OT: Taking sports too seriously
 

Another one for JR to file in his "You can't make this s*#& up" folder.


June 17, 2010
S. African killed by wife, kids in TV spat


<script type="text/javascript"> jQuery.getScriptCache('http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/c/?js=espn.tools.r1.js', function() { espn.core.init.tools(5297052,'http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5297052/ce/us/south-african-man-killed-wife-kids-changing-tv-germany-australia-game'); }); </script> <cite class="source"> Associated Press
</cite>
<!-- end mod-article-title --> <!-- begin story body --> JOHANNESBURG -- Police say a South African man who wanted to watch a World Cup match instead of a religious program was beaten to death by his family in the northeastern part of the country.
David Makoeya, a 61-year-old man from the small village of Makweya, Limpopo province, fought with his wife and two children for the remote control on Sunday because he wanted to watch Germany play Australia in the World Cup. The others, however, wanted to watch a gospel show.
"He said, 'No, I want to watch soccer,'" police spokesman Mothemane Malefo said Thursday. "That is when the argument came about.
"In that argument, they started assaulting him."
Malefo said Makoeya got up to change the channel by hand after being refused the remote control and was attacked by his 68-year-old wife Francina and two children, 36-year-old son Collin and 23-year-old daughter Lebogang.
Malefo said he was not sure what the family used to kill Makoeya.
"It appears they banged his head against the wall," Malefo said. "They phoned the police only after he was badly injured, but by the time the police arrived the man was already dead."
All three were arrested Sunday night, but Lebogang was released on $200 bail Tuesday, Malefo said. The other two are still being held in custody.
Malefo said the mother and son will reappear in the local Seshego Magistrates Court on July 27.
"He was always a happy man, never violent," Makoeya's nieces, Miriam and Anna, told the Daily Sun newspaper. "On Saturday, we saw him the last time at a funeral."
The World Cup, being played in Africa for the first time, started Friday and runs through July 11.

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press

As if we needed another reason not to watch futbol. :rolleyes:

All in the family?
 

While this story happened under very unusual circumstances, a Google Search shows unfortunately as we know, fans are more the problem. Sad:

Angry soccer fans kill goaltender. | SportsFilter
Jan 18, 2010 ... A teenage goalkeeper for Benin's national youth soccer team was killed by angry fans after a loss to Nigeria in a weekend match, ...

Iraqi Soccer Player Killed By Fan During Game-Tying Shot
Mar 16, 2009 ... BAGHDAD — Police say an Iraqi soccer player has been shot dead just as he was about to kick what could have been the tying goal in a weekend ...

Iraqi Goalie Killed in Victory Shooting - NYTimes.comMar 16, 2009 ... BAGHDAD — Victory celebrations at a soccer match in Iraq ended abruptly when a fan accidentally shot the winning goalie to death, ...

Colombian Soccer Player Kills Fan For Calling Him "Lousy"
Jul 5, 2009 ... A Colombian soccer player shot and killed a fan for calling him "lousy" on Sunday, days after the player's team lost a local championship, ...

Iraqi fan shoots soccer player dead
Jun 14, 2010 ... An Iraqi fan has shot dead a soccer player of the opposing team as he ... Iraqi footballer Heidar Kazem was shot in the head and killed by a fan...

Suspect arrested in Mexico in soccer killing - World Soccer ...
Jun 15, 2010 ... He is the third soccer player to be shot in the Mexican capital this year. ... death of a soccer player who was killed in an apparent robbery attempt ... Compete against soccer fans worldwide. Sign up for fantasy World

Soccer Player Salvador Cabanas Shot in Head in Mexican Bar ...Jan 25, 2010 ... Paraguayan soccer standout Salvador Cabanas is in serious condition ... Its upsetting because they dont think about his family or fans. ...

Unfortunately there were many, many more pages......

Looks more like the family took their religion too seriously; or not seriously enough, depending on how you look at it.

And also into the ol' folder goes this l'il gem.....

The Pittsburgh Pirates fired their racing pierogi for making critical remarks about their team management.

Pirates fire racing pierogi mascot for Facebook criticism - USATODAY.com

Oh, the humanity, the humanity........:eek:

Not to worry though. He's already been offered a job by a minor league team as a racing hot dog.

OT - for the OT
 

The Washington Nationals version of the races is the "Running of the Presidents" - Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. In "all the yrs" the Nats have been in DC, Teddy has never, ever run a race. :eek:

At Starsburg's first game against Pittsburgh, the Pierogi's joined the President's in the race between innings. As it came down to the end of the race one of the Pierogi's tackled another using a flying, shoulder to the gut tackle that would have made Lawrence Taylor proud (LT the football player, not the druggie). Great fun.

PS - many of us believe Teddy will win a race either the day the Nats wrap up a playoff spot or host their first playoff game......whenever that is. Run Teddy, run!

If I were the defense attorney I would have my client plead Innocent by reason of insanity brought on by vuvuzelas! My client wouldn't even see the courtroom!
Violence and sport will always be intertwined, you can only hope to keep it under control. And if you actually have watched the World Cup games you will see several commercials for Sportsmanship (which are much better than the NCAA's) and severl displays of GOOD sportsmanship. Unfortunately, it is better to show the "flops" and Red Card fouls.

Update!
 

Juarassic - you'll probably sleep better tonight!

Pirates put pierogi back in the race

Whew, it was like a death in my family.

Hell, the only reason to watch the Pirates is the Pierogi race.

My in-laws are Pirates fans. We have a pool on the next player to be traded. My money is on Lastings Milledge.

Milledge could one day threaten Milton Bradley's record for times traded...or wearing out his welcome

Milledge Has a Long Way to Go.....
 

Bradley does have a few yrs on him......

Milledge = NYM, Wash, Pitt

Bradley = Mon, Cle, LAD, Oak, SDP, Tex, CHC, SEA

From Cool Hand Luke - Prisoner: "Hey, Babalugats. We got a bet here."

I know it's a hopeless battle, but I must nevertheless request that you respect fair-use doctrines and not copy-and-paste entire works to this or any other forum.

Or what? :confused:

You'll sic your beloved Coach K on him? :eek:

If there was a problem, the mods would have taken care of it.

Don't take yourself too seriously, Dookie. We don't. :D

What I take seriously is that when you do what the OP did, you're stealing. I'm guessing that IP has never constituted a significant source of income for you. If it had, methinks you'd take this issue a little more seriously.

Nice to see that your commitment to enforcing rules is unwavering. And as for the mods, the fact that they have failed to address this issue after repeated requests to do so doesn't make their lax attitude about it acceptable.

You don't see what's so damn hard about using clear, concise officiating terminology (I don't either). And I don't see what's so damn hard about posting a link so that the people that are paying for a writer's work can get their deserved clicks. This forum didn't pay anything for that story or any other, so the owners here shouldn't get to have eyeballs on this URL while people read others' copyrighted work. It's not hard.

Since I'm not in the mass media business, perhaps I don't understand exactly how this works and the crux of your complaint. Maybe you can enlighten me.

As you can clearly see, the story which I posted does not have a named author rather it comes from the Associated Press. I did some checking into what that is. Here is what I found:

FAQs | The Associated Press

2. Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.

5. How can I become a member of The Associated Press and receive AP services?
If you are a newspaper, radio or television station, you can become a member of the AP cooperative.

6. How do I get permission to reprint an AP story or photo?
All requests for republication of AP material must be in writing, clearly stating the purpose and manner in which the copy will be used. All republished material must carry AP credit. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all permission is given for one-time use only. No political candidate, political party, political action committee, polemical organization, or any group formed for partisan purpose may use AP copy in any publication. There may be a fee for reprint use. For permission to reprint an AP story or to use AP material in online/electronic
form:
E-mail AP Digital: [email protected], or fax 212-621-5488.

8. How can I get a copy of an AP story or photo?
AP stories are available on Lexis/Nexis at your local library.

So while I don't fully understand their business model, apparently, I was not harming any individual writer by posting the story as to my knowledge no one in particular claims AP works. Personally, I've never seen a by-line on an AP story.

The group is not out to make money as it is a not-for-profit cooperative. Obviously, the writers have to make some money for their efforts, but how that works and how much is a mystery to me.

