meta: anyone in the mood for a copyright fight?
So one of those hilariously-corporate-sounding corporations that goes around using the DMCA to get stuff off the internet has hit my youtube account, taking down big chunks of the last couple years of UFR clips.
I believe there's a strong fair use argument here and would like to issue a counter-notice, but that exposes me to a lawsuit so I'd like to know get I'm getting into. I've already emailed the EFF about my situation in the hopes they'll find it to fit their mission, but I know there are lawyers out there: can any of them offer non-binding non-legal disclaimered no one will sue you advice for me?
September 21st, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
Do you get neighboring states too with those three days? I know that whole NYC area you can do multiple states at once or was that all three days Delaware?
September 21st, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
All 3 for DE. Essay included a question on bankruptcy law! And no reciprocity with any other states.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
Damn you DE and all the corps that are incorp'd under your laws!
September 21st, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
is 3 days, 18 hours total and all essay (except for the multistate bar portion). Pass rate is around 52%.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
It seems like a no brainer that each of these factors go in your favor.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^
Factor 3 seems a little gray, especially because every snap on offense and defense is being shown.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
There are like 120 snaps in a game. the UFRs are like 30 of those.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^
OK i must be thinking of the every offensive snap videos. My bad.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:22 PM ^
Wich, if I'm not mistaken, is not posted by Brain but by someone independent of the blog. Feel free to correct me when/if I'm wrong (neg bang no necessario - I've just recently reached the "golden" 100-point thresshold).
September 20th, 2011 at 11:32 PM ^
Sadly neg bangs don't actually work anymore. I've been very sad since that day so long ago. Stupid virus.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^
I've known that, for a while been visiting this site long before I joined. But I'm sad you were going to neg bang me (not that it matters, it's just the internet - as invented by Al Gore).
September 20th, 2011 at 11:58 PM ^
He wasn't going to neg you... you used to be allowed to neg at 100 points
September 20th, 2011 at 11:37 PM ^
Additionally, a television broadcast is typically 3-4 hours long. UFRs use approximately 30 clips lasting on average, 25 seconds. Thats 750 seconds or 12.5 min. So in total. UFR's show between 5-7% of the copyrighted television broadcast.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
You can't copyright a football game. It isn't a creative work that needs to be protected. The only thing they are copyrighting is their broadcast of the game. Brian's work has zero interest in the broadcast and is merely concerned with what happened in the game itself. If he videotaped the game himself or got access to the coach's tape he could totally do this without any interference.
Them whining about it when it clearly has zero impact on the commercial viability of their "work of art" (if anything Brian's blog encourages people to watch Michigan football games) is just a stupid waste of time and resources for everyone.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^
But it is "their" broadcast, and not another video he's using.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^
It is still a douchey move on their part when they suffer zero damage and the only reason Brian (or anyone else) uses "their broadcast" is because it makes zero sense to have thousands of different people set up tripods inside the stadium on gameday if they want to see how the safeties are reacting when we play cover-two some time in the middle of the next week.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
I agree, he's not taking anything away from their broadcast. It's probably just a "slippery-slope" issue they don't want to venture down with letting people use parts of their broadcast without permission.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
It is the same reason little league baseball teams and junior football teams get cease and desist letters for using MLB and NFL logos.
If you don't actively protect your copyright/trademark you are in danger of losing it.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
So..
.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
Speaking of this, it would be pretty sweet to get a bunch of people to record the game from different angles and have each person focus on one position so that we had a full breakdown of the game afterward. That will never happen, but it would be completely awesome.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:30 PM ^
I think you would have the argument that the direction, different camera angles, shots, replays, etc would be considered making the broadcast an art.
With that being said, I think if you add your own commentary and mute the audio you win the argument.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:40 PM ^
They're some of the best lawyers around. Although Mike Ross technically isn't a lawyer. He pretended to go to Harvard Law, if that counts. Plus, I've heard their suits are some of the best.
But seriously, best of luck. If I end up going to law school, I'd be happy to help out with things like this in the future.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:44 PM ^
Sounds like a job for Dexter Morgan.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:23 PM ^
Not yet. But if they take the play videos out of my UFRs, it will be.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
Brian, on the flip side, did you doing anything about that dude from 310Sports poaching your stuff.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
Don't people flip the images of video clips to get around copyright? So clips from TV shows and movies have been "altered" but really are just the mirror image. I know I've seen this a lot, but I'm not sure if it's just a myth or fact. Worth considering though, no?
September 20th, 2011 at 11:25 PM ^
Someone can correct me, but I believe they do that so that the programs that scan youtube for copyrighted material don't catch them. If the picture in their video doesn't match the screen caps they're scanning for, they are less likely to get caught because no human is going to do that work.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
Its not saving the environment, but saving the UFR logically has to be the next best thing.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
I hear Attorney Hiram Katz may be of use to you.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^
September 20th, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^
was this issued to you via (physical) mail or did YouTube delete all your videos and warn you?
Would it be permissable for you (Brian) to post the entirety of what was sent?
