“This copyrighted telecast is presented by the authority of [the head office of your favorite professional sport], and may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the pictures, descriptions, and accounts of this game may not be disseminated without the express written consent of [your favorite professional sport] and [your favorite professional sports team].”

I hear it everytime I watch a Mets game. I’m sure you’ve heard it in one ear and out the other while watching your favorite sports teams. It’s metamorphosized somewhat over the years, but it remains essentially intact. For me, it’s embedded into memory so well, I could recite it to you by rote … as I just did. Folks, I see that statement as not much more than pompous rhetoric, designed to make it all sound a whole lot more important than it really is. Disseminated? Who talks this way? The long sentence skirts their entire issue of control, which is payment. Money. Why can’t they just come out and say what they mean?

As we all may know, DMusic">http:////www.dmusic.com/news/news.php?id=3104">DMusic reported last month that some 20 organizations filed anti-Napster Friends-Of-The-Court briefs, hoping that they may sway the court’s decision to rule against Napster and force it to shut down. Many organizations that have a vested interest in file-sharing and copyright legislation, such as the Motion Picture Association Of America and ASCAP, filed these briefs with the court. However, many of us were a bit surprised to learn that Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association were also part of the picture. After all, we queried, why would they care if we downloaded Metallica’s latest noise?

Of course, we’ve figured out since that sporting events are broadcast and recorded, so this qualifies them in the interest department. The impression I've gotten from people I've talked with is that professional league organizations are primarily run by lawyers, who need to control as much as possible and have historically taken away rights from the teams (which are also run by lawyers). It is thought that they see great earnings potential in the digital transmission of basketball games and are probably involved in the video suits as well as Napster. I'm sure that they don't ask the clubs' opinion on this stuff.

Okay, so the sports teams want to maintain control of their copyrighted material. Sounds reasonable. However, I truly believe that the copyright laws need to change so as to lessen the extent of control that these orgs have. Sportscasters should not be allowed to make that statement in such phraseology that attempts to make us (the public) believe that we have absolutely no rights. I’m not saying that they need to relinquish control totally, just that they should relinquish total control. Does what they say even disseminate (hehe) the complete truth? Does that declaration above require me to get written authorization before I make copies of a TV-broadcast recording of a sporting event and send them to friends and family who weren’t fortunate enough to have seen the game? How about if I have a mailing list of people requesting a copy of the game, and I send them one in return for the cost of the videotape and postage?

Where should the line be drawn? In my opinion? Profit. Simple as that. As soon as the person distributing the recording turns a profit, the copyright holder should be compensated. Yes, we know that the majority of the time the copyright is in the hands of the undeserved, but that’s another issue. My opinion is that the copyright holder should have almost no control whatsoever regarding distribution and should just be happy that the recording is being given exposure.

I see the whole problem here as being the extraordinary prevalence of that ridiculous notion that an unauthorized copy represents a lost sale. Unfortunately, sports organizations are not expected to have much insight in this area, nor are they expected to look at their recordings as art. They, above all others, are viewing them as product, so perhaps they have less to question about their motives than the others. I’d like to know, though, what the reason is for the nearsightedness of all the “artistically”-oriented organization$.

"As soon as the person distributing the recording turns a profit, the copyright holder should be compensated."

Sure.

"My opinion is that the copyright holder should have almost no control whatsoever regarding distribution and should just be happy that the recording is being given exposure."

There are some serious flaws with all of this. People are cheap and generally dishonest about intellectual property. (Sad, but true. If it wasn't true, we wouldn't see copy protection and our fair use rights screwed with.) If the copyrighted material was easily available for free (distributed by a "non-profit" group in your example), there really is no incentive for Joe Sixpack to pay the copyright owner for it. Free wins everytime, since it's more affordable.

I've never seen this on a hockey game but all the time on a basketball game. I wonder why hockey doesn't show this crap.

This is funny, very funny.

(“artistically”-oriented organization$. )

I think it's $uper.

~Heidi

My reliable source tells me that it's probably because there's no league rule stipulating it. It's a league thing, not a team thing.

It's only considered dishonest if people consider obtaining it for free as wrong. There is no direct correlation between obtaining it for free and the copyright holder getting paid. You said it yourself, people are cheap. Therefore, obtaining it for free does not necessarily represent a lost sale!

And there are 2 sides to this coin. There are plenty of cheap and dishonest people looking to sell it instead of obtain it. Now, we're talkin' greed (sad, but true; if it weren't true, we wouldn't see copy protection and our fair use rights screwed with).

Finally, you'd be surprised at how 1 person w/a generous soul can make up for 1000 without. Just because 1000 copies have been made does not necessarily mean that the copyright holder should be paid 1000 times. Get it?

Sure, Sure, let the masses laugh as the puppets play.

What a Joke this all is, It's all about the money that the lawyer is making from the people that hires them and how much money the industry is willing to spend before it's bitch slapped and realizes that this whole thing is a lost case.

But you know what? The lawyer will keep on collecting that "fat" check as long as he can, why can't it be done with already? Napster is not going no where and there is nothing illegal about sharing something, if it's not Napster then is the MP3 chartrooms, I mean why don't the damn record companies form their own Napster like network and stop crying already, this way they can make money from CD sales, advertisement, clothing, books, music text, etc. There is so much to do, if they weren't thinking about shutting Napster down, concentrated on making their own network and taking it to the next step they would win over Napster, but instead they are stuck on that " we are loosing sales" bullshit, is amazing how scared they are of loosing their money and control of the market, they keep fighting the inevitable, don't they realize that is the biggining of the end of this dinosaur? Every one is tired of the way the record labels screws the artists and the consumer, it's finally caught up with them, I for one am very happy to see those bastards cry.

Funny, I know there is a "fat" man somewhere thinking, why did we allow the consumer to make their own CD's with inexpensive CD burners for the home, why did we make computers fast enough to do it with, why! why! whaaa, whaaa...

$tupid.

Keith Lizza-a.k.a.-Joe Rigatoni-And I thought "The
Godfather II was a great sequel.This was also riveting,
poignant,the words just danced
off the page.I can't wait for
the movie or the sequel.Last
article you wrote about the
restaurant forget about the
topic.What did you guys eat?

what about performers' rights awarded to sportsmen?I am sure that the sports community and the powerfull media industry does not agree;however simply think of synchronized swimming or an ice dancer.....do they deserve copyright protection?and if yes what about the other sportsmen? contact me to skdragou@hotmail.com

Everyone derserves copyright protection ... if they have something to copyright, and if they're the holder of that copyright. Remember, "This copyrighted telecast is..." The performance itself is not copyrightable; it needs to be recorded. If you're a musician and you have no stake in the copyrights, then take your pay and go home.

Remember, performance royalties and copyright royalties are 2 separate animals. And whadduz this hafta do w/lessoning distributional copyright control?

Oops, hehe, ...lessening... :/

Hey, honey, I like your ideas and good intentions, but dude, why don'cha try writing something along the lines of the topic?