MLB Fans Sites Getting the Ax

I would guess that the pittance they could make off of the official site would pale compared to the money that stands to be made by cultivating a strong fan base in many states and countries.

I would not be much of a Rockets fan if I hadn't started reading this site. My wife and I would not attend the 5-10 games per year that we do. AND I would not spend any time talking about the Rockets to my co-workers, so the Rockets would be losing a product evangelist.

 

AMEN!!!

This is what has become a classic case of corporate "Cut off your nose to spite your face" tactics. This is not new by any means -- it seems to be more popular now than ever before. The higher-ups think "this is a possible money-making venture, we must protect it for ourselves" all the while losing sight of the fact that they will make MORE money if they give fans some leeway in their actions.

They <i>are</i> completely within their right to do this. But I think it's pure crap. They don't make enough money off of TV contracts and ticket sales? Can we not be fans unless we are MLB Licensed fans?

 

you're right -- they could've shut the sites down, no questions asked, and been well within their rights to do so.

Ummm, this was exactly the point of their C&D letters. How else do you propose they shut down the site? Go to the ISP and physically pull the plug? You don't just file a lawsuit because that's a waste of their own money. This is exactly how you shut the site down if you want. You send a letter of intent to file a lawsuit and that's exactly what they did.

They do not have any sort of claim on the domain name, so they could not file a suit to grab control of the domain name. astrosdaily is too generic a domain -- it could be changed to any type of astronomy or astrology site very easily.

while i'd love to stand on idealistic ground and chide MLB for being so out of touch and/or uncompromising... i mean, my god, the sites were breaking the law. it's really hard to find a fault with MLB's actions.

This site does the same thing. And the NBA knows that and worked with fan sites on a mutually beneficial solution. It creates more rabid fans which helps raise attendance and interest in the NBA. Like I said, a better solution. Is this really that difficult a concept?

Just because you can go sue or threaten someone doesn't mean there's not a better option. And as BobFinn posted, they might have come to their senses and decided to do that.
They could have pissed off far fewer fans if they chose that course of action in the first place.

 

ummmm, no, it wasn't. nowhere in their letter did they order the site to cease operations; it merely stated they were no longer allowed to use copyrighted material. if they removed all logos and pictures by the appointed date, they'd be in compliance and allowed to carry on. period. end of story.

what you might fail to understand is that MLB's flexed only a portion of their muscle. conceivably, they could have prohibited the site from using the term "astros" in certain contexts, which, again, isn't technically an order to cease operations, but might as well be. but they didn't excercise that option.

what they did was make a move to protect their copyright. i'm at a loss how anyone could find fault in that.

i think the arguement is blurring... i'm not contending it was a wise move; quite the contrary, i think it's rather silly. and MLB's timing, as usual, was awful. and sure, it'd be great if they could find some common middle ground to keep everyone happy. but i certainly understand where they're coming from, and legally, they're on very solid ground.

maybe the NBA's more progressive, but then, the NBA's also not on course to obliterate it's very existence, so i'm not sure we should be expecting MLB to follow other leagues' leads.

bottom line, the sites were illegal; MLB asked them to, not shut down, but comply with written laws in order to operate.

 

ummmm, no, it wasn't. nowhere in their letter did they order the site to cease operations; it merely stated they were no longer allowed to use copyrighted material. if they removed all logos and pictures by the appointed date, they'd be in compliance and allowed to carry on. period. end of story.

That's all they can do. They do NOT have the right to require a website shut down if the site is not doing anything illegal.

what you might fail to understand is that MLB's flexed only a portion of their muscle. conceivably, they could have prohibited the site from using the term "astros" in certain contexts, which, again, isn't technically an order to cease operations, but might as well be. but they didn't excercise that option.

The website has the right to use the word Astros in certain contexts - for example, any newsworthy context cannot be prohibited. They cannot remove freedom of speech to discuss the Astros. They have legal trademark over the name "Astros", but that does not apply to ALL uses of the word. For example, they cannot legally bar this post simply because I referred to the "Astros". The C&D letter referred to all the easy-to-legally-support copyrighted material. To fight anything else would probably require a great deal of time and effort. The C&D letter was simply, straightforward and clearly correct.

If AstrosDaily was interested in running a watered-down version of their site, I doubt MLB could stop them except by trying to scare Ray away by filing silly lawsuits.

i think the arguement is blurring... i'm not contending it was a wise move; quite the contrary, i think it's rather silly. and MLB's timing, as usual, was awful. and sure, it'd be great if they could find some common middle ground to keep everyone happy. but i certainly understand where they're coming from, and legally, they're on very solid ground.

And NO ONE has argued this point. Of course MLB has the right to do this -- that has been stated multiple times. All people are saying is that MLB is ridiculously stupid, as has been demonstrated by the fact that there are better options.

