Steve Billieve Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 44 minutes ago, SDS said: That’s just nonsense. Your argument is no different than someone posting ripped music on their server and claiming they’re doing the artist a favor by exposing them to more people. If a musician or the NFL wanted to give away their product they are well within their rights to do that. I think they’re smart enough to know what’s in their best interest. Firstly, I ignore him like the plague. Secondly, in past years he has tried to charge for access on his site. I do not know if that has changed. I wouldn't say its nonsense. We're not talking about charging people to watch old games or anything. People have the right to fair use and that extends to educational/teaching efforts as well as general discussion. I don't see anything on cover1.net that couldn't be said to fall into those categories. Perhaps the reason the NFL has been very selective in their enforcement is they are afraid they will lose in many cases.
hondo in seattle Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, SDS said: Jeremy White was served with a cease and desist from the NFL for doing what Eric does. I think this was two years ago. How Eric has not been taken to court is beyond me. He takes NFL footage for free and tries to charge people money to view that material. I see your point but there's a nuance of difference here. While NFL content is on his site, he's charging you for his commentary on the footage. I don't think anyone goes to Cover1 to see highlights. They go for his analysis.
HappyDays Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, SDS said: How Eric has not been taken to court is beyond me. He takes NFL footage for free and tries to charge people money to view that material. To play devil's advocate, there is now an infinite number of gifs from shows, movies, etc. I doubt every one of those is sanctioned by the copyright holder of the original material. Cover 1 isn't posting full games, just clips of plays. I suppose it would technically be considered copyright infringement but on such a small scale I don't think it's worth the NFL going after him.
Steve Billieve Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said: I see your point but there's a nuance of difference here. While NFL content is on his site, he's charging you for his commentary on the footage. I don't think anyone goes to Cover1 to see highlights. They go for his analysis. I have a feeling a lot of what can get a site shutdown is their use tm/ip in the advertising. Are they displaying NFL logo? team logo? When I look at cover1 i don't see any of that sort of stuff. It looks like they go out of their way to not show it. They also seem to alter all the images they put up on the site as well.
GoBills808 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said: I see your point but there's a nuance of difference here. While NFL content is on his site, he's charging you for his commentary on the footage. I don't think anyone goes to Cover1 to see highlights. They go for his analysis. Which, I have to say, is only of marginally higher usefulness than what you can find on this messageboard. He's definitely not an expert. 2
Lurker Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 I have no problem with the Bills/NFL stance on IP ownership because of this:
Don Otreply Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 30 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said: So you are saying his analysis is better than former NFL players or coaches? I did not say better, I said essentially the same. Wasn’t taking sides as it were. Go Bills !!!
Lurker Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, CuddyDark said: Color analysts do it during the game. The organizations that color analysts work for pay a rights fee to the NFL in order to do so... 1
Nextmanup Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, ChevyVanMiller said: If I were to predict the future I would say that within 5 years the over-whelming majority of press passes given out will be to Podcast and online websites. Sort of like how the Grammys snubbed rap music at first, thinking it was just a passing fad of a niche market. The old media is dying and podcasts are both the present and the future. My late father was a long time newspaper man. He and all his old buddies (most of whom are dead now) probably wouldn't believe how the world has shifted. I don't know how long it's going to take, but the day will come when there are only a handful of daily newspapers left in this country. They will be the biggest and the best. NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune types, and they'll be found in different regions of the country. The little guys like the Buffalo News won't exist. At least not in anything close to their current form. 1 1
Lurker Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Nextmanup said: My late father was a long time newspaper man. He and all his old buddies (most of whom are dead now) probably wouldn't believe how the world has shifted. I don't know how long it's going to take, but the day will come when there are only a handful of daily newspapers left in this country. They will be the biggest and the best. NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune types, and they'll be found in different regions of the country. The little guys like the Buffalo News won't exist. At least not in anything close to their current form. Nonsense.. There will always be a market for local news, sports coverage and coupons. Whether those beats will draw enough ad revenue to cover costs is the big question regional paper suffer with. My father-in-law was also a life-long newspaperman and we had many, many discussions about this. Regional newspapers will survive by dropping the national/international section, which the Buffalo News essentially already has by using Washington Post/New York Times content for 95% of that coverage. But sections B and C (especially C, in sports towns like Buffalo) will still find an audience if done well... 2
