Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

NFL, MLB Accused of Bogus Copyright Claims 116

P Crewe writes "A complaint filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association accuses the NFL, MLB, and a number of studios of deceptive trade practices, saying that their far-reaching copyright claims systematically misrepresent the rights of consumers to use copyrighted material. 'According to the complaint, such warnings "materially misrepresent" US law. Fair use is given short shrift, and as a result, consumers are left with the impression that any use that the rights-holders do not expressly approve is illegal. "Consumers have the right to use the content in legal, non-infringing ways," CCIA spokesperson Jake Ward told Ars Technica. "Putting these warnings on broadcasts, videotapes, and DVDs is both misleading and threatening."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NFL, MLB Accused of Bogus Copyright Claims

Comments Filter:
  • by dknj ( 441802 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:50PM (#20078153) Journal
    Disney teaches Copyright [youtube.com]

    dk-
    • Disney teaches Copyright [youtube.com]

      dk-
      and obligatory ISR joke ..

      ... in Soviet Russia video copies you!!
    • by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:54PM (#20078209) Homepage Journal
      While this little clip attempts to prove a point, actually watching it is akin to being tied to the back of a bulldozer as it drives 50 miles down an unpaved road.
      • i'll see your "back of a bulldozer", and raise you one "bottom of a bulldozer".
      • by abb3w ( 696381 )

        While this little clip attempts to prove a point, actually watching it is akin to being tied to the back of a bulldozer as it drives 50 miles down an unpaved road.

        Which I suppose is one way to learn geography... and learn to hate it appropriately.

      • by hey! ( 33014 )

        While this little clip attempts to prove a point, actually watching it is akin to being tied to the back of a bulldozer as it drives 50 miles down an unpaved road.


        So what you are saying is... it has commercial potential? After all that's how I feel about bungee jumping, but apparently people do pay for the experience.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 )
      Disney teaches Copyright

      Haha!

      "The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of Evil."

      That line alone made the video worth watching. However... if... I had... to... watch... much more... of... that... I think... I... would... go... insane... and start... killing... people... just to... make... the pain... stop.
  • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2016q1@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:54PM (#20078215) Homepage Journal

    A complaint filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association [...]

    The write-up forgot to mention, who the complaint was filed with. It is with the FTC [wikipedia.org].

    "Putting these warnings on broadcasts, videotapes, and DVDs is both misleading and threatening."

    I don't think, it is illegal to mislead (other than in advertising) or even to threaten (other than with violence). Would be nice, if FTC stops it somehow, of course, just to keep things cleaner...

    • I don't think, it is illegal to mislead (other than in advertising) or even to threaten (other than with violence). Would be nice, if FTC stops it somehow, of course, just to keep things cleaner...
      Maybe ( and no, I'm not sure ) it isn't criminal, but you can certainly be held liable for it in court. Guess it's this whole criminal vs civil matter again...
      • by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @08:36PM (#20079841) Journal
        "or even to threaten (other than with violence)."

        But couldn't the threat of being sued for more than you are likely to make in your lifetime a form of "financial violence". Yes the term sounds like a stretch, but when you consider the potential for life altering harm and combine it with the outcome of suit being more influenced by who can afford what lawyers over who is right, well it resembles violence in every way in which violence is used to threaten and subdue. Perhaps it should be illegal for corperations to threaten legal action when no law has been broken.
    • by Anonymous Cowpat ( 788193 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:01PM (#20078309) Journal
      so instead someone has to take the risk of:
      • Ignoring the notice
      • Being taken to court
      • Losing by default when they run out of money
      • And getting massive damages because they were warned on the disc/tape and chose to ignore the warnings
      • Being bankrupt for the rest of their life
      ? Because if that's what the law says then the law needs to change.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CowboyCapo ( 1127223 )
        Ahh yes, this brings us back to Natural Law vs. Relativistic Law again.

        I reiterate the Rule of Saint Augustine once more. "An unjust law is no law at all."

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Judging by what I read on this site, a Joe User is running the risk of all of these horrors regardless of whether or not there is a warning printed on the packaging.

        I mean, whether or not the warning is justified, all of these terrible things you list could still happen — because the corporations (sitting in their big corporation buildings acting all corporationy) have nothing better to do...

        I'd guess, the plaintiffs are doing Joe User a disfavor — should FTC side with them and the warning g

        • I doubt the warning would be completely removed -- just changed to something a little more truthful.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sinrakin ( 782827 )
      Why wouldn't publicly claiming legal ownership of something that you don't actually own (total, unrestricted rights) and threatening punitive action if these illegally claimed rights are violated should fall under fraud or extortion laws?
      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:09PM (#20078407) Journal
        It would if you were Jimmy the Local Neighborhood Thug, but if you're a major corporate interest with lots of dollars and plenty of bureaucrats and politicians willing to suck your figurative genitals for a share of the pie, it ceases to be. Remember, the only thing that matters in this world is how much money you have. The more you have, the less the law applies to you, until finally, when you're a Very Large Corporation, the law is a meaningless abstraction that has little effect other than keeping legal departments employed.
    • by coldmist ( 154493 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:05PM (#20078341) Homepage
      http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 [copyright.gov]
      Section (f)
      (f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section ... shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner ... who is injured by such misrepresentation...

      If they ask a content provider to remove it, and you have to hire a lawyer to keep it up, then they are liable for your legal fees.

      It isn't criminal, but it is illegal.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's true that 'notice and takedown' misrepresentations can get you in trouble, but the claim here here is different.

        It isn't that these content providers are violating the copyright laws. These companies are violating consumer protection laws, which say you can't make "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/us c_sec_15_00000045----000-.html [cornell.edu]
        • "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."

          I thought the whole point of FairUse is that it isn't commerce. No money trades hands, so it's not protected as an act of commerce. This would be an unfair or deceptive act that affects personal use.
    • by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <barghesthowlNO@SPAMexcite.com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:06PM (#20078347) Journal

      You may unfortunately be correct that it's not illegal, but realistically it should be. Most people don't know enough about the law or fair use to say "Hey, I can poke fun at you with a parody without violating the law" or "It's perfectly legal for me to use a short excerpt to illustrate my critical commentary on the work."

      I've even heard of sports leagues trying to claim that statistics are copyrighted. A collection of statistics is a purely factual work with no creativity involved, those types of works are not copyrightable. But the way they put it, you'd think you have to pay royalties every time you mention how many home runs someone's hit this season.

      • by xZoomerZx ( 1089699 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:33PM (#20078649)

        Most people don't know enough about the law or fair use to say...
        And that is what is wrong with the American justice system today. This country was founded on the idea that a (truly) free people would require few laws and would therefore be knowledgeable of the laws in their entirety. (Since they were to be self-governing) Unfortunately, a long time ago politicians, the vast majority being lawyers themselves, realized that more laws would benefit them and their lawyer brethren.
        Doubt me? How many pages alone is the federal tax code again? (it's 13,458 pages in total)
        The only real solution to these shenanigans is a re-vamp of the entire legal system top to bottom. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.
        • by Eivind ( 15695 )
          This is a good point. One major difference between European and US law is that you guys have a lot MORE of it.

          The entire law of Norway is a single book, sized aproximately like a bible, 90% of which is irrelevant to average Joes. The actual interesting parts are 200 pages, tops.
        • Is it possible that law (and tax code) is so complex because people want it that way?

          Someone "falls" into an open construction site that is clearly marked as one and promptly sues both the construction company and the company that is having the construction done. Someone sues a gun company under product safety laws because the gun did something that it was clearly designed to do. After 40 years of continuous (mandated) warnings about the risks of smoking, plaintiffs sue the cigarette industries because they

        • I agree that the sheer mass of law is a problem, but I don't think it fair to blame it entirely on self-interested lawyers/politicians. The complexity of law reflects the complexity of the system it is attempting to define. To pull a number out of my brown, circular reference source, 75% of law is boundary cases. "Don't steal" is a good law in two words; the next 4 million words define when exactly it is or is not stealing to acquire something you did not previously own. "It is not okay to take apples f
        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
          Kind of a simplistic and paranoid way of looking at things.
          A lot of the laws are on the books because people want them.
          Back in the day of our founding fathers do you think they would have tolerated a law that that told you what you could do with your own property?
          But would you like a world where developers could do what every they wanted where every they wanted? Want a dump next to your house?
          Or could you imagine our for fathers allow a law that regulated how much you could burn in your fire place? Want to
      • you'd think you have to pay royalties every time you mention how many home runs someone's hit this season

        It has come to our attention that the term "home run" is a trademark of Major League Baseball. Please contact our administrative offices to purchase permission to use this term.

        Thank you,
        MLB
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mikee805 ( 1091195 )
      If it is illegal why did they wait "decades" as the article even points out to do file the complaint?
    • I think the portion of misleading is specific to the fact that they are misrepresenting what the law is. I certainly hope its illegal to misrepresent information to your customers and then also inform them that its THE LAW when it isnt.

      Seeing as most EULA's seem to have clauses that shouldnt pass muster in any state, but just happen to not be challenged, this will probably fall into the "its the clients burden to verify what the law is if they wish to use the content" or some such though =\.

  • About time! (Score:5, Informative)

    by wnissen ( 59924 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @05:55PM (#20078231)
    MLB even tries to tell you that descriptions of the game are under their copyright, the lying needs to stop.
    • I would be great to have home-brew color commentary.
      The kind of funny, biased stuff that only some fan not bound by networks and advertizers could provide...
      • "And here comes Ace Brannigan, Quarter Back for the Miami Fishheads. Did you know that he raped eighteen cheerleaders last year, was cited for possession of anabolic steroids, and saves his bodily fluids in small jars that he keeps in his basement."

        "No I did not, Marv. That's pretty damn interesting. It goes without saying that Brannigan's a top-notch player, and those steroid-induced man boobs are a real turn on for the ladies at home. But back to his playing style, Brannigan has shattered thirty eight
      • Harry Doyle: That's all we got, one goddamn hit?
        Assistant: You can't say goddamn on the air.
        Harry Doyle: Don't worry, nobody is listening anyway.
    • Re:About time! (Score:5, Informative)

      by jguthrie ( 57467 ) <jguthrie AT brokersys DOT com> on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:10PM (#20078413) Homepage
      But their "descriptions and accounts of the game" are protected by copyright. If you went to a game and described the game, your description would also be protected by copyright, but the copyright on your description wouldn't belong to MLB.
      • Re:About time! (Score:5, Informative)

        by ToastyKen ( 10169 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:50PM (#20078841) Homepage Journal
        I think the grandparent post was referring to how the MLB tried to convince the courts that player stats are under copyright [arstechnica.com].
      • by Esteban ( 54212 )
        There are, however, versions of this which include reference to any descriptions of the game without the league's permission being illegal.

        I just hope no one comes after me when I point to Barry and inappropriately say "Look at the size of that noggin!" without realizing that some addled color commentator said the same thing about him, during the same game, at roughly the same time.
        • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @07:36PM (#20079279) Homepage Journal

          If we could just get a few thousand people to send this letter once a week for a year, that B.S. would stop:

          Dear Major League Baseball,

          I was talking to my friends last night and they brought up the subject of a game they saw last week, [X vs. Y]. I remembered reading at the start of the game on TV that any depiction of the game requires the express written consent. May I have permission to talk about this game with my friends?

          Sincerely,
          [Child's name], age 10

          Dear Major League Baseball,

          Last night, my friends started talking about [X vs. Z]. May I have permission to talk about that game with my friends as well?

          Sincerely,
          [Child's name], age 10

          ...and so on. For just $21 a year---little more than the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks---you can help rid the world of copyright tyranny.

      • not exactly true.. if you're at the game while it's happening and you are making that description to consumers in real-time, you are a reporter and subject to the rules of mlb.
        • Okay, say I live-blog a game. The MLB (or the stadium owners, or whoever) can eject me, but what I'm doing is not illegal, and the MLB has no legal recourse other than ejection.
      • by phiwum ( 319633 )
        From the article:

        "Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

        That says any descriptions or accounts. Either it is a remarkably poorly worded warning referring only to the NFL's copyrighted descriptions or they are claiming rights that copyright law surely doesn't give them.

        Makes one wonder: if Wikipedia describes the latest Superbowl, are they violating this clause? Sounds like the NFL is claiming so.

      • "If you went to a game and described the game, your description would also be protected by copyright, but the copyright on your description wouldn't belong to MLB."

        Not according to MLB.

        If only it were that simple. I live in the Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area. In celebration of the induction into the Baseball hall of fame of Baltimore Oriole player Cal Ripken Jr. last weekend, a local radio station (WBAL) was planning (and advertising) that in the weeks leading up to the ceremony, they would replay T
        • by jguthrie ( 57467 )
          The link that you provide does not support the assertion that MLB claims a copyright to all descriptions and accounts of each game, only that the clips that WBAL wants to play belong to someone else and that someone else hasn't granted permission. In fact, I'm kind of disappointed that someone hasn't provided a link to what is actually said as the copyright notice for a broadcast because that would at least give us a factual basis for discussion. The broadcasts I have heard in the past talk about not usin
    • by claytongulick ( 725397 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:21PM (#20078531) Homepage
      It drives me insane (and my wife, because she has to deal with me yelling at the screen) every time I see one of those DVD anti-piracy ads, the ones that go "You wouldn't steal a car... blah blah blah.... buying pirated movies is STEALING. STEALING is against the LAW."

      Those ads are factually incorrect and misleading. Buying pirated movies may be copyright infringement, but thats quite doubtful since the purchaser is not responsible for proving that the CD/DVD is authentic and the doctrine of first sale still applies to DVDs/CDs. The infringer, in that case, would be the person knowingly selling pirated materials, not (necessarily) the person buying them.

      Even if it was copyright infringement, that is wildly different than STEALING, since no one is being deprived of a physical possession, which is why they are separate areas of law and until recently copyright infringement was mostly considered a civil issue, except for extreme cases.

      I get infuriated at the blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of fact in those ads. They are untrue and intimidating, and I would love if a lawyer here would tell me if a lawsuit would have any grounds to get them stopped. I dontate to the EFF, maybe they would take up the case.

      Does anyone know if a case like this would have any teeth?

      -Clay
      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        one of those DVD anti-piracy ads, the ones that go "You wouldn't steal a car... blah blah blah.... buying pirated movies is STEALING. STEALING is against the LAW."
        The first time I saw that, the very first thing that went through my head was "Hey that's a cool song, I wonder if I can find it on P2P." I kid you not.
      • by Eskarel ( 565631 )
        My favorite part of those is when the girl cancels her download and walks out of the room and we're all supposed to feel good about her honestly.

        In reality if she'd been picked up by one of the MPAA's surveilance goons the fact that she cancelled it wouldn't make even a tiny bit of difference to their lawyers.