I couldn't become a member of the AP if I wanted to as only newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations may do so.

In republishing the material as hundreds of media sources routinely do, I did include the AP credit as is asked.

If one writes to them and asks for permission to reprint one of there stories, it seems unlikely that they will want a fee. Their posted information clearly states that there may be a fee, not that there is one!

All of their stories are available for nothing at any public library, so what possible harm is it to post one on this internet forum in order to share it with other readers? It seems to me that the AP freely distributes their news through our public libraries anyway.

You make a very strong statement that my OP constitutes stealing. Now I challenge you to support that.
Are you contending that if I or anyone else went to my local public library to read this story that I would somehow have to pay for it? If the library pays a fee to the AP make their material available haven't my tax dollars paid for it whether I go there or not?

I see that you think that certain entities carrying these stories deserve "clicks" on their sites. So is the business model of the AP to create content, sell that content to distributors, then have the distributors post it along with advertising which is purchased from them so that when a reader goes to that distributors to read the content they also view the ads? Is this how the AP writers make their salaries? Are they creators of content to be packaged and sold with advertising? If you are worried about the distributors getting their due, I can't sympathize with that. They seem to simply be middlemen who have created a closed monopoly. They set up a system from which only they have access to purchasing the content and then hope to turn around and sell this access to it for an even greater amount. What about that makes them deserving of anything? They didn't create squat.
Of course, the above is only the case for private distributors, but what about the public ones such as the libraries? They don't sell advertising or even membership. All of their funding comes from tax dollars. If the AP sells its content to them, didn't I actually pay for it with my tax contribution? So I'm not depriving those hard-working newsgatherers of any revenue. It's only debatable if I am depriving those in the carefully crafted distribution network of supporting numbers used to market themselves to advertisers.
While it is true that this site didn't pay the AP for the story, it isn't known as, nor does it depict itself as, a place where people can come to consistently read AP material. Posting an occasional story from them isn't going to circumvent the normal distribution model nor hurt the AP's revenue stream.
I think that I will write to the AP and ask them some of these questions in order to better understand what they do and how the do it. Until I learn otherwise, I think that your claims are nothing more than hyperbole.

BTW you contacted Duke University and obtained permission and of course paid for the ability to include their name in your screen handle, right?

Aw geeze, Dookie, they couldn't pull a needle out of your azz with a tractor. Please never change. You're a hoot.


Oh, and btw.....
http://www.forumspile.com/Care-Map.jpg

Well, at least jbduke is somewhat on-topic, as he's taking something too seriously.

As much as I would welcome the chance to pile on Nevada, :) I don't see any thing he's done wrong. This happens to be a free message board, so there is no money changing hands as a result of his posting. Owing the AP for posting that article here would be no different than if I walked over to my back fence and starting talking to my neighbor Wilson about it. Besides, Nevada properly credited the AP for the article.

Btw, I haven't seen the bunny in a long time - it's good to see it's still around. I need a pancake and a smile every now and then.

I think the crux of our disagreement is in how much weight I give to the considerations the AP gives to libraries, considerations they don't specially grant to other types of entities.

As you found, the AP has special rules for libraries. And there's no disputing that you personally subsidize libraries through your tax dollars. But the fact that you do so does not mean that you are thereby entitled to treat an internet forum as if it were a library.

Good lawyers such as yourself are able to to sell judges and juries on the notion that imperfect analogies are close enough to perfect--please permit me to have a go.

Most public libraries provide computers and internet access to their patrons. If one takes the time to get a library card, he'll be granted some period of access to these library resources. Now let's assume that the library provides wireless access, and that the signal is strong enough so that the cafe next-door can pick up its signal. You're sitting next to a complete stranger in the cafe, and you hear him grumbling about not being able to access the Web.

Is it okay for you to tell him that he can just pop onto the next-door library's signal, and that you'll pull out your library card and read off the password
to him? After all, it's a public library, and you have a proper library card. Why wouldn't it be okay to give him access to that signal?