 

Sorry Ric I disagree with you, just because they have the RIGHT to do it doesn't mean it's SMART to do it! Yeah they break the law, then we all break the law everyday. Whenever you're taping a baseball, or football, or basketball game you're breaking the law. The problem is, a sport is forcing their fans to shut down fan sites, and that is a death sentence for a sport that is losing popularity and fans by the droves. Look, it's against the law to start up a fan site for movies. Say you produce a movie, and it becomes a hit, and fans start making fan pages devoted to the movie, and it gains popularity because of it, and you decide to flex your right and force the sites to close. You're killing the popularity of the sport. One thing that keeps fans of sports around it interacting with OTHER fans.

<b>what they did was make a move to protect their copyright. i'm at a loss how anyone could find fault in that.
</b>

I find fault in it because "protecting" your copyright from a group of people who aren't making money from it, but are in fact helping YOU make money off of it (attracting more fans) is stupid. This is the same sport that is talking about striking, and in effect driving away fans.

<b>bottom line, the sites were illegal; MLB asked them to, not shut down, but comply with written laws in order to operate.</b>

Next time you look at a sporting event that you taped (whether it's old Rockets games you taped, or any other event you taped), then remember that you're breaking the law. That's how far it goes when defending copyrights. If MLB was smart they would compromise. Protect their copyrights while at the same time give some flexibility to the same fans who have supported them despite the dramatic decrease in baseball's popularity. At least reward the fans that have stood by you, not try and flash some legal muscle and try and show them up or bury them.

Bottomline, a sport that is screwing the fans by having playoff games late night, raising ticket prices, canceling playoff games, and having people suspicious of performance enhancing drugs, generally doing stupid thing after stupid, they should have the common sense and decency to wait until they get THEIR house in order before they bully the fans that they're getting ready to screw over.

 

<b>bottom line, the sites were illegal; MLB asked them to, not shut down, but comply with written laws in order to operate.</b>

That's the problem. Basically baseball is forcing these sites to shut down without actually saying it. Sure they didn't say it, but if I took the tires off of your car, and left you the car, all you would have is a worthless machine.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ClutchCity.net has the right to use NBA copyrighted photographs as part of the deal with giving up the old ClutchCity.com domain name.

Why doesn't ClutchCity.com forward you to TheRocketGuy.com like it used to?

 

What a bunch of morons.

Does MLB even employ ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about Public Relations?

I mean, holy ****, did they keep a list of their potential fan bases and make it their mission in life to alienate each and every one of them?

Don't they know anything about timing?

When did we turn baseball over to the Keystone Cops?

 

I think we may be blurring the issues. This is largely an issue of trademark, not copyright. I agree that use of the logo is something that would have to be worked out between the parties. Use of the name Astros in news bites/threads is something I don't think they can control.

As for photos, etc... The site obviously cannot use a photo that has been copyrighted. The copyright, however, belongs to the photographer unless he/she has sold that right to another entity. Anybody who has contracted for wedding photos knows that they have to buy the copyright or else you can't make copies of your wedding pictures later. Even if other, independently taken photos of Astros in uniform etc were protected by intellectual property laws, there is the concept of "fair use," which is embodied in the Copyright Act of 1976. I'm not sure that this qualifies, but it certainly is an argument worth making.

 

The photo belongs to the photographer. But the image belongs to MLB.

 

man, oh, man, i gotta get the internet at home... OK, i'll try to respond to as many of these as humanly possible without using up too much of clutch's badwidth....

should we maybe back this up a bit? you realize copyright infringement is illegal, right? and therefore, the sites were operating... illegally?

i'm no lawyer, so i'm not sure how far their reach extends, legally, but MLB certainly could have sued and/or pressed charges against the sites for what they did; they violated copyright laws... "laws" being the operative term.

uhm... i know... that's why this idea that MLB is shutting down the sites is off the mark.

all they're doing is forcing the sites to remove copyrighted material (btw, AD also contains audio clips, also protected by MLB), they are not preventing them from maintaining their sites, nor are they impacting their content. they're not even hasseling them over their URL's, which i bet would be a sticky issue.

it's legal to record games, illegal to rebroadcast or retransmit them (everybody!) "without the express written consent of major league baseball." IOW, you cannot profit from the broadcast. legally.

how is providing a viable alternative to official ML sites helping the sport make money? do you visit the official rocket site, or come here exclusively? personally, i couldn't even tell you the official site's URL. therefore, i'm not being exposed to the advertising the nba both employs and sells on their sites, and that's, in effect, costing them money.

and again, i have to stress, MLB is not altering the sites in any way beyond simple asethics. the content, opinions and information would remain unchanged.

wait a second... logos are more vital to a site's success than its content? if clutch was forced to remove the rocket logo from the bbs, this place would cease being a wonderful place to exchange ideas and share opinions? come on...

the tire analogy is, quite frankly, a terrible one; it's more akin to removing a brand spankin' new paint job from a car -- would the car still run just the same without it? yep, it just wouldn't look as nice.

btw, if you know anything about graphics and what not... in all actuality, the site would load much quicker and be much easier to navigate without them.

likely no, but it seems they have a few people on staff who understand copyright law.

sure, the timing sucks; yeah, it'd be great if they were more accomodating... but this is being blown out of proportion. they're merely, legally, protecting their intellectual property.

