The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the nicely-done dept

Mon, Feb 6th 2012 1:21pm — Mike Masnick

Ah, the bogus takedown. The latest is that apparently the NFL somehow and for some reason took down Chrysler's Clint Eastwood Super Bowl commercial from YouTube. Pretty much every advertiser put up their commercials on YouTube, and it's unclear why or how the NFL might claim any sort of copyright on any of those ads. But, for some time that's exactly what happened, making Chrysler's own website promoting the ad look pretty silly:

Considering how much Chrysler had to pay for that ad, you have to wonder if they now feel that the NFL owes them something for making it impossible for people to watch for a while...

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: clint eastwood, commercials, super bowl, takedowns, videos
Companies: chrysler, nfl

94 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

fogbugzd (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:26pm

Bogus copyright claims and DCMA claims ought to be a crime. And content should not be taken down under DCMA until the person who posted has a reasonable opportunity to dispute the claim.

Leaving violations up for an extra day or two probably does little damage to the rights holder, but examples like this show how huge the damage can be to the person holding the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- timmaguire42 (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  Absolutely. I have a lot of problems with the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA, which are basically "guilty until proven innocent" (read: a violation of due process rights), but much of my objection could be alleviated if the supposedly infringing material came down only if and when the "infringer" failed to respond to the takedown notice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure, just as soon as you're willing to be penalized $1.00 for every song you've ripped off.
    
    Everyone hold your breath for that one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ill agree to pay $1.00 for every song that I like enough to listen to frequently, but not the hundreds that I listened to once and never will again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 5:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK. Do it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 9:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, just as soon as a system exists to make these payments to the artists, and prevents the RIAA from going after individuals that make these payments at a later date.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - khory (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A $1 penalty for infringement? Bring it on! That's a way better deal than what the MAFIAA currently tries to extort!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's pretty cheap compared to what the music industry paid to have those laws put in place. Sure, I can afford that. Whose Paypal account do I send the money to?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 7:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Define "ripped off" please. And no hedging; I want an unequivocal, precise definition.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 9:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, I download a song from a band I don't really know. Like it, tell everyone I know about the band. We buy tickets and go see them live and have a great time. Will probably go see them again. Tell me, how is that ripping off the artist. (true story btw)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your ripping off the middleman!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon22, 6 Feb 2012 @ 10:52pm
  
  Re:
  They ARE a crime. Look up about the DMCA on Wikipedia.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PT (profile), 7 Feb 2012 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re:
  Very unlikely this was a real NFL action. It's much more likely it was a political operation, given that Karl Rove was on Fox News Monday bloviating about how this was an Obama campaign video disguised as a commercial.
  
  So what should the penalty be for a bogus bogus copyright claim and DMCA claim?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Miff (profile), 12 Feb 2012 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  It is a crime- perjury to be exact. It's just never prosecuted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:27pm

How long until Google finally gets the message that it's takedown provisions aren't working -- for both the companies it's supposed to be protecting and the people who are just there to enjoy the content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  This is really true. Youtube is becoming useless for anything other than cat videos (with no soundtracks!) at this point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Heaven has come at last!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Blatant Coward (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mew!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Al Bert (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 10:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Just wait until hollywood produces a movie about funny cats and unintelligible cellphone images. Then they'll lay claim to the remainder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  How would you suggest they work?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Verify that the claimant actually has a claim before takedown?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And lose DMCA protections?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly - thank you! It's the law that's broken here, not YouTube.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly - thank you! It's the law that's broken here, not YouTube.
        
        Agreed, but it would be nice to see YouTube do something proactive about this. Something simple even, like x amount (or percentage or something) of successfully countered notices and the rights holder loses automatic take down privileges and has to file paper notices. They wouldn't lose DMCA protection that way, would they?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess not - but they'd face so much backlash... remember they are constantly maintaining shaky agreements with legal leviathans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jupiterkansas (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think what Youtube is doing is good. It makes the problem more visible to the public. DMCA takedowns have become a joke and everybody knows about them. You won't get laws changed if you make them invisible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not how the DMCA works. The service provider is allowed to give a response time before pulling material while still taking advantage of the safe harbor.
        
        I don't know why YouTube doesn't act accordingly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Eh, I was mistaken. The counternotification procedures are to protect the service provider from liability to the user, not the person making the infringement.
        
        Anyway, the safe harbors only require that the service provider "act expeditiously" after receiving the notice, so there at least ought to be time to contact the user, as opposed to just acting immediately.
        
        At any rate, Chrysler probably has a claim for damages against the NFL here unless there's some reason the NFL thought it had rights that were legitimately infringed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anyway, the safe harbors only require that the service provider "act expeditiously" after receiving the notice, so there at least ought to be time to contact the user, as opposed to just acting immediately.
        
