NFL Caught Abusing the DMCA

Implied Oral Consent writes "You know how the NFL puts up those notices before every game saying 'This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited?' Well, Ars Technica is reporting that Wendy Seltzer thought that that was over-reaching and posted a video of the notice on YouTube. Predictably, the NFL filed a DMCA Take Down notice on the clip. But Ms. Seltzer knows her rights, so she filed a DMCA Counter Notice. This is when the NFL violated the DMCA, by filing another Take Down notice instead of taking the issue to court — their only legitimate option, according to the DMCA. Unfortunately for the NFL, Ms. Seltzer is a law professor, an EFF lawyer, and the founder of Chilling Effects. Oops!"

Comments

Is she single?

[ILuvRamen]

lol I wonder if she'd single. I'd marry her :-D hehehe. Well anyway, anyone know what the NFL owes in fines or to her for issuing a second notice? it doesn't sound like it would be too bad cuz it's like a tiny little technicallity.

Re:Is she single?

[mrbluze]

I'd marry her too, except I think it would upset my wife and eight kids.

Re:Is she single?

[Hal_Porter]

Copyright your DNA, and send a DMCA notice to your wife forcing her to delete or surrender the kids as unauthorized derivative works of your exclusive intellectual property.

Then move in with Miss Seltzer.

Re:Is she single?

[packeteer]

For a picture of her go to http://icannwiki.org/Wendy_Seltzer.

Shes actually not bad looking and when you take into account that she is a techie and on the good guy's side that's like +10 to charisma or something.

Re:Is she single?

[frinkacheese]

You gotta be joking! You'd last about 10 minutes, whenever you left the toilet seat up you'd be so wrapped up in litigation that you'd be lucky if you ever peed again!

Re:Is she single?

[mrbluze]

For a picture of her go to http://icannwiki.org/Wendy_Seltzer. Shes actually not bad looking and when you take into account that she is a techie and on the good guy's side that's like +10 to charisma or something.

Definitely gotta put the emphasis on charisma though. And hit points.

Re:Is she single?

[an.echte.trilingue]

Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc. What is wrong with you people? There is a post further down the page that says she looks like a man... and got modded funny! WTF? A couple days ago, a 17 year old girl won a 100,000 dollar science fair prize, and at least 1/3 of the comments were about whether she was hot or not. Most likely none of the readers here will ever see the woman in real life, so just what value do these comments have in the discussion?

Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot. Here they are, busting their asses to do something cool/good, they finally get some recognition, and the response is a debate on how nice her hips look or don't.

If slashdot really does represent a cross section of the IT industry, I understand now why there are so few women in that industry.

Re:Is she single?

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple days ago, a 17 year old girl won a 100,000 dollar science fair prize, and at least 1/3 of the comments were about whether she was hot or not. I can't believe I missed that discussion. So, uh... was she hot?

Re:Is she single?

[ShadeOfBlue]

Is this really that hard of a question? Guys like girls who have some common interests as well as being physically attractive. Ever notice how average Joe's start slobbering when they hear a hot chick likes to drink beer and watch NFL? Same thing with geeks, they dream of hot geeky girls. Now of course it's true most readers will never meet these women, most guys are never going to meet any Victoria's Secret models, but that hardly stops them from talking about how hot they consider them. Furthermore, while model-type women may represent a small percentage of the population, it's no great surprise to see one while out walking. Hot geeky girls, on the other hand, are much more elusive. A geek in a small town could easily go his whole life without meeting a HGG. As a student at a large public university, I've met 0 hot, seriously-geeky girls and a few hot, sorta-geeky girls.

Just knowing such women are out there can be of major importance to a guy. If this kind of response really was the reason so few women are in the industry, it sure would seem to be a vicious-cycle. Scarcity of women -> slobbering response -> greater scarcity, and so on. However, genetic disposition and residual cultural restraints probably have a lot more to do with it.

Re:Is she single?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent should be modded way up. /rant on Gentlemen: If either of these the ladies spoke of by the parent let their hair grow a bit and got a professional makeover including a different style of clothes it is highly likely you would be looking at them and drooling and the ladies seeing that would consider the makeover a waste of their time. Now mind you I am not saying they need the makeovers, I am saying you have preset images of what you think to be beautiful and they blind you to the beauty that both of these ladies possess and that beauty is evident from their pictures and often pictures do an injustice to the one pictured.

If this sounds like a harsh rebuke to some of you then so be it, some of your comments here deserve it and there are plenty of others here that probably agree with me. Which brings up another item, Slashdot is not a men's locker room and you should leave the locker room comments to a minimum unless you want to run the ladies off that do come here. /rant off

Re:Is she single?

[Digital Vomit]

Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc. What is wrong with you people?

I imagine it's because these women have already proven themselves to be desirable on an intellectual level via their accomplishments, so the next step in mate selection in physical attractiveness. Having a hot girl who's also smart is the holy grail of the male geek libido.

When one is on a message board that's [presumably] dominated by single males, what else would one expect?

Re:Is she single?

[lysse]

Hell, a worryingly high proportion of the readers here will never see *a* woman in real life...

Re:Is she single?

[mgabrys_sf]

Yeah - what he said - Geek Girl Hot Goood! Sexism Baaad! Still want more hot girl geeks - they gooooood!

Fire BAAAAD!

Re:Is she single?

[dreamchaser]

If slashdot really does represent a cross section of the IT industry, I understand now why there are so few women in that industry.

You have the cause and effect backwards. If there were more women in the industry, the geeks here wouldn't be so hard up and would not act like that!

(Oh and btw, Slashdot is *anything* but a cross section of the IT industry)

Re:Is she single?

[soft_guy]

All Slashdotters are male.

All Slashdotters are single.

All Slashdotters are virgins.

99% have never kissed a girl.

95% have never spoken to a girl other than Mom whose basement they live in.

Re:Is she single?

[Targon]

Many people who read Slashdot tend to be focused on technology to the exclusion of other things, including real world relationships. So, looking at pictures, porn, or even a fantasy of meeting an attractive and intelligent woman tends to be the closest they will be to a relationship for years at a time(or in some cases, ever).

On the lighter side, the 85 percent rule states that 85 percent of the human species is genetically stupid, and nothing any of us do will give these people a clue. There is an additional 10 percent that have been corrupted by exposure to the 85 percent, so they too become stupid. This leaves us with only 5 percent of the species even worth knowing.

With that rule in mind, many people would prefer a fantasy that they will find someone of the opposite sex that are both intelligent and beautiful, so go figure that on Slashdot we find people who post about the appearance of a woman. They simply NEED a real social life, but can't figure out how to meet a woman(or man) in real life and get into a relationship.

Re:Is she single?

[afidel]

Because our biological imperative is mixed up with our geeky brain, duh. Btw the ultimate geek girl has to be Miss Ohio USA 2007, she's a Biology/premed dual major with good grades and is a pageant queen. Now there may be few of these women around, but to a geek they are better than any supermodel. You could have a great conversation with her and all of your non-geek friends would still be jealous of you for her physical attraction.

Re:Is she single?

[Gr8Apes]

On the lighter side, the 85 percent rule states that 85 percent of the human species is genetically stupid, and nothing any of us do will give these people a clue. There is an additional 10 percent that have been corrupted by exposure to the 85 percent, so they too become stupid. This leaves us with only 5 percent of the species even worth knowing. I think you're numbers are a little optimistic. Less than 1% is worth knowing, and most of those are being corrupted by Management or Business knowledge, leaving just the slathering late-night drooling cream of the crop you see here on ./

Re:Is she single?

[Ziwcam]

A couple days ago, a 17 year old girl won a 100,000 dollar science fair prize, and at least 1/3 of the comments were about whether she was hot or not. I can't believe I missed that discussion. So, uh... was she hot? I stumbled upon the story on CNN after reading your comment. You can decide for yourself.

Re:Is she single?

[skinfaxi]

Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot.

I agree. It's really disheartening. You'd think the intelligent 'beta males' of geekdom would sympathize a little more with women but it just ain't so. Apparently being bullied or otherwise looked down on doesn't make one more sympathetic - it makes one more likely to bully, objectify or otherwise put down someone else that is perceived as being lower on the social totem pole (i.e., female).

Of course this isn't true of all men or all geek men. Perhaps it's just the jerks that post the most, who knows? I do personally know some men (geek and otherwise) that are awesome.

Re:Is she single?

[EngMedic]

All Slashdotters are male. yep.

All Slashdotters are single. nope.

All Slashdotters are virgins. hell no.

99% have never kissed a girl. let's see. there are at least 1,000,000 registered users. 1% is still 10,000 people. of which i am one.

95% have never spoken to a girl other than Mom whose basement they live in. that's a lot of basements, missed classes, and interestingly-negotiated visits to resturants.

Re:Is she single?

[xeno314]

And the answer is....NO. Geek average, maybe, but definitely not hot.

Re:Is she single?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc. What is wrong with you people?

You'd think there might be more men complaining about not being viewed in such ways :)

Re:Is she single?

[nanoflower]

You think any other industry is different? Certainly not the fashion industry. Well maybe, but only because most of the men in that industry tend to be gay. Not any blue collar industry as that one has been turned into a stereotype with the wolf whistles as a pretty woman walks by. It isn't right, but I know that tends to be a quite common response.

Re:Is she single?

[Gilmoure]

Naw, go with dexterity and get a long bow.

Re:Is she single?

[dbitch]

Question 2: do you think they really care, given how successful they are, about what a bunch of troglodytes on Slashdot think about them? A bunch of repressed, flourescent-tan male nerds? I wouldn't give a damn if I was them.

Re:Is she single?

[Anonymous Coward]

*shrugs*

I'd fuck her, even if she wasn't a techy/goodguy lawyer.

But since she IS, I'd perform at least a half hour of cunnilingus for her too.

I know, I'm a dirty bastard, but I'm honest about it, especially anonymously. ;-)

Re:Is she single?

[theonetruekeebler]

If you copyright your DNA you will have the greatest euphemism for masturbation so far: "exercising my intellectual property rights."

Re:Is she single?

[TWX]

All you've got to do is style her hair a bit and give her the right clothes and suddenly things are a whole lot different...

Re:Is she single?

[JohnnyComeLately]

This def is Charisma +10, except she also codes in Perl...that makes it +50. A lawyer who codes in Perl. Next, I'll meet a EE/ME/Scientist who also is a porn actress... bwahahahahah..err wait.

Re:Is she single?

[Anonymous Coward]

INSIGHTFUL? OK, I could maybe go with 'funny' if it wasn't for the fact that he was just reiterating old cliches... but insightful? What insight did this give you, mod?

Re:Is she single?

[shaitand]

'Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc.'

Because Slashdot is primarily populated by males. The ladies can beat up the men for it all day long but you will never change the FACT that men are hardwired to view women as sex objects. The first and most powerful drive in the interaction between male and female is the drive to mate. There are no exceptions, even if it is not conscious (and it is usually very conscious) the first thing a man considers when he looks at a female is whether or not he wants to mate with her (and yes, he makes the initial decision when he SEES her, not when hears about her accomplishments).

A man can pretend to only be considering your accomplishments but he can not actually only consider them. That doesn't mean a man can't be impressed with your accomplishments if you are not attractive or that he can't be impressed with them if you are attractive.

There are some men who show enough restraint to consider whether or not he wants to mate (or commence some act that is derivative of mating) with you silently rather than with crude remarks. But there will always be some who are comfortable making those comments on an internet forum where they wouldn't be comfortable making them publicly.

Re:Is she single?

[Ced_Ex]

In the movies, all you would have to do is take off her glasses.

Re:Is she single?

[Achromatic1978]

You just know that half (hell, 80%) of these guys deciding "NOT HOT" are tubby comic book store guys. You know, the ones who wear the too-tight t-shirt that says "NO FAT CHICKS" when they themselves are clocking in at 250lb+. So, xeno314, let's see some reciprocity. Post a picture. You know. People in glass houses and all that.

Re:Is she single?

[Scrameustache]

Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc. What is wrong with you people? They're lonely?

Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot. Imagine if they ever discussed the looks of any scientist/politician/firemen?
How dare these women discuss the looks of firefighters? What's wrong with them? Imagine all the training to fight fires and women discussing your muscles? They should put a stop to it RIGHT NOW.

Re:Is she single?

[wrook]

Most likely none of the readers here will ever see a woman in real life

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Is she single?

[Lord Flipper]

Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot. Here they are, busting their asses to do something cool/good, they finally get some recognition, and the response is a debate on how nice her hips look or don't.

I understand your point, completely, but don't overlook the fact that women, in general, and these women who find the spotlight in a place like Slashdot, in particular, can see through juvenile bullshit, with little to no effort.

Re:Is she single?

[BoothbyTCD]

When one is on a message board that's [presumably] dominated by single males, what else would one expect? Decorum? Taste? Maturity?

Re:Is she single?

[Digital Vomit]

Going for the +5 Funny moderation, eh? ;-)

Re:Is she single?

[rifter]

Why is it that whenever a woman does anything noteworthy the first response here on slashdot is whether or not she is hot/doable/marryable, etc. What is wrong with you people? There is a post further down the page that says she looks like a man... and got modded funny! WTF? A couple days ago, a 17 year old girl won a 100,000 dollar science fair prize, and at least 1/3 of the comments were about whether she was hot or not. Most likely none of the readers here will ever see the woman in real life, so just what value do these comments have in the discussion?

I blame society :D. In our culture, for some reason men feel inclined to behave like asses when they congregate, especially with respect to the way they talk about women. I'm sure women talk differently in a roomful of women, too, and there is that "locker room atmosphere" to take into account. Part of it is the same process that happens in any group wherein there is some aspect that is noticably absent. In this case it's (ostensibly, since there are women on slashdot) a bunch of guys talking with no girls around. It's kind of like a bunch of white guys hanging around and someone cracks a black joke that they probably would not tell if their black friends were around. It is wrong, but people do it, and we aren't yet at that place in our society where enough people see the two as being equally and unequivocably wrong.

Men tend to objectify women and have a natural tendency to see them in terms of their sexual attractiveness. Part of that is a natural process, but part of that is a sickness in society that prevents men from treating women as truly equal. Even when they get to the evolutionary stage where they are able to treat women more or less equally in day to day life, under the right conditions these kinds of things can resurface if those thought processes have not been addressed. It does not help that this is the internet, where people are more or less anonymous or feel that they are. We all know what effect that can have.

