which we consent under the law. Punching an opposing team player would be an assault and it's Illegal. You could sue for the injuries consistent with being punched during a soccer game. You could also get arrested. But, slide tackles and shoulder checking is part of the game. The $103,000.00 judgement has been set aside as ultra vires. The law is knowable while you can maybe never forget when a slide tackle gets you although you are the slide tackle aficionado and no one is injured. You went for the ball. Wouldn't this be the same argument and sport exception for the professional or amateur skiers at a ski resort? We would say in a ski resort collision between two skiers that the injured skier cannot seek damages or claim assault when the collision would have been the honest mistake or the reasonably expected accidental occurrence during the sporting event; just as two footballers on opposing teams may bump foreheads by mistake when attempting to head the ball during a corner kick and suffering serious injury during that sporting event. Skiing injury from such accidents would fall within the sporting exception. This is so even if the victim has a thin skull and may succumb to an unfortunate death. Click here.

 The law must be known and knowable.  Is it a life sentence or is it execution as in cruel and unusual punishment?  Could you sue for a sports injury while playing soccer where you slide tackled and claim $103,000.00? I'm a high school MVP soccer player who knows how to slide tackle opponents and there is a certain amount of potential injury that is consistent with the game that we accept and  to which we consent under the law.   Punching an opposing team player would be an assault and it's Illegal. You could sue for the injuries consistent with being punched during a soccer game.   You could also get arrested.  But, slide tackles and shoulder checking is part of the game.  The $103,000.00 judgement has been set aside as ultra vires. The law is knowable while you can maybe never forget when a slide tackle gets you although you are the slide tackle aficionado and no one is injured.  You went for the ball.   Wouldn't this be the same argument and sport exception for the professional or amateur skiers at a ski resort? We would say in a ski resort collision between two skiers that the injured skier cannot seek damages or claim assault when the collision would have been the honest mistake or the reasonably expected accidental occurrence during the sporting event; just as two footballers on opposing teams may bump foreheads by mistake when attempting to head the ball during a corner kick and suffering serious injury during that sporting event. Skiing injury from such accidents would fall within the sporting exception.    This is so even if the victim has a thin skull and may succumb to an unfortunate death. 

 See R v CC, [2009] OJ No 2216 (consent "will be implied for contact and force that comes within the rules of the game. Consent will also be implied with respect to force that is outside the rules but within the scope of the accepted standards by which the game is played") R v Cey, 1989 Canlii.  See the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue; the Jobidon, [1991] 2 SCR 714 case.  

But, this article is really about Youtube and assault. Could an artist say they feel assaulted with the apprehension of unlawful motivations being levied against them if  some private citizen in Omaha or in Eastern Europe loads their likeness and image to the internet?  What is 6x2?  What is 6x11?  What is 6x 111?   How long does it take to answer any of these questions without a calculator?  But, he could say you should read R v. Cunningham with respect to assault.  

In Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald, 16 the Court of Appeal considered that two jockeys who had seriously injured a fellow jockey in the course of a race had not breached their duty of care and were not, therefore, negligent. Tuckey LJ considered that: In practice . . . the threshold for liability was high . . . there will be no liability for errors of judgment oversights or lapses of which any participant might be guilty in the context of a fast moving contest. Something more serious is required. 17 Furthermore Judge LJ stated that: In the context of sporting contests it is also right to emphasise the distinctions to be drawn between conduct that is properly to be characterised as negligent, and thus sounding in damages, and errors of judgment . . . of which any reasonable jockey might be guilty in the hurly burly of a race.   [2001] EWCA Civ 1054, [2002] PIQR 6

We could say Youtube is about global culture, getting music and all kinds of media around the world for free to educate the bush man who  is nomadic and cannot carry a 13 inch tv on his back but can enjoy a smart phone that operates like a TV; and there is, however,  an intellectual property problem for television, movie and musical artists. Youtube is not "public."   The people loading the information are private citizens usually and it is a private online service with private access.   Napster also had private access with membership as far as you could join it as any "would be" member of the public. Youtube is not actually public as it is something you have to join.  It does say that a publicly traded corporation is not only running banner ads on the website but that it is also running entire tv commercials during the videos that you can watch as loaded by private citizens. The issue is ownership and property along with the illegal use of that intellectual property.    With respect to the illegality, while doing so  in public or in private,  it would not matter if you were holding my watch,  my Tesla photo of the Corona Slaigoville photo and selling it contrary to my rights.   You have to join YouTube and sign in. It involves private membership.   You have to join Alexa. These scenarios fall into the Napster Judgement. Let's be fair to our artists and support our unique American Musical Creole culture. The Europeans call it American music.  YouTube is owned by Europeans.  It's really Russian.  The Russians are world leading advocates of human rights. 

The Napster Judgement:    

/////https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.

It becomes a file  sharing service when the video files can be downloaded if you get the Youtube premier service for a certain fee per month;  so it now falls squarely into the Napster judgment regarding the offending and misuse of intellectual property ownership. Its also the  criminal offence when it is essentially the possession of property belonging to another as used for untold profit; profit that is not disseminated to the artists.  

The best idea with YouTube is to pay the artists and production companies the television or radio play rate or the rates paid for the use of the music in movies. The artist could be a 17 year old playing Mozart and loading his own video to YouTube.   Alexa must pay  for use of music and video content also. Essentially, it is to share the proceeds of advertising revenue with the artists or any member who loads his own personal  performance as  content; who provide content that is used to market Ford Motor Company ads for instance. The videos could be a family wedding or a TV commercial for a business.      It might not be a lot paid to the artists monthly based on that rate and fee schedule but at least its not theft and it would be the legal use of the music per play for a fair rate of return as paid to the artists.  YouTube could sell ads on videos rented from CBS TV shows such as the Mutual of Omaha's Wild Life Kingdom. They cannot presume the right to sell ads on your old Duran Duran videos.    You can now sign up at by ESTONIA Kaspersky  and pay $9.99 per month to get a real time report of your intellectual property earnings on youtube and the internet daily.   They may have a service. I don't know but you could contact them.  

////

This is an unofficial recognition of the problem. Motions can be brought for Ex Parte injunctions for Cease and Desist orders, preventing the use of the music and videos since the videos are not used with artist permission in all cases and the artist can complain with the videos brough down immediately as a violation. Yet, the motions can be quite expensive if we get into the average, estimated quantum of  damages to be awarded to the artists and its an easy win maybe but some artists are being paid by Youtube.  The cost of legal fees for the artists could be tremendous.  

If you like this Angel Ronan Toshokan™ Research Library article, send us a donation by Western Union or by Interac.    

 Email: w.a.lyon.angelronan@mail.com. 

1-619-967-5405.  

1-647–793-1537.

Hire Angel Ronan Toshokan ™ Research to help your company and your Firm.  You win.  

Thanks and Regards,

The Stheu, Dearnt, Conveur, and  Keat(TM) Firm. 

STHEU, DEARNT, GOOD, CONVOER & KEAT™ FIRM.  

With research by The Angel Ronan Toshokan(TM) Ministry of the Bible and Law as prepared at the Pastor's Desk  by Warren A. Lyon; In House Counsel and Firm Pastor.  

Warren studied at Lincoln's Inn Fields with Brierley Price Prior University for his Masters in Business Law and Economics. He also attended the University of London and completed an LL.B(Hons) degree.