Can't stop watching it.....Yes many more individual and team Titles to come....
Cenzo VS IMAR, ESPN + IRONHEAD
- Thread starter PSU22
- Start date
I'm new to Ironhead and would have never known about him if I didn't join this board. I can close my eyes and listen to him call a match and know exactly what is happening. You throw that in with unquestionable passion and love and you have the greatest radio guy out there. So good at what he does. A + post on syncing this up. Wonderful job all around. What a ride we are on with Penn State wrestling.
It's good to have back up. You're welcome!
Got ur backup... in Blue & White
Stirrring, not shaken
Last edited:
Now all have to do is figure how to get my contingency picture, past my wife. My Dad would love it.It's good to have back up. You're welcome!
To expand on that. It's greedy and dirty of them to file the claim. They don't even have a full video of the match available. This adds to the list of why people dislike them.
They don't. DMCA takedown notices for content not belonging to the complainant are issued all the time, almost always without consequence. The purpose of the DMCA safe-harbor provision is to allow third party providers (here, YouTube/Google) to indemnify themselves from a possible suit. So when a complainant issues a takedown notice they'll simply honor without question.
The DMCA permits the person whose content was removed to challenge its removal by issuing a counter-notification, which the third party provider (YouTube/Google) will also typically honor without question, as they're now indemnified. Then it's up to the original complainant to sue the YouTube user for infringement. Or not, leaving the status quo intact.
The above process assumes that the complainant actually possesses the copyrights, which Flo doesn't. So the YouTube user could file a counter-notification and have it restored. However, the YouTube user in question here is also very likely violating copyrights--ESPN's and WRSC's. There's a sketchy fair use argument (that YouTube user altered the original with new expression, meaning, or message) but fair use is a defense and if you're being sued for infringement you're risking a potentially massive judgment. And like I said, that argument is sketchy.
So Flo is on relatively safe ground in issuing the DMCA takedown because YouTube user doesn't hold the underlying copyrights even though they created something new from both, and so can't counter-notify. But if YouTube user did counter-notify, Flo couldn't do anything about it because they don't have a valid lawsuit to file, not owning any copyrights themselves.
It's unsurprising that Flo was this sloppy or greedy (take your pick, it's one or other), but they won't pay for overreaching like this.
Well, that stinks. What else is ridiculous about it: this is likely because Flo has the match highlights behind its paywall. As if anyone would subscribe to Flo to watch those highlights.
I'll summarize Tikk's comments with one word: petty.
And they will pay for it, indirectly. Thumbing your customers in the eye is rarely a smart business strategy. Especially for a company with a history of failing to deliver promised services.
I'll summarize Tikk's comments with one word: petty.
And they will pay for it, indirectly. Thumbing your customers in the eye is rarely a smart business strategy. Especially for a company with a history of failing to deliver promised services.
I'll mention that DMCA takedowns are often done by third party services that use bots to identify potential infringements and so there's a remote possibility Flo made an 'honest' mistake. I doubt that's what happened here though because the number of potential infringements don't call for automation to scrub them; this decision was more likely made by a human at Flo whose moral guidance didn't prevent him/her from misrepresenting, under penalty of perjury even, that Flo owned copyrights it didn't own.
Do they have a bot implementing insufficient bandwidth to broadcast a dual? Or was that human error too?
Moral guidance, lol.
I've never seen 'moral guidance' and Flo used in the same sentence before. Freaky.
That sucks. I watched the match without Ironhead and it is so lame. After Joseph has Imar on his back for a while do they say "he has him down".
Is there a rocker named Spiteful?
Either way, there's always Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious.
Guys, please.
I left it go for a long time, and I didn't have to.
We pay a hefty price for archive rights, and as such, we report when someone rips them.
Why should I let this one slide? Because it's really cool?
at the end of the day, you guys are complaining that an illegal video was taken down.
and if i let this one go, what happens next year?
frankly, it shouldn't have been us/me that took it down. it should have been the NCAA and/or T3.
also, Tikk - you're not totally accurate in your summation.
I left it go for a long time, and I didn't have to.
We pay a hefty price for archive rights, and as such, we report when someone rips them.
Why should I let this one slide? Because it's really cool?
at the end of the day, you guys are complaining that an illegal video was taken down.
and if i let this one go, what happens next year?
frankly, it shouldn't have been us/me that took it down. it should have been the NCAA and/or T3.
also, Tikk - you're not totally accurate in your summation.
I mean, the entire unedited match is on YouTube under other channels. Also, really? Kind of a bad look dude!
My apologies Willie, I didn't realize that we were both intellectual property lawyers. Please advise how I'm mistaken as to any aspect of the law as I explain it above.
If it's true that Flo paid ESPN for rights to the NCAA finals matches, which appears to be what you're implying, then, uh.... where are those matches? I'm a Flo subscriber, I don't see Cenzo and IMar behind the paywall. How is Flo benefiting the wrestling community by preventing even paid subscribers from seeing any version of the Cenzo IMar final?
22 - doesn't matter that there are others up. i'll be processing requests to have them removed too. not sure what 'bad look' means. we paid for something, we're protecting that investment. you posted something illegal.
tikk - your language claims I'm being sloppy/greedy and that it's based on flimsy circumstance. the reality is, we're a tertiary rights holder. I could easily call the primary rights holder (which isn't ESPN, btw) and have them remove it, if that would be a 'better look' or if that helps you sleep at night. we pay a big price, so they want to protect their partners.