In any case, just as it is quite possible, given a little self-control, to talk to an attractive woman without staring at her chest, and equally possible to sublimate sexual feelings in order to deal with someone in a professional context as another human being rather than some fantasy, I think it should be possible for a slashdotter to read a story about an attractive woman without spooging on their keyboard about how hard they'd toss her salad, or whatever. It just seems that people choose not to.

It was definitely more than a little weird in the case of the underage girls, like the high school student you mentioned. I do think (or rather hope) that in many cases, and especially that one, there was some humour involved, making fun of this very tendency. It might not have been funny for her, but who knows. Maybe she blew it off like the rest of us did.

Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot. Here they are, busting their asses to do something cool/good, they finally get some recognition, and the response is a debate on how nice her hips look or don't.

I hate to break it to you, but they do read slashdot, and if they cared, some of them could probably find out who you were. Definitely Wendy Seltzer could. Not that she will, you panting dogs. You are right, though. It is probably something they have dealt with their whole lives because that is how women are treated in our society. To a certain extent there is flattery because, after all, it is not like it is bad to be smart and attractive as well as accomplished. I know my girlfriend is. But that does not mean that they like being publically drooled over like that by a horde of oversexed, underwashed virgins who they just *know* are doing unspeakable things at their computers (hopefully not involving their picture). :P It's gross, and it is a poor way to treat someone who is contrib

Re:Is she single?

[rifter]

Hot geeky girls, on the other hand, are much more elusive. A geek in a small town could easily go his whole life without meeting a HGG. As a student at a large public university, I've met 0 hot, seriously-geeky girls and a few hot, sorta-geeky girls.

That's because they are hiding from you. Quite apart from the fact that they are geeks in the first place which tends to lead to a reclusive lifestyle, especially in college (they're studying!), anyone who knows they will basically cease to exist as a person and become an instant target for horndoggery the minute you find out something about them is likely to hide these things to a certain extent. The fact geeks tend to be shy does not help. Rinse and repeat this a few times and it's a wonder that someone hasn't created a secret bunker only accessable through obscure mathematical codes where women can evade such depredations. Then again maybe they did.

I was looking for, and have once again found, the HOWTO that talks about the problems women have with the men who hound them from the fields they might have trod, and how to prevent yourself from being one of those guys. If you really want to "score" a "geek chick," the first step, I would think, is to stop treating them the way men usually do (especially maladjusted ones). Some people also enjoy ESR's Sex Tips for Geeks, but you aren't old enough to read that until you've finished the other and done penance to linuxchix.org for your many failings :D.

Re:Is she single?

[rifter]

1) All Slashdotters are male.

2) All Slashdotters are single.

3) All Slashdotters are virgins.

4) 99% have never kissed a girl.

5) 95% have never spoken to a girl other than Mom whose basement they live in.

You forgot:

6) CowboyNeal

7) ???

8) Profit!

well, according to the fbi...

[synjck]

"Don't mess with football."

she shouldn't mess with football.

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[Benaiah]

Quite a clever woman.
I wonder if filing a DMCA counter claim and having it ignored is grounds for dismissal and so now she can keep it up on youtube forever?

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[RealGrouchy]

she shouldn't mess with football.

Why not?

This guy had a little fun at Football's expense, and you don't see much gasping about it.

- RG>

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[grimwell]

I wonder if filing a DMCA counter claim and having it ignored is grounds for dismissal, so now she can keep it up on youtube forever?

No. Fumbling DMCA procedures not mean the copyright holder surrenders their rights.

The clip she posted is permitted under fair use; that is what allows her to post the clip on YouTube indefinitely. If it isn't(or the NFL thinks it isn't), the NFL can take her to court for copyright infringement. And if the court decides the clip isn't allowed under Fair Use, the clip must be removed.

The interesting part of this story is the second take-down notice filed by the NFL. By failing to follow the correct procedures when a counter-notice has been filed, it opens them(NFL) up to a lawsuit.

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[donnyspi]

That's because no one could read his message :-)

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[Anonymous Coward]

20 October 2006 - Released without bail but prohibited from using the Internet or traveling outside Wisconsin and New Jersey

Since the 2 states don't touch I don't see how he would be able to stay within both.

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[dlt074]

"The interesting part of this story is the second take-down notice filed by the NFL. By failing to follow the correct procedures when a counter-notice has been filed, it opens them(NFL) up to a lawsuit."

not to mention the NFL then has to pay all her legal costs... she's her own lawyer. perpetual employment via youtube. ;)

Re:well, according to the fbi...

[Achromatic1978]

And yet he convinced his WIFE that this was a good investment of $30,000+.

Sure, some nice social engineering, but seriously, the actual "hack" was so fucking anticlimactic. I could only read it, on a JPG, because he'd told us what it said.

Seriously, though, if I told my wife it was my plan to spend $30,000 of our savings to get some clowns to hold LED lights at a football game, she'd punch me in the back of the head.

In other news...

[Phroon]

To paraphrase Robot Chicken: "In other news, the NFL got totally served."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

And to quote South Park: "It's on."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they're going to be F'd in the A.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a secret member of the secret Anti-Gay organization Congress, i will affirm that any attempt to "F" anyone in their "A" will be punished by a minimum of 50 years in federal prison.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they're a woman?

Homer say

[nedder]

The d'oh heard 'round the world.

To quote Peter Griffin...

[w00f]

"ehh... uhhh... I uhhmm....ehh....what?" Seriously - posting a notice to take down a notice to post a notice of a takedown notice? Who keeps track of this crap?

Re:To quote Peter Griffin...

[AndroidCat]

It's lawyers all the way down...

Re:To quote Peter Griffin...

[neersign]

the more fitting Family guy quote would be when Peter is about to place a VHS tape in his player and his door is busted down by a bunch for Feds that ask, "Did you get the written consent of NBC and the NFL?" To which Peter replies, "Just NBC." And the feds procede to blow away the tape.

Thats not verbatim, but pretty close to the actual events in the episode I think.

Whistle

[truckaxle]

Zebra adjusts volume on belt controller....

"10 yards for Illegal Procedure by the offense, replay first down"

Re:Whistle

[bersl2]

Illegal procedure is a five-yard penalty.
 
:)

Re:Whistle

[cei]

Sorry, ref. Can't replay first down without consent of the NFL...

Re:Whistle

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal procedure is a five-yard penalty.

If you were in the NBA you would receive a technical for arguing the call.

Zebra call being incorrect matches the storyline, ie here the NFL Lawyers and YouTube were the Zebras.

Lawyers in striped uniforms would please lots of people, with the stripes horizontal instead of vertical of course.

AC intercepts passed jokes, races downfield listening for whistles and watching Mod Zebra's for penalty flags....trips, landing funny bone first under cheerleader's bench. AC looks up, remembers this is Slashdot when he sees all the cheerleaders are male geeks and nerds. AC starts searching YouTube so he can file a take down notice if any video of this reaches there.

Re:Whistle

[Joe Snipe]

Duh! That's why it's funny!

Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[spoco2]

I'm an Aussie, so I've never watched an NFL game such as this, but that notice "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited" is just plain crazy (hence her initial video posting I suppose)... I mean trying to stop people DESCRIBING an event... dear god who the F*ck do they think they are? What are you supposed to do when you're talking to your mates about the big game?

"Hey Bob, see the big game last night?"
"Yeah Gary, I sure did... it was awesome!"
"What did you think about the touchdown in the..."
"SSSSSSHHHHH! What are you doing Gary? You can't discuss the game without prior consent... just hang on a sec."

Ring ring... ring ring...
*Welcome to the NFL DMCA Hotline, your call is important to us, you are currently number 13445 in the queue*.

"Oh F*ck that, let's talk about world political events"

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Paradise Pete]

I mean trying to stop people DESCRIBING an event...

They're not saying you can't describe it. They're saying you can't use their description of it. In other words, the announcer's words. A very similar "notice" has been used for decades by baseball broadcasters. So similar, in fact, that there might be copyright issues ;-)

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[c.r.o.c.o]

"Oh F*ck that, let's talk about world political events"

You might be on to something here... :)

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

you are absolutely right.

and me being the drole american, i read your post with an imaginary accent...and it was even BETTER!!!!

I was like, FUCKING A MAN!!!! WHAT HE SAID!!!

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[spoco2]

This isn't obvious from the wording, and even if it were so, you're in almost as absurd waters.

"Wow, Big Bobby Mc Bob Bob (can you tell I haven't seen any NFL broadcasts?) really went to town on the aquatically themed team's linebackers last night didn't he? What was the term he used?"

"I wouldn't like to say Norm, for fear of the NFL slapping a DMCA notice on my flabby arse."

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not let the NFL use the DMCA to remove themselves from the view of the public? I'm sure Underwater Hockey or Canoe Polo would love to become the new US national sport.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Dachannien]

Heck, you could post any random sentence to your weblog and be inadvertently quoting John Madden's commentary during a football game.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Cyraan]

Crikey!

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

The first rule of NFL Club is we don't talk about NFL Club.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[iPaul]

Super bowl Sunday is also one of the top days for spousal abuse. If your team looses and you beat your spouse, is that a form of infringement?

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[zakezuke]

Why not let the NFL use the DMCA to remove themselves from the view of the public? I'm sure Underwater Hockey or Canoe Polo would love to become the new US national sport.

I thought baseball was the national sport... though refered to mostly as passtime. Acording to wiki football does get higher nielsen ratings than the World Series, but I also know with Major League Baseball there are a hell of alot more games. I believe NFL has a 16 game schedual where MLB has at least 40-45 per season.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Inthewire]

Super bowl Sunday is also one of the top days for spousal abuse.

No

Well, it's probably in the top few hundred.

And what the hell does "my" team loose? Their bowels?

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Lord Kano]

They're not saying you can't describe it.

They tried to shutdown unauthorized fantasy football activities on the basis that the events that took place in the game are covered by their copyright and that all player stats are the results of those copyrighted events.

LK

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Animats]

I mean trying to stop people DESCRIBING an event...

The National Basketball Association already tried that and lost. NBA sued a cellular service that sent out play by play score updates. (National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir.))

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[The Mad Debugger]

where MLB has at least 40-45 per season.

Woah. You're out of touch by more than a factor of three..

There's a reason that Baseball is the hardcore nerd sport. They try to play enough games to make statistically significant findings.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[dan828]

where MLB has at least 40-45 per season. Only if they go on strike, otherwise it's 162 games per season.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[kingsean]

5:00pm - I JUST got back into my dorm room, and what am I greeted with but some girl on my floor and her mom was sitting on a couch together enjoying some sort of hot beverage! I flipped out!. Because, I mean, if you see two women sitting together drinking tea, you know they're going to start talking about their monkey problems...

Mood: Apathetic :|
Currently Tuned Into: Dead or Alive - You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[earthbound kid]

"SSSSSSHHHHH! What are you doing Gary? You can't discuss the game without prior consent... just hang on a sec."

Ring ring... ring ring...
*Welcome to the NFL DMCA Hotline, your call is important to us, you are currently number 13445 in the queue*.

Actually, the notice mentions that you need express written consent, so just making a phone call wouldn't be enough.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[suckmysav]

"I mean trying to stop people DESCRIBING an event... dear god who the F*ck do they think they are? "

Actually, this sort of battle has already been fought in Australia (it didn't make it to the courtroom though).

I refer to "NRL versus Radio 2UE" from about 2003 (I think). The scenario goes like this;

1) 2UE has long held the radio broadcast rights for National Rugby League (NRL) games and has a highly successful commentary team that achieves competition crushing ratings throughout game days, ie not just during the game itself. We are talking high ratings 12PM through 6PM Saturdays AND Sunday, throughout the season.

2) Come Season 2003, 2UE loses the broadcast rights. The "Continuous Call Team" then proceeds to "continue calling" (har har har) games from within their own studio by viewing Foxtels live TV coverage via satellite. Ratings continue to dominate, while the newly installed rights-holder (2GB) embarassingly languish in the basement.

3) NRL cries foul and demands that 2UE discontinue their "unauthorised descriptions" of NRL games.

4) 2UE initially flips the NRL the bird, but eventually relents because they know they stand a snowballs chance in hell of regaining the official broadcast rights were they to continue with that stance. It is unclear why they thought they would ever need the official rights in light of their "unofficial" ratings success.

It would have been interesting to see which side would have prevailed had it reached the courts.

So, how has it all panned out in 2007? Well, 2UE suffered through a change of owner, which apparently caused some serious discontent amongst the on-air staff. Meanwhile, 2GB management were unimpressed by the performance of their own on-air people so they began a large scale head-hunting effort which culminated in the entire "Continuous Call Team" moving across to 2GB, along with some other high profile non-league related personalities (ie "The Parrot") as well.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[zakezuke]

Woah. You're out of touch by more than a factor of three..

There's a reason that Baseball is the hardcore nerd sport. They try to play enough games to make statistically significant findings.

I was off by more than a factor of three as I was only counting home games. I should have been more clear. But the point remains that more time is dedicated to baseball than football.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, you could post any random sentence to your weblog and be inadvertently quoting John Madden's commentary during a football game.

The sentence you just wrote is copyright (C) 2006 John Madden. You can expect a call from his lawyer in the morning.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Skreems]

They tried, but they lost...

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[nagora]

They're not saying you can't describe it.

Yes they are; there's a very important use of the word "or" in there that you've missed.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Stanislav_J]

Given Madden's frequent use of the interjection "BOOM!" any explosion may well infringe on the NFL's copyright.....

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Yer Mom]

Hang on, I thought Steve Jobs had the trademark on "Boom!"...

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not saying you can't describe it.

Are you sure? Lawyers have been screwing up the English language for centuries.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Dachannien]

Heh, I guess the folks with mod points are too busy not reading TFA to be bothered to read the posts. Don't worry, though, I'm sure a few people got it.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Lumpy]

Therefore you can not use the words "touchdown" "penalty" "Rush"
  "incredible" and "this game brought to you by Budwiser"

Just like how right now if you use the phrase "final four" or "march madness" you will be sued into oblivion. They sent DMCA takedowns for commercials airing that just had a basketball in the graphics and never mentioned the phrases.

Personally, I think that if any game is played in a stadium where public funds were used to build or maintain it then the entire game is public domain.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Bohiti]

Not so much even random sentence.. a random sequence of words and grunts could quote Madden verbatim.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[thc69]

more time is dedicated to baseball

No, it just seems like "more time", as you sit there waiting for stuff to happen, and eventually you detect some movement as two or three players actually do something other than just stand there. After a couple seconds of that, it's back to waiting. Eventually they all give up and go home, with a score of 4-3 or 2-1. Yes, watching 8 hours of a game to see 3 scores is very exciting...

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[thc69]

And what the hell does "my" team loose? Their bowels?

He was obviously trying to make it rhyme.

Besides, every day is spousal abuse day with World of Warcraft!

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[zero_offset]

and me being the drole american

Drole? This American notices you responded with an imaginary spelling.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

"Hey Bob, see the big game last night?" Oh, I'm afraid that the conversation would have been on questionable ground starting right there.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[feargal]

Well, the NFL DCMA Hotline operator could take your name and address, and post out the consent to you. It would just be ridiculous for the to expect everybody to send in written requests for consent, this is the NFL we're talking about, not some backwards sports league...

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[condorhauck]

I think you just violated copyright law with that comment

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Ogive17]

I wish I had one of my MLB (baseball) ticket stubs with me right now. When you read the back of the ticket, the assumption is you're not allowed to talk about the game or the outcome outside of the stadium without approval from MLB and both teams involved in the game.

I'm sure no-one has been sued for telling their buddy "yeah, the Reds won 3-2".. but the wording makes it sound like a sin to talk about the game.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[portnoy]

"I was off by more than a factor of three as I was only counting home games."

Odd. Do all the MLB teams play three times as many away games than home ones?

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[dpilot]

Well now that you mention it, couldn't similar terms apply to newscasts?

Imagine if Dan Rather were still in the business, he could post DMCA takedown notices based on quoting one of his metaphors. ("an election lead shakier than a bowl of cafeteria jello" or something like that) I'm sure other newsmen still in the business have similarly distinctive styles equally ripe for DMCA takedowns.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[cei]

And with crackdowns on unauthorized use of the trademark "Super Bowl" the last couple of years have had a huge surge in advertisers and reporters referring merely to "the Big Game"...

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Dannon]

Not to be confused with Emeril's trademark on "Bam!"

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Red Flayer]

More like "Oh f*ck that, let's talk about NASCAR"

Or, "Let's talk about Lost"

Getting Americans to pay attention to world political events is laughable -- most Americans won't even seriously discuss domestic political events.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Hoi Polloi]

Well if they try hard enough they can not only alienate fans enough to stop unauthorized use but also interest.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Pollardito]

Heck, you could post any random sentence to your weblog and be inadvertently quoting John Madden's commentary during a football game. and the more random it is the more likely it matches

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[blake3737]

Oh F*ck that, let's talk about world political events"
You're talking about american football here... world political events?? Right.. lol. more like "OMG did you see that episode of Idol last night??? ZOMFG"

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[elrous0]

I prefer to abuse my spouse on Halloween. The masks really help hide the cuts and bruises.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Rakarra]

Emeril had better watch it. If he keeps kicking it up a notch, he's going to have nowhere left to go but down.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[drinkypoo]

The best thing about madden games is the idiotic commentary. It's like watching an actual game! "You really just have to hold onto the ball" and other amazingly insightful comments like that.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[JohnnyComeLately]

You wrote: the entire "Continuous Call Team" moving across to 2GB, along with some other high profile non-league related personalities (ie "The Parrot") as well.

What would also be interesting if they took this absurdity to the next logical level and apply property rights to their IP. Meaning, if you create a program at work and then move to another employer, then the rights for the computer program remain with the first employer. Now, extend that to a "personality" on the TV, which is something a TV show/broadcaster will and does spend considerable resources helping "develop", "promote", etc. When you move, technically they could try to argue they own the personna since it's a tangible asset. If the chef guy can protect "BAM!", then the show who employed the chef should own the rights, right? There's probably some loophole or industry practice that gets around it, but it truly shows how absurd this can get in today's litigation and IP happy culture.

Could Big Bird move from PBS to the Today Show? And if so would PBS sue? LOL Sorry...I'm a little giddy from lack of sleep.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[cayenne8]

"Not to be confused with Emeril's trademark on "Bam!"

I think Emeril may have to watch it...that was trademarked much earlier by Bam-Bam Rubble back in the Flintstone's era...

:-)

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[adrianmonk]

I'm an Aussie, so I've never watched an NFL game such as this, but that notice "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited" is just plain crazy (hence her initial video posting I suppose)... I mean trying to stop people DESCRIBING an event... dear god who the F*ck do they think they are?

Hah! You think that's ridiculous? How about the NFL's assertion that if your television is larger than 55 inches (diagonal measurement), you can't watch the Superbowl?! It's so absurd you probably think I'm joking, but, frighteningly, I'm not. (Search for "55 inch" in that second link.)

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be little pager-sized devices that would show the stats of baseball games in progress. They were kept up to date by people watching or listening to the game, and were mostly used by people who were working in places where they couldn't watch tv or listen to radio - so it wasn't affecting the audience at all (wanted to get one for my brother, who was a bartender and major baseball fan).

It got shut down as a violation of "using the description of the radio/tv transmission."

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[tsalaroth]

twice as many.

40 x 3 = 120

40 x 2 = 80

120 - 80 = 40

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[elsilver]

Well, it's probably in the top few hundred.

Come on, let's not exagerate here. I'd say it has got to be in the top three hundred fifty, maybe top three hundred sixty. Definately no lower than the top three hundred seventy.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[spoco2]

Dear god that's ridiculous... although you can tell it was written with some absurd intent to curb clubs etc. showing things on really large screens without some sort of licence (ridiculous anyway), all your home has to be is less than 2000sqft and you're not allowed to show the game on a display larger than 55" OR with more than 6 speakers... MADNESS.

Shear frigging madness.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Paradise Pete]

there's a very important use of the word "or" in there that you've missed.

I'd say it's you overlooking the word "the." They don't say "an," which would be necessary to support your position.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Lord Kano]

Well if they try hard enough they can not only alienate fans enough to stop unauthorized use but also interest.

Not where I'm from. Here, in Pittsburgh, people actually considered a ballot initiative to pay 0.5% in additional sales tax to pay for new stadiums for the Steelers and Pirated. Fortunately it failed, but it did get something like 30% of the people to vote for it.

Football is like a religion in this town. I have seen cocaine addicts get less excited about the prospect of another fix than Steelers fans.

If the NFL increased the price of tickets by one blowjob, there would be guys trying to talk their wives or girlfriends into doing it and some would probably do it themselves.

LK

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[zakezuke]

Odd. Do all the MLB teams play three times as many away games than home ones?

(Yes, i'm sure I deserve the -1 mod point for explaining I was counting home games)

I'm not an expert in MLB, to get the approximation of more than 40-45 I was refered to wiki and noted how many home games some team played. Seemed a reasonable reference point, and my opinion is based on living near Seattle where there was a big deal about replacing the King Dome, and whether to build two stadiums. Given 1 stadium was enough for both football and baseball, and given the number of home games for baseball is far greater than the number of home games for baseball... I like others felt that one stadium was sufficent and priority should have been for baseball. I could care less about most organized sports, but just because I don't enjoy them doesn't mean they are not important.

this essay illistrates my point a tad better even if i'm in disagreement with the author assertion that football is more of a national sport than baseball. According to this essay, I approximate that MLB has 10 times as many games as the NFL with a ticket price being about 2.5 times as much for an NFL ticket as a MLB ticket, where attndance is 4.41 times higher for MLB than the NFL in 2000. While without a doubt TV ratings for NFL are higher, and television income is also higher, and cost to attend a season of football is more reasonable than Baseball, I have to disagree with the author that 1/2 the average attendance per game for baseball is outweighed by the fact that there are clearly at least 10times as many games per season for MLB.

This is rather why I consider baseball to be America's national sport, and not football... as without a doubt more time is dedicated to baseball than football, and it's not just because games tend to be ultra long.

If you are interested in schedualing info, see this page
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ACO/dimacs/trick.html

Again, the only reason why I cared at all about the subject was the question which sport was most likely to generate the largest income.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[nagora]

I'd say it's you overlooking the word "the." They don't say "an," which would be necessary to support your position.

?!

The text

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited?

contains the word "the" only twice: "the private use of..." and "the NFL's consent..." neither of which have anything to do with the clause specifying what you can't do. What are you talking about?

TWW

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[portnoy]

You might want to try adding that up again. This time, pretend that there are 162 games in an MLB season.

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[tsalaroth]

oh, in that case, 3 times! :)

Re:Just ridiculous notice to begin with

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot grits on the NFL commissioner's lap.

So now what?

[bendodge]

If she sues, will the courts hold the NFL to the standard, and if they do, will it be more than a slap on the wrist?

This looks to be a legal milestone, for better or worse.

Re:So now what?

[mwvdlee]

I hope the court will force the NFL to change their notice to something more fair-use; "This clip is copyrighted by NFL which means you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't distribute it without modification".

Woo?

[Rydia]

So the judge says "you messed up, file an action."

And then they do. And then, the overwhelming likelihood is, she will lose. That's really sticking it to... er... uh... I have no idea. This really is the equivalent of a legal prank, setting things up so you can pop up in the end and say "gotcha!" without anything really changing.

Go team.

Re:Woo?

[White Shade]

i dunno, from the brief description, it looks like she's completely in the right, and it would require some pretty severely screwed up readings of the laws to make her lose in court. Unless there's some other loopholes buried in there, it seems about as straightforward as legal issues can ever be!

I'm definitely interested to see this play out in court... it'll be an extremely interesting legal battle, whether or not it sets any precedents or changes anything for anyone.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then, the overwhelming likelihood is, she will lose

Not likely. There are many exceptions to copyright. Quoting of brief passages (or sometimes, even the entire work) for commentary, review, satire and education are perfectly legal.

And as a law prof, she probably knows what she is doing.

Moreover, the free publicity and law review article she will inevitably write about this can't be bad for her career.

Re:Woo?

[QuantumG]

You forget, she's an EFF lawyer.. losing when there are overwelming odds in their favour is what EFF lawyers do.

Re:Woo?

[White Shade]

LOL :D

that's hilarious, to the point where it's probably true.. can you think of any particular instances of that happening? I'm curious now :)

Re:Woo?

[rm69990]

Yes, because a short clip used for critique is forbidden by copyright law. Oh, and pigs fly as well. Time for you to get back to work and quit playing lawyer.

Re:Woo?

[ZWithaPGGB]

Umm, methinks you are unfamiliar with US Fair Use Criteria.

She's a Law Professor, using an excerpt of a broadcast, the minimally necessary portion of it, in order to create a derivative work or commentary (her class).
I wish there was an HTML tag for patriotism. If you don't like the USA, then don't read below.
Unlike the ROW, which, despite your self important (usually the result of an inferiority complex) kafeeklatsh derision of US, is actually a corporatist dirigiste (with the state being the largest corporation) hell-hole, the US is still a common-law, the law applies to everyone, power is delegated from the people to the state, entity, even if it doesn't always seem that way.
In this case, you've got someone who knows the law, and has the corporatists by the jock-strap. The NFL are toast.
God Bless the USA. BTW: I'm an Immigrant from Europe, Ireland Specifically. When I left, my Mum asked me why, I said "Because in America, you have the right to be wrong, in Ireland, you only have the right to be right." Irish by birth, US Citizen by choice.

Re:Woo?

[ResidntGeek]

She clearly is in the right, but Rydia is right. The judge will likely say "That was illegal. Bad, naughty large corporation! Give me your wrist... *slap* Now file a proper lawsuit about it."

(And then the oral sex!)

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

, the US is still a common-law, the law applies to everyone, power is delegated from the people to the state, entity, even if it doesn't always seem that way.

Perhaps if you had grown up here you would have known that what you just spouted is a load of crap.
Back in the day it was much better, although your statement was still laughable nonsense back then. Perhaps it's still better here than in Ireland, but please don't spout delusions that "better than something is somehow good".

We need people here who will actually stand up for what this country once claimed to stand for, not sycophantic boot lickers like you have demonstrated yourself to be who will apologize for the criminal actions of our government and monied interests by claiming that "it's worse somewhere else".

Either step up and be a citizen or go the fuck home. We have far too many boot licking cowards here already. Enoguh that we're steadily getting more and more like "home".

Re:Woo?

[ntk]

No, it's not true, although there was a fake new story that put out this idea a few years ago. These days, it sounds like QuantumG is the only person that still believes it, given that the last time I corrected a Slashdot posting about it, it was posted by him too.

Admittedly, the list in that correction is out of date: since then we've busted a ClearChannel patent, revealed (after three years of research) a plan to introduce a broadcast flag copy controls in Europe, and made a DMCA abuser publicly apologise to the Net. Did I mention that EFF did that *this week*? Check the archives for previous stuff.

Also, for the record, Wendy is a great lawyer, and a fine hacker of MythTV. I fully expect she'll kick the NFL's asses , then watch the action replay without ads later.

Re:Woo?

[Eivind]

Except:

• They *didn't* file, as they're supposed to. Instead they sent a second notice. Which then cannot be claimed to be in good faith.
• Why the fuck would she lose ? She posted a small quote for the purpose of critique, one with zero comercial value. Very VERY obviously fair use.

Professors of law aren't generally stupid about law.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

This really is the equivalent of a legal prank, setting things up so you can pop up in the end and say "gotcha!" without anything really changing.

Nope. The issue here is that the NFL is trying to say that they are above the same copyright law that applies to everyone else - that they have holy authority bestowed from somewhere on high to forbid fair use of their material. They have no such thing, but until now, they've never been challenged. Now they've been challenged, and they screwed up the first play.

Re:Woo?

[91degrees]

It's not really true, but they did drop the ball with DeCSS and with copyright extension. Both of which they could have won, but they took a far too idealistic view of the law and underestimated how much the commercial daamage argument might affect the judges.

Re:Woo?

[SharpFang]

She'd set an easy to follow precedent.
Copyright holders would think twice before sending out DMCA takedown notices using bots/spiders or army of drones, if they know the tactics could badly backfire and cost them big $$$.

Re:Woo?

[flonker]

It seems to me that the ones at fault are Youtube. If they received a counter notice, they needn't worry about the second C&D letter, and should have ignored it or responded to it with the counter notice attached. Of course, a lawyer would know better, and I'm curious what they would think on the matter from Youtube's perspective.

Re:Woo?

[Aladrin]

You assume ignorance on Youtube's part, but if the NFL loses this case, it means good things for Youtube. Maybe they passed the notice along simply to force this into court, without having to do the court stuff themselves?

Of course, I may be giving them too much credit, too.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...in Ireland, you only have the right to be right."

