Texas A & M challenging Seattle's use of 12th man - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Texas A & M challenging Seattle's use of 12th man

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby flotsamnjetsam » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:15 pm

SniperShot wrote:Umm Seattle has had this 12th man stuff going on for 21 years and now A&M is going to have a problem with it? What about 21 years ago eh?


Exactly.

EVERY football team both college & pro refer to the home crowd as the 12th man.

I think the biggest joke is the fact that A&M was allowed to have exclusive rights to this term in the 1st place.

:-t
flotsamnjetsam
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerTrivia Time Trial ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 17170
(Past Year: 79)
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New York State Of Mind: 18-1

Postby merc » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:38 pm

No they don't override our rights under the constitution although there are certain provisions under the digital millenium act and protection to original musical performance that are of questional constitutionality, and this isn't a copyright case either its a trademark case litigated under the Lanham Act passed in 1946 to protect registered trademarks, marks that have developed secondary meaning, and famous marks. Also when you purchase copyrighted material you have full right to dispose of that work as you see fit, assuming that you don't copy it or display it publicly.
Oooh... seems like I found a Cafe member from either Hollywood or MSville... :-D

First, the Hollywood bought DMCA does indeed override our right to privacy and of our previously upheld right to Fair Use by simply saying NO when they use ANY sort of copy protection on the disc... including the long ago broken CSS.

And... as an extension to the DMCA, Hollywood is now going to become the hacker with its' AACP hacking of gear we legally bought, which for any reason is outside the business agreements between Hollywood and the manufacturer. In effect, AACP will look at your hardware(components) and "break" those components via hacking, which don't have some sort of Hollywood quality seal associated with its' internal chipsets.

And, a part of AACP includes a "phone home" component which will notify the Studios of your owning a component which they did not approve, and let them know where that component resides...

And folks here are worried about the 12th man crap? ;-)

No... it goes alot deeper than that... go ahead now and order that "Pay for View" movie... :-t
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby Gnu314 » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:00 pm

No actually I'm a law student and I actually know what I'm talking about, though some of what you say is true. In fact the privacy invasion stuff that they're getting away with now upsets me.

Theres a lot of special interest stuff lately involving exactly what you're talking about and its true that its bad. Special interest, the RIAA, and the MPAA do control too much of our legislation. Without getting into politics I don't think that the spying regulations will hold up for too much longer considering the constraints of the copyright clause and the change in the supreme court.

The point is, though, that this dosn't have anything to do with copyright (federal) or with patent law. Regardless of what you think about those laws its a pretty simple trademark case in my opinion.
Image
Gnu314
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 2630
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Back to Detroit

Postby merc » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:26 pm

The point is, though, that this dosn't have anything to do with copyright (federal) or with patent law.
True... but it is tied to it in a sad, sad way, IMO.

Isn't it just strange that copyrights for movies and music last FOREVER and that for a cancer cure has a limit between 7 and at most ... years? No wonder our movies are getting better while our cancer cures are yet to come???

The lifetime return for investment right now is in music and movies and NOT disease cure research. :-t
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:15 am

so tell me why the length of copyright has been extended? Seems to me like Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain by now.

I may not be a law student, but I have read a fair amount on the subject and have written news stories etc, so I have a foot in the pond.

Gotta gree with Merc in principle. Yes, there is obviosuly a need for copyright and trademark. I don't think anyone serisouly dispute this. However, there are some serious flaws in recent developments. Traditionally, in te era of vhs and cassete, it was not illegal to copy tabes for your own personal use, it was illegal to braodcast it. Think back tot he cases of xerox, and how the book publishers unsuccesfully lobbied against that company. In fact, think about the networks lobbying against the cable companies, for "violating copyright"--cable comapnies were essentially taking broadcast content and redistributing it. Society said too bad to the broadcast companies and instituted mandatory licensing.

In regards tot he DMCA does unfairly infringe on my fair use rights. I can't load a DVD onto my iPOD because of that law. How is that fair? I bought the DVD, I should have the right to watch it on a device that I own,that suppossedly shows video. I should also be able to load that DVD onto my computer, as I should have the right to create a derivative work, this technology prevents that.

I have a right to copy software that I bought, why not a movie? I am allowed to back up music?

The point is, this law was passed wehn only the geeks understood the ramifications. But as inventions penetrate the wider audience, everyday people will realize the serious holes.

What hollywood and artists fail to realize is that by commercializing their product, by definition they have to yield some percentage of ownership, otherwise there is no utility to having purchased it int he first place.

I find it telling that it seems to me like some other countries, France notably seem to be going to a hybrid "mandatory licensing"model.

It also seems to me very telling that a company such as Disney makes billions of of public domain stories like Alladin, Beatuy and the Beast, etc., yet so zealousy guards their "property"

I also find it telling that music companies aren't that happy with iTunes etc. citing copyright issues, etc. The obvious reasons is crap like britney spears just earned you two bucks (for the two "good" singles) instead of the 12 bucks to buy the whole album. ?Ultimately music and hollywood are resistingconsumer demand, and that is not usually wise strategy.

I mean seriously, the price of buying a DVD for me is the same as taking my girlfriend. Throw in snacks, going costs 10-15 more. How does it make sense? They really need to rethink the whole lot of it IMO.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:18 am

merc wrote:
The point is, though, that this dosn't have anything to do with copyright (federal) or with patent law.
True... but it is tied to it in a sad, sad way, IMO.

Isn't it just strange that copyrights for movies and music last FOREVER and that for a cancer cure has a limit between 7 and at most ... years? No wonder our movies are getting better while our cancer cures are yet to come???

The lifetime return for investment right now is in music and movies and NOT disease cure research. :-t


I forget what it is, but its something like life of author plus 70 years. The orginal copyright law was something like 20 years plus a renewal of 20 years. Something stinks anyway you slice it, becasue as art is created and accepted it does become a part of public consciousness. And since no development occurs in a vacuum, striking the right balance is key.

Imagine if White Castle or Ford or something trademarked or could otherwise limit who got to use their business model? I know this is related, not absoloutely parallel, but it is worth thinking about. Or if Baseball gets away with holding the copyrightfor fantasy baseball? IT limits competition in theinstance of trademark,and hampers further creation in the event of copyright.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby merc » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:22 am

In regards tot he DMCA does unfairly infringe on my fair use rights. I can't load a DVD onto my iPOD because of that law. How is that fair? I bought the DVD, I should have the right to watch it on a device that I own,that suppossedly shows video. I should also be able to load that DVD onto my computer, as I should have the right to create a derivative work, this technology prevents that.
And it is only gonna get worse....
HDTV and digital radio are broadcast into our homes in guess what... digital format. That means that the DMCA is in force if desired and if the studios or broadcasters put any kind of copy protection on it at all... there goes our ability to timeshift and record our TV and radio...

I own a Cablecard Sony HD500 HD-DVR and pay TWC extra for HD broadcasting and for the cablecard rental... and yet, for the first few months I owned this unit, I could not record HD movies for later viewing off of a couple of channels(TNT-HD being one). Apparently, someone at TWC had flipped a switch which sent a "copy-never" signal to my DVR and even though the unit accepted the programming to record the movie, when it tried to do so, the "copy never" bits turned it off...

Anyway, TWC has since fixed the problem, but it just goes to show what is in our future, where EVERYTHING will be "pay for each use".

And, BTW, the RIAA has suggested that new digital radios come with a "Buy Button" which would allow folks to make a single recording of a program or music selection... :-t

I'd guess that if Hollywood gets away with totally removing our ability to practice fair use in timeshifting and recording even TV, then a "pay for each use" system with regard to NFL statistics can't be too far behind. :-o
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby merc » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:29 am

As for the differences in copyright/patent lifespans... the current law is ludicrous.

To think that some poor genious professor can invent the cure for cancer and he gets to profit from it for only 7+ years, while Tarentino makes Pulp Fiction and can live off of that teat for his entire life... just isn't right, IMO. I'd love to see all creative works/inventions limited to 7-10 years with regard to copyright/patent life.
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:31 pm

and a corporation should definitely have a different, less lenient copyright. A corporation never dies,etc.

Devil's advocate though: not many individual geniouses cure disease anymore, but the point IMO is well-taken.

Only difference is statistics are generally considered to be "fact" which is why mlb probably won't win.

Einsteing couldn't copyrght e=MCsquared,you can't copyright laws fo thermodynamics etc. They make an exception for medicine because the formula is a fact, but it is also a development.

I alwasy wondered waht would happen if the recipe for coke got out, could you make an identical product and sell it? I think so, but I wonder how hard coke would lobby on that one.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby merc » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:48 am

and a corporation should definitely have a different, less lenient copyright. A corporation never dies,etc. Devil's advocate though: not many individual geniouses cure disease anymore, but the point IMO is well-taken.
True... and not many individuals create music CDs or movie DVDs either...
7-10 years max... for everything.
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 22:26 hours
(and 34 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact