Has anyone considered this re: video being illegal?

[Fixit]

All other forms of recording/stealing signals are allowed (e.g. photos).

Breakdowns of existing tape are allowed.

So why is videotaping signals illegal to the NFL as of this season? Could it be a result of the NFL wanting absolute control over any and all NFL video, which they do?

It seems to me that the banning of field video isn't to discourage gaining a competitive advantage; hell, we've already discussed at length how video is actually less an advantage than live people and photographs. It's about the NFL protecting its product.

With that in mind, this is even less of an issue.

Am I crazy?

 

[Pujo]

All other forms of recording/stealing signals are allowed (e.g. photos).

Breakdowns of existing tape are allowed.

So why is videotaping signals illegal to the NFL as of this season? Could it be a result of the NFL wanting absolute control over any and all NFL video, which they do?

It seems to me that the banning of field video isn't to discourage gaining a competitive advantage; hell, we've already discussed at length how video is actually less an advantage than live people and photographs. It's about the NFL protecting its product.

With that in mind, this is even less of an issue.

Am I crazy?

They DO allow clubs to film the game, they just don't allow them to film for the purpose of stealing signs. Remember, in the GB game the cameraman was authorized to shoot the field, it's when he kept pointing his camera at the home bench that team security got suspicious.

 

[Fixit]

They DO allow clubs to film the game, they just don't allow them to film for the purpose of stealing signs. Remember, in the GB game the cameraman was authorized to shoot the field, it's when he kept pointing his camera at the home bench that team security got suspicious.

The rule says that no video cameras are allowed on the field, and that all video cameras have to be boxed in with a cover. They didn't get pinched for stealing signs with a camera; they got pinched for having a camera in the first place. What the Jets say the problem is has no bearing on what problem really is.

 

[richpats]

It seems to me that the banning of field video isn't to discourage gaining a competitive advantage; hell, we've already discussed at length how video is actually less an advantage than live people and photographs. It's about the NFL protecting its product.

I thought about how teams use photos of opposing team's formations AS SOON AS THEY WALK OFF THE FIELD - now the photos seem like incomplete information to me, what use is a photo without a "signal" or "playcall" to match it up to?

 

[Fixit]

I thought about how teams use photos of opposing team's formations AS SOON AS THEY WALK OFF THE FIELD - now the photos seem like incomplete information to me, what use is a photo without a "signal" or "playcall" to match it up to?

Because they have pictures of the signals, as well as people watching the opposing coaches. Give me a camera in the coaches box and another guy and I'll break down signals and defenses way faster than a guy with one field-level video camera.

 

[upstater1]

They DO allow clubs to film the game, they just don't allow them to film for the purpose of stealing signs. Remember, in the GB game the cameraman was authorized to shoot the field, it's when he kept pointing his camera at the home bench that team security got suspicious.

I think what you wrote is incorrect. When the Phins used a tape to steal signs last year, the NFL was OK with it.

The rule says a team is prohibited from filming opposing coaches who are giving signals. It says nothing about what teams d with those signals. normally, I would say the implication is obvious, but that doesn't explain why the NFL thinks it's legal to use signs stolen off a tape the way the Dolphins did.

 

[oldskool138]

The rule says that no video cameras are allowed on the field, and that all video cameras have to be boxed in with a cover. They didn't get pinched for stealing signs with a camera; they got pinched for having a camera in the first place. What the Jets say the problem is has no bearing on what problem really is.

I've been saying almost the exact same thing on other boards but most people are content to talk about what's on the tape, is stealing signs it cheating and what punishment should be handed down.

Glad to see someone sees this situation clearly.

 

[Pujo]

I think what you wrote is incorrect. When the Phins used a tape to steal signs last year, the NFL was OK with it.

The rule says a team is prohibited from filming opposing coaches who are giving signals. It says nothing about what teams d with those signals. normally, I would say the implication is obvious, but that doesn't explain why the NFL thinks it's legal to use signs stolen off a tape the way the Dolphins did.