      • by Don_dumb ( 927108 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @03:27AM (#20082523)
        I don't care about the content of those, I care that I can't skip them. I care that I paid for a DVD and it has these adverts that I have to endure.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If I were the judge I would rule that all their copyrights on past works are now expired as punishment for misleading the public. That would teach them fast.
    • Claiming that something is illegal does not necessarily make it so.
  • I loved the episode where agents of ABC stormed the house and shot up the VCR when Peter tried to record an NFL game.
    • Boy when I think of NFL nowadays I think of a league who sold out to EA.
  • by no_pets ( 881013 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:06PM (#20078353)
    Government and businesses love to stretch their rights and power unless called on it. If they get away with expanded rights/powers long enough they tend to become real or legitimate.
  • Are You Kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Vengance Daemon ( 946173 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:15PM (#20078471)
    These guys are complaining to an agency of the United States government! Do they expect their complaint to receive any kind of responsible hearing? This is the United States, for heaven's sake, we don't have intelligent, fair representation any more; the NFL will just grease a palm here and there, and get whatever they want. Sheesh, why get all fussed and bothered?
    • Online petition (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There's an online petition. They won't take action unless you tell them to. At least we Slashdotters can turn *yet another* server into a heap of molten slag.

      http://www.defendfairuse.org/take_action.html [defendfairuse.org]
      • One the one hand I think people should sign petitions like this more, as it's a very easy way to become involved. On the other hand, I hate having all that information about myself in the open online.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Some of the members of the CCIA can spare a dime or 2 to grease the same palms. Google, for instance. I heard somewhere that Google has like, $0.53 cents they can spend on lobbying. I may be off, though, yanno. It might be slightly more.

  • Seems to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Raccroc ( 238757 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:15PM (#20078473)
    It has always seemed to me that the root of such behavior is that they are allowed to continue to operate as monopolies.

    Because there is no competition to professional football it allows the NFL to become bullies and make outrageous demands. Not just with TM and copy write, but with players/coaches contracts, advertisers/sponsors, broadcast providers, etc. I just don't get is how they can continue not getting thumped for anti-competitive practices. Hell, it constantly amazes me one of the extremely rich players who gets suspended doesn't ever raise a stink about it...After all, it's not like he can get a job playing for someone else.

    (MLB is a congressionally protected monopoly, at least from my understanding.)
    • Because there is no competition to professional football
      If only Robot Wars was more popular.
    • Major league baseball is a protected monopoly. At least in that it is protected from anti-trust suits. Link here. [sagepub.com]

      I can find no information on the NFL and I am suspicious of that one because of the XFL, USFL, etc. There have been football leagues in competition with the NFL. Not so for baseball, unless you count the negro leagues. [wikipedia.org]
      • Well, there is a reasonable explanation for that, people hated those other leagues. The XFL was a bomb for a reason. Sure one can still watch arena football, but why bother. The only people that watch football are either former players at some level or were raised/married into a rivalry.

        Basketball, is not as bad. Mostly because around here the interest in the NBA is waning somewhat. And the recent ballot measure to have the county pay for the Sonics' new arena with tax dollars failed by a 2:1 margin. Wouldn
        • More to the point, it didn't happen in Seattle for either football or baseball--the Mariners and Seahawks both got new stadiums by tax support in recent years. Reluctance to build a new arena is caused as much by thus as anything.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by phantomlord ( 38815 )

      Because there is no competition to professional football it allows the NFL... After all, it's not like he can get a job playing for someone else.

      Vince McMahon attempted to do just that in 2001 with the XFL [wikipedia.org]. It died because people didn't want to watch it. They preferred the already established NFL with the marquee names. Many cities enjoy semi-pro leagues, Canada has the CFL [wikipedia.org], and for the last 16 years, there was also NFL Europe [wikipedia.org].

      Whether or not a pro-football player can get a job playing football is similar to the whole **AA thing. Complain that their business model (aka job) changed and they were unable to adapt so they're owed something. Thousand

    • The NFL received an "anti-trust" exemption from congress (in the 60s) exchange for (among other things) guaranteeing access to all games by all Americans. This all worked out fine until DirecTV's Sunday Ticket came along. Since the deal is exclusive to DirecTV, if you can't get DirecTV (which is a lot of people, anyone near trees, hills, buildings, idiot neighbors) you are pretty much screwed.
    • Hell, it constantly amazes me one of the extremely rich players who gets suspended doesn't ever raise a stink about it...After all, it's not like he can get a job playing for someone else.

