Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
copyright, lifecasting

Companies:, premier league

Who Will Be The First Person Sued For Copyright Infringement Over Lifecasting?

from the it's-a-series-of-tubes... dept

The Premier League, the UK based football (or soccer, for those of us on this side of the Atlantic) league has a long history of misunderstanding the internet, and often that seems to involve having its lawyers lash out at the wrong people. First, back in 2005, the league blamed broadband providers for allowing fans to stream games live online, rather than recognizing that fans streaming such games showed a real demand for such a service. Then, in 2007, the league sued YouTube for hosting some clips of Premier League matches. This was boneheaded for a variety of reasons. First, YouTube was not the guilty party if it was copyright infringement. The liable party would be whoever uploaded the clips. Second, given YouTube's limits, people could only post relative short clips of games, which, if anything might help attract more fans to the matches.

The latest is that the Premier League is suing, the popular online service that helps people "lifecast," allowing them to broadcast a live streaming video from their computer camera. The Premier League noted that some lifecasters happened to point their cameras at a Premier League game on television, which the league considers to be infringement. Of course, the lawsuit is (yet again) mistargeted. Even if this is infringement, it's not's liability, but whoever the lifecaster is who pointed his or her camera at the screen.

Either way, this raises some more interesting questions about lifecasting. Specifically, pretty much anyone lifecasting their regular day is probably guilty of many, many copyright violations based on current interpretation of copyright law. If you hear a song, that's infringement. If you walk past a TV, that's infringement. Hell, reading a book could be infringement too according to some. Just the fact that you're letting someone else see what you see is basically infringement, which, when you think about it, highlights just how ridiculous copyright laws are these days. So when will start to see lawsuits against lifecasters?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • identicon
    Evil Bastard, 4 Nov 2008 @ 11:23am

    Justin.TV And Copyright Infringement

    There are tons of Justin.TV channels that rebroadcast PayPerView events(UFC Fights, WWE Matches, WBC Boxing Matches). This is definitely a violation of copyright law.

    It would be real easy for Justin.TV to stop the infringment. All they need to do is monitor which broadcasters have an enormous audience (In some cases, the Premier League games will have one channel with 10k viewers), check to see if that channel is in violation, and boot it. See Easy no lawsuits then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lost in NJ, 4 Nov 2008 @ 11:33am

      Re: Justin.TV And Copyright Infringement

      That would be simple to do but it drops them from safe haror as they are proactivly monitering and removing streams without a takedown notice and that opens them to lawsuit city.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2009 @ 10:00pm

      Re: Justin.TV And Copyright Infringement

      "It would be real easy for Justin.TV to stop the infringment."

      Or they can kinda do what youtube does, have a link that allows copyright holders to report copyright violations and when that link is clicked, it directs the attention of admins to that video. If it's a violation, the video goes down.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lost in NJ, 4 Nov 2008 @ 11:34am

    Safe Harbors, sorry keyboard getting a tad old

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hobbs, 4 Nov 2008 @ 11:45am

    Ohhh the tasty irony

    LOL there is something ironic about being sued for infringement, because one broadcasts their own life. If we don’t own our own existence . . . LOL well John Locke must be rolling over in his British grave. Stick with this one Mike, it has the potential to provide lots of yummy sound bites for future arguments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2008 @ 12:43pm

    Nice example of the Streisand Effect there. I hadn't heard of, so I go there and what do I see? The best quality football streaming I've seen.

    Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Premier League.

    On the topics in Mike's last paragraph: surely there's a difference between deliberately pointing a camera at broadcast TV programme, and the incidental recording of a part of a song or show? (IANAL, of course).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.