MLB=stupid

[-mmm-]

Link

I cant wait for them to come close down my myspace page cause I have a Twins logo on it (and Vikings and Wild), though its easily defendable in my (and anyone else's) case through fair use. Though as that article pointed out MLB and its lawyers have no concept of that premise.

And slightly off topic from that, but whos running the JS myspace page? I bookmarked it, only cause I was going to add it to my list of friends but saw no ones logged into it since December.

[SiteWolf]

It's absolutely ludicrous the way baseball, more than any other sport, is so worried about the use of team logos. I remember an Astro fan site being shut down (the owner threatened) even tho there was better info..and the site easily as well done...as the Astros own site....

As far as I'm concerned, there should be absolutely NO worry on their end (hell, they should be willing to help promote...those sites are promoting THEIR TEAM) unless someone is making a financial gain using those logos (i.e. selling tshirts).

....in fact, I highly doubt it would hold up in court....problem is, it never gets there...

In answer to your question on the JS myspace page...I think it was ZeroCool who started it....I HAD the login, but lost it and forgot what it was.....I think it was DawgCountry who offered to help out with it awhile back...but since I didn't have the login.......

[ocho cinco]

I had it... Dawg offered to help out with it... I gave him the info...

I will try to remember the password now....

[P562045]

Back when I started to blog about Sidney I made a conscious effort to make sure that I would not step on any toes. Way back when I started in about July of 2005 I said I was not going to have anything that would in any way think I was affiliated with the Penguins even though it does sound like I am the way I write sometimes.

I think even before Sidney started playing I had a picture of him signing his first contract and the article about he was getting as much coverage if not more than when Sidney started playing when compared to when Ben started playing. Part of it was there was just a few more members of the Canadian media that wanted to talk more about Sidney than Ben.

My blog is a work in progress and I still have the last few playoff games to write about but in Sidney's first season I wrote about 14,000 words and not just about Sidney but how the team was doing and other things. I may have to write about things such as Sidney's girlfriend or those pink shoes Sidney is trying to pimp right now. I would only mention both very briefly. The main focus of my blog is to talk about Sidney and the Penguins on the ice.

[P562045]

Just the other day I did not even provide a link to a story because many news Websites have warnings about not using their story under any conditions and even the pictures sometimes now.

I only have one question though. How are people supposed to make up their own mind on any subject if their story is not to be reprinted, redistributed etc? And I interpreted that if I provided a link to the story in some way I would be redistributing it. I know perfectly well why there are copyright laws in the first place but if they don't want people doing what I just talked about then why put it on their Website in the first place.

There was a story recently that a someone in France had gotten a copy a copy of the new Harry Potter book and started to translate it into French even though the book is not going to be coming out for a while longer in France. And no this person did not get in trouble. I think he was a younger person and he was not trying to make any money off of it so nothing really happened to him.

I am kind of surprised that news organizations that have their material on the Internet would even want people talking about their story.

There are even a few online newspapers that say what page it would be in their printed newspaper now.

[Dawgcountry]

Originally Posted by Lordofdeath

I had it... Dawg offered to help out with it... I gave him the info...

I will try to remember the password now....

you did? are you sure? either way - whoever I got the the info from (thought it was zero at the time), I was unable to get into the site. I followed up with him, but never heard from him again after that - does he still log into the site?... I'm still willing to keep an eye on it if someone can remember the email address and password.

[rose4prez]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

I cant wait for them to come close down my myspace page cause I have a Twins logo on it (and Vikings and Wild), though its easily defendable in my (and anyone else's) case through fair use.

As was made very plain by the blog post you linked to, it wasn't MLB who shut down the MySpace page, but MySpace itself. A sight that has been known to be more reactive than pro-active when it comes to copyrighted material of late. If your page is easily found, and uses officially liscensed trademarks, it will be shut down.

Originally Posted by -mmm-

easily defendable in my (and anyone else's) case through fair use.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

....in fact, I highly doubt it would hold up in court....problem is, it never gets there...

Perhaps, but probably not as easy as you believe. Even so, it won't be cheap. Are you willing to drop that kind of coin to defend a MySpace page when the owners of that site won't? If fair use is so easy to defend that it won't even end up in court, why doesn't this site include team logos?

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

It's absolutely ludicrous the way baseball, more than any other sport, is so worried about the use of team logos.

I heard these same comments back when Harley Davidson's lawyers were succesfully shutting down/forcing name changes for independant bike shops. The joke at the time was, "If H-D's bikes moved as fast as their lawyers, they'd win alot more races". The truth is, a company has the right to protect it's legally liscensed trademarks. Just because MLB is apparently doing the leg work on this, doesn't mean the NCAA, NFL, NBA, etc. isn't worried about it.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I remember an Astro fan site being shut down (the owner threatened) even tho there was better info..and the site easily as well done...as the Astros own site....

