WotAGuy Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You're starting to take things personal in this thread and the other one. Why don't you take a break. Nice try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) I think it's that. "He didn't work for it". I'm sure EVERY one of them would absolutely be pissed, if they were in this guy's position. Even Chan's On Fire, and Mr. World Endoscopy Organization. You're allowed to be pissed. It doesn't change the fact that he's **** out of luck, and he only has himself to blame. He needs to Huh!? I guess you missed the linked article in post #98. It IS NOT cut and dried that the guy has "no legal right" to sell it. In fact, in that article, some legal eagles are very confident that he can sell the tape with no repercussions, to the highest bidder. I must've. If he can sell it to other bidders, why are we all upset with the NFL? Who cares? If the NFL has a successful case, they protected themselves and their property. Edited February 5, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToGoGo Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You're allowed to be pissed. It doesn't change the fact that he's **** out of luck, and he only has himself to blame. He needs to Jesus man. Do you have a stake in the NFL winning or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Jesus man. Do you have a stake in the NFL winning or something? Nope. Just the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Nope. Just the law. Ha - I read that in Joe Friday's voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToGoGo Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Nope. Just the law. You mean the law made up out of thin air by rich white men. I don't care for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You mean the law made up out of thin air by rich white men. I don't care for it. They're rich and white? Gotta be evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Wait, I'm rich and white. Am I evil too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 If the NFL won't pay the guy a fair price for it, I have two words for him: Bit Torrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Selling it is NOT rebroadcasting it. And if he conducted the sale "in private", to another "private buyer", how would the NFL even know about it? Again it will depend on the terms of the copyright and the applicable law as of the time. Under the current law it would not, I suspect, be covered by the 'fair use' doctrine as it would be dissemination for the purposes of profit and therefore would breach the copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Huh!? I guess you missed the linked article in post #98. It IS NOT cut and dried that the guy has "no legal right" to sell it. In fact, in that article, some legal eagles are very confident that he can sell the tape with no repercussions, to the highest bidder. Anyone who says he has "no legal right to sell it" is wrong. As I have said from the start he has the right to sell it if he wants to, but then the NFL has to right to try and protect its copyright. That is the way civil law works. There are no absolutes. Everything is fair game to be argued before a court which will determine how to balance the rights of the parties. I should add I have at no point expressed any interest in what the eventual outcome is and who "wins" or indeed "loses". I entered this thread purely to try and give a legal perspective as someone who has a specialism in the civil law (at least in the English civil law - and in IP related matters things are very similar across the pond). My general politics are all about being for the little guy and helping them uphold their rights. The question in this case is does the "little guy" have a case? I repeat what I have said countless times - he probably has enough of one to put the NFL to proof if he so wishes, but if I was his lawyer I would be advising him not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBuffaloKid Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Oh God, I can't even imagine. My father has the ONLY tape of Super Bowl I in the world and I can't sell it because some billion dollar greedy corporation refuses to pay me a life changing sum that would be pennies to them just because they have their panties in a twist. Didn't some guy buy Google.com for $12 a few months ago because it accidentally became available. Google could have just sued him and taken the name back, but instead they gave him $6,000 and said sorry for the trouble. That's how you do it. Not this shady, greedy way. I can't wait until they start diagnosing CTE in living players and the NFL turns into flag football. They already have become flag football...At least when Brady is backing up to pass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I never understood that frame of mind. Siding with the billion dollar corporation. I don't know if these people are just so beaten into obedience they have Stockholm Syndrome. Or they just don't want to see anybody like them (Joe Schmo with videotape) get a big pay day, so they're playing crabs in a bucket. It's like the fans that look down on players that come from poverty trying to get an extra couple million, and support the billionaire owners who don't want to open their pockets. You've never understood the mindset that allows someone to judge a situation on any basis other than the relative financial resources of the two parties involved? Wow, you're a deep thinker. Didn't some guy buy Google.com for $12 a few months ago because it accidentally became available. Google could have just sued him and taken the name back, but instead they gave him $6,000 and said