MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
from the expressed-written-permission dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 chronology ]
Re: Understanding
> 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Understanding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can read more here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all should ask for permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all should ask for permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We all should ask for permission
>to achieve is "more lawyers".
No we want more lawyers trappped where they can't do any harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We all should ask for permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We all should ask for permission
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 chronology ]
Re: We all should ask for permission
This is a great idea, too bad it won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all should ask for permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mail bomb!
Come on lets take it a step further
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dan
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrongs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrongs
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Ms. Seltzer is not just making a silly point
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 chronology ]
Re: Ms. Seltzer is not just making a silly point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are correct. My post should have said "a Berkman and EFF booster infested with cooties"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:"reductio ad absurdum"
Legal usage of it is usually incorrect since it rarely uncovers a genuine contradiction!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:"reductio ad absurdum"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:"reductio ad absurdum"
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 chronology ]
No sanctions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No sanctions.
Vos suscipio habenae ut vos mereo mereor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No sanctions.
I completely agree and to that extent it is the fault of the voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, antitrust lobbying is an entirely different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyfraud
Wikipedia Entry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLB copyright disclaimer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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" 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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
green socks in the afternoon
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 chronology ]
Corporatism - Corporations Making "Law".
Unilateral "contracts" should be declared unenforceable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
So how does one prove intent, that the entity knew better? It can simply deny that it knew better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, now give me instances where this was enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
"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 chronology ]
Not really affecting me
What if they had a game and no one cared? They keep this up, they'll find out ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blind friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blind friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
RT
www.anonymous-web.be.tc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFL legal issues
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 chronology ]
THIS GAME SUCKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]