K-9 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 52 minutes ago, BobChalmers said: This is simply false. He hardly just re-posts the All-22. He goes through great detail editing it - and this is the very definition of editorial fair use. Regarding editorial free use, since the All 22 is available via subscription to NFL Game Pass exclusively, is it not subject to NFL copyrights? Do providers like Cover 1 have license to redistribute that material? On the surface, I would think not but, since the NFL seems to apply their protection policies concerning the All 22 discriminately, I wonder. 1
Steve Billieve Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 minute ago, K-9 said: Regarding editorial free use, since the All 22 is available via subscription to NFL Game Pass exclusively, is it not subject to NFL copyrights? Do providers like Cover 1 have license to redistribute that material? On the surface, I would think not but, since the NFL seems to apply their protection policies concerning the All 22 discriminately, I wonder. If they are then using that all 22 footage for original educational or discussion use it would qualify as fair use. 1
K-9 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said: I see both sides of the press credential argument. But as a fan who appreciates Erik's work, I'm disappointed he doesn't get better access. Just talking about my specific case, the more I'm into the Bills, the better it is for the team (the more gear I buy, etc.) and Erik helps me get into the team. I tried making a similar point but was told it was nonsense. I think it stands to reason, though.
Steve Billieve Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 Seems like NFL is sore that they avoided using team trademarks and the like so they can't just shut down the site. So instead they try and deny them access, not that I have a problem with that necessarily.
Chandler#81 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 A repetitive word is being liberally tossed around here. Nonsense. History has taught us what’s Nonsense today will be tomorrow’s norm. 1
K-9 Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 21 minutes ago, Lurker said: The organizations that color analysts work for pay a rights fee to the NFL in order to do so... They pay a fee for the right to broadcast only. You and I are just as free to provide analysis as their color analysts are. 22 minutes ago, Nextmanup said: My late father was a long time newspaper man. He and all his old buddies (most of whom are dead now) probably wouldn't believe how the world has shifted. I don't know how long it's going to take, but the day will come when there are only a handful of daily newspapers left in this country. They will be the biggest and the best. NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune types, and they'll be found in different regions of the country. The little guys like the Buffalo News won't exist. At least not in anything close to their current form. And we will all be worse of because of it. 1
GunnerBill Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said: This is my issue as well The couple of breakdowns I have watched he IS WRONG on certain things He isn't a real coach or scout , his opinion is far from gospel. He runs a website marketed towards rabid bills fans Yea. I generally find their stuff interesting but it is a lot of opinion passed off as something more than that. I had a pretty big argument with him about the suitability of Tyrod for Rick Dennison's offense before the 2017 season where he just kept showing me videos of Quarterbacks in that offense rolling outside the pocket and completely ignored everything I said about rhythm passing.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 1 hour ago, CuddyDark said: I always thought they would get banned because they go beyond covering the players and get into scheme. How you figgur that? Use small words and speak slowly, because I don't see how "getting into scheme" per se ought to be a problem. Lotsa NFL-sanctioned shows get into scheme - "The Wakeup Call" would be one example. Charging a fee for the use of someone else's copyrighted material, OTOH, is an issue. 1
Don Otreply Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 Mostly I don’t care if an organization like cover 1 is nibbling at the edges of a massive corporate sports monopoly. More power to them I say, If not for an act of Congress the NFL would be an illegal operation. Go Bills!!! 1
Lurker Posted August 3, 2019 Posted August 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, Steve Billieve said: If they are then using that all 22 footage for original educational or discussion use it would qualify as fair use. Fair use doesn't imply unlimited usage. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ What Is Fair Use? In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement. Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody. Commentary and Criticism If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include: quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case. The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material.
Recommended Posts