sorry for the trouble. That's how you do it. Not this shady, greedy way. I can't wait until they start diagnosing CTE in living players and the NFL turns into flag football. Yeah...Google gave him $6,000. They didn't give him a million because he asked for it and they could 'afford it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Bills Fan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The NFL owns the rights to the game. Why would they surrender those rights? If somebody taped your wedding and wanted to make money selling the tape, wouldn't you object? Curiously, the guy owns the tapes but not the content on the tapes. Funny situation. The market always dictates the value of something. In this case, there's not much of a market. Maybe some rich ex-player or Packer fan might want to own something like this. But the tapes are incomplete, damaged, and can't be broadcast. This guy mistakenly thought he had something worth $1 million. Apparently, he was very wrong. Let's see if he can even find someone willing to pay more than the NFL's offer of $30,000. The copyright is actually owned by the "artist" that is taking the video of you wedding. If you hired that person, then you own it as it is a work for hire. But if some random person videos you wedding (assuming its a public event), then they can sell it as they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Why don't you read the more recent article I posted yesterday.... http://fortune.com/2016/02/04/superbowl-copyright/ Edited February 5, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why don't you read the more recent article I posted yesterday.... http://fortune.com/2016/02/04/superbowl-copyright/ From that article: "Today, anyone who has watched a sports game will be familiar with a barrage of reminders that this “telecast is copyrighted,” even though such formalities are no longer required under the law. But in that first Super Bowl, it’s unlikely the broadcasters thought to do that–especially as Congress didn’t extend copyright to live sports broadcasts until 1976." Thanks for the article, precisely what I wondered about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 If the situation was reversed, and this guy was rebuffing giant offers from the NFL, like "Man refuses to release sole copy of first Super Bowl, NFL offers millions" I would think the guy was being a jerk, and I would be pissed, because I really want to see the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 If the situation was reversed, and this guy was rebuffing giant offers from the NFL, like "Man refuses to release sole copy of first Super Bowl, NFL offers millions" I would think the guy was being a jerk, and I would be pissed, because I really want to see the game. Superbowl I is available, not in broadcast format, but assembled from NFL films side line camera footage. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000620927/article/nfl-network-to-reair-super-bowl-i-for-first-time And that's the entire Superbowl. Not a broadcast missing footage. The NC dude should have taken the 30K check and walked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So here is a new article about this controversy. http://fortune.com/2016/02/04/superbowl-copyright/ "To understand why the NFL, which has a fierce reputation for protecting its intellectual property, does not control the tape, it’s important to understand a few legal issues glossed over in the Times report. The first is that, even if the league has rights to the footage, it can’t stop Haupt from selling the tape itself. According to copyright lawyer Lloyd Jassin, the right to sell the tape is protected by the so-called “first sale doctrine,” which lets people resell used books and movies. “The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work has the right to resell that copy without the copyright owner’s permission,” said Jassin. His assessment squares with that of legal scholar David Post, who likens Haupt’s situation to someone who wanted to sell a used DVD copy of last year’s Super Bowl highlights. Post also says a law professor cited by the Times incorrectly claimed “the law favors the league,” and adds the NFL’s threats against Haupt are just “bluster.” Will it anger you if this guy gets a nice sum for it? I think he will sell it to someone outside the US, just to add another layer of legal complications. At least, that's what I would try to do... The reason neither of these examples apply is because he would not be "reselling" the tape. Neither he nor his father paid for the content on the tape. When you buy a (legally made) DVD, you are free to sell it to anyone. If you go to a free concert and tape it, you can't sell it without infringing on the artist's rights. If you go to a free exhibit of photography and take pictures of the pictures on display, you can't legally sell them without the artist's permission. If this guy thinks he is on solid legal ground to sell it to the public, let him do so and get whatever he can. I'm a free marketer. But it seems clear that the content is copyright protected. Put very simply for you HOF, if he thought it was legal to sell it, he would have done so as soon as he rejected their $30,000 offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Put very simply for you HOF, if he thought it was legal to sell it, he would have done so as soon as he rejected their $30,000 offer. He might not have done that, because the NFL threatened him with the weight of their lawyers behind them. That could make anyone hesitate (and is one reason I hope he is successful). We shall see how it unfolds, Mr. Wang Electro-Opto Corporation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts