PLEASE READ - Blanket ban on Football Videos

[Northern Monkey]

"This is for the safety of the site after receiving warnings."

 

Could an admin please elaborate on the warnings Newcastle-Online have received? Just curious as to what the copyright nazis are playing at.

 

AFAAA, the many other Premiership club forums I frequent never seem experience such threats. The posting of videos and links at times is prevalent. Are NUFC intentionally and actively observing sites such as this with a view to closing them down. Do they see NO as a threat? And haven't NUFC.com experienced similar troubles?

 

I think the fact the site has been shut down before is why we're so edgy about it.  There was a whole debate on the issue a few months back. 

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,25729.0.html

 

Since then we've been told to watch ourselves, by other sites that have received similar heat.  It may all just be hot air, but we're not risking it.  We also wouldn't do this just for the sake of it, despite what people may thing.  I mean, they're bloody YouTube clips.   Who gives a shit?

 

But as pointless as these clips are, it would be equally as pointless, and stupid, to get the site in shit over it. 

 

Do they see us a threat?  I doubt it.  We're not the only NUFC site to receive the threats.

 

So, just to clarify, there have been no warnings from the plc, the Premier League, or anyone else?

[ToonTastic]

So, just to clarify, there have been no warnings from the plc, the Premier League, or anyone else?

 

Don't know about now but there has been in the past as recent as 2 months ago in fact.

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

No, it's not protected knowledge. It's public knowledge, since it's widely published. The problem with the fixture copyrights is that it's the result of a lawsuit in 1959, which hasn't been challenged later, and now there's an enormous amount of money in it -- some of which is also returned to the clubs, and not only rich Premiership clubs. <A href="http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?articleid=259822">Here</A> is an article about it. The fact that so many poorer clubs get money from the fixtures would probably make a new trial more difficult, and the fact that there's so much money in it would make it more drawn-out and expensive. That doesn't make any copyright claim to the facts valid, it just shows that the legal system protects the rich.

 

Facts can't be copyrighted. "The types of work eligible for protection are literary, dramatic, artistic or musical works, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording, a film or a broadcast." (From <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom">Wikipedia</A>.) A fixture list would have to be considered as a typographical arrangement or a literary work. As a typographical arrangement, it could be re-arranged, and as a literary work, you have  protected rights when it comes to quotations: "Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public." You do have some protected rights when it comes to publishing from the fixture lists, but you certainly can't legally publish them verbatim. You can, however, comment on our next games without keeping the names of our opponents and the fixture dates a secret.

 

I don't know wether it's legal to copyright the list, because as you say, there is no case law etc (although quoting Wikipedia is hardly the most robust argumant)

 

however, you can't dispute the fact that their existence and representation in any form is use of the intellectual property of the league, and if they are copyrightable, use of the 'fair use' argument is total bollocks

[Dave]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUKROB46989120070504

 

Premier League soccer sues YouTube over copyright

Fri May 4, 2007 11:44PM BST

By Michael Kahn and Eric Auchard

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Plaintiffs including the Premier League sued Google Inc.'s YouTube on Friday for copyright infringement, the second such legal challenge to the popular video site in two months.

 

According to court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Football Association Premier League Ltd, better known as the Premier League, and music publisher Bourne Co. sued YouTube.

Photo

 

The lawsuit charges that YouTube deliberately encourages massive copyright infringement on its Web site to generate public attention and boost traffic. This has resulted in the loss of valuable content, the complaint said.

 

"Defendants, which own and operate the Web site YouTube.com, have knowingly misappropriated and exploited this valuable property for their own gain without payment or license to the owners of the intellectual property," the lawsuit said.

 

Google declined to comment. YouTube officials said they were working on a comment.

 

The complaint echoes accusations made in March by media conglomerate Viacom Inc., which filed a similar suit against YouTube and Google for over $1 billion (500 million pounds) in damages.

 

Google has denied those claims and said the Viacom suit threatens the way people legitimately exchange information and entertainment on the Web.

 

Lawyers for the Premier League said YouTube provided access to a tool against copyright infringement, but charged that it was "fraught" with problems and that YouTube should do more.

 

"Its account has on some occasions been blocked or closed," the lawsuit said. "In the meantime, the Premier League has been forced to send time-consuming and ineffectual notices of infringement to YouTube."

 

NO WIDER MOVE VS YOUTUBE

 

James McQuivey, a media analyst at Forrester, said the latest complaint was interesting because the plaintiffs had tried to use the tool provided to prevent copyright infringement.

Photo

 

But the lawsuit does not likely signal a wider move in the media community against YouTube, McQuivey said.

 

More worrying for Google and YouTube would have been a lawsuit from a second major entertainment company or a big cable television network, he added.

 

"This is a small complaint in this process," McQuivey said. "It means woes for Google's legal team, but provides satisfaction it is not another major player."

 

The latest lawsuit seeks a court-ordered injunction to prohibit the defendants from continuing to violate various copyright protection laws and unspecified monetary damages.

 

It accuses YouTube of deliberately facilitating copyright infringement to build traffic to the site and lists a number of sports matches between Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Tottenham and others.

 

The complaint, which seeks class-action status, also says that Google was aware of this pattern of infringement when it paid $1.65 billion to buy YouTube and subsequently saw an increase of around $4 billion in Google's market value.

 

A copy of the complaint can be viewed at http://www.youtubeclassaction.com.

 

The Premier League and Bourne have retained U.S. law firm, Proskauer Rose LLP, known for representing media companies and sports teams, and class-action firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

 

Google shares closed down $2.11 at $471.12 on the Nasdaq.

[Mr Logic]

The new regime will have a more relaxed view I think, or they should do as in my opinion it's in their interests to generate as much publicity/enthusiasm for the club as possible.

 

These streams are the most contentious but the quality is so poor that only the financially challenged choose that option. Anyone who can afford it will already be signed up to their chosen provider such as Sky or Setanta.

 

Football has been priced out of the range of some people. To try and deny them any access to images and or poor quality clips of action is self-defeating. They should encourage it.

 

One site I know that specialises in providing links to streams are of the opinion that links are definitely not illegal anyway. It's just a signpost. Hardcore media barons may view that differently and I don't expect this site to change it's stance without some advice but it is something that should perhaps be brought up at the upcoming fan representatives and board meeting. In a way that is as coherent and appealing as possible.

[Dave]

All that has been said before, in fairness. It's nothing to do with any regime at NUFC either, so there's no point speaking to them about it.

 

Nothing is going to change. Streams and clips are banned from the forum, and will result in a ban come the start of the season.