In the case of myp2p and other such sites, you usually get a fairly low quality stream, sometimes with commentaries in a foreign language, and no guarantee of actually being able to see the game to completion, or even that it will shown.
For many sports fans thats simply unacceptable, and thus they seek out legal sources which guarantees that they will be able to watch the game.
I’ve used myp2p a couple of times, when my local football (soccer to you yanks) team was playing some Euro qualifier or other, which wasn’t available on network tv or pay per view in Norway. I also watched the last Champions League final on there, simply because I couldnt be arsed to pop down to the pub,altough the quality and lag of the stream left much to be desired
So therefore, I think, sports broadcasters don’t see much benefit in going after such sites, as the amount of sports fans using them would be miniscule.
This is correct, though it really isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. The simple fact, even under copyright law is you can’t can’t copyright facts.
If Joe threw the ball and Pete caught it, that’s a fact. That isn’t subject to copyright. I could take someone on this board and right a book about him. As long as I stick to the fact and the facts alone, I don’t have to pay them a cent.
When it comes to copyrights, Internet hosts are protected if they follow prodecure. For intance, I run parody sites. Usually once a year, I hear from the coyright holder and I tell them it’s parody. Then the copyright holder contacts my webhost. My webhost issues a DMCA notice. (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)
As long as the ISP or Webhost issue me the notice, they are off the hook and can’t be held repsonible.
I then reply to the DMCA notice and tell my webhost it’s wrong and they need to put my site back up. The webhost immediately does and then the holder of the copyright has a specified time to sue me. If they don’t sue me in that time, they are out of luck.
Copyright law covers specific complaints. So if I’m violating a copyright owned by CBS and one by NBC and CBS complains but NBC doesn’t my CBS content would get pulled, but my NBC wouldn’t.
There’s one sporting event that is definitely illegal to broadcast online via third-party - the Olympics. Only the official Olympics broadcasting gets to cover the show. Not even the host nation’s own TV stations can broadcast it unless they buy the rights. Learned this while in the youth Olympics organizing team.
KTAR, a local news and sports station, has the contract to broadcast Diamondbacks baseball games. They also have a live stream of their program on their website*, and until a few years ago you could use it to listen to the games. Then MLB.com started offering all MLB games on their site for something like $15 a season. Thereafter, when the game is on, all you get on the KTAR site during game time is an announcement every minute or so to the effect that contractual obligations prohibit them from having the game on.
They also carry Cardinals and ASU football games, but I haven’t seen whether they can stream those or not.
I was just directed to a site showing college FB games illegally. The site is registered in the US. I think it’s been around for a while, not sure why it hasn’t been shutdown yet.
It seems like I remember reading about quite a few cases over the years regarding this (in the US). Here’s a recap that seems to say linking to copyrighted material is generally ok, with some exceptions.
It should be obvious from the context of my posts in this thread, but in case it is not, I wanted to explicitly point out that I am not in engaging in illegal activity regarding copyright materials, nor am I encouraging anyone else to do so. Also, the information I that I have posted in this thread is not legal advice.
Below are some materials that I found that may be relevant to this thread. I am a layperson in the area of copyright law, and I welcome corrections, additional input, and comments.
At least two lawsuits have been filed by sports copyright holders against websites providing online streaming video services. I couldn’t find a major media news report of these, so I’m linking to two advocacy articles for each (one pro, one con).
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor shields service providers on the internet from liability for infringing content posted by users. Nothing in the DMCA safe harbor requires service providers to affirmatively filter out copyright-protected content, instead service providers are protected by the safe harbor if they comply with certain procedures for responding to takedown notices sent by copyright holders. If the safe harbor applies, only the individual infringing customer is liable for money damages. cite.
Despite the lack of any requirement for affirmative filtering, YouTube has voluntarily implemented certain automatic filters for removing copyright content without the need for takedown notices sent by the copyright holder. Automatic filters on YouTube have resulted in removal of content that is protected by fair use (I don’t know whether there would be First Amendment concerns as well). cite. Whether or not there is any First Amendment argument that would protect full-length streaming video sports broadcasts (I don’t know), there are at least seemingly valid reasons that automatic content filtering is problematic.
Like I said before, please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m a copyright layperson, and none of this is legal advice.
Correct me if I am wrong, but while it would be illegal to broadcast an account of a pro wrestling match, a genuine sporting event is a current event and that cannot be copyrightable.
Two U.S. lawsuits (in progress) regarding UStream and Justin.tv are referenced in post #29.
An Israeli court recently issued a decision regarding copyright protection for streaming live football (soccer) in Football Association Premier League (FAPL) v. Ploni (Sept. 2, 2009). In this case, online streaming of the sporting event was deemed to be a fair use of the copyrighted material.
I don’t know. Is there a viable argument under U.S. law that a sporting event is not proper subject matter for copyright protection?
Does it matter that the main content of sporting events is factual? Does it matter that the artistic value of such work is minimal and not the reason for its popularity?
