Slashdot Mirror
NFL, MLB Accused of Bogus Copyright Claims
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."'"
The write-up forgot to mention, who the complaint was filed with. It is with the FTC.
I don't think, it is illegal to mislead (other than in advertising) or even to threaten (other than with violence). Would be nice, if FTC stops it somehow, of course, just to keep things cleaner...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Government and businesses love to stretch their rights and power unless called on it. If they get away with expanded rights/powers long enough they tend to become real or legitimate.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
These guys are complaining to an agency of the United States government! Do they expect their complaint to receive any kind of responsible hearing? This is the United States, for heaven's sake, we don't have intelligent, fair representation any more; the NFL will just grease a palm here and there, and get whatever they want. Sheesh, why get all fussed and bothered?
It has always seemed to me that the root of such behavior is that they are allowed to continue to operate as monopolies.
Because there is no competition to professional football it allows the NFL to become bullies and make outrageous demands. Not just with TM and copy write, but with players/coaches contracts, advertisers/sponsors, broadcast providers, etc. I just don't get is how they can continue not getting thumped for anti-competitive practices. Hell, it constantly amazes me one of the extremely rich players who gets suspended doesn't ever raise a stink about it...After all, it's not like he can get a job playing for someone else.
(MLB is a congressionally protected monopoly, at least from my understanding.)
It drives me insane (and my wife, because she has to deal with me yelling at the screen) every time I see one of those DVD anti-piracy ads, the ones that go "You wouldn't steal a car... blah blah blah.... buying pirated movies is STEALING. STEALING is against the LAW."
Those ads are factually incorrect and misleading. Buying pirated movies may be copyright infringement, but thats quite doubtful since the purchaser is not responsible for proving that the CD/DVD is authentic and the doctrine of first sale still applies to DVDs/CDs. The infringer, in that case, would be the person knowingly selling pirated materials, not (necessarily) the person buying them.
Even if it was copyright infringement, that is wildly different than STEALING, since no one is being deprived of a physical possession, which is why they are separate areas of law and until recently copyright infringement was mostly considered a civil issue, except for extreme cases.
I get infuriated at the blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of fact in those ads. They are untrue and intimidating, and I would love if a lawyer here would tell me if a lawsuit would have any grounds to get them stopped. I dontate to the EFF, maybe they would take up the case.
Does anyone know if a case like this would have any teeth?
-Clay
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
"or even to threaten (other than with violence)."
But couldn't the threat of being sued for more than you are likely to make in your lifetime a form of "financial violence". Yes the term sounds like a stretch, but when you consider the potential for life altering harm and combine it with the outcome of suit being more influenced by who can afford what lawyers over who is right, well it resembles violence in every way in which violence is used to threaten and subdue. Perhaps it should be illegal for corperations to threaten legal action when no law has been broken.
We are all just people.
Just because a problem has been going on for a long time is no reason to ignore the problem.