Copyright As Censorship: FIFA's Overaggressive Copyright Takedowns Target Fans Celebrating And Pussy Riot Protesting

from the copyright-censors dept

One of the talking points we heard in the run up to the EU Parliament's vote over the EU Copyright Directive was the laughable claim that Article 13 -- which would require mandatory upload filters for many sites -- could not possibly lead to censorship. Here was what UK collection society PRS for Music had to say about that issue:

...the argument is flawed for the simple reason that it assumes creators and producers are incentivised to block access to their works.

Centuries of copyright have proven this is not the case. Indeed, one of the core principles of copyright is that it incentivises the licensing of works. Requiring online platforms to obtain a licence will not lead to mass-scale blocking of copyright works online.

We talked about how silly this was in response (and pointed to dozens of articles we've written in the past about how copyright is used for censorship), but let's add another one to the pile. As you know, the World Cup just ended this past weekend, and FIFA, which certainly has some history being over aggressive on the "intellectual property" side of things, apparently was working overtime getting videos taken down from various platforms.

This resulted in lots of outraged fans especially over insane situations like when Kathryn Conn posted a 5 second video of her 7-year-old son celebrating a goal. She posted it to Twitter, where it was promptly taken down thanks to a highly questionable DMCA notice from FIFA. It is positively bizarre that anyone could possibly think that this video infringed on anyone's copyright, or that it somehow should require "licensing" from FIFA to show your 7-year-old celebrating a goal.

But, it's not just taking down what some might consider "inconsequential" videos of fans celebrating. As you may have heard, the well known collective Pussy Riot staged a protest by having some of its members run onto the field during the final between France and Croatia. All of those involved have been arrested and thrown in jail for 15 days and banned from visiting any sports event for three years.

And... you guessed it, it appears that FIFA decided to take the matter into its own hands and sent a DMCA takedown to have the video disappeared:

Oh, but no, copyright is never used for censorship, is it? It's just magically taking down videos of political protests... because it's an incentive to license the material, right?

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, copyright as censorship, dmca, free speech, protests, pussy riot, russia, soccer, world cup
Companies: fifa

Progress Isn't Linear: YouTube TV's World Cup Flub Threatens Public's Trust For Sports Streaming

from the cup-up dept

As we've pointed out any number of times over the past few years, cord-cutting is a very real thing and represents a threat to the cable television industry as it exists today. One of the last threads from which that industry largely hangs is professional sports broadcasts, with cable network providers having traditionally locked up pro and college sports broadcast rights in long-term exclusive deals. That has slowly begun to change, as the leagues of the world have finally gotten on board with streaming providers big and small, connected to the cable industry or not. If this is adopted en masse, it puts disruptive change for cable on the horizon.

But progress isn't linear and one of the threats to keeping this train on its tracks is the quality of the experience for users that dive into these sports streaming options. Especially early on in this kind of change, providers getting things right is extremely important, as reputations and public perception of the viability of sports streaming are more than somewhat on the line. And YouTube recently botched its broadcast of the World Cup match between England and Croatia.

In the middle of Wednesday's World Cup semifinal match between England and Croatia, YouTube's live TV service suffered an unfortunately-timed outage (not unlike ones we've seen from Sling or Hulu). Naturally, it enraged YouTube TV subscribers who had picked up the service specifically to catch live broadcasts like that game, and now it's offering an apology in the form of a credit.

There are several unfortunate factors at play for why this specific screw-up is worse for the reputation of sports streaming than it might have been otherwise. We can start with the most obvious factor: this is YouTube we're talking about. Look, there are plenty of good streaming service providers out there, but YouTube is the king of them, by reputation if not by fact. Having that name tied to this screw up is likely to register with the public as an indication that streaming for sports may not be ready for prime time.

The second factor: this was the World Cup we're talking about. The popularity of this event, and its related viewership, is immense. The public knows that. Any streaming service for World Cup broadcasts has to know that its service is going to be heavily trafficked and ought to have its shit in order to accommodate the event's popularity. Heavy viewerships shouldn't be a surprise and, whatever the actual cause of YouTube's interruption, it will be assumed by most that viewership load played a factor.

Now, as the post notes, streaming interruptions have happened before and they will happen again. Much of the reaction to what I outlined above will be at least in part unfair. But if you're rooting for sports streaming to erupt in popularity, or if you're a streaming provider trying to get more leagues on board, this kind of a screw up was about as bad in terms of timing as it gets.

