April 05, 2007
NFL: Second Down and Goal?

Today, 12 business days after I re-sent my DMCA counter-notification, YouTube sent notice that they had restored my Super Bowl excerpt. Catch it while you can, because I'm not holding my breath that it will stay online this time either.

The chronology so far:

By my count, that's 17 days up, 38 days down, not counting "technical problems" that prevented access to the video on some days when it was not sidelined by a notification.

In the first takedown first DMCA takedown NFL sent YouTube in February, shortly after the Super Bowl, my video of the copyright warning was among 162 URLs listed. After YouTube re-posted my video, NFL's second DMCA notice singled out just one video, the one for which I had counter-notified on fair use grounds. If there was any excuse that the first claim was just a bot's overactive pattern-matching -- an excuse the NFL doesn't rely on in its response on the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog -- that excuse evaporated by the time I counter-notified.

Rather, NFL Spokesman Brian McCarthy argues,

We are entitled to disagree, in good faith, with her asserted defense, absent a court decision.
(3) We have valid grounds to disagree with the professor’s fair use argument. Had she simply used the clip in her classroom, before students, she might have had a stronger argument that the context was educational and entitled to fair use deference. But it was posted without any of this context, and in a manner available for anyone in the world to see, not just her students.

I think their fair use analysis is wrong as a matter of law, and therefore it was “knowingly materially misrepresenting” to claim that the clip infringed after getting notification of the clip’s content. I’m entitled to share this type of educational fair use with more than the students in my classroom. (I’m not trying to rely on the TEACH Act with its crabbed DRM requirements.) I post my syllabus and teaching slides online for anyone to see, and wanted to post this discussion similarly.

On the fair use factors, I think I’m in good shape: My use is for nonprofit educational purposes; the copyright in the telecast is thin; the portion of football that follows the copyright warning is a minute portion of the whole, with no significant action or commentary, useful to show people what it was the NFL claimed its copyright covered; and the effect on the market for or value of the work is non-existent.

Too bad the U.S.'s WTO non-compliant gambling law prevents us from wagering on what will happen next...

Posted by Wendy at April 05, 2007 08:24 AM | TrackBack

Looks like they are trying to "Go SCO" on you - ignore the law and the facts, while spreading FUD in the hopes that you'll back down.

I may not be able to gamble on the outcome, but I'm sure going to bring the popcorn and watch The Show.

If I can donate to a legal fund to help you fight these punks, just point me to the paypal!


Posted by: bryan on April 5, 2007 04:00 PM

Seems to me that the case where the copyright holder and alleged infringer have a difference of opinion about the matter is exactly the situation the DMCA addresses. It isn't looking to protect either the copyright holder or the alleged infringer, but the poor service provider caught in the middle. Reading over all the provisions and the history, it seems to me very much that the DMCA is saying "Each side gets one pass at this. If you can't come to an agreement after that, take it to the legal system and leave the service provider out of it.". If that's the case then the NFL's difference of opinion is either irrelevant or supports them not having the right to issue another takedown.

Posted by: Todd Knarr on April 5, 2007 10:46 PM

Second Down And Goal To Go by Jerry Clower: Listen to Second Down And Goal To Go by Jerry Clower for free on Rhapsodywow gold

Posted by: wow gold on April 5, 2007 11:16 PM

Dear Wendy,

Thanks for sharing your insight and reporting on the progress of this case. There are much for us, those living outside of U.S., to learn about your DMCA.

Calgary, Canada

Posted by: Kempton on April 5, 2007 11:55 PM

Mr. McCarthy's argument might carry some weight or it might not. The strength of his statement seems moot, since the next step is a filing and not another take-down. He is in no position to frame an argument, much less defend an obvious disregard for observing the rules of the very weapon (DMCA) his client is wielding.

Unsportsmanlike conduct: 15 yard penalty.

Posted by: Michael Donnelly on April 6, 2007 01:33 AM

Wendy - First, thank you for doing this. Hopefully it will bring more attention to the fact that copy-rights and fair-use rights are equally important parts of copyright law.

I have a few questions:

1. How can you make a non-profit argument considering your site has advertising and enjoys greater traffic due to these posts? Is this blog part of a not-for-profit entity?

2. Are you willing to litigate this matter?

Posted by: Dan Collier on April 6, 2007 01:13 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?