 

I have a terrible memory. I probably heard something a few years ago and it morphed in my head into something entirely different.

 

Categorically untrue. The right to make copies and to allow others to make copies (such as posting them on a WEBSITE) belongs to the photographer. Just because I own an embodiment of the photo (a copy of it) does not give me the right to say who can and who cannot make a copy. That right belongs to the photographer, unless I had purchased that right from them.

Photographers have used stock photos they have taken of celebritys for purposes never intended (ie an ad for herpes medicine), and it has been found to not violate copyright because the photographer owns the copyright.

 

admitedly, i'm not a lawyer, but i'm fairly certain you're wrong; at least with regards to use of a photograph.

were it true, ashley judd would be "selling" condoms and brad pitt would be "endorsing" coors... yet, i can't think of a single instance in which a celebrity photograph, or even likeness, has been used legally to endorse a product without the celebrity's consent. and those few that try it are immeadiately, and successfully, sued.

regarding baseball, they have a player's union (obviously) and use of a player's image has to at least be approved by them. there's also the issue of whether the photo contains copyrighted trademarks of MLB, etc.

 

I would differ with your opinion that using a photograph of a celebrity in a herpes ad without additional permission would be legal. We do have a right to publicity, as well. (The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion. There's also the Tort of Misappropriation, but that's another point for another day)

Perhaps I could legally use said photo to illustrate a magazine article about herpes, but use in advertising is a different animal.

 

I disagree with Ric for the very well stated point by mrpaige. We were talking about copyright and I really wanted to stay out of a right to privacy and right of publicity debate. But since you brought it up, you are right. Perhaps it was a bad example on my part. It is important to note that only individuals have the right of publicity. Corporations (like the Astros) do not have this cause of action available to them.

 

Just as an update: Astros Daily will stay up! Baseball needs more of this. I am very impressed that the Astros actually stepped in and did something.

 

should we maybe back this up a bit? you realize copyright infringement is illegal, right? and therefore, the sites were operating... illegally?

i'm no lawyer, so i'm not sure how far their reach extends, legally, but MLB certainly could have sued and/or pressed charges against the sites for what they did; they violated copyright laws... "laws" being the operative term.


Do you even read posts before responding, or do you just take quotes out-of-context to make it look like you know something?

(1) If you had read ANY of the posts in this thread, you would have seen that I mentioned multiple times that MLB has the right to do what they did. NO ONE IS QUESTIONING THAT.

(2) In case you're not familiar with the law, you don't just go around suing people. First, you send a letter such as MLB did. It's called common courtesy aka trying to resolve things without a lawsuit aka trying to save tons of money.

(3) Now, for the quote out-of-context that you used, here is the quote. Let's trace it backwards:

ME: <I>That's all they can do. They do NOT have the right to require a website shut down if the site is not doing anything illegal.</I>

Replying to YOUR: <I>ummmm, no, it wasn't. nowhere in their letter did they order the site to cease operations; it merely stated they were no longer allowed to use copyrighted material. if they removed all logos and pictures by the appointed date, they'd be in compliance and allowed to carry on. period. end of story</I>

Which was a reply to MY: <I>Ummm, this was exactly the point of their C&D letters. How else do you propose they shut down the site? Go to the ISP and physically pull the plug? You don't just file a lawsuit because that's a waste of their own money. This is exactly how you shut the site down if you want. You send a letter of intent to file a lawsuit and that's exactly what they did.
</I>

Which was a reply to your initial ridiculous point: <I>you're right -- they could've shut the sites down, no questions asked, and been well within their rights to do so. </I>

As you can see, I was pointing out that THEY CANNOT MAKE A LEGAL SITE SHUT DOWN. Unlike your ridiculous assertion that they could shut down the site "no questions asked", all that they could actually do is make them remove illegal content making the site into a legal site, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. Your assertion that they could have done more is completely false. They did exactly what the law allowed them to do.

Nowhere in there did I say or imply copyright infringement wasn't illegal and you damn well know that. If you want to actually have a conversation, don't try to take quotes and twist them to fit whatever you want them to say.

Just as an update: Astros Daily will stay up! Baseball needs more of this. I am very impressed that the Astros actually stepped in and did something.

Yep. Amazing what a little bit of common sense does instead of throwing around C&D letters. If they had just done that in the first place, MLB would have saved a bunch of bad publicity. Ray's story (pre-compromise) spread all over the place and pissed tons of fans off. MLB has serious PR problems and this is one of those things that did nothing good for them, although it ended up making the Astros look good by coming in and mediating the situation.

Dumb, assinine move by MLB.