Filed Under: football, live streaming, soccer, streaming, world cup
Companies: youtube

FIFA Pisses Away Free Advertising By Banning F1 Racer's Tribute Helmet To Germany's Futbol Team

from the they-must-hate-money dept

FIFA, the soccer/futbol/whatever organization that theoretically runs a sporting operation sure seems to actually be some kind of steroid-taking IP lawyer in practice instead. Much like the method by which the Olympics does their business, FIFA has always gone overboard in enforcing its trademarks. It insists on getting airline ads that don't even mention it pulled down, it goes after breweries, and it generally behaves like a psychopathic rich kid who thinks all the toys in the world are his and his alone.

Reader John Katos writes in with the latest head-scratching example of this. Nico Rosberg is big in the world of F1 racing and he wanted to celebrate the German's winning the World Cup with a helmet in an upcoming race. German pride, in other words, because when has that ever gone wrong?

Earlier this week, delighted with the national team's world cup victory in Brazil, Mercedes driver Rosberg announced he will wear a "special edition helmet" this weekend in Hockenheim. The 29-year-old German revealed on social media that the livery includes an image of "the FIFA trophy".

See that thing on top of the helmet? You know, the one that looks like Cthulu's claw reaching up to grip some kind of golden testicle? Well, that's the World Cup trophy, which, really you guys, come up with something a little better than that for the World freaking Cup. Regardless, the uber-lawyers over at FIFA saw this display of national pride and free FIFA advertising and took a dump on it.

We reported earlier that reproducing the image of the trophy falls foul of the world football federation FIFA's strict rules protecting its 'official marks'. The Mercedes driver's public relations manager Georg Nolte confirmed: "There will be an update on Nico's Germany helmet design today.

"(It) will be without (the) world cup trophy, but (now) with four stars on it."

Yes, rather than working out some kind of way to license the helmet for free so as not to risk the dreaded not-protecting-the-mark penalty that seems to drive so much of this heavy-handed nonsense, FIFA just killed off the free advertising. Quite sporting of them, if you ask absolutely no one.

Filed Under: advertising, germany, intellectual property, marketing, world cup
Companies: fifa

ESPN And Univision Say Screw Fair Use: Your 6 Second Vine Videos Of World Cup Goals Must Be Taken Down

from the permission-society dept

Last year, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Prince sending DMCA takedowns over 6 second videos on Vine. Those seemed like a pretty clear fair use case. The very nature of Vine, in that it limits videos to 6 seconds seems tailor made for fair use, even if there is no magical time period that guarantees fair use. Either way, it should be no surprise that when it comes to a major sporting event, the powers that be don't believe in any fair use at all. Similar to the Olympics, nearly every time we write about the World Cup, it involves an aggressive abuse of claimed intellectual property rights to stifle perfectly legitimate communications and content.

The latest, according to the Wall Street Journal, is that ESPN and Univision are rushing around taking down Vine clips of World Cup goals, even to the point that some major media properties have had their Vine accounts killed for being accused of infringement too often:

Since the start of the tournament Vox Media-owned sports site SB Nation, one of the chief purveyors of quick World Cup content, has had two accounts suspended on Vine, according to its managing editor Brian Floyd.

SB Nation received suspension notices from Twitter, Mr. Floyd said, after a complaint from media-protection company Irdeto, which works on behalf of Univision.

“They don’t seem to mind people Vine-ing funny stuff like fans,” explained Clay Wendler, who quickly crafts Vines for SB Nation. But when it comes to goals — breathtaking moments of glory seemingly tailor-made for the six-second looping video format — rights-holders are more stringent, Mr. Wendler said.

Considering that fair use rules are explicitly designed for news reporting, it seems rather clear that these are fair use. It's unclear from the report if SB Nation has appealed the takedown notices or not, but it's rather unfortunate that Twitter just killed those accounts without bothering to recognize that they're clearly being used for fair use reporting on the World Cup.

Similarly, the article points to a recent Slate post which for a little while had a video showing all 136 goals scored in the group stage of the World Cup, spliced together in quick clips, but that video has since been removed after ESPN contacted Slate to claim it was infringement. Once again, this seems like a fairly clear cut case of fair use, using news reporting in a transformative manner which isn't going to impact the market for the original. But, of course, ESPN is owned by Disney, and Disney doesn't exactly have the best of reputations when it comes to understanding fair use in others (even if it's been getting better on that front lately).

