October 2010: Fiddling around with "rights" related FFE language

[hawing]

Existing FFE language as of 10/19/2010:

 

Copies of copyrighted material
(including television and radio broadcasts) cannot legally be
distributed without the expressed written consent of their originators,
so we cannot allow them to be sold, traded, or distributed here. Posts
that ask about unauthorized copies of such material put Brewerfan.net at
risk of cease-and-desist action by MLB or other copyright owners - so
don't even bring up the topic.

Do not post entire articles or
re-post subscriber-only material from sites like Baseball America or
ESPN Insider.

If you quote material from elsewhere on
the internet, cite your source with a link.

Add to the above language that addresses streaming websites, and I think we could have a special section of "discussion not allowed" that is all "rights" related.

 

crewcrazy's thoughts on the channelsurfing.net thread, which as of 9/2010 was our most recent SC discussion of "rights-related" posts:

My rudimentary understanding of free streams on the Internet:

it's not illegal to watch them, but it is illegal to do the streaming

unless you have the permission of the league/network. Sites like

ChannelSurfing.net proclaim themselves as legal because they're not the

ones hosting or maintaining the streams, so they're not being held

responsible for the content (even though all of their links say "GREEN

BAY VS BUFFALO" or "WATCH PPV").

Still, from this site's perspective, I wouldn't risk the association.

Even if we wouldn't be legally liable (and that's a pretty flimsy if --

I'm certainly no lawyer), it probably would jeopardize our professional

relationships with those who look down on illegal streams. Even

allowing the discussion makes us look bad, in my opinion. I remember

seeing Casey posting elsewhere that "Google it" was the best advice we

could allow when it comes to circumventing "the system," and I think

that's a good policy to keep.

 

So I'll see what I can whip up. I'm reluctant to cite much in the way of specific examples (such as websites) because of how quickly technology changes.

[hawing]

Here's a first draft. I currently envision it going at the end of the "What kind of discussion is not allowed?" section of the FFE (as well as in an Issues post of its own):

 

We want to call particular attention to avoiding discussion that involves or could lead to copyright violation. This includes, but is not limited to, the following topics:

 

• The sale, trade or distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted material, including television and radio broadcasts.

• Websites that purport to offer free streaming of copyright-protected events such as sports broadcasts.

• Posting subscriber-only material from sites such as ESPN Insider or Baseball America.

Posts that ask about how to view or listen to a rights-protected event for free, or if anyone could share their recording of that awesome game in May, put Brewerfan.net at risk of cease-and-desist action by MLB or other copyright owners. Therefore, don't even bring up this kind of topic.

 

It is unfortunate that free access to broadcasts and related content is becoming so rare; but in an age where perceived violations of access rights are aggressively pursued, Brewerfan does not want to invite the negative attention, and possible legal fallout, that can come with discussion of unauthorized access to legally protected content.

I did not add the "cite your Internet quotes with a link" bit here because I don't think it has quite the same potential for legal fallout as the other examples. If enough others disagree, it can easily be included. Otherwise, I think I would relocate it to just ahead of this proposed "rights" section.