I think it's not okay first and foremost because he's not a member of the library, and the library's resources are very clearly set out for use by the people who are willing to invest the ten minutes necessary to get a card. But even that notion assumes that this stranger is eligible to get a card at that library in the first place. Maybe he's not: maybe he doesn't live in a zone that pays taxes that are directed to that library.

Now, one might argue that the analogy breaks down because everyone subsidizes a library somewhere. To that I would respond A) off-the-grid free-riders are not exactly an endangered species, and B) for those who are paying their societal fair share, let them use the resources they are entitled to in the intended manner (As a non-student, I wouldn't presume to walk in to even a public university library and be granted privileges). If someone wants to read AP stories for free, let him go to the library that he is (indirectly) paying to use, or let him go to the websites that have gone to the trouble of acquiring the rights to those stories.

I'm also unpersuaded by your parallel argument that it's okay to copy-and-paste from middle-men since, in the case of AP works, said middle-men don't create any original content. Would you say that it's okay to go to a museum (we'll even make ithe admission fee $0), take pictures of the artwork, and then post those pictures to the Web? I certainly hope not, and I would argue that the two cases are not substantively different.

As to your jab about my handle, well played. But fear not, all regular worshippers at the First Church of K are given a fancy-pants From-the-Desk-of-K-watermarked-letterhead document that gives us explicit permission to use the word "Duke" in internet forum handles, so long as we're neither trying to profit directly by the name, nor purporting to officially represent the university. The only other stipulation is that holders not publically post any representation of the document;)

I think the flaw in your analogy is that the internet cafe is profiting off the internet access by making their establishment more attractive to customers. In essence, you're stealing more from the cafe than from the library.

I have to wonder whether the AP would grant the right to print the entirety of their articles here; I believe the site makes a profit (or attempts to) from ad revenues. I would agree that they should probably be given the opportunity to make that decision, though.

I'm not quite connecting with you here. The cafe may indeed be profiting, but I don't see how that reduces the culpability of someone who grants access to a person who has not gone through the proper procedure to be granted such access. If anything, it seems to me that you're saying that my analogy works as far as it goes, but that it also shows that additional parties could become complicit (if unwittingly so) when the regulations aren't respected.

My sentiments exactly.

The Dookie-ban are also all given copyrighted baseball caps with DUKE written on the front.

Size 1145 1/2.

These caps must be worn at all times when talking to any non-believers, heretics or other such pond scum under penalty of excommunication. Even as we talk, JB is proudly wearing his.

The Dookie-ban motto? "When in doubt, bore everybody to death!"

Cary on upholding that motto, JB.

Like Dick Vitale, you've become a caraciture of yourself. The only real difference is that Dick's is much less embittered.

jbduke - it's possible the Old Embittered One is simply commenting, in his own special way, on the fact that he finds your posts on basketball officiating enlightening. ;)

Without getting into the middle of that particular cat fight, I would like to seriously ask what you feel Nevada did wrong? More than likely the article can be found on many different internet sites, most free to the average person. (I'm assuming we can find that article perhaps on ESPN.com, CNN.com, CBSSportsline.com, etc.) If so, then the appropriate fee has already been paid to the Associated Press. So, then, isn't the article now in the public domain? So he read this article, and then posts a copy of it on yet another free internet site, which happens to be this discussion forum. He is not an owner or operator of the site, or connected with management in any way, so he does not profit from any of the possible ad revenues, which are not connected in any way to the posting of that article. He also does not profit in any way on posting to this forum; he is simply a participant. Since it was copyrighted material, he did properly include that information in his posting, rather than try to pass it off as his own material.

Can you tell me how this differs materially from a student using the article in a school paper, and properly listing the credit, without having to pay a fee to the AP? I would think you could probably make the argument that the student stands to benefit more financially by passing the course and being able to get a better-paying job in the future, than Nevada does by posting that same article here.

Granted, I am not an expert in copyright law, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express. But I would be curious as to your credentials in this area, seeing you have made such a strong statement in saying Nevada is completely wrong in posting the article, and that the mods are wrong for allowing it. As we do in discussing basketball rules and plays, do you have any backing to your claim? What specific laws are you citing in saying it is wrong?

