Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NFL, MLB Accused of Bogus Copyright Claims

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the now-talk-to-the-mpaa-already dept.

P Crewe writes "A complaint filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association accuses the NFL, MLB, and a number of studios of deceptive trade practices, saying that their far-reaching copyright claims systematically misrepresent the rights of consumers to use copyrighted material. 'According to the complaint, such warnings "materially misrepresent" US law. Fair use is given short shrift, and as a result, consumers are left with the impression that any use that the rights-holders do not expressly approve is illegal. "Consumers have the right to use the content in legal, non-infringing ways," CCIA spokesperson Jake Ward told Ars Technica. "Putting these warnings on broadcasts, videotapes, and DVDs is both misleading and threatening."'"

10 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory Youtube Video by dknj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disney teaches Copyright

    dk-

  2. About time! by wnissen · · Score: 5, Informative

    MLB even tries to tell you that descriptions of the game are under their copyright, the lying needs to stop.

    1. Re:About time! by jguthrie · · Score: 5, Informative

      But their "descriptions and accounts of the game" are protected by copyright. If you went to a game and described the game, your description would also be protected by copyright, but the copyright on your description wouldn't belong to MLB.

    2. Re:About time! by ToastyKen · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the grandparent post was referring to how the MLB tried to convince the courts that player stats are under copyright.

  3. Re:The complaint is with FTC by coldmist · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512
    Section (f)
    (f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section ... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner ... who is injured by such misrepresentation...

    If they ask a content provider to remove it, and you have to hire a lawyer to keep it up, then they are liable for your legal fees.

    It isn't criminal, but it is illegal.

    --
    Don't steal. The government hates competition.
  4. Online petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There's an online petition. They won't take action unless you tell them to. At least we Slashdotters can turn *yet another* server into a heap of molten slag.

    http://www.defendfairuse.org/take_action.html

  5. Re:The complaint is with FTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's true that 'notice and takedown' misrepresentations can get you in trouble, but the claim here here is different.

    It isn't that these content providers are violating the copyright laws. These companies are violating consumer protection laws, which say you can't make "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/us c_sec_15_00000045----000-.html

  6. that is correct, sort of by tacokill · · Score: 2, Informative

    Major league baseball is a protected monopoly. At least in that it is protected from anti-trust suits. Link here.

    I can find no information on the NFL and I am suspicious of that one because of the XFL, USFL, etc. There have been football leagues in competition with the NFL. Not so for baseball, unless you count the negro leagues.

  7. Disregard all FUD by metoc · · Score: 3, Informative

    By default, once I see inaccuracies or crap in those copyright warnings I disregard all of it. As a Canadian, the FBI is as important to me as the RCMP is to Americans. If the copyright warning specifically mentions Canada (and not as an after thought) then I will pay attention.

    The American media should be more than aware of the fables like Chicken Little, and Crying Wolf.

  8. Congressional Protection by SoapBox17 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The NFL received an "anti-trust" exemption from congress (in the 60s) exchange for (among other things) guaranteeing access to all games by all Americans. This all worked out fine until DirecTV's Sunday Ticket came along. Since the deal is exclusive to DirecTV, if you can't get DirecTV (which is a lot of people, anyone near trees, hills, buildings, idiot neighbors) you are pretty much screwed.