I visit alot of fan sites for different baseball teams, MLB and other leagues, and I can tell you truthfully, that while the opinons expressed on some of those blog sites, message boards, etc. are light speed ahead of what you will read on the various MLB message boards, there isn't any site, professional or otherwise, that is done as well as MLB. Not one even comes close to what MLB provides. I quit playing fantasy football for one simple reason. NFL.com couldn't come close to the model that MLB provides it's fans. Guess what, after a simple check, they still don't. If it's even possible, I believe it might actually be worse than what they have provided in the past.

[SiteWolf]

re the courts, you'll note I said cases never get there, yes?

re why JS doesn't display team logos...you've missed my point, a fan site is not a commercial enterprise and therefore falls into a completely different category

I'm fully aware other leagues/associations have the same concerns...in fact NFL lawyers can be even MORE ambitious about some things...it just happens that the MLB is the most ambitious re logos.

re mlb.com....that I'd agree....I don't remember the situation, don't remember if mlb.com wasn't as good back then or what the deal was....I just remember being more impressed with that fan's site than the Astro's AT THAT TIME.

re mlb.com vs nfl.com- the primary difference? mlb.com isn't run by sportsline...

Certainly, companies have the right to control the use of their trademarks. The primary reasons they WANT that control is so that 1.) others can't make financial gain w/o their approval and 2.) their company isn't being negatively effected w/o their control.

If a fan site isn't making and selling tshirts, etc, that eliminates #1...and if a fan site isn't bashing or otherwise denegrating the team, that at least mostly eliminates #2.

Bottom line being.....professional sports teams are NOT typical businesses- you don't have a bunch of people setting up fan sites about Exxon or WalMart. What's next...should it be illegal for you to use your team's logo as your avatar on forums? Or have more than 4 friends watching a game together at your house?

I just think they are damaging their own game when they police things this much. If they want to request/suggest changes in sites they think denegrate, even unintentionally, their trademarks that's one thing....but they're beginning to get too controlling for the good of their own game.

[ZeroCool]

Yea it was me who started it. Tried working it for a while but then I started a new job and lost track of alot of things. I'll check my emails to see if I can find the log in info and send it over. I think Nick or LOD helped design it so they might have it as well.

[thunder gulch]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

re why JS doesn't display team logos...you've missed my point, a fan site is not a commercial enterprise and therefore falls into a completely different category

However, even if the fan site is not a commercial enterprise, the site is most likely a part of a provider that IS a commercial enterprise, for which that fan pays a fee. If the users get more traffic, that is why the provider is benefitted. That is why someone like MySpace takes their own action. Or something like that.

[rose4prez]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

re the courts, you'll note I said cases never get there, yes?

Yes you did, but if Fair Use was that easy to defend one would think more cases would end up in court.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

re why JS doesn't display team logos...you've missed my point, a fan site is not a commercial enterprise and therefore falls into a completely different category

What? Me miss a point someone was trying to make? I don't think that's ever happened before. But yes, there is a difference between JS and your casual, and some not so casual, fans sites. My bad for linking to JS to make my point last night.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I'm fully aware other leagues/associations have the same concerns...in fact NFL lawyers can be even MORE ambitious about some things...it just happens that the MLB is the most ambitious re logos.

If we can go back to my original analogy concerning H-D's lawyers for a minute. H-D had people stopping at bars that dared had anything to do with H-D's logos posted in their windows. Forgive me, but I'm very passionate about two things in this life, motorcycycles and baseball. And I can tell you that MLBAM has been tame so far in protecting it's logos.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

re mlb.com....that I'd agree....I don't remember the situation, don't remember if mlb.com wasn't as good back then or what the deal was....I just remember being more impressed with that fan's site than the Astro's AT THAT TIME.

You don't remember the situation and I have no idea which fan site your talking about, but it doesn't suprise me that a fan site might have better opinions/discussions/timely information than does the MLBAM run site. I visit a fan site for a certain Major League team that has family members and even the beat writers for that team who occasionally post. It still doesn't give that site the right to use protected logos

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

re mlb.com vs nfl.com- the primary difference? mlb.com isn't run by sportsline...

MLBAM uses the same template across all of the team sites. There isn't any reason SportsLine couldn't do the same. The NFL just needs to take control of the content they provide it's fans. It really doesn't matter who the content provider is.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Certainly, companies have the right to control the use of their trademarks. The primary reasons they WANT that control is so that 1.) others can't make financial gain w/o their approval and 2.) their company isn't being negatively effected w/o their control.

