Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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 ;-)
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."
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Illegal procedure is a five-yard penalty.
:)
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.)
No.
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.
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?
Writers imply. Readers infer.
It's called a test case, and it isn't a trick or "nitpicking BS".
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yeah, she tried to do the same thing to Ted Stevens
What?
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.
They tried, but they lost...
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
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?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy