MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend

from the expressed-written-permission dept

Fri, Sep 4th 2009 7:30pm — Mike Masnick

A couple years ago, law professor Wendy Seltzer used the NFL as an example of sports leagues performing copyfraud, by claiming copyright control beyond what is allowed by law. Specifically, she was talking about the warning mentioned at some point during every game. For the NFL it was: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." In Seltzer's case, amazingly, the NFL sent a DMCA takedown of her posting that clip to YouTube -- giving her another "teachable moment" on copyright abuse.

And yet, sports leagues still continue the copyfraud. One of the fine folks over at Consumerist, Phil Villarreal, found the wording of Major League Baseball's warning quite questionable:

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

Unlike the NFL one, at least it didn't say "descriptions," but "account" is pretty close. So, Villarreal contacted MLB to request "express written consent" to provide an "account" of the game he had watched to a friend. To its credit, MLB responded and asked him to call someone in its business development department... who (perhaps reasonably) thought it was a joke and did not provide the written consent (and stopped responding to calls and emails).

Now, obviously, this is a bit of a joke (and a funny one), but it does highlight a rather serious problem. Copyright holders are pretty regularly claiming significantly more rights than they actually hold over content, and many people simply assume that they can do this. This leads to them to think that they don't have basic rights concerning not just "fair use" but stuff that is obviously not covered by copyright, such as an "account of this game." There really should be sanctions against such copyfraud.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: baseball, copyfraud, copyright, permission, sports
Companies: mlb.com

75 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 8:11pm

My understanding is that if someone issues a DCMA statement, it is under jury.

I would personally offer award for anyone that pursued the arrest and conviction of anyone that issued a faudent DCMA.

I'd give 50% of the award just to get the arrest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:32pm

We all should ask for permission
What should happen is that everyone should ask for prior permission to describe a game and the wonderful time we had at the stadium as a prelude to considering buying a ticket. A couple of hundred requests should be enough to force them to hire a dozen or so lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:45pm

so in short if i talk about a game after i watch it, as far as MLB is concerned im infringing?!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cyanid Pontifex (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 10:03pm

Unfortunately, there are no laws about copywrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teknosapien, 4 Sep 2009 @ 10:27pm

Mail bomb!
Mail bomb them with requests for talking about the game with your friends.

Come on lets take it a step further
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 4 Sep 2009 @ 11:00pm

Alright, I hereby swear to actively avoid any and all contact of NFL & MLB activities, broadcasts or description thereof including newscasts from this point on. Will that suffice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 4 Sep 2009 @ 11:19pm

So, okay, I'm gonna go to a game, and on each play, I want to describe what each player does, both defense and offence. I want to tell my friend. How many written requests will I have to make, and who do I send it to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 12:24am

Profits >>> the first amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
x, 5 Sep 2009 @ 1:18am

How detailed an account does this cover?... Q: How was the game Mike? A: IT WAS AWESOME ©!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peet McKimmie (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 1:58am

Re: We all should ask for permission
Yes. Because the outcome we are all trying to achieve is "more lawyers".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 2:09am

Re: Understanding
> My understanding is that if someone issues a DCMA statement,
> it is under jury.

Then it's apparent you have very little understanding of it.

A jury is not empaneled every time a DMCA notice is filed. Juries have nothing to do with DMCA notices.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 3:46am

Re: Dan
"Alright, I hereby swear to actively avoid any and all contact of NFL & MLB activities, broadcasts or description thereof including newscasts from this point on. Will that suffice?"

Well, that seems to be where the NFL and MLB seem to want us to go... let's vote with our feet/wallets and see how they like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tino (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 4:43am

What about those souvenir programs with the blank scoresheets and pencil stubs they hand out at the ballpark? Are you supposed to just leave them blank? Or can you just turn them in after the game?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tino (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 4:58am

What about those souvenir programs with the blank scoresheets and pencil stubs they hand out at the ballpark? Are you supposed to just leave them blank? Or can you just turn them in after the game?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 5 Sep 2009 @ 5:32am

Wrongs
There really should be laws to prosecute companies that attempt to overstate their copyrights. But then again that would be the government getting in the way of Big Greed, dang, I meant Big Business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 6:16am

Ms. Seltzer, a Berkman and EFF booster, seems to be having fun playing a silly game of wordsmithing to make a silly point of dubious merit. She comes across as little more than a First Amendment absolutist, a not altogether surprising position for one whose view of the world is limited to the halls of academia.

Her feeble attempt at making her point by means of a reductio ad absurdum argument is particularly unenlightening and childish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 6:20am

No sanctions.
There will be no sanctions for copyfraud because the providers (NFL, **AS, all sports leagues) have the courts and government bodies in their pockets. It is a simple matter of money - pay the gov't enough protection money and you get whatever laws and legal rulings you want. The government is owned by big business, so taxpayers get screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 8:11am

What is this preoccupation with professional sports leagues? In my experience the leagues are not exactly breaking down doors with lobbyists trying to expand copyright law.

Now, antitrust lobbying is an entirely different matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 5 Sep 2009 @ 8:16am

MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
Real simple to solve, for every game have 10,000,000 send a letter, email or phone call requesting permission to discuss last nights game with a friend and don't stop until an answer is given in writing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J. Caesar, 5 Sep 2009 @ 9:06am

Re: No sanctions.
Ahhh, but the texpayers who get screwed are the same ones who keep re-electing the ones who make the laws.

Vos suscipio habenae ut vos mereo mereor
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J. Amads, 5 Sep 2009 @ 9:10am

What is copyfraud? Any links to this issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griff (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 9:28am

Ms. Seltzer is not just making a silly point
This may be a joke but there is a serious line somewhere.

The MLB presumably would say it is OK to describe the game in a bar afterwards, may be OK to text a friend during a game with a real time description, and is almost certainly not OK to tweet a real time description, or to post a blow by blow account on a website.

However, I was under the impression that facts cannot be copyrighted. Do they have any legal redress against someone who sticks to the facts in an account of the game ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 9:48am

Re: Ms. Seltzer is not just making a silly point
The funny thing is that they can't even bring themselves to say that a bar conversation is OK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Howard West, 5 Sep 2009 @ 10:00am

MLB copyright disclaimer
I generally like what I read on this site, but I don't quite get the point of this one. That MLB copyright disclaimer sounds word for word, with the exception of the specific reference to MLB, like the one I've been hearing during every Chicago Cubs game I've listened to or watched for the last 40 years. Why only now are we getting excited about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 10:20am

Re: We all should ask for permission
"What should happen is that everyone should ask for prior permission to describe a game and the wonderful time we had at the stadium as a prelude to considering buying a ticket."

This is a great idea, too bad it won't happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 10:21am

Re: We all should ask for permission
Also, they should ask for permission in writing or on a printed piece of paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 10:23am

Re: MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
also ask for permission to take pictures and put them on facebook or even videos perhaps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 5 Sep 2009 @ 10:31am

"Copyright holders are pretty regularly claiming significantly more rights than they actually hold over content, "

Actually the sports league, clubs etc are NOT copyright holders. Copyright only enters into the equation when the content is "fixed in a tangible form". The broadcasters hold copyright over their output but there is no copyright in the original live event (unless of course they are admitting by this statement that the games are choreographed in advance - like wrestling!).

If you live in a tall building overlooking the stadium you can stream live video of the event if you want and there is nothing they can do other than erect a physical barrier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 10:46am

Re:
"If you live in a tall building overlooking the stadium you can stream live video of the event if you want and there is nothing they can do other than erect a physical barrier."

The point is that even if they would lose a lawsuit no one wants to be faced with the potential of being sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 11:42am

Copyfraud
Copyfraud by Jason Massone

Wikipedia Entry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zenasprime, 5 Sep 2009 @ 11:54am

Re:
"a Berkman and EFF booster..."

You say this as if it's suppose to have some sort of negative connotation. "Eww, she's got cooties!"

:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 11:55am

Corporatism - Corporations Making "Law".
Implicit in the statement: "Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited," is that they are making an assertion that have the right to create a "law" that you must abide by. Just because a company asserts that an activity is somehow "illegal" does NOT make it illegal.

Unilateral "contracts" should be declared unenforceable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: We all should ask for permission
>Yes. Because the outcome we are all trying
>to achieve is "more lawyers".

No we want more lawyers trappped where they can't do any harm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: We all should ask for permission
you mean in jail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doctor Strange, 5 Sep 2009 @ 12:42pm

There really should be sanctions against such copyfraud.

Section 506(c) of U.S. Copyright Law:

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Section 506(e) of U.S. Copyright Law:

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Section 512(f) of U.S. Copyright Law, referring to misrepresentation in sending out DMCA takedown notices:

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Understanding
Sorry.. jury was suppose to be perjury..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 5 Sep 2009 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re:
"The point is that even if they would lose a lawsuit no one wants to be faced with the potential of being sued."

What could they do? There isn't even a law under which they could bring a case. They can write threatening letters but that's about as far as it goes.

To claim copyright they would have to concede that the match is predefined - i.e. fixed - wouldn't it be wonderful to raise this issue in a court!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doctor Strange, 5 Sep 2009 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
What could they do? There isn't even a law under which they could bring a case.

Additionally, one of the "features" of the U.S. legal system is that you can sue just about anybody for anything. This isn't particularly enabled by or specific to copyright law. My crazy neighbor could sue me for sending evil radio waves into his house. If he got a crazy lawyer, he could really soak up my time. All of us live under the "threat" of lawsuits all the time, but I doubt it keeps most of us up nights. Advocating anti-SLAPP provisions in your state would be a good way to help control for this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 5 Sep 2009 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"you can sue just about anybody for anything"

Surely there has to be a law first. You can't sue your neighbour for (say) "wearing green socks in the afternoon" just because you think that there ought to be a law against it.

The only law they could try to use is copyright law - but to do that they would have to lay themselves open to allegations of match fixing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re:
"a Berkman and EFF booster..."

You are correct. My post should have said "a Berkman and EFF booster infested with cooties"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 3:11pm

Re:
"(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500."

Great, now we just need a criminal justice system that enforces this law. Who is supposed to enforce this, who do we tell when someone breaks this law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 3:12pm

Re:
"(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500."

So how does one prove intent, that the entity knew better? It can simply deny that it knew better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 3:13pm

Re:
"shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it."

Ok, now give me instances where this was enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 4:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: We all should ask for permission
>you mean in jail?

Well there are lots of possible clients there. You want to keep them just busy enough to not to be causing any real trouble.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 4:57pm

Re:
also, it says the fines are not more than $2,500, which really isn't that much and if the costs are less than $2,500 then they will be fined less than that amount. Basically this is simply compensatory damages of no more than $2,500, hardly a punishment and is certainly not punitive damages. Compare this to how much one can be rewarded for copyright infringement there is clearly a huge disparity. Also, what about opportunity cost. During the time that someone has to fight for copyright infringement that means they can't work since they're in court, do they get lost wages and any other damages it may cause to their job (ie: future damages because their boss got mad at them or limited their future actions regarding how much time they can take off or it reduces their chances of a future promotion since it takes time away from their productivity and job experience. It can also break their thought process from work and things are always changing meaning by the time they get back to work they have to spend more time updating themselves on current issues regarding their job which can cut into their commission and productivity)? What about if it's someone who gets paid by commission, they can lose clients during that time which could cause current and future damages. $2,300 in compensatory damages is a joke (far huger rewards are rewarded for intellectual property infringement, the laws are ENTIRELY one sided, it's completely not fair), no one wants to fight a false copyright infringement case if there is only a potential that they might get compensatory damages (they might not get compensatory damages because in order to get compensatory damages they must prove fraudulent intent), they might as well be at work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 5:03pm

Re:
Simply put, up to $2,500 in potential compensatory damages only if one can prove intent is not even close to enough, I want to see far huger punitive damages and I want to see not just the word "intent" I would to see the words "known or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" written into that law (the law should read something like, "if I sue you for copyright infringement and I knew or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that my claim was bogus, I can be fined up to $100,000 in punitive damages" (in terms of real GDP)). The fact that one can get fined far more for intellectual property infringement is telling regarding how entirely one sided the laws are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zenasprime (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
I thought you didn't like silly points of dubious merits. Very odd. What was your point again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 5:18pm

Re:
Also note, someone else already addressed this issue here.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090626%2F1421065375&threaded=true&sp=1#co mments

Read post Jun 27th, 2009 @ 12:53pm

Here, I'll even re - copy and paste their response here since it's really nice.

___________________________________________

"US Copyright Act
506(c): "Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words..."

Note that that only applies to fraudulent claims that are actually attached to an article, not false claims in general or unfounded threats of legal action.

"...that such person knows to be false,..."

That's the big loophole that they use. You have to prove that they actually "knew", but all they have to claim in defense is ignorance. This is one of those cases where claimed "ignorance" really is an excuse under the law.

Oh, and "ignorance" is no defense against charges of infringement. That defense only works one way.

"shall be fined not more than $2,500"

Hey, that's funny considering the (US) penalty for infringing a copyright can be up to, what, five years in prison and a $250,000 fine? Seems to me that there needs to be a little parity there.

_________________________

Just shows how one sided the laws are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Surely there has to be a law first. You can't sue your neighbour for (say) "wearing green socks in the afternoon""

Technically, you can. You probably won't get far, but there you go.

The problem here is that there is a law. Now, the question would be "does it apply to this situation?" And settling questions like that is what courts do. The fact that it keeps lawyers employed is merely a side benefit. Pay no attention to the lawyers drafting the laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pjhenry1216 (profile), 5 Sep 2009 @ 7:49pm

Re:
you try to use big words, but none of them back up your position. there's absolutely nothing wrong with using reductio ad absurdum as a formal argument. your entire post is laced with opinion, but absolutely no reasoning behind it. its as if you want everyone to overlook the lack of actual content by justifying all that money you spent on an english degree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 8:36pm

Re: Re:
You may be interested to know I went back and read this article and realized I was mistaken. Ms. Seltzer was not the one who engaged in what I called a silly game. It was another person by the name of Phil Villarreal.

Thus, I erred by referring to Ms. Seltzer when I should have crafted my comment responding to what Mr. Villarreal had done. He assumed a definition for a word without so stating, and then used a form of argument predicated on his unstated assumption.

It was fun, however, to see someone use the word "cooties". I did not realize it was still a part of our vocabulary.

Merely FYI, I did not spend any money on an english degree. My bachelor and masters programs in aero engineering were paid for by the DOD, my flight instruction program by the DOD, and my law program by the VA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 9:04pm

Not really affecting me
Since I couldn't give a rat's ass about any of the athletic styled entertainment events.

What if they had a game and no one cared? They keep this up, they'll find out ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2009 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re:
"Any person who, with fraudulent intent ... shall be fined not more than $2,500"

"Hey, that's funny considering the (US) penalty for infringing a copyright can be up to, what, five years in prison and a $250,000 fine?"

Think of the audacity of these laws. We, as a society, value protecting against copyright infringement substantially more than we value protecting against fraud. IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. What kinda nonsense is this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 12:29am

Re:
Yawn, using latin lawyer phrases like "reductio ad absurdum" Is unenlightening.
The fact is that repetitive brainwashing is a real phenomenon. So by seeing/hearing that such and such is prohibited/illegal etc. it becomes an automatic reaction that it is wrong. When people think things are wrong, then they tend to get made into laws. Keeping that in mind, the fact you are using a legal term means your either attempting to look smart, in law school or a lawyer yourself. It's no wonder you would try to convince people this is frivolous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 12:53am

Re: Re: No sanctions.
"Ahhh, but the texpayers who get screwed are the same ones who keep re-electing the ones who make the laws."

I completely agree and to that extent it is the fault of the voters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 6 Sep 2009 @ 3:27am

Re: Re:"reductio ad absurdum"
"reductio ad absurdum" is a mathematician's phrase - not a legal one. It is a method of mathematical proof.

Legal usage of it is usually incorrect since it rarely uncovers a genuine contradiction!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 6 Sep 2009 @ 3:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interestingly an example has just arisen that is quite close to the situation we arediscussing.

The Michael Jackson funeral was filmed from a helicopter and the family didn't start a lawsuit or even threaten one all they could do was to ask the news organisations to stop using the footage.

This would suggest that they knew there wasn't a case that they could bring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 6 Sep 2009 @ 6:34am

Re:
I use to be a big time baseball fan. A decided a couple of years ago to never watch another baseball game, and so far except for high school baseball. Ihave not watched a single second. I watch Euro football and horse racing. I am sick of all the abuse and lack of care they give the fans. I also no longer buy dvd or music either. LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 9:32am

Re:
No, but under the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, webmaster do not need to respect or honor S&D not make under penalty of perjury in order to get non-liability for their users actions.

You can read more here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zenasprime (profile), 6 Sep 2009 @ 11:45am

Re: Re: Re:
You're funny... looking...

sorry, just playing along with the name calling game you got going here.

What were you trying to say again? I keep missing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re:"reductio ad absurdum"
You are, of course, correct. It has a specific meaning in math, but its use in legal arguments is typically for a different purpose. In law it is generally used to take a statute and then read it in such a way that it leads to situations having what may be viewed as absurd results. Of course, in legal proceedings this seldom works since such situations are virtually never before the court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IT DUDE, 6 Sep 2009 @ 4:25pm

Blind friend
What if you have a blind friend in the room and are describing what happens on screen to him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 4:36pm

Re: Blind friend
The idea is patented and what you are describing is copyright. So I get to sue you double.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 6:04pm

so if i ask for consent to describe the game to a blind friend... would they deny me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 6:46pm

Re:
I think a more relevant question is, would they even give you consent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2009 @ 8:37pm

Re: Re:
Link to the wording of the DMCA please.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard, 7 Sep 2009 @ 1:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:"reductio ad absurdum"
"Of course, in legal proceedings this seldom works since such situations are virtually never before the court."

Of course it makes sense to use this kind of reasoning when formulating a law...

but then maybe I am expecting too much in inserting the concept of reasoning here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2009 @ 11:29am

So, okay, I'm gonna go to a game, and on each play, I want to describe what each player does, both defense and offence. I want to tell my friend. How many written requests will I have to make, and who do I send it to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
minijedimaster (profile), 7 Sep 2009 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://tinyurl.com/6r5gv2
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Davis, 7 Sep 2009 @ 7:51pm

Wow
OMgosh man what a bunch of Egg Heads!

RT
www.anonymous-web.be.tc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dean.collins (profile), 8 Sep 2009 @ 7:04am

NFL legal issues
We've looked into this issue from a legal point of view because of our application http://www.LiveFootballChat.com (it's the same as our other application http://www.LiveBaseballChat.com).

Because of the indepth live interaction with other fans we could fall into this 'play by play' category but to be honest is this any different from two friends talking over the phone - what is the NFL going to do, sue AT&T?

At the end of the day i hope http://www.LiveFootballChat.com doesn't get sued but this isn't going to stop us from building a live platform that already interacts with Twitter and Facebook.

Cheers,
Dean
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt (profile), 8 Sep 2009 @ 4:29pm

Re: Wrongs
Perhaps there are, although I've never heard of it being tested. If a company uses deceptive practices in order to sell a good or service, it may be actionable under some state's "Little FTC Act," often called a "Consumer Protection and Unfair Trade Practices Act." These are state codifications of the federal FTC Act and Lanham Act, but unlike those acts they often provide fairly substantial private remedies.

In other words, if your state is on its game you can sue companies that lie in order to convince you to buy things. Like accounts of football games.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay, 8 Sep 2009 @ 4:38pm

green socks in the afternoon
Technically, if he is going to sue you he needs a tort, not a law. A tort is something you can be sued for. A law is something you can be arrested for. But anyway ...

The problem with your comment is that it assumes that laws are self-enforcing. Anyone could go to the courthouse and fill out the paperwork to bring a lawuit against you for wearing green socks in the afternoon. You would then be required to respond. Unless the judge is more insane than usual, I assume the case would be dismissed pretty quickly. But there's nothing magic about the paper that courthouses use that prevents people from writing absurd things on the form. A judge has to read it and declare that it is absurd. The courthouse staff can't do that. Indeed, would you really want a clerk who was hired yesterday to have the authority to dismiss a case without ever showing it to the judge, based on his belief that the complaint is absurd? Sure, in cases like this that might be a good. But who would decide when the clerk is going too far? It would have to be the judge. And how can he decide that if the clerk decides cases without the judge ever seeing them?

Plenty of cases have gone to court that sound pretty absurd to me. Remember that lady who spilled coffee on her lap and then sued McDonald's for making it too hot? Not only did the court listen to her case, but she actually won. I've seen numerous cases of burglars who sued homeowners because the burglar fell and hurt himself while robbing their home. Etc etc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BIN, 10 Sep 2009 @ 12:29pm

THIS GAME SUCKS!
Sue me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Zanko, 15 Dec 2015 @ 11:22am

Re:
Actually, as part of the broadcasting contract, the broadcaster assigns their copyright to the game to the team/league in question (depending on wether it's a local or national broadcast deal). So the leagues are copyright holders.

That said, all they hold copyright over is the recording of the broadcast. The do not and cannot hold copyright over a basic description of the game itself, despite the overly broad wording of the copyright notices used. The fact that they have never actually gone after someone for such a basic description tells me they know that these broad claims would never hold up in court.

A legitimate notice would read, "This broadcast is copyright the National Football League/Office of the Commisioner of Baseball. Any retransmission or rebroadcast requires permission from the NFL/Major League Baseball." That would be accurate (only the broadcast is copyright), and sets out the terms of reuse (permission of the copyright holder). No, it doesn't spell out fair use rights, but neither does the copyright notice of a book; that does not constitute copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]