        There are substantial penalties for failing to act expeditiously, whatever that means. The penalty for acting too quickly is absolutely nothing. So you can see what the law causes service providers to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There are substantial penalties for failing to act expeditiously, whatever that means."
        
        Not necessarily. I mean, if it's not infringement in the first place, there's no "penalty." Even if it is infringement, the service provider might not be liable. However, they *know* they're not liable if they act expeditiously to disable it.
        
        You're right, thought, that the incentives are in favor of disabling access, except for those service providers who feel there is a market advantage to developing a reputation for standing up to such notices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " if it's not infringement in the first place, there's no "penalty."
        
        You want your 15$ an hour worker who process DCMA claims making that call or are you going to have him take down whatever is requested and let the counterclaim department pass anything that looks interesting(if the defendant keeps calling foul after you tell him he is a thief) to the lawyers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2012 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, as I said, the incentives are in favor of disabling access in most situations.
        
        I just wanted to clarify that not complying with a notice doesn't create liability; it just removes a shield to potential liability.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DannyB (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not lose DMCA protections. Get this ridiculous law overturned. Everyone saw this coming over a decade ago when this farce of a law was passed.
        
        There are potentially huge compliance for not taking it down. There should be equally, if not significantly larger costs for a false DMCA claim.
        
        The penalties for false DMCA takedowns need to have some serious teeth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        GeneralEmergency (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The penalties for false DMCA takedowns need to have some serious teeth."
        
        Agreed. And if I ran the world, once someone was found liable for a DMCA false takedown declaration, that entity would have all their current copyrights transferred to the public domain.
        
        That would teach the bastards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And if I ran the world, once someone was found liable for a DMCA false takedown declaration, that entity would have all their current copyrights transferred to the public domain.
        
        There would be a DMCA if you ran the world? ;-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        GeneralEmergency (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Excellent Point.
        
        I have been a proponent of retrograde reform of copyright (Explicit registration and short terms) but even I am coming to the point where I am mad enough about all of this to just see copyright abolished completely.
        
        Copyright no longer serves a purpose worth the "Lawyer Tax" that comes with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      too radical. lol :p
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    notice and notice instead of notice and takedown. That is - give the person a chance to contest the takedown claim. If it is obviously infringing, the person would not generally contest the takedown. If the takedown is a mistake/ over-reach/ covered by fair use, that gives the person a chance to respond. Not perfect but an improvement certainly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A site (eg YouTube) should have safe harbor protection as long as either of the following happen:
      1. YouTube receives counter notice to keep the video up -- at that point all liability for any actual infringement is now on the party giving the counter notice.
      2. YouTube does not receive a counter notice within some specified time -- at which point YouTube takes the video down to keep its safe harbor protection.
      
      Either way:
      1. The party who put up the video can contest the takedown and assume liability. (And also sue in the case of a false DMCA takedown.)
      2. The party who put up the video does not contest, and the video goes down. (And the DMCA filer might sue the party who put up the video for infringement.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  You see Youtube should make as easy to contest something as it is easy to complain about it and let people fight it in the courts, just put a form "this video has been contested do you wish to file a counter notice to have it up and running again?" and the step by step with warnings of what may happen, including the fact that if the guy can prove that somebody acted in bad faith they would be responsible for all his legal fees in court of course this only applies to people who don't work a normal 8 to 5 job otherwise risking your job over a Youtube video seems ridiculous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:28pm

Maybe now we can get Chrysler interested in copyright reform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:29pm

Hahahahahaha !!!
This story is just so funny and sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymoose Custard (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  I think the word you're looking for is "absurd."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:39pm

Hey, a lot of money went into that advertising! They can't let everyone watch it for free or they'll never recoup!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeachBumCowboy, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:40pm

Don't mess with Eastwood.
The NFL better watch out. Clint just might go all Dirty Harry on them. I guess they are feeling lucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:41pm

The video is back up on Chrysler's channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:41pm

Bots! Damn bots!
This is the problem when the takedowns are automated. Now when a powerful player like Chrysler gets their rights infringed you can bet someone moves on it right away to correct the situation, but if it's some powerless dweeb whose free speech is being taken away it's just "oh well, guess you're SOL..."

This is why the penalties for false takedown should be equal to the penalties for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re: Bots! Damn bots!
  Except that it was the NFL that took the video down, not Chrysler, who put it there.
  
  Absurdity works on many levels you know :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killercool (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!
    I think he meant more along the lines of, Chrysler's rights to post their original content without interference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!
      Nobody has a "right" to use YouTube (in the sense that YouTube does not have an obligation to host your cat videos or car ads or whatever).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!
        YouTube should not have an obligation to remove your car ads on the word of someone claiming to be the NFL, either, but that still seems to be happening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TtfnJohn (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Bots! Damn bots!
        You Tube does invite people, under their terms and services, to place videos on their site so if Chrysler followed them You Tube has an obligation to keep them up.
        
