Quote from Veteran Official that's seen the most A-11 Games in the Nation

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Having contact with the webmaster of NFHS.org, I know that they do not have a problem with references used in discussions. They do not, however, allow the rules to be posted in whole on websites.

They wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to sue for a violation of their copyright. All someone would have to do would to submit to the court an NCAA rule book, and show that the great majority of Fed's content is verbatim from there -- and that's before even getting at the legality of copyright on instructions.

If Fed then said they only meant to protect the provisions that were uniquely their own, the question to be asked would be, "Have you tried to protect those bits as trade secrets?"

The only thing Fed could do would be to sue for trademark infringement if someone published a "counterfeit" rule book saying it was authorized by Fed, like copies of designer clothes, etc. As long as it's not represented as a book printed for and sold or licensed by Fed, it's OK.

See the case of Affiliated Hospital Prods. versus Merdel Game Mfg.

Robert

Being from the academic world, any quote that is copied directly from a copyrighted work should be cited somehow, which I believe we do all the time by citing the rule number and which rule code we're citing from. You folks have nothing to worry about. Important thing is you give credit where credit is due (although the way FED writes their stuff....).

[GoodScout]

[jaybird]

Hey you California guys, is this for real?

This guy is a 50 year veteran official. That means he's probably in his 70's. Can he really even still effectively officiate and keep up? Kind of a "Johnny come lately" last minute witness for the defense or is it just some made up guy. Either way, not a very creditable testimony.

The biggest pressure really is on the wing men – the head linesman and the line judge – because they are the ones who determine who is eligible.

Duh! .. oh, what about the U.. er.. and the B ... oh well, never mind. Nice try. See ya grandpa!

[bisonlj]

With the discussion of copyrighting and shareing, I had a question to this body who seems fairly knowledgeable about this stuff. I offered to send a copy of the Part II quiz on a local HS site to allow people to see how well they would do. I was told by another official that I was not allowed to do that because the material had copyright protection. He said they had been warned previously by the NFHS for doing this.

Is this a similar issue in that technically I shouldn't forward it but if challenged in court I would probably win. I want to honor the spirit of the copyright so I'm not going to do it. I was just wondering if this was a similar issue.

I'll hang up now and listen to your answer.

[asdf]

AFM just happens to be selling a certain product on DVD.

I am shocked that no dissenting view is presented....

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

With the discussion of copyrighting and shareing, I had a question to this body who seems fairly knowledgeable about this stuff. I offered to send a copy of the Part II quiz on a local HS site to allow people to see how well they would do. I was told by another official that I was not allowed to do that because the material had copyright protection. He said they had been warned previously by the NFHS for doing this.

Is this a similar issue in that technically I shouldn't forward it but if challenged in court I would probably win. I want to honor the spirit of the copyright so I'm not going to do it. I was just wondering if this was a similar issue.

For a test like that, the question copyright law asks is whether there would be a great number of ways to express the same content. If the test is just short answer stuff about Fed officiating, then the answer is probably "no" -- that there are only a few ways to put questions testing one's knowledge of that subject. In that case, a copyright would tend to convert knowledge of the subject into a secret -- which it is not -- and thereby provide an illegitimate means of monopolizing knowledge about the subject.

It's like recipes. A cookbook can have all kinds of chitchat between the recipes that would be copyrightable, but not the recipes themselves because practically speaking there are few useful ways to express such useful knowledge.

However, I know people who like you feel that when an author has done a lot of work compiling recipes (in these people's case, recipes for fireworks), that even if they're not secrets, they won't communicate them to others because they want the author to benefit from the sale of the books. If you feel the same way about Fed and their revenue, fine.

Still, the particular compilation of test questions is copyrightable, the way a long passage of a cookbook covering several recipes would be protectable by copyright, even without a lot of chitchat in between. I suppose someone might make the same argument about the order of chapters or sections in a rulebook, but it would apply only if the rules would read as easily regardless of the order they were presented in.

Robert

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Hey you California guys, is this for real?

This guy is a 50 year veteran official. That means he's probably in his 70's. Can he really even still effectively officiate and keep up? Kind of a "Johnny come lately" last minute witness for the defense or is it just some made up guy. Either way, not a very creditable testimony.

The biggest pressure really is on the wing men – the head linesman and the line judge – because they are the ones who determine who is eligible.

Duh! .. oh, what about the U.. er.. and the B ... oh well, never mind. Nice try. See ya grandpa!

I had hoped once the Presidential election was over, the lunatic fringe would crawl back into their hole and all the vile chatracter assassination BS would melt away. I guess not.

Apparently JayBird, you don't even know if this official exists or anything about him, but you are quick and eager to trash him and 50 years of service to football. You should be embarrassed, but I doubt you have enough class to know why.

Let's add some more smoke about the evils of copyright infringement. The way these discussions are spiraling, I think hyenas might have a legitimate gripe.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I had hoped once the Presidential election was over, the lunatic fringe would crawl back into their hole and all the vile chatracter assassination BS would melt away. I guess not.

This has to be said.

It is not character assassination to point out an obvious flaw in someone's argument when they clearly do not know (or do not say) the proper procedure. And to name this person as evidence of what other officials might think is a little silly.

I am sorry this little crusade you are trying to take when someone disagrees with someone is a little over the top. This has nothing to do with the election or the current (or soon to be) President of the United States.

Peace

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

you don't even know if this official exists or anything about him, but you are quick and eager to trash him and 50 years of service to football.

EXACTLY! I'm gald you've finally come over to our side ! We don't know if he exists, yet KB is willing to put him out there as a testimonial. 50 years of experience in what capacity? Being old doesn't mean you're good. I rather hear what is resume is during those 50 years. I think it's odd that KB left that out. If he's done 20 state finals during those 50 years don't you think KB would want the world to know that?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I had hoped once the Presidential election was over, the lunatic fringe would crawl back into their hole and all the vile chatracter assassination BS would melt away. I guess not.

Apparently JayBird, you don't even know if this official exists or anything about him, but you are quick and eager to trash him and 50 years of service to football. You should be embarrassed, but I doubt you have enough class to know why.

Let's add some more smoke about the evils of copyright infringement. The way these discussions are spiraling, I think hyenas might have a legitimate gripe.

I was hoping KB and the lunatic fringe WOULD go away. But you're still here. Pity.

Tick tock on the A-11. It will be all gone and forgotten soon enough. Boo hoo.

[Rich]

Sam is 79 and apparently is the assignor of the East Bay Officials. It is unclear in 5 minutes of Googling if he is still an active official.

What is clear is that Sam is the only official widely quoted in different articles about this offense. He must be KB's example of an official who "likes" the offense.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Sam is 79 and apparently is the assignor of the East Bay Officials. It is unclear in 5 minutes of Googling if he is still an active official.

What is clear is that Sam is the only official widely quoted in different articles about this offense. He must be KB's example of an official who "likes" the offense.

Would it be fair to ask Sam if he's being compensated for his endorsement?