As much as I like a fight as the next person, I'm actually looking for facts on this. I have posted articles, and parts of articles found on various sites here on the forum. If I am wrong, I would like to know how, rather than someone simply telling me I am. No different than if I were a coach asking for an explanation on a call - I would rather know the specific rule involved, rather than hearing the official tell me, "Because I said so."

Omigod, Vitale is a charter member of the First Church of K. You could be burned at the stake for that statement.

Heresy!

Heresy, I tell ya!!

Nope, not embittered. I get a laugh out of clowns like you. You're a hoot.

When you first started posting here, Dookie, you actually were some kind of basketball official iirc. You really did talk a little bit every now and then about what we do. But for the last few years, it seems that the only time that you show up here is when you want to whine, piss or moan about something. And that something that you're whining, pissing and moaning about has never got anything at all to do with basketball officiating. So, my question to you is why do you still bother to show up here with all of us lowclass, low-rent scumball characters when there's a ton of other forums on the net that are more appropriate for your erudute and educated arguments about topics that have got absolutely dick-all to do with officiating?

Just wondering.....

And btw, I just looked up your posting history, It looks like the last time that you actually engaged in a discussion here that actually related to officiating rules, mechanics or philosophies was back around 2006. Soooooo, carry on carrying-on. :D

I had started writing my response, then re-read your post. First, I was thinking the internet cafe was actually using the library's wireless for its customers.
Your analogy depends upon the agreement the card holders signed when getting their library cards. If the library wants to restrict such access, it's up to them to either a) put such restrictions in their library card agreements, or b) limit the distance their routers project the signal.

We're talking past each other. The location is mostly beside the point. The main issue is that you have resources managed by a library, who then have the right to "lease" those resources (for the cost of the time required to get a library card) to certain qualified individuals. Every library card agreement has an amendable section for transferrability, but any "extra users" must be listed in advance of the use of library materials/resources. In other words, it would be a violation of the agreement to allow someone not listed on it to use the card, internet password, etc.

We were starting to at first, but you're addressing my point now. You're right, if that agreement is in place, then your hypothetical would be a violation. No such agreement, however, is in place between Nevadaref and the AP.
Your library analogy would be more closely related to someone with a paid account at the WSJ online putting their materials on the board.

WTH does the library have to do with someone posting an article here? Answer the real questions - why (by what rule/law) is what Nev did against the rules or law?

Fair Use Doctrine. Here's a link to the actual federal code. It doesn't seem clear to me from this.

Is there a case book too? ;)

Cool, we're on the same page again, even if we still disagree somewhat. I think the library analogy works if we look at, say, the NYT running an AP story. The times has an "AP Library Card." Anyone can go to times.com and read any AP stories that are run there. The Times pay a subscription to the AP to be allowed to run their content, thus fulfilling the requirements for the library card, and the Times then gets to manage their site however they please. But the Times then turns into its own sort of library. In other words, you can go "use" their stuff, but that doesn't mean you get to pass it around to non-members. (Of course the NYT isn't the only outfit with access to AP stories, but as I've tried to show, that's beside the point)

Since this site doesn't have an AP Library Card, it shouldn't be displaying full-text AP stories without permission. As Nevada's research reflects, the AP might indeed allow stories to be run here free of charge. But as you pointed out earlier, that should be the AP's call, and not be simply assumed to be okay by users or administrators of this site.

(Not directed to anyone in particular) It's really easy to talk about mountains and molehills here, but to my mind it's just as easy to simply post a link, maybe an excerpt, and a description, thus steering clear of even the appearance of impropriety. I've engaged discussions on this point on multiple boards, sometimes usefully, sometimes not. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that since the denizens here make it a consistent practice to study fine print, and generally believe that it's not okay to pick and choose the rules one follows simply on the basis of convenience, that this would be an easy sell.

Nevada, I'm very sorry to have used the word "steal" in my earlier post. Though I didn't mean it as one, I realize that there was no way that my word choice wasn't going to be taken as a personal attack on you. I was irritated at another's complete dismissiveness of mty claim, and as I fired back you got hit in the cross-fire. I apologize for my careless aim. I greatly respect that you took the time to do the research you did on the issue, even if our interpretations of the relevant law/doctrine may differ. Cheers.