I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[Fixit]

I think what you wrote is incorrect. When the Phins used a tape to steal signs last year, the NFL was OK with it.

The rule says a team is prohibited from filming opposing coaches who are giving signals. It says nothing about what teams d with those signals. normally, I would say the implication is obvious, but that doesn't explain why the NFL thinks it's legal to use signs stolen off a tape the way the Dolphins did.

The NFL was okay with it because the Dolphins didn't film it; they bought film of it, or so they said. Regardless, there was no rule against it last year anyway.

Does anyone else know where the rule is stated on this board? I can't remember where I saw it.

 

[Flying Fungi]

Could it be a result of the NFL wanting absolute control over any and all NFL video, which they do? It's about the NFL protecting its product.

Am I crazy?

This is what I threw out there a few days ago. This may be more of a copyright infringement issue in the eyes of the NFL.

looking for more news coverage of this, but I recall the NFL getting testy regarding copyrighted material

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6204450.html

However, with the advent of the digital age, fair use has gone missing. Warnings attached to movies, sports broadcasts and other media often provide wildly misleading information about consumer rights under copyright law. For example, warnings on many Universal DVDs state, in part, that "any unauthorized exhibition, distribution or copying of this film or any part thereof (including soundtrack) is an infringement of the relevant copyright and will subject the infringer to severe civil and criminal penalties."

This statement is simply untrue--the federal copyright statutes specifically allow unauthorized reproduction for criticism, commentary and other purposes. Just recently, the NFL threatened the media by withholding press credentials for any organization that showed more than 45 seconds of a game.
This is not the way forward. We should not permit rights holders to use copyright law to create new powers for themselves. Even as we urge consumers to respect the law--and we should--large copyright owners have the same obligation.

Scaring their customers is not educating them. Misleading and threatening them, at the end of the day, hurts everyone, including the copyright holders themselves. Copyright law was never intended to serve as a big stick for the rights holder to wield against the freedom of information and ideas. We hope the FTC agrees.

 

[DaBruinz]

Because they have pictures of the signals, as well as people watching the opposing coaches. Give me a camera in the coaches box and another guy and I'll break down signals and defenses way faster than a guy with one field-level video camera.

Except that Cameras aren't allowed in the coaches box.

I'm not sure they allow binoculars either.

 

[Fixit]

Except that Cameras aren't allowed in the coaches box.

I'm not sure they allow binoculars either.

Then where do those photos come from?

Edit to add that it doesn't matter where they came from. They're allowed.

 

[Fixit]

This is what I threw out there a few days ago. This may be more of a copyright infringement issue in the eyes of the NFL.

Sorry to step on your toes. Here I thought I was going to blow the lid off this whole thing!

 

[Flying Fungi]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070214/154327.shtml

Take a moment to think this through for the layer upon layer of absurdity. A law professor puts up a short clip for educational purposes (fair use allows both short clips and educational uses of content) for the sake of showing how the NFL exaggerates its copyright control -- and the NFL responds by then sending a DMCA takedown notice to better highlight how they not only exaggerate their claims, but then misuse the law to shut down fair use as well.

http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/02/13/my_first_dmca_takedown.html

 

[Flying Fungi]

Sorry to step on your toes. Here I thought I was going to blow the lid off this whole thing!

no no--please do continue--insanity loves company!

 

[Flying Fungi]

http://news.com.com/Sports+leagues+...055.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news

A handful of sports leagues and media companies are trying to intimidate the public when issuing inaccurate warnings about making "unauthorized" copies of their work, according to a complaint expected to be filed with the Federal Trade Commission. The complaint, expected to be submitted Wednesday by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group that represents such tech giants as Microsoft, Google and Yahoo, names the National Football League, Major League Baseball, NBC-Universal, Morgan Creek Productions, DreamWorks, Harcourt and Penguin.

An ongoing turf battle may be involved...

another view of the same from slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/01/212240.shtml