|
|||
Quote:
Why else?
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Quote:
Fed claims a copyright on their rule book, but that claim would never stand up in court considering that the great majority of the material in it was taken from public domain sources and is present in other governing bodies' football rule books. At best they might sustain a copyright on some short passages of Fed's original material, but there doesn't seem to be enough of that in the book to interest anybody. I laugh at the way, for instance, the USFL copied NFL's contemporaneous rule book, altered just a few words in the whole thing, and slapped a copyright notice on it! A copyright notice doesn't make a piece of writing your property; it has to itself be original. Fed didn't always even have a copyright notice on their rule book. I have a 1960 football rule book (NFSHSAA-NAIA-NJCAA Alliance) and it has no copyright notice. All the current USAn rule books originated from the product of a single rules committee, which used to be published by Spalding, which came under the control of the NCAA. NFL and Fed started with NCAA's, and started amending it separately. At some point somebody decided to slap a copyright notice on the front, but it's far too late for that to be effective. You think that by altering a few words at a time over many annual editions, you get to claim copyright over the whole thing? Don't make me laugh. Copyright is meant to protect literary expression, not the conveyance of facts. Since rule books are useful articles and football is not a proprietary game, the language of the rules falls under a doctrine in copyright law that states, essentially, that if there's only one or a few ways to conveniently express certain information, you can't copyright the language used. |
|
|||
Quote:
BTW, the arbiter technical representative I talked with last week suggested I scan a copy of the book and put it into PDF when I pointed out that things are missing in the online version of the book (ie 8-man modifications for football). That's a nice cheap scanning method (1dollarscan.com), I might have to give it a try. Have you used them before -Josh Last edited by jdmara; Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:36pm. |
|
|||
You may think so, but I bet the Fed makes them take it down.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
The problem is that usually those scans produce images rather than text PDF's: the image files are not searchable.
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
They have an OCR option that makes their PDF scans searchable and selectable. I haven't used them personally, but those I know who have speak highly of them.
|
|
|||
How, do they send their goons? Heck, I've got a PDF of it; anybody here want me to host it at my Web site? If they ask BestWeb to take it down, I'll show BestWeb a copy of NCAA's rules and let them laugh along with me at Fed's copyright claim.
|
|
|||
I'll bet you that BestWeb would pull the content faster than you can shake a stick. They are not going to risk their safe harbor under the DCMA based on your half baked legal theories.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
LOL!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith Last edited by BktBallRef; Tue Nov 01, 2011 at 10:46am. |
|
|||
Already did... that's my association until I move again.
They posted these as a resource for the officials, along with several other internal documents that we use frequently, which you can see at Rules & Resources This is my first year doing football in Las Vegas, so I can't speak as to why or how the decision was made to do it this way. I just hope that NFHS sees the value of having these resources available and accepts that nobody is served by blocking making the games' rules more obscured. This is a case where it serves the interest of transparency of administration. If their business model suffers from lack of rules book sales for things like this, then they're doing it wrong. At the end of the day, however, some authorization should be received, if it's possible to get NFHS to respond/agree to it. |
|
|||
DMCA take-down notice. Pretty effective since it establishes a penalty per unauthorized distribution (counted as each time a file is transmitted from the server) and allows a 6-figure penalty per violation. It was intended to stop Napster-style copyright violations, but like many things congress has attempted, did little to curb online copyright infringement and made many other unrelated activities criminal.
|
|
|||
But pretty ineffective against material that's already in the public domain.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Otherwise, it's still a copyrighted work. If the NFHS sends a DMCA takedown notice to the web-hosting company or ISP, and that company doesn't at least pass the word on, then there is serious litigation possibility at stake. At the end of the day, it's best to not screw with it unless you've got the documentation that proves you were given permission. There is certainly a legitimate point that the rules may be public domain, but there's lots in there besides rules. |
|
|||
Tony, I wonder if officials in NC have some sort of special access through your state.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFHS Rules Online ... | BillyMac | Basketball | 3 | Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:42am |
FED Rules Online | SAump | Baseball | 10 | Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:41pm |
Online Rules? | big | Baseball | 5 | Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:24am |
Fed rules online? | moorg | Baseball | 2 | Tue Apr 19, 2005 06:06am |
NF Rules Online | LarryS | Basketball | 2 | Tue Nov 06, 2001 05:49pm |