You tried selling it last year.
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post597485

You just finished trying to sell it again this year.

Y'all come back next year, Dookie, and try selling it again. Hell, you might even have a brand new audience to preach to then(if you're lucky). Us old embittered caracitures can't live forever, you know. :D

Even Larry King has to retire eventually.

The issue with the AP is that they own the articles and define who can use them and when. The work is copyright protected even if it is owned by a not-for-profit cooperative. To reprint it without following their rules of use is a violation of the copyright.

It is likely that all members of the cooperative pay a fee to be part of the AP and with that they automatically get the rights to print the articles in their publications. Their business model is that they depend on each other to create news articles to sell to their patrons. Even if there is not a single writer that is listed on the byline, it is someone's work....and it is owned by someone (the AP).

Here's Bruce From Long Beach, What's You're Question ???
 

Yeah. He wants to spend more time with his wives.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

Many folks seem to think that "not for profit" means "free." It just means that their sales don't yield profits to distribute to shareholders (public or private) at the end of the fiscal year.

Agree with your fix...but quoting an entire article is not a "Fair Use".

As I read it, that's not an entirely correct statement either.

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

I didn't see where it specifically says only part of the copyrighted work can be used.

It could be argued Nevada's posting of the article was for comment and criticism, and to a lesser extent reporting, teaching, and/or research. The nature of the copyrighted work is also taken into account, so since this was a news report of a public event, I wonder if there would be some allowance for that versus a completely original story, opinion piece, etc. Another factor of Fair Use is whether the posting/copying is of a commercial nature. Since the forum is a free service, neither Nevada or the owners of the site gain financially from the posting of the article.

I would assume the owners of this site have already done a little research into what can and cannot be posted on the forum. I would also assume the rules would be a little different on the "paid" part of this site, due to the subscriptions being paid. So to simply say Nevada and Officiating.com are "stealing", or don't care about the rules, *might* fall under the category of hyperbole, without any firm reason otherwise.

This forum is no more a "free service" than your local broadcast radio or television. I've got a picture of a Gatorade bottle on top of this page reinforcing that assessment.

The difference is the local radio station is the one who chooses to put the content on the air. In this case, the site doesn't post the content, only the people participating in it. Also, the site only receives revenue for "clicks" on the ads, where the radio station directly charges the advertisers based on the number of eyes or ears - but that's probably an anciliary argument.

In any case, can you show who profited from the posting of the article, and how that profit would be different if the article was not posted? If there was ever some mention on the site's home page that readers should go to the discussion forum because there was a scintilating discussion going on about soccer violence, then yes, there's a possible direct link. But otherwise, just because money changes hands somewhere doesn't mean Fair Use has been violated, from what I can see.

What would you say about some parent printing off several copies of this article, taking them to the local park district soccer meeting, and passing it out to discuss the kids' safety? Surely the park district receives money from local businesses, heck, perhaps even state and federal money, so should they disallow this to happen? If they do allow it, under what law would they be liable to the AP for payment of some kind? Or would that simply be a Fair Use of the article?

It may not say it there but that is how it is generally applied. Take the NFHS for example. They have made no issue of the short rules quotes that show up everywhere....but they rightfully make a stink anytime someone posts the whole book. That is the essense of fair use.

The kind of place where a full copy might be permitted would not include discussion boards...which often resemble news/information sources. It would include something like a classroom handout in a class debating sports ethics.

Not really. It was an informational posting. I think the comment/criticism type of use would really only apply if the post included true comment/criticism, not use a repost with a couple words added at the end. That is not comment/criticism.

Public event, but a specific depiction of a public event. The facts are not protected, just the presentation of the facts. Otherwise, one TV station could just show the footage from another station (and not even PBS does that without explicit permission).

This site is commercial. The presence of content draws views and advertising dollars.
Whether it is stealing or not, it is certainly ethically questionable.

I suggest you check out YouTube. Individual people post there but that doesn't make it OK to post copyrighted stuff.

You don't have to profit for it to be a violation. In fact, the whole point about copyright is not about preventing you from making a profit but about allowing the rightful owner to control thier work and ability to make a profit off of it if they choose.