        The NFL issed a DCMA takedown notice on a video they didn't own the rights to. While You Tube did follow the rules one could say that Chrysler has grounds for an action against the NFL or at least the rights to get very, very pissed off at the NFL and the perfect right to tell them so as Chrysler owns the rights to the ad NOT the NFL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:43pm

make false take downs punishable with as big a fines as genuine ones and one of the huge corporations that have been threatened by and complied with the NFL, have the balls to take them on! they are as bad as the rest of the 'entertainment industries' (watching a match is entertainment, right?) and have probably been coached by them anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:46pm

https://www.chillingeffects.org/

Chilling effects is a gold mine for this kind of thing, you don't need to dig deeper to find abusive DMCA takedowns at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:50pm

Obviously, the NFL just hates Detroit. Probably a ploy to get the Lions to move to LA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  I lol'ed
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makoto (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:56pm

Too bad for those not watching the Super Bowl!
According to family and friends, this was the one commercial that was really good, too...

Seriously, NFL - you already GOT your paycheck for the runtime of this ad, so what the hell do you have to gain by issuing a takedown notice? The whole point of putting ads in the Super Bowl is so the product makers get more exposure!

Well, I could look it like this: Maybe Chrysler will rethink its relationship with the NFL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 7 Feb 2012 @ 7:56am
  
  Re: Too bad for those not watching the Super Bowl!
  Well, the NFL doesn't get paid for the commercials...NBC does.
  
  Granted NBC paid handsomely to air the Superbowl, but technically the ad fee was paid to NBC not the NFL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 1:56pm

I'm saving a copy of that screenshot. Fifty years from now I'll show it to kids when I tell them about the crazy copyright laws we used to have back in my day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re: Screenshot
  I dunno. Are you sure that's legal?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Al Bert (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 10:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Screenshot
    Yeah, in the future it may be disallowed to discuss the football commercials as well
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:00pm

Commercials, what commercials? Oh yeah! I fast forwarded them.

who should care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  Well that is silly. This Super Bowl was a regurgitated vomit of 2008. The only reason the TV was on was to watch the commercials while I made sweet potato fries in the oven. I fast forwarded through the game.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 7:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Here Weego. Naked M&M. Cantina Critics. And CLINT.
    
    This was a rare year where the game was nearly as good as the best commercials.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 8:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You remember all those commercials, and yet fail to list the most important one of all?
      
      Alfa Romeo
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:02pm

video is back up. Now the blame game is playing out. NFL says they didn't request the takedown - Google screwed up. Google says they only take down videos from a request but are not yet presenting the request.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/technology/2012/02/nfl_asks_google_to_reinstate_c.html

F TA
=======
YouTube expeditiously removes content when it receives a copyright notification from copyright owners, or from third party agencies operating on their behalf. We reinstate content when we receive a retraction from the party who originally submitted the notification. The video has been reinstated.

I replied to the spokesperson:

The NFL says they never filed a complaint about the video -- even though the video screen said there was a complaint from NFL Properties LLC. Was it taken down due to some type of auto filtering technology that YouTube uses?

Your statement doesn't really say what happened in this case. Thanks.

The YouTube spokesperson's response:

No, a video comes down when we receive a copyright complaint about a specific video from the copyright holder, or from the third party agency that they designate to make such complaints on their behalf.

Then I ask back:

So did the NFL's third party agency make the complaint? Because the NFL itself is telling me they didn't complain.
=======

(hope that's not a copyright violation by quoting them...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re:
  The claim could've been made by anyone calling themselves NFL Properties LLC. No one in the actual NFL need be involved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Khory (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This.
    
    How do they determine the identity of who is making the claim?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Torg (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They don't. I've seen a video taken down in which the copyright owner's name was misspelled. A rigorous process it is not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Mama, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:12pm

Why would they target one specific ad? I smell something political in this and it reeks of the stench of right wing reaction to the vid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:19pm

Another reason that all these proposed bills to be laws should have a public representation in the airing. Don't think it by mistake that the penalties for false DMCA claims are as low as they are. Putting some teeth in the penalties would put these sorts of actions to a screeching halt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:26pm

Stupidity
It's back up now. And it's a great ad. Not just for America as a country but for those who find themselves with their backs against the wall as individuals.

It's great.

Whatever bot or idiot at the NFL filed the takedown should be taken out and given a really good talking to about publicity and what the Internet and You Tube can do for them.

This time around the Internet and You Tube are probably saying really, really nasty things. Like here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:30pm

Something here does not compute. The NFL is DMCA and copyright savvy, so it seems rather unlikely it would send a takedown notice to YouTube. Looking around at other reports, it seems pretty clear that none of the principals have a firm handle on how this happened, which is confirmed by everyone saying they are investigating what transpired.

Indignation leveled at copyright law and the DMCA may prove to be premature, and perhaps even wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kaden (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:41pm
  
  Re:
  You're seriously putting forth the theory that it's wrong to assume the DMCA is *somehow* involved in a DMCA takedown?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  It is *never* to early to point indignation at the state of copyright law in this country. The botched abortion of a law that is DMCA doesn't even rise to the level of indignation, more like contempt...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  ...Indignation leveled at copyright law and the DMCA may prove to be premature, and perhaps even wrong.
  Why? The reason this entire episode occurred was due to the DMCA as it is written. I actually hope Chrysler takes the NFL to court for tortuous interference with their business plan and that the NFL pay treble damages...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re:
  What? Someone filed a false DMCA takedown notice as a 'trusted third party' without being a trusted third party????
  
  Sounds like a case of fraud and theft of content (sure it's back now... but they stole it and it was gone for a while there....)
  
  ... I would make a point, but why when I can make three ... and imply 'something'....
  
  know what I mean?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob Kerns (profile), 7 Feb 2012 @ 12:43am
  
  Re: NFL DCMA savvy??
  Um, Warner is clearly DCMA savvy -- yet they have had to admit *in court* that they issued takedown notices for materials that not only did they not own -- that they had not actually seen.
  
  I doubt this is Google's fault, but we shall see.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  The NFL is DMCA and copyright savvy, so it seems rather unlikely it would send a takedown notice to YouTube.
  Yeah, just like Universal is DMCA and copyright savvy, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 2:37pm

I'm glad I didn't watch the money bowl this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:32pm

Not sure how apt this is, but tom brokaw with msnbc is doing a story about the commercial right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechnoMage (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 3:37pm

Part of me wonders...
Apparently Karl Rove and other neo-conservative talking heads were out bashing the commercial today, saying it was too pro-Obama... Which it was pro-US automakers... (Chrystler in particular) So.. I kinda wonder if it was taken down by someone not in favor of that type of pro-US recovery message
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 6:27am
  
  Re: Part of me wonders...
  Rove really didn't get the point of the ad. Working together we can do great things. I guess that really is against Rove.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 7 Feb 2012 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: Part of me wonders...
  Personally I think Rove is upset at the big lie in the video
  
  "Detroit almost lost everything. But we all pulled together and now Motor City is fighting again"
  
  Dammit we all did NOT pull together. Rove and Romney and the rest of the GOP were AGAINST saving Detroit and millions of jobs.
  
  They just want to make sure that is clear....oh wait ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Moondoggie, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:03pm

Penalty
"The penalties for false DMCA takedowns need to have some serious teeth."

$10,000 fine? This should be made true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re: Penalty
  The maximum statutory damage per non-commercial private infringement is $150,000... this should be the minimum penalty for a bogus takedown, especially one that is based on a commercial scale. Chrysler's ad was in place for commercial gain and they were deprived of that commercial venture by the takedown.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 11:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Penalty
    If you want to put penalties in this mess at least make sure it will apply equally to people with a billion dollars in the bank as the people who have nothing at all.
    
    Do it as a percentage of earnings before tax not a fixed value, the more you earn the less it hurts and the more it hurts the majority of people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:47pm

Had to check out the commercial after reading the comments and [url=[IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/64ggua.jpg[/IMG]]this[/url] is what came up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2012 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re:
  [IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/64ggua.jpg[/IMG]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 6 Feb 2012 @ 8:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Try:
    
    Had to check out the commercial after reading the comments and <a href="http://i44.tinypic.com/64ggua.jpg">this</a> is what came up.
    
    The result looks like this:
    
    Had to check out the commercial after reading the comments and this is what came up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Keating, 7 Feb 2012 @ 3:34am

Chevy's advert
The issue might not be the NFL. The advertisement (the one I saw on the web at http://tinyurl.com/7xo736t) has a great many trademark "issues" from the direct reference to Ford to the Twinkies box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 7 Feb 2012 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: Chevy's advert
  The advertisement (the one I saw on the web at http://tinyurl.com/7xo736t) has a great many trademark "issues" from the direct reference to Ford to the Twinkies box.
  
  It's not a trademark issue to show or mention a brand name product in a commercial (or any other context) unless there's likelihood of customer confusion. Trademark holders just want you to think it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 6:45am

Trademark Infringement
The NFL(TM) holds the trademark for halftime(TM). Also quarter(TM), national(TM), football(TM), and game(TM).

So stop infringing, or well DCMA you, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2012 @ 6:46am

Trademark Infringement
The NFL(TM) holds the trademark for halftime(TM). Also quarter(TM), national(TM), football(TM), and game(TM).

So stop infringing, or we'll DMCA you, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]