#1 Delete something that's all over the internet? That'll work. #2 is wrong. Football matches are not copyright works in Europe. The courts have already determined that.
I agree 1 is difficult; an alternate fix would be to collect damages; or perhaps since google can forget events they can forget videos. As for 2, I was referring to US copyright law. YMMV.
I'm as certain as I could be without being a lawyer that there is no contract between the vendor and buyer of a ticket. I *think* that the ticket represents a license provided to the buyer. I definitely need a lawyer (not currently available to me) to determine what sorts of limitations on that license are and are not enforcable, and what sorts of remedies are available to the vendor when a buyer violates a limitation expressed by the vendor.
As I re all, all a contrat requires is an offer, acceptance and consideration. Paying for and using one might be construed as accepting the conditions offered. That's be a good questions to the folks on the south side of the Midway.
Hockey = Canadian football?
Hockey = Life, the Universe and Everything
Football = Sport
I see no way in which a ticket limiting recording automatically transfers copyright of the recording from the creator to the venue. It might allow the venue to kick out the person doing the recording, but it certainly doesn't hand them copyright to the work.
I would see two issues:
1. It is a contract violation and thus they could be forced by a court to delete or turnover the recording since it was made in violation of the contract
2. The venue owns the copyright to what was presented and thus even if you own the copyright to your recording you still cannot use it since you do not own rights to the performance.
Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean
Then you are clearly an idiot, or entirely unfamiliar with any form of football other than soccer!
There are 3 recognized "kinds" of football -- European (aka soccer), North American, and Australian. Of those three, ONLY European football (i.e. soccer) could be reasonably conflated / confused with ballet...
-AC
Canadians beg to differ. Oh wait, they're just the 51st state anyway so you are correct. My bad.
Also, interesting to note, the interviewer specifically pointed out the NFL as going through the same type of frustrations. In typical British media form, the interviewer was pandering to corporate interest in focus and language, and didn't make a single mention of the rights of the recorders, which seems perverse given that many Vines fit comfortably under the measures of Fair Use in the U.S.
IANAL, but while it seems Fair Use might cover a snip from a commercial broadcast or even arguing a private short clip of a performance (or game, if you prefer); assuming the actual playing of the game constitutes a copyrighted work, there is still the contractual issue that often forbids taping the performance. That would seem to me to be the way to prevent distribution of the clip.
They are claiming copyright over their own footage.
The phenomena at question is that of people uploading mobile phone footage of TV footage, not of their own video of the match.
I do not know what the premier league tickets say; but many venues, sports or otherwise, have limits on recording in the contact for the ticket. Realistically, most seem not to care about the iPhone clip posted to a web site; quite frankly it seems that fan clips wouldn't diminish the value of the venue's film. If I want a copy of a concert or game I buy the DVD, if available, because it is actually viewable in its entirety even if it lacks the shaking, background noise and random commentary of the iPhone version. The best model, IMHO, is the Dead, who said basically tape our concerts, trade the tapes for free, but buy our music, and other items. Seems to have worked out fine for them.
All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government", yet they insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do - even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.
Does the (R) after name stand for "Reprobate"?
No, it stands for Rented.
Decommissioning costs (including storage, disposal, and demolition) never seem to figure into these numbers.
The authors stated they were looking at the ability of a plant to displace CO2 emissions and using the net benefits to see which is the most cost effective. Wind and solar simply do not have the capacity factors to match hydro/nuke/gas plants and high capacity costs and thus are lees cost effective in reducing CO2. Nuclear decommissioning costs were included in their numbers. In short, solar and wind cost to much per KW to build and generate too little electricity to be cost effective in reducing CO2 emissions relative to other non-carbon energy sources.
While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.
That is not my experience, mind pointing to examples? My experience with government owned utilities is exactly the opposite of what you claim. There are several local power companies owned by the city government, they are cheaper and better run than the corporate power utility that serves the rest of the area. After heavy storms they often have power restored in half the time of the private company. Did I mention the lower power rates? Government does a rats ass job of predicting demand and supply for widgets but they do a damn good job of predicting demand and allocating resources for major utilities like power companies because it's a pretty well fixed demand and is an essential service.
My comments come from working with execs at a number of public utilities. As I pointed out, political considerations often trump "cheapest rates." Many of them do not operate plants but buy power, often subsidized federal power that can't be sold to other markets at such rates.
People always trot out the old refrain you did, but I see little experience that it's true. Rather than accept that what you hear repeated so often is true you should try to find evidence that is true because you will probably be surprised at how often it's wrong.
You missed my point in your rush to label my response. I pointed out, in response to the OP, that "cheapest amount possible" are not necessarily the goal of a public utility given their political nature; not that they can't be cheaper than private power companies. Also note that many people confuse Rural Electrification Cooperatives and their brethren as public power when in fact they are not.
In the US, maybe. In other countries, not so much. Did you never notice how the childish attitudes your politicians display are far above the levels displayed in other countries' politicians? Sure, some countries have political freak shows, but many others just get on with it - working with other parties for the good of the country.
Possible, but my experiences with politicians around the world its the "do what I have to to stay in power" gene tends to be dominant and the "work together for the good of the country even if it means I may lose" gene is recessive.
Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.
While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.
whatever you do do not let the techies run the project. This isn't a technical solution but a business solution. The techies may think a fit gap tells them what they need to know to build a system but the reality is unless someone one really understands Hal the system is used and what the LOB need you will wind up with a mess. The IT folks will focus on the IT aspects and forget there is a whole organizational component that can derail them even if the system works.
I've seen to many projects where the focus is on getting the system to work and when the users finally get involves it's " we don't do things this way and that's not what we need." The project points to the fit gap and or requirements and it's "that's how x does it be we do it this way. The requirement says that you just didn't do it right." At that point senior LOB management starts complaining IT is replacing a working system with a piece of crap. The order then comes down to fix it and you are stuck.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
