[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The morning of 9/11, before they realized the world had changed WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File Forever FUBAR Obama pushes for Rangel exit Hollywood Jews Who Don’t Control Media Unite to Get Oliver Stone Kicked Off Showtime Levi Johnston Knocked Up Another Girl Newt Gingrich Suggests Attacking Rest Of 'Axis Of Evil' (VIDEO) Jewish Group Opposes Ground Zero Mosque Six soldiers, 15 civilians killed in Afghanistan Oregon Prosecutor Says No Gore Prosecution Disinterest In National Security Smells Like Treason: When Do We Call It Treason? Mentally Ill Lunaspic Tells Real Americans To Go Back To Europe Four killed in Air Force plane crash in Alaska Wikileaks Afghanistan: Taliban 'hunting down informants' US Consulate in Juarez Closes Teen Shot 22 Times: Police [ Chicago ] Approval Rating of Kenyan McTarball Drops to 43% in Opinion Dynamics Poll Onward Christian Zionists Christian Groups Call For End To Israeli 'Impunity' AP Exclusive: [ Roman Catholic ] Priests who abuse impaired targeted Despite War Cries From Neocons United States, Iran to Restart Talks Tenn priest pleads guilty to abusing boy in NC The Real Aim of Israel’s Bomb Iran Campaign Congress Passed an Arizona-Like Immigration Law in 1996 Islamophobia Threatens Tea-Party's Ties To It's Origins & Future Army private transferred to Virginia amid WikiLeaks probe [ Belongs in a cell with pollard ] After Revisions, Real GDP And PCE Even Farther From Previous Peak* Chrysler To Add 900 Jobs To Midsize-Car Plant GM Hikes Production Capacity For Volt By 50 Pct Due To Strong Public Interest Egyptian Journalist Describes 'Absolute Prosperity' in Gaza July the deadliest month of Afghan war for US Cuban Che Guevara visits Sheriff Joe [My Title] Democrat Faggot Gets His Butt Kicked We Are Fearmongering Racists?!! Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water Obama has Royally Fucked Up in Afghanistan The GDP Report is a political disaster for Democrats President Tarball, the jig is up and America would much rather have a homely hard working President than a Jive Ass Teleprompter Reading Socialist The Bush Book Bomb; Memoir 'Selfish And Stupid' As Tennesseans Desperately Search For Work, Wamp Suggests Unemployed Are ‘Just Sitting Back Waiting’ Anti-US Riot: Embassy Vehicles Torched In Afghan Capital Business Activity in U.S. Expanded Faster in July What haapens if we leave Afghanistan Election 2010: Nevada Senate (Rasmussen: Reid +2) CBO: Public option could save $68 billion by 2020 House GOP leaders: 9/11 first responders aid bill 'a massive new entitlement program' Poll shows opposition to health care overhaul declining S.E.C. Charges Brothers With $550 Million Fraud Recession in U.S. Was Even Worse Than Estimated, Revisions Show -- The "Recovery" is Over; 2nd Quarter GDP growth slides Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: NFL violates DMCA with takedown notice Source: Afterdawn.com URL Source: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/9092.cfm Published: Mar 23, 2007 Author: Ars Technica Post Date: 2007-03-23 12:45:59 by A K A Stone Keywords: None Views: 115 Comments: 3 The National Football League (NFL) has gotten itself caught up in an online battle over a YouTube clip with Brooklyn Law School professor Wendy Seltzer, and has managed to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) through its actions. As a lesson to students about how content owners are beginning to exaggerate their rights, Seltzer posted a clip of the NFL's copyright message that aired during the Super Bowl. "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited," the notice read. Just five days after posting the clip on her blog, she received a takedown notice through YouTube, and the clip was removed. However, Seltzer is also staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the founder of Chilling Effects, a website that educates the public about their rights online. She sent a counter-notification to YouTube which cited Section 512 of the DMCA. It meant that YouTube was compelled to replace the material on receiving a counter notification asserting "good faith belief" that the material removal was a mistake. After several weeks, the video appeared again on YouTube as a result. However, the NFL then made the mistake of sending another takedown notice and getting it removed from YouTube once again. Since Seltzer's counter-notification described her use of the clip as fair use, being an "an educational excerpt featuring the NFL's overreaching copyright warning aired during the Super Bowl", the NFL's only option to force the removal of the video would be through court proceedings. After receiving her counter notification that claimed fair use rights, DMCA Section 512 considers sending another takedown notice over the same content as a knowing misrepresentation that the clip is infringing. This would make the NFL liable for all legal fees incurred by the alleged infringer, and also damages. Seltzer seems to determined to keep pushing back on the issue, maybe even until it goes to court, in which case, the court would more than likely agree with Seltzer. That could change the policies of content providers who bombard sites like YouTube with takedown notices. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: A K A Stone (#0) the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) I have come to realise, that there should be no copyright laws. There is no such thing as owning intellectual property. I don't know what the flap is over the Negro Football League and YouTube, but IMO, people are idiotic to claim ownership to something they happened to say they thought up. "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." --Ulysses S. Grant cwrwinger  posted on  2007-03-23   15:29:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: A K A Stone (#0) Here's my basis for opposing copyrights: Source: http://date-dabitur.com/? p=57 Ideas like this from Thomas Jefferson, an old-school agrarian, make some people mad: If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. The idea of patent rights and intellectual property was discussed among the Federalists. James Madison is the one who argued for a clause in the Constitution to protect these things, but even they made no claims that ideas could be properly considered “property”. Madison and others simply believed that it was in the best interests of the country to give some extra incentive to stimulate progress. [Beware of governments attempting to stimulate progress] Jefferson said that might possibly be true, but he had seen no evidence of it. He said that he would agree to a limited protection of copyrights, but only if for an expressly stated period of time after which the works would enter the public domain. He feared that even this would lead to government controlled monopolies and the restriction of the flow of ideas, and that it would mushroom into protections for other types of ideas. He was right. Nowadays we even have lawsuits filed by dance choreographers alleging that someone “stole” their dance steps. Here’s another quote that will irritate the defenders of the restriction of liberty through un-Biblical intellectual property laws: The general rule of law is, that noblest of human productions— knowledge, truths, and ideas—become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.” Justice Louis Brandeis, 1918 "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." --Ulysses S. Grant cwrwinger  posted on  2007-03-23   18:19:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: cwrwinger (#2) If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it That is exactly true. I haven't heard a better explanation. What I quoted above and everything that you posted. A K A Stone  posted on  2007-03-23   19:19:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com