      I think it depends on who made the suspension. If the league suspends a player then I would think that player is a professional football player on hold; assuming they did something to breach their contract with the league. It wouldn't matter if they could go to another team, they are still suspended. They could go to the Arena league or another job.

      If the team itself suspends a player then you have more of a point. I don't see it being much different than if the team decides to bench a player. Th

    • Because there is no competition to professional football
      The competitors to professional football [wikipedia.org] are professional football [wikipedia.org] and professional football [wikipedia.org].
    • Players' contracts? Not only do players have a union, but the salaries are immense. The restrictions (such as not riding motorcycles, being subject to suspension, etc.) are all based upon legitimate interests of the team and league and proportional to compensation. While their other practices may be questionable, you don't have much of a case with player and coach contracts.
  • Hooray!! for the home (user) team.
  • See that ship over there? They're re-broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent, not express written consent--or so the legend goes. -Homer Simpson
  • Disregard all FUD (Score:4, Informative)

    by metoc ( 224422 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @06:44PM (#20078769)
    By default, once I see inaccuracies or crap in those copyright warnings I disregard all of it. As a Canadian, the FBI is as important to me as the RCMP is to Americans. If the copyright warning specifically mentions Canada (and not as an after thought) then I will pay attention.

    The American media should be more than aware of the fables like Chicken Little, and Crying Wolf.
    • by markbt73 ( 1032962 ) on Wednesday August 01, 2007 @07:18PM (#20079079)

      "The American media should be more than aware of the fables like Chicken Little, and Crying Wolf."

      We're aware of them, but Disney copyrighted them, so we have to wait for a special edition re-release of the DVD to actually see the stories.

    • by dosboot ( 973832 )
      Canada and the US adhere to the Berne Convention, which covers this sort of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_par ty_to_the_Berne_Convention [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
      "As a Canadian, the FBI is as important to me as the RCMP is to Americans."

      Yeah we get FBI warnings in Australia and they are similarly meaningless. What pisses me off the most is that these rude (and largely hollow) threats are always attached to media I PAY FOR. They hijack my DVD and even in the fucking theater I have to PAY FOR and sit through someone lecturing me with "the FBI will get you if you don't watch out" - what's next - make us all stand up for the FBI like we used to do in the 60's to "go
  • Someone needs to bring down that MLB satellite once and for all!
  • When watching a sports event all broadcasters have been saying this notice for many years: long before the DMCA and the explosion of online video and such:

    "Your not allowed to reproduce, retransmite, or reuse the pictures, descriptions or accounts of this telecast without the express written consent of XYZ. Any commerical or other use such as by charging an admission for a showing is likewise prohibited."

    So why is their a problem now! It has been going on for a very long time! I can see maybe with t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Boogaroo ( 604901 )
      Just because a problem has been going on for a long time is no reason to ignore the problem.
    • by hajus ( 990255 )
      The same could have been said about slavery 150 years ago. "we been doing it for 100s of years, why stop now?" Just because you have done something naughty for a long time doesn't mean you should be able to keep doing it.

  • When you have to call the Super Bowl "The Big Game" due to the NFL, I think thats poof enough.
  • MLB can copyright everything that it wants. The baseball season is always irrelevant to me by mid-May.
  • Copyfraud... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <.slashdot. .at. .worf.net.> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @10:34AM (#20085819)
    I guess this would be a good instance of copyfraud [slashdot.org]... where people are marking as copyrighted things that aren't.
  • I'm actually more interested in the psychological ramifications of constantly villainizing your consumers. If you have consumers, who out of the goodness of their heart, are trying to do the right thing in actually plunking down money for your content, you want them to feel good about it. Instead, every DVD, broadcast, etc., these days starts with a pumped-up anti-fair use lecture.

    The worst part about these lectures is that the end user might think whatever it is they're doing is acceptable. And in a lot

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...