It's really too bad that it appears that Slate and Vox/SB Nation appear to have more or less given in to these takedown requests rather than standing up for fair use.

Filed Under: 6 seconds, copyright, fair use, goals, takedowns, videos, vine, world cup
Companies: disney, espn, twitter, univision

DailyDirt: Having A Ball

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Maybe you've been following a sport called football (not soccer!) recently. You wouldn't be alone. The World Cup has an audience size of nearly a billion people, roughly nine times the audience that watches the Super Bowl (or the whatever-you're-allowed-to-call-it "big game"). But for those of you not really interested in watching these soccer football matches, here are some links on the technology behind various game balls.

• Soccer ball designs have changed quite a bit since the 1920s. The Telstar Durlast ball from the 1970 World Cup is the buckyball shape that was designed to be more visible on black & white TVs. The newest ball designs have far fewer panels and seams, and they need to be tested to make sure the aerodynamics aren't too different from previous balls. [url]
• The first basketball was actually a soccer ball. Before the 1940s, the technology to make an inflatable ball without laces didn't exist, so it wasn't until after basketballs could be molded for a smooth surface (without laces), that dribbling became a major part of the sport. [url]
• A completely smooth golf ball would travel only about half as far as golf ball with dimples. The dimples create a turbulent boundary layer of air around the ball, and the effect can produce additional lift, depending on how the ball is hit. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aerodynamics, basketball, design, football, golf, soccer, sports, super bowl, world cup

FIFA Orders Brazil To Overturn Ban On Selling Beer At World Cup Matches

from the I-am-the-law dept

One of the recurrent themes on Techdirt is the sense of entitlement the owners of various kinds of monopolies display, and their common belief that being able to maximize the profit from those monopolies trumps any other consideration.

For example, FIFA, the world governing body for soccer/football, uses its monopoly on organizing the World Cup to demand some rather extraordinary privileges. Here are just some of the things the UK government was prepared to accept as part of its bid to host the 2018 World Cup:

The U.K. said it would meet FIFA’s requirements to create a 2-kilometer perimeter around stadiums, and said the right to conduct commercial activities there was subject to the approval of FIFA or its appointees. The government also agreed to suspend some labor laws that affected FIFA’s activities and to lift restrictions on the import and export of foreign currency.

FIFA is currently trying to assert similar rights in Brazil, where the 2014 World Cup will be held:

Fifa General Secretary Jerome Valcke said the right to sell beer must be enshrined in a World Cup law the Brazilian Congress is considering.

Alcoholic drinks are currently banned at Brazilian stadiums and the country's health minister has urged Congress to maintain the ban in the new law.

FIFA evidently believes that keeping its sponsors happy (Budweiser is a "big Fifa sponsor" according to the article quoted above) is much more important than local laws or people's health. Valke explains:

"Alcoholic drinks are part of the Fifa World Cup, so we're going to have them. Excuse me if I sound a bit arrogant but that's something we won't negotiate," he said.

"A bit arrogant"? Surely not...

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: beer, brazil, fifa, rights, world cup
Companies: fifa

US Risks Not Getting FIFA World Cup... Because It Won't Give FIFA Special Copyright Powers

from the don't-cave-in dept

The US is bidding on hosting the 2022 World Cup, and the decision will be made in a few weeks. Soccer's governing body, FIFA, recently released its technical reports on all of the various bids, detailing things like the number of stadia available and what would need to be built should a country win, the availability of training grounds, hotel rooms, transportation and so on. The US scores very favorably on all of these accounts, but the bid has been labeled "medium risk" because

"the necessary government support has not been documented as neither the Government Guarantees, the Government Declaration nor the Government Legal Statement have been provided in compliance with FIFA's requirements for government documents."

Guess what that means? The US bid committee hasn't secured a commitment from the US government that it will give FIFA the right to act as its own copyright cops and takeover the legal system so it can do things like criminalize wearing orange clothes. As the full FIFA report (PDF) puts it: "However, as the required guarantees, undertakings and confirmations are not given as part of Government Guarantee No. 6 (Protection and Exploitation of Commercial Rights) and mere reference is made to existing general intellectual property laws in the USA, FIFA's rights protection programme cannot be ensured."