Oh please, the boys up North make their careers out of being wrong.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

J-O-K-E

Look it up.

Since you're touting your record, what happened with DeCSS? (correct answer, the EFF fucked up badly, let's see if they own up)

Re:Woo?

[mpe]

The issue here is that the NFL is trying to say that they are above the same copyright law that applies to everyone else - that they have holy authority bestowed from somewhere on high to forbid fair use of their material. They have no such thing,

Their claims arn't actually that unusual. Check out the front of the average book. Their mistake however is to believe their own bluff, rather than realising that someone was bound to fail to be fooled sooner or later.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the judge says "you messed up, file an action."

And then they do. And then, the overwhelming likelihood is, she will lose. That's really sticking it to... er... uh... I have no idea. This really is the equivalent of a legal prank, setting things up so you can pop up in the end and say "gotcha!" without anything really changing.

Not quite true.. the DMCA has a provision for educational use which hinges on the amount of content. The NFL is in effect claiming that one frame
of video is too much.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

EFF didn't fight the copyright extension case. That was Larry Lessig.

Re:Woo?

[chinton]

I'm definitely interested to see this play out in court... it'll be an extremely interesting legal battle, whether or not it sets any precedents or changes anything for anyone.

Then what is the point of the whole exercise, other than waste peoples time and money?

Re:Woo?

[QuantumG]

Never let the truth get in the way of a funny comment. Lighten up, eh?

Re:Woo?

[kinglink]

Exactly, this sounds like an internet win... aka sounds really good online but when the courts get their hands on it they will rip her a new one.

Do you really think it took 20-40 years before someone realized that the NFL's copyright notice isn't binding? My guess is it's binding enough that she's screwed.

Re:Woo?

[ZWithaPGGB]

Boot licking, now there's a comment that could/should be moderated Troll.
You have no idea what I have done, or continue to do, to make America what it stands for. Let's start with 13 years service in the US Army, membership in the EFF, and actual local environmental stewardship.
What do you do, other than insult people you don't know?
yep, America was once much freer than it is today, before "Big Government" which got co-opted by the "Industrial Military Complex". It still has a basic legal framework that allows the people to turn back that tide, unlike the European countries where the State, not the People, are Sovereign.
So, Citizen, I've stepped up, at the cost of my own blood, I might add. WTF have you done? What do you continue to do?

Re:Woo?

[ZWithaPGGB]

Yeah, although I don't think there's any legal RIGHT to it (Paisley notwithstanding), and that's not the blueshirt/gombeenman Republic, now is it? I left in 1984, it's changed a lot (for the better, IMO) since then. Charlie Haughey was a special kind of hypocrite, but he really was the embodiment of the country he ruled.

Re:Woo?

[HTH NE1]

Since you're touting your record, what happened with DeCSS? (correct answer, the EFF fucked up badly, let's see if they own up)

I'm not a member of the EFF, but I do know that the client (2600) elected not to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Re:Woo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Screwed? The fact that you have put up with it for so long is a testament to how spineless you really are.

get them!

[bzipitidoo]

The NFL has volunteered to be the object lesson of the moment, bless them. That NFL notice has been around for years-- since the 1980's at least-- and it always seemed out of step with reality. I'm not much of a TV watcher, so I don't really know but I can't recall any other sport or other kind of show putting up notices like the NFL's.

Here's hoping they get roasted in court, and don't get off with a wrist slapping. One more item to add to the pile of reasons why the DMCA was a bad idea. If events like this make enough of a stink, perhaps Congress will have to revisit the DMCA.

Re:get them!

[AO]

I can't recall any other sport or other kind of show putting up notices like the NFL's

How about the NBA and MLB? I know when I watch the Spurs (basketball) local telecast, the have a lawyer from a local firm read the exact same message, just replacing NBA with NFL.

Re:get them!

[Saxophonist]

If events like this make enough of a stink, perhaps Congress will have to revisit the DMCA.

More than likely, if there is a revision to the DMCA stemming from this event, it would be to eliminate the "loophole" that penalizes a second takedown notice after a counternotice. Or, counternotices would no longer be available. The stakeholders in the DMCA have sufficient finances to make sure that revisions would benefit their perceived interests, not those of the public at large.

Re:get them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress will revisit the DMCA when Sunset applies.

Re:get them!

[Skye16]

I don't think I've ever seen anything like that in any NHL game. I don't bring this up as a "Hockey is better than Basketball/Baseball/Football" thing, I just think it's interesting that, in the 70 some odd games I've watched since september, I've yet to see a single mention of that. I don't even think Versus or NBC shows it, and that's pretty shocking, since they seem to be the most officious pricks in existence when it comes to producing a game. You'd think one of the "services" they would be offering is the removal of our rights to describe a game we saw.

Then again, they still embrace fighting, so maybe they just realize a spade is a spade and there's no use getting your jock all in a twist over it.

Re:get them!

[The One and Only]

You've never heard of the "express written consent of Major League Baseball"?

Re:get them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Express written consent? Crap! I've been rebroadcasting with implied oral consent.

Re:get them!

[jdigriz]

>>The stakeholders in the DMCA have sufficient finances to make sure that revisions would benefit their perceived interests, not those of the public at large. And the Public has sufficient votes to make sure that it could elect a fair-use friendly congress regardless of how much Corporations spend in elections. However, it simply doesn't care. Therefore the idiotic pro-corporate DMCA amendments actually do reflect the will of the vast majority of the people. Consent of the governed, the most basic political science of all.

Re:get them!

[shoemilk]

Whoa, you like actually get a channel that broadcasts hockey? I think the NHL is too desperate for fans to alienate them with something like that...

Re:get them!

[Skye16]

Only when the NHL makes the deals with TV stations do you get boned (see: Versus, NBC (and yes, I get both)). Still, I live close enough to Pittsburgh that Fox Sports Network (FSN) Pittsburgh is carried by the cable company. Bob Steigerwald may not be nearly as cool as Mike Lange, but everyone loves Bob Errey, and the FSN presentation is about 156223508926509285609185 times better than Versus or NBC could ever even hope to be. Seriously, I find it better than 95% of all NFL telecasts, as well. Sometimes ESPN fucks up and gets some knowledgeable play-by-play and color analysts on the air who don't ramble off on some non-football-related-tangent, or show ridiculous puff piece after ridiculous puff piece, but they've made it clear that THAT is just an accident and won't be happening often. Other than that, we just get boned, game after game after game after game. Blah.

Go get 'em Wendy

[cygtoad]

Most content providers don't want to deal with the actual letter of the law. They just want to bark out take down notices.

NFL: YouTube, Jump boy jump! Now take down all these posts.
YouTube: Arf!

It is pitiful that so much stuff can be taken down with so little thought and accountability. Without watch dogs like Wendy Seltzer these robotic asshats would trample all over our free speech rights.

Re:Go get 'em Wendy

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last fucking time, youtube is not your personal conduit of free speech. They can censor whatever they want, for whatever reason they want. If you don't like it, make your own youtube.

Re:Go get 'em Wendy

[Killjoy_NL]

With blackjack and hookers?

Re:Go get 'em Wendy

[Chmcginn]

No, with a stripper factory & a beer volcano.

Go Steelers!

[Oswald]

Black and Gold forever!

Huh? What do you mean, that's not what this is about? She said "NFL."

I heard her.

Re:Go Steelers!

[CrazyJim1]

Steelers rock. You know whats fun to do? When someone asks what the score of the game is, tell them,"All accounts of the game are rights of the NFL. I need to get the NFL's permission to tell you that."

Huh?

[uvajed_ekil]

Okay, I love free speech and fair use and hate legislation that is widely abused, like the DMCA. But what is the real point of this all other than to piss-off the NFL? Sure, the NFL acted improperly by sending a second DMCA take-down notice. But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?

I'd love to see the DMCA go away, but violating it just to entice someone else to violate it further doesn't have any effect on the law itself. If I am missing something here, please tell me, since the NFL appears to have acted within the law initially. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't think three do either (1. The DMCA, 2. Seltzer, 3. The NFL).

Re:Huh?

[king-manic]

The point is her original action did not violate any laws. The NFL failed to follow the letter of the law.

Re:Huh?

[nanoflower]

Is it a violation? There's a fair use law (I think that's the one) that lets people use a small portion a copyrighted piece. Aslo she chose the one peice that should never have been an issue. I don't know why she posted it but given her background it might have had to do with a copyright discussion in which case it gets back to the Fair Use (or whatever it's called) law. She's certainly one that would be likely to know what laws make it okay to post that VERY small portion of the typical game broadcast.

Re:Huh?

[EzInKy]

But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?


No, she was exercising fair use rights to educate people about misuse of the DMCA.

Re:Huh?

[vux984]

But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?

Not according to Seltzer.

Her contention is that she posted a brief clip for legitimate educational purposes. She is invoking her fair use rights, and therefore not contrary to any law.

(Furthermore she only posted the copyright notice, not even a clip of the football game itself, and the NFL claiming copyright infringement of the copyright notice is almost absurd.)

Re:Huh?

[Dachannien]

But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?

No.

(From 17 USC 107) ...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.

There is a larger explanation of this ensconced in the statute, but Seltzer's use of the work is easily covered by the fair use exception. She posted it for criticism and commentary purposes, not for profit; the clip was posted as the best way to report on factual information; it was a puny segment of the original football game broadcast; and there is virtually no negative effect on the NFL's market for the posted material (after all, who would buy a video clip of their copyright assertion).

The reason the DMCA counter-takedown provision is there is because the public has a right to use copyrighted materials in this fashion, and in this case, the NFL confounded Seltzer's ability to exercise that right through the second takedown request. This portion of the DMCA is actually fairly reasonable in protecting both copyright holders and the public interest, and Seltzer was exercising her rights under the law, so the NFL is solely and completely to blame here.

Re:Huh?

[Sancho]

The clip she used was short and used for educational purposes. It clearly falls under fair use. What is ironic is that she was using the clip to show how corporations are abusing the DMCA nad copyright law.

The NFL demanded that Youtube remove the clip as per the DMCA. This is their right as the content-holder if they believe that their copyright is being infringed.

Seltzer sent a notice to Youtube stating that she did not infringe the NFL's copyright (as it was a fair use of the clip). This is her right as per the DMCA.

At this point, the NFL is supposed to use the courts. Instead, they sent another C&D to Youtube.

What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512. Actually, /right/now/ that's probably not true, however if more people exercised their rights, it would be. Copyright needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. If the burden on the corporation becomes too high, they'll simply buy a stricter law.

Re:Huh?

[iPaul]

No, the NFL is asserting rights to their material they don't have. If you take them at their word, you would have to get special permission from them to file a news report on the game, for example. That's clearly not the case. You don't have to have special permission to report on the superbowl. They would require, for example, you to get permission to take a 10 sec clip to show someone throwing a helmet. This falls under a paradigm known loosely as fair-use. For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.

What you do not have the right to do: Record the game on your Tivo and post the thing in its entirety, or substantial portions, and place your recordings on YouTube.

What they're making you do is to put yourself in legal jeopardy to protect your rights to use the material. They're not the only ones. For example, documentary film makers (read guys with no budget) often get requests to license music or images that just happen to show up in the course of filming. For example, a song playing in the background, maybe from a nearby house. Technically speaking, they do not have to license the song if it happened to be playing in the background when they were shooting. However, they often choose to pay the royalty fee rather than fight over it (a more expensive proposition), or just drop the scene.

We're heading for a world where you might have to take every photo you want to place on flickr, and photo-shop out the Coke label, the designer logo on the sweatshirt, and the images on any posters or paintings that happen to be in the shot. This is all because attorneys for the trademark or copyright holders want to make you fight for the rights you already have.

Re:Huh?

[rm69990]

Ever heard of fair use? She took a short clip showing the NFL's copyright notice, not the entire broadcast, for the purposes of educational debate. Precisely what fair use covers. And that's why the NFL violated the DMCA as opposed to taking her to court...

Re:Huh?

[honkycat]

The following is not meant to disagree with you (other than possibly on a small point, I can't tell from your post).

As far as I know, they're quite free to claim rights they don't actually have, so long as they don't actually take legally significant actions based on those statements. Similarly, I'm free to demand that you not take my picture while I'm standing in a public place. There's no legal requirement that I inform you that you are actually legally permitted to snap away (assuming you're not using my image for commercial purposes).

The law trumps their statement and it's up to the consumer to know his rights under the law. Their statement, perhaps sensibly, is stricter than what the law allows. They don't want you to be able to claim any rights to use their content beyond the bare minimum provided by law. Still, you are quite free to disregard any terms they've described that are stricter than the actual legal provisions. In the absence of a valid contract to the contrary, there simply is no mechanism for the NFL to add restrictions.

Of course, the DMCA take-down notices ARE legally significant. Making knowingly false statements means committing (IIRC) perjury. It's just possible that the original take-down notice may have been legitimate (although, honestly, no lawyer could possibly pass the bar and have a good faith belief that her use of the clip was in violation of the law, so even that is an EXTREMELY gracious statement). Once she filed her counter-notice, however, they can no longer claim this...

Re:Huh?

[jmv]

But wasn't Seltzer acting contrary to the law to begin with?

No. Ever heard of fair use?

Re:Huh?

[TobascoKid]

As far as I know, they're quite free to claim rights they don't actually have,

But isn't the threat of legal action still a threat? If the copyright holder said that they were going to come around and cause you actual, physical or financial harm that would be illegal. Seeing as a court action would cost the defendant money (and cause a lot of stress), isn't that the same thing?

Re:Huh?

[zotz]

"Copyright needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. If the burden on the corporation becomes too high, they'll simply buy a stricter law."

I have never heard anyone mention anything in the U.S. constitution that says there needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. There needs to be benefits to the people perhaps. (Science and the useful arts?)

Now you may be right on the second sentence though.

"What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512."

Why file suit for every infringement? Why not only the ones that look like they will cause you economic harm?

What I think is really flawed or outdated is the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse though it should still hold for common sense issues. It is economically infeasible to keep abreast of all the laws so that you can try not to violate them. Hey, and as an added bonus, in my country, the law is protected by copyright!

all the best,

drew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!

Re:Huh?

[WedgeTalon]

It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512.

What's so hard about it? All it would take is a five column spreadsheet:

Content Name, Infringing URL, Date of DMCA Notice, Date of 512, Suit filed?(y/n).

Perhaps they could get fancy and add a column for the "infringer's" name. Having created this, to finding info is only a CTRL-F away. This is exactly the sort of thing that computers make very, very EASY to keep track of.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should patent this idea so no one can steal it! ;^)

Re:Huh?

[mpe]

The NFL demanded that Youtube remove the clip as per the DMCA. This is their right as the content-holder if they believe that their copyright is being infringed.
Seltzer sent a notice to Youtube stating that she did not infringe the NFL's copyright (as it was a fair use of the clip). This is her right as per the DMCA.

At which point YouTube is obliged to reinstate the content in question.

What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512.

Whilst it might be "impossible" to monitor uploads the situation here is that someone has complained that a specific piece of content is infringing followed by a counter notice being submitted and acted on. This would apply to a tiny faction of the content being hosted. All that is needed is to apply a tiny piece of meta data to each item.

Re:Huh?

[mpe]

It's just possible that the original take-down notice may have been legitimate (although, honestly, no lawyer could possibly pass the bar and have a good faith belief that her use of the clip was in violation of the law, so even that is an EXTREMELY gracious statement). Once she filed her counter-notice, however, they can no longer claim this...

AFAIK the bar is very low for both kinds of notices. The point is that these are ment to be "one shot" deals. Once someone has sent a counter notice the hoster should be "out of the loop" at least in respect of the work in question (or any parts of it). Not only should the hoster hot nonour a duplicate "take down" they probably arn't even obliged to say why. If things work as they should the plaintiff (in this case the NFL) must follow a normal procedure, including correctly identifying and serving legal notices to the defendent.

Re:Huh?

[C0rinthian]

Why file suit for every infringement? Why not only the ones that look like they will cause you economic harm?
IIRC you can't pick and choose like that. If you know about a violation of your own copyright and decide not to persue it, other violators you DO persue can use that against you.

If you choose not to defend your copyright, you lose your ability to defend your copyright.

Re:Huh?

[BlueBlade]

Hum, no. You can't ever "lose" a copyright, unless it expires. What you're thinking about is trademarks, which is completely different.

Re:Huh?

[zotz]

"IIRC you can't pick and choose like that."

Well, I think you can. Perhaps a lawyer would like to chime in.

You have to be much more careful with trademarks though from what I understand.

all the best,

drew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1QealrmLk
Paper Plane 002 Take 001

Re:Huh?

[EzInKy]

And waste the court's time with irrelevant and silly cases. I mean come on, what's the point?


While we may be heading in to a world where protecting free speech may become irrelevant and silly I still hold hope that the effort is not yet a waste of time.

Re:Huh?

[bythescruff]

This is all because attorneys for the trademark or copyright holders want to make you pay for the rights you already have.

There, fixed that for you. :)

Re:Huh?

[Red Flayer]

If you take them at their word, you would have to get special permission from them to file a news report on the game, for example. That's clearly not the case. You don't have to have special permission to report on the superbowl.

Unlike with trademark, under copyright they can allow infringement in some cases, while seeking takedown in others.

They would require, for example, you to get permission to take a 10 sec clip to show someone throwing a helmet. This falls under a paradigm known loosely as fair-use. For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.

Not true. It depends on the intended usage of the passage/clip, along with the size of the sample, not just on the fact that it's just a small part of the work. De minimis usage is only acceptable under fair use if the portion reproduced would be considered fair use for other reasons.

For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.

Better check with your lawyer, first. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, where a 400-word excerpt was deemed not to be fair use, since it comprised "the heart of the book".

I fully agree with the point you make in your post. However, things have gotten worse recently, and it's important to note that what was considered fair use in 1990 is no longer necessarily still considered fair use.

Re:Huh?

[Sancho]

I have never heard anyone mention anything in the U.S. constitution that says there needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. It's implied. The original purpose of copyright was not a way to give ownership of an intangible production, but to give a limited monopoly on the rights associated with that production (right to perform, right to copy, etc) so that the creator can make money from it. After the monopoly expired, the work was to enrich the public domain.

That is obviously no longer the case, as copyright extensions always show up once some major work is about to fall into the public domain.

What I think is really flawed or outdated is the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse though it should still hold for common sense issues. It is economically infeasible to keep abreast of all the laws so that you can try not to violate them. I agree. Most laws follow common sense, so it's not a problem to obey them. But it only takes getting hit with one really obscure traffic law out of the blue to realize that the system sucks. Got a better proposal?

Hey, and as an added bonus, in my country, the law is protected by copyright! I'm not sure which country that is, but in America, we have a few laws protected by copyright: building codes. So you can't legally build a house that doesn't conform to the code, and you can't get a copy of the code without paying absurd fees. You can review the code at a library or town hall, of course, but that's probably pretty infeasible if you're trying to actually build a house yourself.

Re:Huh?

[Sancho]

Except that it isn't Youtube's job to monitor which works have been reinstated. They get a C&D from the copyright holder, and part of that C&D states (under penalty of perjury) that the work infringes, that the C&D comes from the copyright holder, and that the takedown notice is legal per the DMCA. Youtube MUST comply with such a notice to maintain their safe harbor status. The problem is that the second C&D was not legal per the DMCA, as once the item is reinstated, the copyright holder is supposed to get a court order to escalate the incident.

Re:Huh?

[iPaul]

Thanks. I think we are in agreement. I was tired when I wrote it last night, but you pointed out the major thrust of what they're doing " claim[ing] rights they don't actually have." My point is that they are putting the burden on consumers to enforce their rights. Otherwise, by tacit acceptance, we will loose those rights.

Re:Huh?

[iPaul]

Thanks, My point about reporting is that you don't need special permission to state that the superbowl occured, where it occured, or who played in it. Imagine if that were the case, and we had to refer to the superbowl as "A really well attended game." Your right, I did make a gross over-simplification of fair use. However, when people use pieces of someone else's content as part of another piece in a conforming way, they tend to be short.

Re:Huh?

[C0rinthian]

Ah, I believe you are right. I take back my comments then. I wonder if by not persuing all violators, does it set a precident that can bite you later on? I think the key is if you are aware of the violation and do nothing. Obviously you can't be expected to deal with situations you don't know about...

Re:Huh?

[zotz]

"It's implied."

Actually, I am not sure it is. I think the word balance is the problem. There does not need to be a balance (equality) of any sort. There just needs to be enough of a tradeoff to get the producers to produce and publish enough works to serve the publics needs.

"Got a better proposal?"

Well, perhaps a crazy one to kick off the discussion. In any case involving the "state" and a jury, quiz the jury on the law, if they all know it, the case proceeds, if they don't, case dismissed. if the government wants to enforce laws, they better see to it that they educate the public as to what they are. Pros? Cons?

I am in the Bahamas. Funny thing is, from what I understand, the U.S. wil not honour the copyrights on our laws in the U.S.

all the best,

drew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!

Re:Huh?

[honkycat]

Exactly.

Re:Huh?

[honkycat]

Other than threats of physical violence or other illegal acts, I don't know that there's a problem. They're not in a position to advise you of your rights, you are responsible for your knowing those.

The way I see it, they basically say "We forbid you any rights to this material." They're not actually able to limit you any further than the law, but it's up to you to interpret the law correctly. If they disagree with your interpretation, they may well sue you. They're in a better position to get a conservative reading of your right to fair use because their statement advised you that they willingly grant you no rights. You therefore have the bare minimum allowed by law and can't claim , e.g., that they gave you implicit oral permission that you can't show a record of, or that your use was inadvertent under the mistaken good faith belief that the material was public domain.

Yeah, going to court over this would cost you money. That's a fact of life. In truth, though, their statement is meaningless if you obey copyright laws. You should be taking care to respect it with any material you use and run the risk of litigation any time you attempt fair use, or you'll get yourself into trouble.

Pedantic

[konstant]

Legal expert with axe to grind tricks low-paid professional hatchet men at NFL into making a minor and unimportant error.

Re:Pedantic

[Oddscurity]

Low-paid professional hatchet men at the NFL who are probably going to need an Alka-Seltzer now?

Re:Pedantic

[denttford]

Pedantic?

You know what, in one day this woman has done more for my rights and the rights of others than you will in your life. If holding those who influence the law to actually abiding by them is pedantic, then I declare pedantry heroic.

Re:Pedantic

[jkrise]

The DMCA is also a pedantic, pathetic attempt at social engineering. The error is netiher minor nor unimportant.

Re:Pedantic

[etymxris]

It's not a trick. If they're issuing take-down notices in the name of the law they should actually understand what the law says. Neither is it a spirit vs. letter of the law issue. The proper procedures for copyright holders to take in the DCMA are outlined quite explicitly, and this was intentional.

Besides, no take-down notice should have ever been sent. Her use clearly falls within fair use. If the NFL is depending on "low-paid professional hatchet men" to act in their name, and these people make mistakes, then the NFL still bears full responsibility for these mistakes. After all, these people are working as legal agents of the NFL.

Re:Pedantic

[honkycat]

Umm, no, it's not pedantry. Although I'd argue that the DMCA is deeply flawed, this provision is one of the few palatable things about it. It provides a bit of balance -- the copyright holder can demand that the service provider immediately remove infringing content and the provider can escape liability by complying. This provision allows the person responsible for posting the allegedly infringing content to vouch for and take responsibility for the content. At this point, the safe harbor has served its purpose and the service provider need not worry about liability.

The question is now between the copyright holder and the person responsible. The only sensible next step is to take the question to a court or drop it. Allowing repeated demands that the content be taken down would give WAY too much power to the copyright holder. The law has served its purpose and prevented anonymous copyright violation since someone came forward and took responsibility by filing the notice of fair use with the service provider.

The penalties for violation of process are critical. It's unreasonable to expect YouTube or other service providers to do anything other than comply with a take-down notice since that is the only way they can really be sure of satisfying the safe harbor requirements. The penalty section of the law gives a legitimate fair-user a mechanism to prevent abuse.

This was CLEARLY fair use and it was CLEARLY abuse by the NFL. This law is bad enough; don't let it be made worse by allowing the few limits it DOES have to be ignored. Take-down notices are serious legal documents and should not be issued lightly/automatically. I hope this is prosecuted vigorously.

Re:Pedantic

[rm69990]

Please explain how exactly she "tricked" them. She exercised her rights under the DMCA, the NFL abused theirs. The NFL believed the clip was infringing, she believed it was fair use, so she properly filed her response with Youtube. The NFL should have raised the issue through the courts, and instead chose to abuse the DMCA by illegally filing a second take-down notice. Trickery on her part indeed! (That last sentence was sarcastic by the way).

Re:Pedantic

[iminplaya]

Yeah, she tried to do the same thing to Ted Stevens

Re:Pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

If holding those who influence the law to actually abiding by them is pedantic, then I declare pedantry heroic.

I'm glad you feel that way.

You know what? In one day this woman has done more for my rights and the rights of others than you will in your life.

Cheers. :)

Re:Pedantic

[metlin]

Well said. Hats off.

Obviously, the parent has no clue whatsoever about how the legal system works. A lot of landmark judgments were the result of such "pedantry", as s/he chooses to call it.

Re:Pedantic

[Secret Agent X23]

The proper procedures for copyright holders to take in the DCMA are outlined quite explicitly, and this was intentional.

...and this, along with the fact (as I see it, with my layman's understanding of the law) that the use of the clip was a near-perfect textbook example of fair use, makes me wonder if the NFL's actions might be intentionally designed to avoid court action.

Re:Pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

No, she'll only do that if she wins the case.

When she loses (the NFL is clearly in the right, she's blatantly taking their copyrighted work and using it for her own gain), she'll have only hurt them.

Remember the last case the EFF won? Of course not, that would involve them winning on occasion. The EFF has, on the other hand, been a great force for enshrining draconian copyright restrictions into case law due to inept handling of cases.

Don't forget, the EFF losing a case is worse than if they'd never brought the case at all, because it provides case law for the validity of the DMCA. And when that happens in this case, and it will, she'll have only further restricted rights, not helped them.

Re:Pedantic

[neomunk]

When she loses (the NFL is clearly in the right, she's blatantly taking their copyrighted work and using it for her own gain), she'll have only hurt them. Ever head of fair use? of course you have, it's been mentioned right here at least 50 times.

Remember the last case the EFF won? Of course not, that would involve them winning on occasion. The EFF has, on the other hand, been a great force for enshrining draconian copyright restrictions into case law due to inept handling of cases You're lying and you probably know it. Read http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227427&cid =18425981 for more information.

Don't forget, the EFF losing a case is worse than if they'd never brought the case at all, because it provides case law for the validity of the DMCA. And when that happens in this case, and it will, she'll have only further restricted rights, not helped them. While what you said is true on the surface, you seem to be implying that by taking action against rights-abusers is just playing into their hands. Foolish. If you don't call these gorillas on their thuggary then they will walk all over all of us for the rest of time. The chance you might lose is the price you must pay to defend your freedoms through the legal system.

Re:Pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah, you do realize that Fair Use doesn't mean "I get to use it if I'm not making money", right? Explain how dumping a part of an NFL broadcast onto YouTube even comes remotely close to being fair use.

Plus, it's gratifying to know that you in fact can't point to any cases the EFF has won without having to look for some small technicalities. Having a judge agree with you on some technicality hardly counts as winning a case.

Re:Pedantic

[neomunk]

She posted (afaik) 1 small piece of video that contained the NFL notice we've all been talkign about. Fair Use mentions educational use, and she's a law professor. WTF about that isn't fair use?

And, umm, those "technicalities" proved you technically wrong. The fact that you're also literally wrong is just gravy.

Now stop being a troll, I'm not gonna feed you no more.

Re:Pedantic

[Anonymous Coward]

Educational use? That's what you come up with? Since when is YouTube a school?

Yeah, it is time to end this, you're an idiot.

I suspect this will not change the NFL's behavior

[iPaul]

I strongly suspect the NFL will continue asserting rights they don't have, putting the burden on the other guy to show their use is fair use. The only thing that would make them change their mind is if it cost them a lot of money - and I don't see how this is going to cost them a lot of money. Even if they have to pay 100,000 in legal fees and damages if this goes to court and they loose, that's chicken scratch. I'm not exactly sure how Ms. Seltzer could show sizeable monetary damages to create the basis for a large enough settlement to matter. The real problem is that attorneys view this kind of behavior in the best interests of their clients. Make the other guy fight to protect his interests, and maybe it won't be worth his while. Even if it goes to court and she wins, I would expect their behavior would not change. If I did the same thing tommorrow, I suspect I would just get into to a "filing match" until they sued me. Or they sue YouTube, which might mean I have to sign up for another account before I could post content there again. However, it is very interesting to see that the DMCA does have a provision for abuse that might come back to annoy them, if only slightly.