MLB and MLBAM (while currently private) are still a business, and as such, have every right to protect their trademarks. It doesn't matter what the primary reasons are.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

If a fan site isn't making and selling tshirts, etc, that eliminates #1...and if a fan site isn't bashing or otherwise denegrating the team, that at least mostly eliminates #2.

If a fan site isn't bashing at least some of the moves it's particular team makes, then well IMO, it probably isn't worth the time to visit. You know this yourself, any site has to have money to keep it going. Just because a site doesn't sell the team logo on a t-shirt, doesn't give that site the right to use a legally protected logo.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

Bottom line being.....professional sports teams are NOT typical businesses- you don't have a bunch of people setting up fan sites about Exxon or WalMart. What's next...should it be illegal for you to use your team's logo as your avatar on forums? Or have more than 4 friends watching a game together at your house?

While MLB may not be typical in some explanations of the term, they are still a business none the less and have the right to protect their logos. If a site allows you to use protected logos in your avatars, that should be questioned. That just might fall under Fair Use. This should have been covered during the past, what half dozen Super Bowls, but you can have a thousand friends over to watch a game. Just as long as you don't make any money on the venture. It's illegal to show a movie in your home when you charge any type of admission. It's the same way for sporting events. People always get torn up over this during the Super Bowl, but seriously, I've never seen the problem.

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I just think they are damaging their own game when they police things this much. If they want to request/suggest changes in sites they think denegrate, even unintentionally, their trademarks that's one thing....but they're beginning to get too controlling for the good of their own game.

O, you change just a couple of words in that comment and it sounds just like the comments made about H-D back in the day. Baseball is strong now. Strong as it's ever been. Attendance records every day at both the minor and major league levels. And that's with performance enhanching drug cloud hovering over. Fans don't even understand that for Christ's sake. I doubt their too concerned about MLBAM protecting it's own logos.

[P562045]

I have a question about this.

Would it just be easier for myspace to shut down one of its pages instead of going through the legal hassle of fighting MLB or for that matter any other sport over trademark, copyright and other issues that might come up?

I have not actually read the Terms of Service for Myspace but I would go out on a limb and say if a person read it really closely that Myspace can shut down any of their Webpages without notice for the things I just mentioned.

So who owns the pages on Myspace in the first place? Is it Myspace or the person that uses their pages?

Isn't youtube having trouble with having copyrighted material on its Website? It doesn't just say broadcast yourself for no reason at all and by the way that phrase is trademarked.

This is actually a good discussion and I may change my blog at least some.

Can a person somewhere on the MLB Website pay to have their own blog and write about things that interest them? I seem to remember that the NHL may have something similar as well. I don't even really remember if logos can be used on those pages or not.

[-mmm-]

Reading the Terms & Conditions page, it basically says the person running the page is responsible for the content on it.

[rose4prez]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

I have a question about this.

Would it just be easier for myspace to shut down one of its pages instead of going through the legal hassle of fighting MLB or for that matter any other sport over trademark, copyright and other issues that might come up?

Yes. Would you want to fight the lawyers at MLBAM?

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

I have not actually read the Terms of Service for Myspace but I would go out on a limb and say if a person read it really closely that Myspace can shut down any of their Webpages without notice for the things I just mentioned.

Me neither. I'm 40 years old and have no use for a MySpace page. I'd be willing to bet that they have every right to shut down any page they see fit though. Doesn't the owner of this site have the right to delete any objectional posts/threads?

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

So who owns the pages on Myspace in the first place? Is it Myspace or the person that uses their pages?

MySpace...

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

Isn't youtube having trouble with having copyrighted material on its Website? It doesn't just say broadcast yourself for no reason at all and by the way that phrase is trademarked.

Yes they are. And they have been deleting videos too.

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

This is actually a good discussion and I may change my blog at least some.

I wouldn't change the way I blog untill I was forced to, but that's just me. I hate authority.

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

Can a person somewhere on the MLB Website pay to have their own blog and write about things that interest them? I seem to remember that the NHL may have something similar as well. I don't even really remember if logos can be used on those pages or not.

MLBAM has their own blogs and I think anyone can have their own, but I'm not sure. I'm not a blogger myself, but I think there free at MLB.com.

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Reading the Terms & Conditions page, it basically says the person running the page is responsible for the content on it.

And if their page gets shut down with out warning, they are equally responsible for the consequences of their actions. I'm down with that. As long as they don't b*tch about it after the fact.