I didn't think Eurosport videos posted by people in Europe have anything to do with US Figure Skating. What are the exact rules? I don't think US Figure Skating is allowed to take over the world.
It seems it is the season for flogging horses til they are a bloody pulp on the forum. There have been a number of threads including this one which exlpains the rights that Ice Network have been granted.
Hopefully for the last time - It would appear (and i say this on the basis of what others have said) that Ice Network have been granted the exclusive internet US broadcast rights for the GPs by the ISU. US Figure skating owns Ice Network. Moreover, another poster has mentioned that the contract with Ice Network specifically places the policing for breaches of intellectual rights obligations on Ice Network.
This means two things:
1. Ice Network are the only people who are allowed to braodcast via the internet, coverage of the GPs to viewers in the US.
2. Ice Network must police to the best of their abilities, all instances where these exclusive rights are being breached.
Neither youtube nor dailymotion are capabale of blacking out or not broadcasting certain videos by country therefore a valid complaint from Ice Network to either of those two video hosting companies that their exclusive rights to broadcast those events on the internet in the US will mean because of the lack of functionality of those two websites (unable to stop braodcast of videos to those in the US) they have to take them down.
The rules of those two websites might also include a certain number of strikes before a user who persisitently breaches their user terms - posting copyrighted material you do not have the rights to post - can be banned completely and all of their posts are removed.
To be honest i'm struggling to see how people are so amazed, you have a number of posters arrogantly proclaiming that they are above these laws who then go on to publicise the existence of other hosting sites where videos are not being taken down despite warnings from a number of posters that Ice Network scan all the figure skating boards to get tip offs on where they might continue their policing battles.
If people are stupid enough to carry on talking about these sites in a public forum what do they expect? Why not take things to PMs if you really want to tip each other off as to where videos can be found? At the very least take on board the friendly advice that people offer on forums such as these
It's one thing to be annoyed by the actions of the various web hosting companies and Ice Network, but honestly speaking, there's no way copyright laws and the ability to licence/assign them are going to be changed on the basis of a tiny number of grumblig figure skating fans. It is a drop in the ocean compared to people who are genuinely protected by these laws.
Ant
Thank you for that info. I had no idea. I can see why USFSA would want you not to offer photos of their events for sale...(actually, no, I can't -- how does that hurt them? Are your pictures better than the ones that they offer for sale?)
What I really don't get is why the legal courts of the State of Alaska, or the Government of the United States of America, cares what USFSA wants.
Now I could understand it better if it were a privacy issue for the skaters...no, I can't. They are presenting their performances for public display, it's not like you are sneaking up on them poparazzi style.
The reason the courts care is simple - they are upholding a contract that USFSA made with you. When you purchased your tickets to the event and no doubt clicked the "accept terms" box without reading it (we all do - including lawyers!!) you will have skipped the clause in the contract that says that you will not take photographs or videos of the event without authorisation from the USFSA (or whoever runs the event).
By taking pictures/videos of the event you are in breach of your contract with USFSA. Now if these are for personal use the USFSA will have a struggle proving any loss is they try to sue you. If you try to sell them then USFSA has a very real loss - purchase of your unauthorised pictures definitely takes revenue from the USFSA (the only other place you can buy the pictures). The court case would be pretty cut and dry I think.
I once saw madonna in concert and nearly had my mobile phone confiscated by a stweard because he caught me taking a picture with it! The stewards at the concerts spend their whole time threatening people who appear to be taking pictures. The steward came over to me in the intermission and threatened me, fairly aggressively threatening to take my mobile phone. Because of his aggression I played the lawyer card and pointed out his lack of right to confiscate my personal property - the police are the only people capable of this and it is only in relation to crimes ocmmitted. He backed down because i convinced him of my argument, but ultimately he would have had the upper hand - you don't like our rules on photography? You've breached your contract with us so i will throw you out of this private event (as per the terms and conditions) and not let you back in.
Ant
I would think the coverage itself is covered under broadcasting rights whereas reproductions of the coverage, which is what Youtube offers, are a copyright issue. They're not really competing products as one is live and the other can't be, by definition.
I can only tell you about UK law since that is my area of expertise - i don't know about US law or other Europeans countries but i'm fairly sure that copyright laws in Europe are fairly standardised, though the length of protection varies as does the position on moral rights.
Copyright law in it's most basic form is basically the right, as owner of an original work, to copy and deal with that work in whatever way you see fit. It grants you a right of action against someone who copies that work without your authorisation.
It can apply to any original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work; sound recording, films and broadcasts; and typographical arrangement of published editions.
There have been a number of amendments in the law to catch up with technology (isn't that always the way). Broadcasts not only applies to television or radio broadcasts but now also includes the internet. It has to - most television channels now have websites and broadcast over the internet, or have programs available for viewing once the original television broadcast has gone out. The law says that copyright exists in those broadcasts.
Ant
?
hwell:. But it was a good hypothetical.