Not so absurd

[davidwr]

The NFL does have a legitimate claim on a "more than minimal" copyright notice. Their notice is longer than a simple "copyright 2007" and contains at least a modicum of creativity.

If some other sport were to use their copyright notice verbatim and substitute XYZ for NFL, the NFL might have a course of action.

However, the recipient of the takedown notice is well within "fair use" rights to use the notice as she did. The NFL showed brazen stupidity or at the very least robotic behavior when it asked her to take it down not once but twice.

The last time I checked, robots, unlike organizations, were not considered "legal persons" and could not hold copyrights to anything. If the NFL is a robot then all bets are off.

Next up: Killer robot NFL attacks Supreme Court Building!

Re:Not so absurd

[numbski]

An NFL robot you say? Where on earth could you come up with such a crazy idea?

No.

[plonk420]

from what i understand of the event, dcma, and fair usage, this was intended for a discussion, intellectual debate, educational setting. also, it wasn't an entire broadcast (like the way illicit mp3s and movies are). NFL has very little to stand on. using your eyeballs is not acknowleging a click-wrap EULA.

Interview

[loconet]

Here is an old article on an interview with her covered on Slashdot.

Re:Don't take a theory and state it as fact!

[Technician]

I'd love to see the DMCA go away, but violating it just to entice someone else to violate it further doesn't have any effect on the law itself. If I am missing something here, please tell me, since the NFL appears to have acted within the law initially.

Was it violated? Was it fair use? Since the game wasn't recorded and posted online, I doubt the DMCA was violated. Please don't state the infraction as a done deal fact. A copyright notice was posted online for education in copyright law. Was that a DMCA violation?

Here's an old photograph of her

[elfuq]

That I shot for the SF Bay Guardian.

old photograph

She's not just a lawyer, she's a cute geeky lawyer!

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[Anonymous Coward]

that's no woman. That's a MAN baby!

captcha: delights

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[Hal_Porter]

Slashdot must have a weird sense of humour, because todays quote of the day is :

"Know how to save 5 drowning lawyers? -- No? GOOD!"

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[-noefordeg-]

http://www.eff.org/about/staff/imgz/wendy_large.jp g

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[mgblst]

In cases like this, where it not clearly discernable what sex the person is, I choose to look at their environment, and what they are doing to give a hint. Yup, definately a man.

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[LearnToSpell]

No grounding strap? tsk tsk.

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that photo may be technically competent and may be what the SFBG wanted, and I know from other photos that she's reasonably attractive, but that photo makes her look like a man.

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[zen-theorist]

thank you for showing me the inside of her nose.

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[Sleuth]

That made me cry. This is the stuff I read slashdot for. It's not the content, it's the humorous replies! Well done.

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[Anonymous Coward]

damn u americans and your perfect teeth!

Re:Here's an old photograph of her

[Anonymous Coward]

I think she's cute :)

Re:Gotta say ....

[Scudsucker]

You speak as if both sides were equal, which is laughable. You have multi-billion dollar industries with hordes of thousand-dollars-per-hour lawyers and very copyright-holder friendly laws on one side, and consumers on the other. Consumers that in the vast majority of cases are not lawyers nor have teams of lawyers working on their behalf. Consumers that are a very distant consideration after said multi-billion dollar industries throw millions of dollars at Congress.

You need a nice warm cup of Get Some Frikkin Perspective.

Perjury

[Detritus]

It will probably never happen, but I'd like to see some of these people prosecuted and convicted for perjury. You know, the part of the affidavit where the author says that the above facts are accurate and true, under penalty of perjury. If you haven't personally verified the facts in the affidavit, you have no business putting your signature on the document. Any lawyer who rubber-stamps a bogus complaint should be disciplined or disbarred.

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA only requires the lawyer filing the takedown notice to state they represent the person they claim to represent under penalty of perjury. The rest of the takedown notice is made with a good faith belief that it is correct.

Re:Perjury

[Raenex]

The intersting thing about the takedown notice is that it is attributed to "Internet Investigator". Is it legal to not be signed by a real person? And should YouTube respond to requests that don't have a real person standing behind the request?

Re:Perjury

[BCW2]

Nice point! I wonder how this compares with the abuses of the RIAA/MPAA and the SBA. Do their strongarm notices get signed by a real person?

Re:Perjury

[bugnuts]

The claim, under penalty of perjury, is that they hold the copyright to the original works to which they think you are infringing.

In other words, if LucasFilms posted a takedown notice to your video of you arguing with your brother and swinging toy lightsabers at each other, it would not be perjury because he owns the copyright to star wars.

This is an excellent demonstration of how the DMCA can be abused. You can say "I own work Foo and your work Bar infringes on it". The perjury part is only "I own work Foo". ... and of course, take anything you read on a message board with a grain of salt. the preceeding does not constitute a client-attorney relationship or legal advice because IANAFL. (Hopefully, the NFL won't go after me for including them in that acronym.)

Re:Perjury

[Cu]

The name of the person is the starred out bit.

Re:Perjury

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the part of the affidavit where the author says that the above facts are accurate and true, under penalty of perjury.

Ah, I see you havn't actually read the DMCA then. Never mind, most of slashdot hasn't either, so let me be clear: The initial takedown notice is NOT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. Can you all please stop repeating this falsehood. The DMCA is bad enough without people making things up about it.

The part that is under such penalty is the counter-notice.

Re:Gotta say ....

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't this the same kind of nitpicking BS everyone is so upset about? Personally I hope the judge calls foul on both sides. She did it specifically to provoke a reaction.

When she was accused of wrongdoing, she obeyed the law and filed the appropriate paperwork in her defence. That's hardly nitpicking.

Nitpicking is sending Martha Stewart to jail for lying while being investigated for insider trading when there was no evidence at all that Martha Stewart engaged in insider trading.

I'd rather see our court system used for something more productive that a tit for tat exchange over copyright.

So would I. But until someone gets bitchslapped with a multi-million dollar judgement for perjury, fraud and costs, the dmca will be abused illegally.

Re:Gotta say ....

[Detritus]

It's called a test case, and it isn't a trick or "nitpicking BS".

Good thing about Civil Society

[philgross]

It's often difficult to succinctly describe the difference between democracy as actually practiced in the USA, most of Europe, etc., and the pseudo-democracies seen in many countries that seem to have all the trappings, but don't quite work.

In a country with a functioning civil society, the weak can use the law to defend themselves against the strong (sometimes, with varying success, etc., but it is possible and does happen). In most countries without a well-developed civil society, it's unthinkable that a random civilian could win a suit against a rich, well-connected individual or company. In practice, their legal systems put power and money over the letter of the law.

In the rich democracies, businesses generally don't bother with overt criminality, because they'd just have to give up the money anyway. In countries without well-developed civil society, citizens don't bother going to the legal system in cases of crime or injustice committed by the rich and powerful.

It's cute to be cynical, and I'm not trying to argue that e.g. the U.S. legal system isn't skewed towards rich and powerful players, or that big companies are always perfect citizens. But the fact that she will probably win this case points to a deep, significant difference between "the west" and the rest.

Re:Good thing about Civil Society

[Darby]

In the rich democracies, businesses generally don't bother with overt criminality, because they'd just have to give up the money anyway.

Wow. What color is the air on your planet?
Businesses quite often go straight for overt criminality because they know that they can make a billion and pay a million dollar fine.
Heck, just look at Microsoft for the canonical example of that.

It's cute to be cynical

No, cynicism about that and realism coincide completely. There isn't anything "cute" about it.

But the fact that she will probably win this case points to a deep, significant difference between "the west" and the rest.

You misspelled "might".
It's only even "might" because what the NFL is trying to pull is *so* blatantly illegal. And it's only that because the DMCA is so new. This kind of shit is the purpose of that and similar recent laws such as the traitor act (Orwellianly named "Patriot") which, surprise surprise is being abused exactly as predicted by every sane person. A real no brainer since that was its purpose.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of whatever orifice you've stuffed it in and look around.
Maybe if you did you'd notice that the differences you're feebly attempting to illustrate are getting smaller and smaller all the time.
The fact that this is even happening at all proves that point.

Re:Good thing about Civil Society

[jahudabudy]

Maybe if you did you'd notice that the differences you're feebly attempting to illustrate are getting smaller and smaller all the time.

I understand and admire the anti-authoritarian philosophy you are espousing. The powerful will always want more power, which will come at the expense of the little people (like me). The few exceptions to this rule, historically, are remarkable in large part b/c they are so rare.

However, I think you are being a bit pessimistic with the statement that "the differences [between totalitarianism and US democracy] are getting smaller and smaller all the time". Ignoring the rest of the world (hey, I AM an American!) and just looking at the history of this country, you have to admit things are MUCH better now in terms of equity between the masses and the powerful than they were even 50 years ago. Microsoft is actually a very good example of this. They are a convicted monopolist. Maybe the punishment hasn't been enough to influence their behavior, but even a token slap on the wrist is much more than many, many companies that behaved much, much worse ever received. Look up the Homestead Strike; far from censuring Carnegie Steel for unfair business practices, the state sent in the militia to break up picketing workers. The state supporting business concerns over citizens was the rule for a large part of the history of industrialization in our country.

I'm not saying things are now wonderful; the state still tends to support corporate concerns over citizen concerns. But things are better; state sponsorship of corporations has to be more subtle today than before, b/c the people will not put up with such blatant power grabs on behalf of corporate welfare. And thanks to the internet, the masses can coordinate in an unprecedented manner to really utilize the power of our sheer numbers. The rich eating the poor will never go away, but we are making them work harder and more intelligently at it than ever before.

Re:Good thing about Civil Society

[neomunk]

I think you are mistaken about the power gap between income groups shrinking.

Everything I've read on the subject (that is based in reality that is) shows that the income gap is growing enormously, as has been for a long time now...

Just one example, right off the top of my google is http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion /oped/articles/2006/04/19/income_gap_mentality/

And honestly, I'm 30, not 50, but all MY life I've watched as those around me, and then later I myself, work longer and harder just to not fall behind. Of course there were ups and downs, but the general trend has been lower quality of life and higher working hours.

Re:Good thing about Civil Society

[jahudabudy]

The income gap is growing, true. I don't dispute that at all. What I'm saying, tho, is that those at the top have less legal and social ability to exploit their comparative advantage over those of us on the wrong side of the gap. Sure, realistically, Bill Gates can ruin my life, have me killed, pretty much do what he wants to with me. But if he is caught having me killed, he will face consequences. There was a time not too long ago where the haves could kill the have-nots with a wink and a nod from the authorities (think Jim Crowe in the South). There was a time when it would be unthinkable to press charges against the wealthy on behalf of the destitute. Nowadays, yes, the power is still there, but it requires a bit more subtlety and effort to abuse the power; flagrant abuse of power is more heavily frowned on in today's society.

As for quality of life and working hours, I think you simply have too short a time frame. Sure, in 15-20 years things might go down a bit, but over a longer period, things are up. I'm pretty sure your "lower quality of life and higher working hours" are no where near as low or as long as my grandparents, who ran a tobacco farm in rural NC from 1930 - 1970 (ish). And their quality of life was a lot better than a 19th century farmer's, who had it better than a 15th century peasant, etc etc.

I'm not saying there aren't things that need changing. Otherwise, the current downward trend you have noticed might not turn around; maybe we did reach some pinnacle of equity in society. I think it is a bit early to say that based on just a couple of decades, but I can certainly understand the fear. However, I think things would have to go down quite a bit more to get to the point that even my grandparents generation experienced.

Re:Good thing about Civil Society

[2short]

I know the previous poster said being cynical was cute, but you're not going to get chicks that way. Not when you're obviously just working it.

Re:What was her other defense

[Anonymous Coward]

She contends that her posting of the clip was within her 'fair use' rights- and I would like to think rightfully so.

I expect that aside from the NFL's faux pas her intent is to establish the NFL's overstepping the law in their denial of the public's fair usage.

Re:What was her other defense

[eam]

It's fair use, not copyright infringement. If they had gone to court, she would win.

And if it has nothing to do with baseball...

[Anonymous Coward]

You almost certainly quoted Joe Morgan.

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/ :-)

Re:Gotta say ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully it's one of those sobby judges who likes to be on TV. And hopefully he gets busted smoking pot the next week. Hey, stranger things have happened.

NFL wins

[dmsetser]

According to YouTube...

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Football League

Re:NFL wins

[mike2R]

Er right.. the second (and apparently illegal) take down notice, which is what this story is about. From the summary:

But Ms. Seltzer knows her rights, so she filed a DMCA Counter Notice. This is when the NFL violated the DMCA, by filing another Take Down notice instead of taking the issue to court -- their only legitimate option, according to the DMCA.

Here's a great idea

[Zorque]

How about we constantly bash a law for being unfair, unnecessary, and convoluted, and then turn around and expect a corporation to follow it to the letter! Even better, let's put forth that it was wrong of them to disobey this law we think is unjust, and side with a woman whose only purpose in the actions was to goad the NFL into suing her. All this so that she could claim they were breaking a law: something she had already done (the same law, as a matter of fact) and should be responsible for. This is a non-story in my opinion.

Re:Here's a great idea

[ocelotbob]

You know, you can disagree with a law, but agree with the few provisions in the law that actually make sense -- right of response, no yo-yo wars, etc. She was well within her right to file a counterclaim; the DMCA allows that in the case of legitimate ownership disputes. The NFL was in the wrong when they, in either bad faith or through a lack of due dilligence, filed a second takedown notice on the piece. Either situation, the judge is not going to look too fondly on the NFL's legal department. Furthermore, she broke no law; commentary on a portion of a work is well-protected under copyright law.

Re:Here's a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a great idea: why don't you sit down and realise that what people are giddy about is that the corporation is going to suffer from misusing it's own strongarm tactics.

The clip wasn't a honeypot to goad a suit, it was put up for students to see the clip under fair use. When the NFL went strongarm, the professor replied with her legal rights. The NFL is overflexing it's rights, and is so far from being the victim in this story, it's not funny. Essentially, the NFL legal team are enforcing a law they don't understand.

And in regards to what other people are saying, it's complete crap that it's not trackable, especially when the same URL is used. You don't have to be much of a coder to take note of the URL and the poster's name when you're writing your bot, and stick them in a database.

Re:Here's a great idea

[cybergrunt69]

How about we constantly bash a law for being unfair, unnecessary, and convoluted, and then turn around and expect a corporation to follow it to the letter! Yes, we bash the DMCA for being stupid regarding us mere mortals, but yes, we will expect that these big companies follow it to the letter. It's not written for us, it's written to protect the "property" of big companies. It's written so that the NFL can make a copyright notice stating the allowed usage of it's property, then take legal action when they believe it's being abused. The law is supposed to protect them and their property, and they had better follow it properly, or the law becomes useless.

This law, when properly used, can be a "good thing" for the parties it protects. The problem comes in when these 800-lb gorillas want to make up their own rules and expect everyone to follow their beliefs, ignoring other laws (fair use) that those pesky comsumers want to follow. In this case, the NFL is doing it's best to make sure that they are the only ones think/say/see anything relating to footbal. I'm sure if they could get away with it, they would sue anyone who says "Monday Night" without paying them a $1 license fee...

Thank you Wendy for showing the world (and your law class) how absurd these big companies are...

Re:Dear Wendy...

[Anonymous Coward]

The clip she posted was well within the bounds of fair use.

Its amazing how many people in this story are siding with the DMCA here.

Re:Dear Wendy...

[DamnStupidElf]

Normally I'd be on your side in the case like this but this time it seems you're just wasting the court's time fighting a battle you started. I agree that their message was overreaching, but does your want to prove that entitle you to duplicating and essentially broadcasting video they produced? Even if it did your methods amount to litigious entrapment.

It's a long, twisted road from fair use to litigious entrapment, don't you think? Or do you also think I shouldn't have been able to quote your post in my reply?

"Abusing" the DMCA?

[WoTG]

Err... sure.

Forgive me for being an NFL apologist (heck, I watched all of two games last season), but this hardly qualifies as front-page Slashdot news with a title of "NFL Caught Abusing the DMCA". I thought this was going to be about the NFL sending out thousands of inaccurate DMCA take down notices or something comparable.

So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.

Re:"Abusing" the DMCA?

[Changa_MC]

So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.
We should be able to post brief clips for educational use that do not cause economic harm to the copyright holder- exactly as the law states. That the NFL cannot grasp the laws of a free country does not mean fascism has won yet.

Re:"Abusing" the DMCA?

[SharpFang]

So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.

You'll be able to:
1) pick non-infringing fair-use clips of NFL, movies and whatnot. Post on Youtube.
2) Wait for takedown.
3) Post counter-claim
4) Wait for takedown.
5) Hire a low-grade lawyer and sue, using the precedent.
6) ???
7) Profit!!!

Re:"Abusing" the DMCA?

[Hatta]

Forgive me for being an NFL apologist (heck, I watched all of two games last season), but this hardly qualifies as front-page Slashdot news with a title of "NFL Caught Abusing the DMCA". I thought this was going to be about the NFL sending out thousands of inaccurate DMCA take down notices or something comparable.

Actually they would be completely within their rights to send out any number of DMCA notices, because they could argue they had a good faith belief that the material is infringing. The present situation is legally worse for the NFL since the existence of a counterclaim proves that there was no good faith.

Re:"Abusing" the DMCA?

[Secret Agent X23]

So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.

Maybe you'll be able to do just that -- if you post the clips in a way that falls within the guidelines for fair use, as Seltzer did.

On the other hand, the cynic in me believe it's more likely that the NFL's legal department will find some other way to get you.

Re:I suspect this will not change the NFL's behavi

[techno-vampire]

I'm not exactly sure how Ms. Seltzer could show sizeable monetary damages to create the basis for a large enough settlement to matter.

I take it, then, that you've never heard of something called "punitive damages?" They're intended not to reimburse the plaintiff for actual damages done but to punish the defendant for misdeeds. In this case, the lawyers who filed the second take-down notice might well be subject to sanctions for their actions. IANAL and all that, but I do know enough to know such things are possible.

Re:Gotta say ....

[Darby]

isn't this the same kind of nitpicking BS everyone is so upset about?

No, it isn't anything even resembling any such thing. I'm amazed you managed to delude yourself so badly as to think such a completely ridiculous thing.

Personally I hope the judge calls foul on both sides.

There is no legal or rational basis for such an assinine action, but given the state of the union it's still not ruled out due in large part to people like you who refuse to spend a second thinking about it before whining about some made up crap.

She did it specifically to provoke a reaction.

Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that the law is crap and pointing that out is absolutely a good thing.

I'd rather see our court system used for something more productive that a tit for tat exchange over copyright.

While I'd rather see it used to restrict criminals like the NFL from violating my rights. I guess that's a major difference between us. I support liberty. You think we should all bend over and grab our ankles whenever anybody wants to fuck us. I'm much happier being me.

I think it's time for both sides on this one to grow up and I hope a judge tells them so before he tosses the whole thing.

Whereas I hope that the judge does his fucking job and busts the only guilty party for violating the only ameliorating part of a badly broken by design law.

Perhaps you shouldn't post when you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. It makes you look like a fool and a lapdog.

She's a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to have a birth certificate signed by at least three separate and unrelated dieties worshiped by over 50 million people, to get the attention of a woman like that. Probably more like 100 million now that it's the 21st century. Inflation and all that. No, I am NOT posting under my real Slashdot name for fear of being modded down to China.

Re:She's a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'd need to take out a 2nd mortgage on your home just to make the downpayment on the waiter's tip at the restaurants where she goes.

And the ring? Dude. The last time a rock appeared on Earth the size of which would impress a woman attorney, it killed the dinosaurs.

Re:Dear Wendy...

[Graham J - XVI]

I gave up my right to my text when I posted it on /. Wendy took it straight from them I assume. Litigious entrapment might have been an exaggeration but poking a giant and then waiting for it to make a mistake isn't the best move IMO.

Uhm

[Travoltus]

30% of all married women earn more than their husbands.

Maybe you should try bringing a sense of humor, some class or

aw hell, the deed to a villa or two in Tuscany, Italy, couldn't possibly hurt...

Re:Uhm

[cayenne8]

"30% of all married women earn more than their husbands."

But, 20% of those couples are lesbians?

:-)

Re:Dear Wendy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, you just have no idea what you're talking about. Go look up fair use before you embarrass yourself further. Oh, and read the bottom of this page where it says "Comments are owned by the Poster.".

Astroturfers

[Flying pig]

Why do I think a lot of the posts on this thread are astroturfers for the NFL? Because it is unusual to have so many anti-free speech posts on a /. thread, that's why.

Wendy Seltzer is absolutely right. Her job ( as an academic lawyer involves comment on legal issues, and a corporation tried to stop her freely commenting on just such an issue because they didn't like the implied criticism. Normally when a lawyer stands up to the rich and powerful we cheer, not sneer. Dear astroturfers, football in all its varieties around the world thrives on corruption and dodgy business. No matter on what scale, people who try to clean up sport are working in the public interest. So now go back to your sad little PR jobs and fuck off, please

Re:Astroturfers

[poot_rootbeer]

Why do I think a lot of the posts on this thread are astroturfers for the NFL?

Because you're browsing at 0 or +1, probably.

Up here in +3 Land, I see nothing but "LOL NFL = PWND" comments across the board.

Re:Astroturfers

[Red Flayer]

Why do I think a lot of the posts on this thread are astroturfers for the NFL?

Probably the same reason everyone thinks there are always astroturfers... because there are a significant amount of people who actually disagree with the the rabid "free-speech" (read: don't want to pay for content) "advocates" on Slashdot. They are typically modded into oblivion, which is why you don't see their posts a lot. Not that there aren't people on Slashdot who have valid concerns about copyright, and not to denigrate those of us who are interested in more than getting freebies.

I believe the copyright system is broken. I also believe that there should be protection for creators of content.

This view has had me labeled "astroturfer" and "record company exec/shill," plus many other terms not suitable for public use. I usually point those people to my post history, but non-subscribers can't see the full history.

Are there astroturfers on Slashdot? Sure. Are there also valid posters who diasgree with the Slashdot copyright zeitgeist? You betcha. Should we deny someone's opinion because it is different than ours? I don't think so.

Re:Astroturfers

[arth1]

Why do I think a lot of the posts on this thread are astroturfers for the NFL? Because it is unusual to have so many anti-free speech posts on a /. thread, that's why.

Or avid sports fans, for that matter. Unless it's a sport like "Doom Rocket Jump" or "Thargoid Skeets".
Or TV slaves. If it isn't streamed and DRM-free, it's not worth watching.

well, according to every coach ever.

[Don_dumb]

The NFL legal team have made the classic schoolboy error

Always scout your opponent before you play them.

They have attempted to enter litigation with an EFF lawyer and a law professor at that. You would have thought that they would have been careful not to make any technical mistakes with that kind of opponent.

There is a reason many sports teams read Sun Tsu and all his ilk. "Know thine enemy".

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[kae_verens]

"Know thine enemy"

I wasn't aware that Sun Tsu spoke archaic English.

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[mpe]

They have attempted to enter litigation with an EFF lawyer and a law professor at that. You would have thought that they would have been careful not to make any technical mistakes with that kind of opponent

Given that it isn't easy to tell who your opponent is in this kind of situation you'd have though they'd have been careful not to make any technical mistakes.

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[Gulik]

The NFL legal team have made the classic schoolboy error

        Always scout your opponent before you play them.

So, besides being made to look all manner of stupid in front of their colleagues in the courtroom, the coaches are going to be calling and making fun of their basic strategy screwup? Cool. Maybe some of the players will give them wedgies and stuff them in their lockers, too.

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[Jtheletter]

That would be the "ilk" the parent poster was talking about.

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[HTH NE1]

"Know thine enemy"

I wasn't aware that Sun Tsu spoke archaic English.

Would you rather he spoke l33t?

"||\|0\/\/ UR 3|\|3M3, d00d!"

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[Mondoz]

/\/\0D p4r3|\|7 UP

Re:well, according to every coach ever.

[deek]

I wasn't aware that Sun Tsu spoke archaic English.

At the time, England was the enemy of Sun Tsu.

It's a joke, people. Laugh!

good

[Football Player]

this is good news. anything to put idiot sports lovers in their place. sports are for dumb jock types with grass stains on their skin. i could outwit a football any time

Might be covered by "Fair Use"

[Lonewolf666]

IANAL, but posting the copyright note to YouTube may be covered by the legal doctrine of "Fair Use". Fair Use allows some degree of copying for the purpose of criticism or comment.

Re:I suspect this will not change the NFL's behavi

[AnotherUsername]

I strongly suspect the NFL will continue asserting rights they don't have, putting the burden on the other guy to show their use is fair use.

This will, however, establish precedence. Therefore, if a similar case comes up, the defense attorneys can point to this case, assuming she wins, and use it to help their future case.

Must be said

[HangingChad]

She could...go...all...the....way!

The NFL got JACKED UP!

If you have to ask...

[HangingChad]

What is wrong with you people?

You must be new here.

Wendy was our pro-bono lawyer for a time...

[hacker]

Wendy Seltzer was our pro-bono, FSF-appointed attorney for a few years when we were investigating a commercial company (not intentionally linked here, they don't deserve the hits) for using our GPL code without complying with the license.

All we wanted, was for them to bring themselves into compliance... and they insisted that they were, and we were wrong, and that the GPL was "...subject to interpretation". So we contacted the FSF and they gave us Wendy. It's been a few years now, and we never really got final closure on the situation, so I'm not sure where it stands at this point. (past copyright infringement does not just vanish if you stop violating it in the present, however).

I have collaborated with Wendy over numerous dozens of emails and personally met her to sit down with the CEO of aforementioned alleged-infringing company in New York, and I can say that she really knows her field. I'm happy that she's doing good things for the EFF, they need someone of her skillset on-staff.

I have nothing but praise for her abilities and her skills. She was a brick wall between our project and the commercial company who tried to threaten us many times with their millions of dollars of investor money to try to silence us.

If Wendy is on your side, it's a good thing. It's where she shines the best.

Re:Wendy was our pro-bono lawyer for a time...

[QuantumG]

Dude, hire a real lawyer and get those violations sorted. If you need motivation, tell your lawyer to demand damages.. maybe you can find a no-pay-no-win lawyer that will do it. Otherwise, I really gotta wonder, why the hell did you bother copyrighting your work in the first place?

Making threats that you can't even be bothered paying others to follow through on for you is pretty lame.. and that's exactly what copyright is, a threat to sue.

Re:Wendy was our pro-bono lawyer for a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Demand damages? What damages? It's freakin GPL software.

Re:Wendy was our pro-bono lawyer for a time...

[QuantumG]

They're called punitive damages, son.

Who keeps track of this crap?

[camperdave]

Who keeps track of this crap?

Good Question! Are there teams of people going through the thousands upon thousands of YouTube videos looking for copyright infringements? How did the NFL find out that her clip was there in the first place? Did they stumble upon it? Was it pointed out to them? Is there some uber pattern matching software that big corporations use to sniff out violations?

Re:Who keeps track of this crap?

[twistedsymphony]

well I don't know about the NFL but I do have a friend who used to work for one of those net-nanny companies identifying pornographic content...

if it's at all the same then it's a manual process, there is a small group of people that just spend all day searching for violations. Most likely, they just punched "NFL" into the search box on YouTube and the video came up.

Re:Who keeps track of this crap?

[camperdave]

...there is a small group of people that just spend all day searching for violations.

That would explain the two takedown notices. Never attribute to evil when stupidity will suffice.

Is She?

[camperdave]

it looks like she's completely in the right

She is citing fair use in order to post the copyright notice, specifically that employing a clip in a teaching environment is fair use. However, posting a video to a public website is entirely different from showing a clip in a classroom. Her actions go beyond fair use.

Of course, she's a copyright lawyer, and I'm not, so perhaps I'm missing some subtle point.

Re:Is She?

[Tacvek]

specifically that employing a clip in a teaching environment is fair use.

That is questionable, it does definately fall under the protection for use of a small portion of a work for critical commentary.

well no wonder

[saikou]

After all NFL sent their lawyers after a church (russian translation) for violation of copyright on broadcast rights and it did not cause waves of protests from fans. And all of those stories of building property for games using local tax money? Prohibitions to translate games when they are in town (want to see it, go buy a ticket, instead of your paid cable subscription).
Football IMHO is getting up there in *AA league these days.

Confusion

[Pablo El Vagabundo]

Exec: "Hey found this on Utube, man, kill it!!"
Lawyer: "Sir, yes, Sir" {emails DMCA takedown}
Lawyer: "WTF... !! Sir, they issued a counter takedown!"
Exec: "What the hell is that?"