September 20th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^
I think fair use argument aside, you should get some advice from someone who does precisely this kind of work, because they will know the reprecussions of striking back and whether it's worth it. For example, I do professional liability defense (legal, accounting malpractice) and a good chunk of those suits occur only after the professional has sued the client for fees. Lesson being, often it is wiser not to wade into legal action altogether.
I will contact my IP sources at my firm and elsewhere and see what they think. If you're interested just message me, I'd prefer it to be more confidential. Either way, good luck.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:46 PM ^
One fundamental thing you need to know about copyright litigation: The loser in a copyright case pays the winner's attorneys' fees as a matter of law.
This is an exception to the general rule in the US that each party pays his own fees, win or lose.
These fees are commonly in excess of six figures.
Do not be so eager for a fight.
Fair Use is a concept that is not as clearly understood by the courts as one might surmise.
I speak as someone with years of copyright litigation experience. (Gee, I almost forgot my disclaimer: This is not legal advice. You are not my client. I'm not giving you legal advice. Ask your own lawyer. If you don't have one, find one. I'm not interested in your case. I wouldn't take your case in any event because I'm not accepting cases from anyone, for any reason, any more.).
September 21st, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
Thanks for the legal advice.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
What's the harm in filing a counter-notice? My understanding is that if you file the counter-notice saying that you believe in good faith that the material is not infringing, it will be restored.
At that point, the copyright holder may or may not decide to take legal action. If they do, it seems to me you can either just take the material down again or fight them in court -- or negotiate with them what kind of content woud be acceptable, e.g. what percentage of game with commentary would constitute fair use. (I'm not a lawyer, obviously).
So is there any real cost in calling their bluff? My impression is that these takedown notices are sent in excess because they are no-cost, and that the number of cases that copyright holders are actually willing to sue over is a small portion of those.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:56 PM ^
Yeah, the cost is that they sue you. "Take the content down" might just be their way of dealing with this nicely. But if you want to fight back, you better be prepared to go all the way.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:07 AM ^
Being sued is not a cost if the goal of the suit is to remove the content and you comply. The only cost is in defending yourself if you decide to -- or if they go for monetary damages. Is the latter even possible? That's my question.
I think takedown notice is not their way of doing this "nicely", its the easy way the law affords them to get rid of content without having to make any kind of a case that there is really an infringement. That's why the counter-notice process exists.
September 21st, 2011 at 12:29 AM ^
Assuming they can establish that it is, in fact, a violation, they can absolutely sue for monetary damages. The monetary damages would be difficult to quantify and/or prove, but the essential argument would be that by Brian's provision of the videos without the owner's permission, the value the owner is able to receive for owning the material is decreased (i.e. reduced ad revenue on site where it is hosted because it can be accessed elsewhere). If the videos have a substantial number of views, that number could add up to something above and beyond a de minimis amount.
September 20th, 2011 at 11:46 PM ^
September 21st, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
Having just been through the ringer in a personal injury lawsuit I have to agree with the not fun. I would go even further as to say disspiriting.
At the same time...I'm not clear on the criteria here or the extent of the downage. If this impedes UFRs going back just one year - this is a major hit to the UFR experience for yours truly. Brian is most times right on but you got to see to believe. And yes ... I have gone back to ancient UFRs ... but not that often.
This potentially sucks for bloggers everywhere. Too bad there isn't a blogger advocacy that could take this up. It would seem big time media is stealing the blogger mode (ie Grantland and chat sites) - they might have some interest in keeping this fair use. IMO blogging has been a big time test lab for their organizations.
Not fun!
September 21st, 2011 at 12:24 AM ^
That one poster from long ago that studied LAW at MICHIGAN. I remember because he repeatedly mentioned his desire to be a LAWYER after getting his LAW degree from LAW SCHOOL at MICHIGAN. If he didn't get the ban hammer he might be able to help, considering his LAW SCHOOL experience at MICHIGAN.
September 21st, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^
I know this guy, but if I call him out I won't profit. Go Blue!
September 21st, 2011 at 2:42 AM ^
If you identify someone by outing them at mgoblog, you will receive the ban hammer. This wouldn't be to your profit. Go blue!
September 21st, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
I post on occasion. Strangest meme ever, by the way. Look at the number of people in this thread talking about being lawyers or going to law school.
I did get my LAW DEGREE and practice LAW at a LAW FIRM, but not IP LAW.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
I see a lot of LAW and LAW SCHOOL and LAWYERING going on here. Gotta love LAWYERS LAWYERING it up after LAW SCHOOL while working for LAW FIRMS and providing pro bono LEGAL "ADVICE" without using LEGALESE. LAW LAW LAW, LAWYER LAWYER LAWYER. Hooray!
September 21st, 2011 at 2:24 AM ^
i assume i'm not alone in thinking i'd lend you $1000 on a handshake. and you get millions of hits, right?
September 21st, 2011 at 5:47 AM ^
Did someone want an overhead primary lead relocated off their property? Could I bum an easement off someone?
September 21st, 2011 at 7:25 AM ^
Time to bevel that guilt, big time.
September 21st, 2011 at 7:42 AM ^
Brian, I might be able to put you in touch with people who could help if possible.. I assume you can pull up my email from account registration.
September 21st, 2011 at 8:30 AM ^