It's clear that FIFA expects carte blanche to set up its own special legal protection in any country that hosts the event; it gives the bid from Belgium and the Netherlands a black mark because it "contains no guarantees, undertakings or confirmations with legal effect beyond existing laws". It also slates a number of countries for having "existing regulations... which adversely affect the free and unrestricted exploitation of media rights". The report indicates that just three bids fully meet FIFA's desire to have the ability to enact its own copyright and media laws: the human-rights hotbeds of Qatar and Russia, and the joint bid from Spain and Portugal.

Filed Under: copyright, fifa, us, world cup

Don't Put The Words 'Rugby' 'World' And 'Cup' Together In New Zealand, Or You Might Get Fined

from the descriptive? dept

Not again. What is it with major international sporting events and governments' willingness to bend over backwards to give them extraordinary intellectual property protections? We all know about how the Olympics seems to always get intellectual property rights that go beyond any standard trademark laws. And we've seen similar things with the FIFA World Cup. Apparently, the same is happening for other "World Cups" as well. Lawrence D'Oliveiro points us to the news that the Rugby World Cup was able to get a special law passed in New Zealand that could make using those three words together in the wrong way subject to fines of up to $150,000. Basically, you can't say those words in any sort of fundraiser, promotion or event, unless you're an official sponsor. The Rugby World Cup people promise they'll "use common sense" before going after anyone using those words, but already some fundraisers and car rental shops have been told to change their signs for mentioning the World Cup.

Filed Under: new zealand, rugby, trademark, world cup

FIFA Threatens To Sue Brewery, Because Dutch World Cup Fans Wore Orange

from the you-can't-do-that dept

FIFA, the organization that runs the World Cup, is notoriously aggressive in defending not just its own intellectual property, but those of any sponsors, while going to extreme lengths to crack down on any non-sponsor getting any kind of publicity whatsoever without paying. It's not unlike the Olympics in that manner. Of course, that leads to some absolutely ridiculous situations, like the one many of you are sending in about FIFA ejecting 36 Dutch World Cup team supporters for the massive sin of all wearing the same orange dresses. Why? Because the women all bought the dresses from a Dutch brewery, named Bavaria, so FIFA claims it was a viral marketing stunt by the brewery to capitalize on its IP without paying. In fact, FIFA is now threatening to sue. I'd love to see that lawsuit, because it's difficult to think of any sane reason why this should break any law. As someone from the brewery noted:

"Fifa does not have the monopoly on orange and people have the freedom to wear what they want."

What if a bunch of fans all just decided to wear the same things to show support for their team?

Of course, the really amusing part of all of this is that, without ejecting those women, I would bet most people would have had no idea at all that the orange dresses represented this brewery. Now, however, it's all over the press. Nice work FIFA. You just helped promote the brewery.

Filed Under: ambush marketing, dresses, fifa, orange, viral marketing, world cup
Companies: bavaria, fifa

For Staunch Copyright Defenders, Big Singers From Big Labels Seem To Copy From Others A Lot...

from the just-saying... dept

Reader Dan points us to a long, but fascinating article by someone tracing a number of stories involving famous Western pop stars copying famous songs that originated in Cameroon, without any credit (or, of course, money) -- including the song by Shakira that is currently the World Cup theme song -- which some folks did some online detective work to track down its origins:

Ze Bella who had retired from the Presidential Guards in 2002 was enjoying a quiet retirement in his village when he got a call from an acquaintance in France informing him that Shakira had just released a version of Zangalewa. This information was soon confirmed by Emile Kojidy another Golden Sounds alum now living in the United States. They were both right.

A few days earlier, the Internet had been inundated with buzz about the new song by Columbian pop star Shakira titled "Zaminamina" which was rumoured to be the official anthem for the FIFA 2010 World Cup. To many listeners, the song was eerily familiar and many bloggers and journalist sought to find out the origins of the song....

To Cameroonians and many African, the origins of the song was no mystery as they instantly recognized it as a remix of "Zangalewa". Thus began a frenzied online campaign to alert the world that this was not a Shakira original but a remix.

After the evidence became overwhelming, and people started complaining, Shakira's label (Sony) was forced to come to the table and settle (some believe that FIFA pushed them to make sure that the song was "cleared" before they would use it as the World Cup official song). Now, I, like many don't think there's anything wrong with musicians building on the works of others. It's how music has pretty much always been created. However, it does seem very hypocritical for all these big labels and big musicians to be whining about copyright infringement, when it appears that they try to get away with it themselves when they can.

Filed Under: cameroon, copying, music, shakira, world cup
Companies: fifa, sony