Lawyer: "I'm not sure it has never happened before, it must be a mistake, I'll just email the takedown notice again... Maybe I should look up this DMCA in one of those big books I have in my office"

Precisely.

[argent]

How about we constantly bash a law for being unfair, unnecessary, and convoluted, and then turn around and expect a corporation to follow it to the letter!

Well, yes, that's what they pay their legal team the big bucks for.

Speaking of which, how much are they paying you? They're not getting their money's worth: being subject to a DMCA takedown notice doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.

Re:Is she single? check the engineering dept

[Sesticulus]

They exist, but are rare. At my university (~21k students 15 years ago) I dated the two hot chicks in the engineering dept. Generally not a lot of competition there so even a middling looks guy can do well. I was working construction to pay for my CS degree so was in really good shape at the time and could help them with their Fortran homework.

One of them was a HGG. I married her.

Almost ...

[Ninja Programmer]

Unfortunately for Wendy Seltzer, YouTube is a completely incompetent and bad actor when it comes to censorship ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By6aqz_79Uc ). She will have to go after YouTube, NFL *AND* the DMCA. She might be right, but the odds are stacked against her.

New beer commercial

[bl8n8r]

Manlaw! No more chicks allowed to enforce the DMCA!

exactly. hence...

[Ender Ryan]

Exactly. Hence... Ms. Seltzer is surely correct about them overreaching.

This reminds me of the Olympics(R) shutting down athletes' blogs on the grounds of copyright infringement a few years ago. I never did hear what happened with all that. Did they back down? Did anyone fight it?

*sigh* as if we needed more reason to go out and play sports instead of watching rich assholes on TV playing them.

Now that's just wrong.

[Wilson_6500]

The "oops" on the NFL's part was, apparently, the NFL crossing a law professional, rather than the violation of the law in the first place?

That's very sad: we've gotten to the point where we're happy to settle with having a case where we have a reasonable chance of the crime _just being brought into public light._

Re:Now that's just wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "oops" on the NFL's part was, apparently, the NFL crossing a law professional, rather than the violation of the law in the first place?

No. However, most people are ignorant of the law, so they will cave to whatever bullshit a bully comes up with. A law professor isn't ignorant of the law.

The problem is still the bully.

Those Slashdotters are Better Off

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in a relationship with a physically attractive female parasite. In the course of this relationship, she's managed to cause me many disasters and put me tens of thousands of dollars in debt. I'm making more money than I ever had before, and it is all going to pay debts. I can't even afford a new Nintendo, or to go out to eat for lunch or lots of other things.

Sex is overrated.

Re:Those Slashdotters are Better Off

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that this is because you are a pussy incapable of confrontation. You should have gotten over the "physically attractive" thing to cut her abusive ass off a while ago, if not broken it off. Even if you are married, there is a point where the old "cheaper to keep her" proverb ceases to apply.

Let me ask you a serious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about we constantly bash a law for being unfair, unnecessary, and convoluted, and then turn around and expect a corporation to follow it to the letter!"

Let me ask you a serious question, and please please, don't take this the wrong way, but....

Are you retarded? I realize you're trolling, but generally just to get into a university you have to display a stronger grasp of language that you display, so I'm going to assume you were turned down. And I doubt you're shilling for the NFL, unless you're a player still on IR for a head injury.

And then you have a link that points to a penny stock. I mean, you're a caricature of a person. An empty shell, a husk. You did you "goad", but I suspect you think it's some sort of frog.

so you're saying...

[Ender Ryan]

So you're saying they gave the judges too much credit? Yeah, I agree :D

Re:so you're saying...

[Rakarra]

He's saying that many judges take into account more than just the law, but also what the ramifications upholding or striking down a particular law would be. That is, they rule based on how much damage they think their ruling might do as well as whether the law upholds a particular action.

Re:I suspect this will not change the NFL's behavi

[Anonymous Coward]

It begs the question as to what WILL change the NFL's behaviour?

I live in South Florida, and lots of local promoters down here were
all gah-gah over having the Super Bowl played here this year. But,
the rest of us (meaning the little guys who weren't fawning over
Wayne Huizenga) couldn't say the phrase "super bowl" in ANY context.
It was "The Big Game".

Which is why I will NOT pay money to attend any NFL games, nor will
I knowingly pay any money to support the NFL, nor will I support any
legislation pertaining to stadia or other public infrastructure that
would in any way provide financial backing to the NFL. The NFL is
getting to be too greedy and nit-picking, and while they might think
they have a chance in hell of winning this battle, they're going to
lose the PR war.

When THAT happens, and their ticket sales start to fall off, then we'll
see a change in their behaviour. Don't think it can't happen - look at
the NHL, NBA, and MLB in the last 10-20 years... The NFL is NOT vital
to society or the economy - it's JUST entertainment.

Mirror Dot

[A Name Similar to Di]

In case I'm not the only one unable to reach the article.

Re:Don't take a theory and state it as fact!

[mpe]

Please don't state the infraction as a done deal fact. A copyright notice was posted online for education in copyright law.

Quotation is generally considered "fair use" so long as it is not excessive. Where the original work is itself very small even quoting the entire thing is unlikely to be excessive. An analogy would be quoting a tradmark or advertising slogan (some of which are single words or collections of words which do not even form a sentence.)
In such situation the proportion of original to quoted text might well be a better metric than what proportion of the original is quoted.
Also quoting something to discuss it, comment on it or critique it generally indicates "fair use" even if there question of "excessive quotation".

Occam's razor?

[OmniChamp]

I am not a NFL apologist, but did anybody ever think that the NFL might have employed a team of mouth breathing drones to simply scour the internet to find material and sending out take-down notices? I imagine they may not even log any details of the content nor do they cross check to see if a previous notice was already sent. The whole process is merely a scare tactic only. Again, I clearly this is the NFL's fault for not researching the matter thoroughly. The only resolution I see out of this is better screening procedures for content violations by the NFL and possibly (a thin chance) that the DMCA is modified to allow repeat take-down notices. Fair use does not come out ahead unfortunately...

Re:Occam's razor?

[Anonymous Coward]

did anybody ever think that the NFL might have employed a team of mouth breathing drones to simply scour the internet to find material and sending out take-down notices?

Yes, that's almost certainly what they did. And if that's what they did, then the law says that they should be in jail for committing perjury. I don't expect it to happen, but that's what the law says.

What's the difference?

[RecycledElectrons]

I'm obviously an idiot, because I don't understand one thing: What's the difference between the NFL's terrorism in supressing a person's God given right to free speech, and a possible act of terrorism that would supress the rights of NFL fans to life? (I'm asking about flying a jumbo jet into a football stadium during a game.) The only difference I can see is that the NFL started this.

I'm not calling for terrorist attacks on NFL fans, but I do want to note this: If we do not use violence at some point, the DMCA will continue to be abused. We are like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, arming ourselves with old hunting rifles about a year before the SS arrives.

Andy Out!

Re:What was her other defense

[C0rinthian]

She posted a clip of the NFL's copyright notice for educational purposes. (She is a legal professor) This is obviously fair use, so there is no 'original infringement'

I didn't even RTFA and I know this. People like you need to learn what your rights are, or else you'll continue to ignorantly give them up.

Your statement is offensive!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine how these women feel if they read slashdot. Here they are, busting their asses to do something cool/good, they finally get some recognition, and the response is a debate on how nice her hips look or don't.

I'm a boob man, myself

Re:Dear Wendy...

[Ender Ryan]

How do you manage to breathe?

Go Wide Legal Team!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, two interns found the same NFL content, and sent out DMCA notices. This isn't a calculating "corporate" NFL. It's a business trying to protect its assets, by dumb blunt force.

The NFL probably has a huge legal team, where one group has no idea what the other is doing. The DMCA notices likely come from legal interns surfing the internet for NFL material.

I hate the DMCA lawsuits as much as anyone. This, however, is just dumb!

Re:Go Wide Legal Team!

[neomunk]

Yes yes, because we all know 'Oops' is all any corporation need say after breaking the law. It's not THEIR fault, it's just too complicated for them to bother trying to comply.

I wonder if I could get away with this line of reasoning while doing my taxes. "Why yes Mr/Ms IRS agent, I suppose I -DID- deduct this list of items multiple times, but if you take into account the sheer volume of my deductions, you can clearly see that actually making sure I don't repeat any is far too complicated."

I don't think it would fly, and I'm just one guy sifting through the data, as you correctly point out, they have whole TEAMS.

And just how hard do you think it would be to check outgoing takedown notices against a list of clips with takedown disputes active?

Probably alot simpler than setting up teams of people (or even better, bots) to search for infringement.

Baseball -- God's game

[sconeu]

And on the Eighth Day, God created baseball.

Baseball, the game for people who DON'T have ADD!

P.S. -- Go Angels!!!!

The Internet is her classrom

[Anonymous Coward]

However, posting a video to a public website is entirely different from showing a clip in a classroom. Her actions go beyond fair use.

There is no distinction in principle between showing a clip to the audience in a physical classroom and showing a clip to the audience on the Internet at large. She's demonstrating the same point, and the size of her classroom is immaterial to the process of fair use for educational purposes.

Re:exactly. hence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Hence... Ms. Seltzer is surely correct about them overreaching.

RTFA. Her claim is that it's overreaching because it doesn't allow for fair use, not because of the inclusing of "accounts and descriptions".

It's true that this language can be misinterpreted, and it may be true that it was chosen because it can be misinterpreted in a way that would claim exagerated rights; but as others have said, its correct meaning is that you can't reuse the accounts/descriptions they're broadcasting, and that is indeed within their copyright.

The Jetsons, early '60s

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jetsons Episode Guide 1962-1963:

"Jetson's Night Out
        George Jetson and his boss Cosmo Spacely attend a robot football game. George fools his wife into thinking he's working late and so won/t be able to attend a PTA meeting."

Am I a nerd or what?

Wrong Boomer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice Boomer reference, though I think most /.ers are wondering "Which episode of Battlestar did he say that in?"

Re:Dear Wendy...

[neomunk]

Through gills, if the GP is anything like the sharks he/she is defending.

Re:I suspect this will not change the NFL's behavi

[iPaul]

IANAL as well, but punative damages are not available under all circumstances. In addition it is the responsibility of the individual to mitigate any damages. Often, punative damages are capped at some level of actual damages. For example, I might get 3x damages as a punative award inaddition to regular damages. however, I still have show an economic basis for the harm. (IANAL but I used to be an accountant and did cover business law and some contract law). If the damages are considered excessive, the NFL could appeal the damage claim. I can't stand what the NFL is doing, but I don't see how she's going to get to the millions of dollars of damages it would take to get the NFL to change their behavior.

Re:I suspect this will not change the NFL's behavi

[iPaul]

Yeah, but I bet they'll still make you go to court to enforce your rights.

So what?

[gawbl]

IANAL.

While I dislike the DMCA, and I'm thrilled that Ms. Seltzer is taking on the NFL, and I dearly hope she trounces them in court... I have to wonder what useful result can be accomplished? My wild guess: some NFL lawyer will apologize to the Judge and Ms. Seltzer, promising that it will never happen again. I don't see how Ms. Seltzer can claim any monetary damages, and that's the only penalty that might change NFLs behavior.

gawbl

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This case is not about hurting the NFL or making tons of money off them, but to set a precedence against companies mindlessly sending out DMCA letters and to hopefully educate *you* the public about your rights unders Fair Use, not limited to YouTube or the NFL.

Re:News for illiterate nerds?

[iPaul]

Suck it - how's your Italian, asshole. English is not my first language.

Corporate "Rights" a Joke

[BrassForeclosure.com]

An underlying premise of this discussion seems to be that individual or corporate "rights" are at issue. These "rights", often described as "civil rights", are only those privileges proscribed by enacted legislation and are not FUNDAMENTAL or INALIENABLE rights spoken of by the great thinkers of Western civilization. These "rights", as proven by the DMCA and related changes, are fully subject to revision based upon the political whims of the times (read: follow the money trail, here). These civilly enacted privileges are similar to those enacted to make corporations "people", thus indemnifying shareholders against liability at the cost of society. The issue of Free Speech vs corporate intellectual properties is simple as true, Natual Rights must always be held as higher virtues than the privileges of artificial entities. If the shareholders really wanted to assert their indvidual rights to such properties, they would not hide behind corporate liability shields, but would take personal responsibility for their actions by engaging in their business through partnerships where they can be held individually responsible. The fact that our society grants artificial corporate entities (LP's, LLC's, Corps, LLP's) the same civil liberties as natural individuals is part of the underlying problem that creates situations like this. Will sports shareholders step up and personally sign those affidavits under penalty of perjury and be held personally and directly to account for the actions of their firms? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Astroturf is so 1980!

[The Monster]

astroturfers for the NFL

Dude, nobody uses Astroturf anymore. The handful of stadia that do use artificial turf use much better products (including the AstroTurf GameDay brand that the Bills use); the Cardinals took the extraordinary step of having their new stadium with a rollout tray to hold a natural grass field, so that it could sit in the sunshine other than on game day. Otherwise they'd probably have to use artificial turf too.

Re:Ted Stevens

[Obsidian Dagger]

I followed your link and say nothing about her or Ted Stevens. Mind providing an abstract or correcting the link so we know about the incident you mention.

Re:exactly. hence...

[Ender Ryan]

No, you're wrong. The NFL and / or other sports leagues have sued/threatened to sue people for exactly that. They either *do* believe it's within their rights, or they are trying to make other people believe so, and threatening/filing lawsuits on that premise.

Poorely chosen victim?

[mapkinase]

cmon: well volunteering bait!

Last two words in parent redundant

[phunctor]

this space left intentionally blank

I wonder where Roy & HG stand in all this

[Anonymous Coward]

Every year Roy & HG give a radio commentary of the football - never heard of them being worried about copyright infringment.

Re:Ted Stevens

[iminplaya]

It is a bit of a stretch, kinda like a Kevin Bacon thing, only different. Believe me, the linkage is there. But just to be sure, it's not meant to be taken seriously, so while I appreciate the props, I'm a bit confused by the "informative" mod myself.

Re:Ted Stevens

[Rakarra]

Sounds to me that a moderator thought "oh, she posted stuff from Ted Stevens in an attempt to bait him into filing takedown notices as well? That's informative!" without actually checking the link to see if the claim was true or not.