LBU - yes, we have rights to everything on our site. if there is something you question, point it out.
tikk - your language claims I'm being sloppy/greedy and that it's based on flimsy circumstance. the reality is, we're a tertiary rights holder. I could easily call the primary rights holder (which isn't ESPN, btw) and have them remove it, if that would be a 'better look' or if that helps you sleep at night. we pay a big price, so they want to protect their partners.
LBU - yes, we have rights to everything on our site. if there is something you question, point it out.
just a general comment, but not being able to view the final matches does not allow casual fans to become invested in wrestling.
kind of the issue with the sport. only letting small niche market see things.
kind of the issue with the sport. only letting small niche market see things.
Next time post on Periscope or Facebook Live, and say it's because you didn't have the bandwidth or servers for YouTube.
I think the word you're looking for is assumption and not circumstance, which, while mistaken, really wasn't flimsy since part of my assumption is that Flo exists in part for the good of the sport of wrestling, which good I further assumed extended to Flo's making available to its paid subscribers matches to which it possesses the rights to broadcast, especially matches in high demand such as the Cenzo IMar final, a match which was originally broadcast publicly. But evidently that's not the case, so, no, Flo wasn't sloppy, but I'll stand by greedy.
Also, I'm further assuming your definition of "tertiary rights" here doesn't mean that because Flo had the rights to shoot and broadcast its own footage at the NCAAs it consequently renders Flo a rights holder to anyone else's footage shot there. Because that would be spectacularly inaccurate. The term "tertiary rights" isn't defined by the Copyright Act, it's defined by contract (to which I'm not privy) and could mean a range of things.
You're certainly right in that here, you could've contacted the primary rights holder and they would likely have issued the takedown notice because as I originally stated it would likely have been found to infringe. And the primary rights holder probably wouldn't care if you acted on its behalf without actual authorization. Whatever happened won't ever be litigated or contested, that's never been my point.
But the takedown notice requires a signature, under penalty of perjury, that the issuer is authorized to act on behalf of the primary rights holder (NCAA or ESPN or company set up by whomever for this purpose), and that wouldn't include my above-mentioned assumption. So unless Flo had rights to the particular footage against which Flo issued the takedown notice, the legal basis upon which you believed yourself authorized to issue takedown notices would accordingly be flimsy.
But never mind--please let paid Flo subscribers know what value is Flo providing to them and/or the wrestling community by rendering the Cenzo IMar final unavailable to everyone.
PSU22, did you happen to save a copy of the video to a drive? I wish I would have done this prior to the deletion. I would love to have a copy saved if you can send it to me somehow. Thanks!
Perhaps my definition/s aren't particularly 'official', but for the sake of argument, let's clarify them -
Primary - NCAA (and T3 Media, the ncaa's proxy/agent)
Secondary - ESPN (the only one with the right to stream/shoot the action)
Tertiary - everyone else who purchases archival footage (Flo)
anyway - my point in posting here is not to impress upon you how much/little i know about the process, but rather that in making the (significant) investment to use footage from ncaa's, I'll also protect that investment.
to that, you'll all say that flo is greedy, which in fact is completely opposite. you're endorsing ripped off footage, which puts zero dollars in the wrestling economy. Flo is the only wrestling website to make the investment and put value to those archives (and thus value to the ncaa and the sport). you say Flo is greedy and that we're not promoting the sport when, in fact, we're the only one to legally present archived footage that enables people to be able to access and relive the matches. funny how the only entity to put the effort in gets blamed for being self-interested. (btw, 'greedy' is a funny term considering you don't know how much we make or lose in this process.)
and this all in response to the removal of one of hundreds of bootlegged videos that are taken down. obviously the concept of bootlegged music/video being pulled down isn't foreign to y'all. it's just that you're upset that 1 that you really liked got pulled.
tikk - you keep saying IMar-Cenzo isn't on Flo. it is for sure. just not in its entirety - which is forbidden by the ncaa. there's like a gazillion stipulations to what/how we can post. no one, not even ESPN can post ncaa archives in their entirety.
Primary - NCAA (and T3 Media, the ncaa's proxy/agent)
Secondary - ESPN (the only one with the right to stream/shoot the action)
Tertiary - everyone else who purchases archival footage (Flo)
anyway - my point in posting here is not to impress upon you how much/little i know about the process, but rather that in making the (significant) investment to use footage from ncaa's, I'll also protect that investment.
to that, you'll all say that flo is greedy, which in fact is completely opposite. you're endorsing ripped off footage, which puts zero dollars in the wrestling economy. Flo is the only wrestling website to make the investment and put value to those archives (and thus value to the ncaa and the sport). you say Flo is greedy and that we're not promoting the sport when, in fact, we're the only one to legally present archived footage that enables people to be able to access and relive the matches. funny how the only entity to put the effort in gets blamed for being self-interested. (btw, 'greedy' is a funny term considering you don't know how much we make or lose in this process.)
and this all in response to the removal of one of hundreds of bootlegged videos that are taken down. obviously the concept of bootlegged music/video being pulled down isn't foreign to y'all. it's just that you're upset that 1 that you really liked got pulled.
tikk - you keep saying IMar-Cenzo isn't on Flo. it is for sure. just not in its entirety - which is forbidden by the ncaa. there's like a gazillion stipulations to what/how we can post. no one, not even ESPN can post ncaa archives in their entirety.
Flo should spend some of that money to make sure y'all can actually stream a match live.
Hey, Willie, I am glad to see you come here and explain exactly how you see it, instead of hiding behind corporate-speak that says nothing, a la the United-Airlines wussy companies of the world.
I can't say I'm particularly happy with the takedowns, but at least you're not a total wuss.
Here's a warning to others who might have uploaded an NCAA-tournament video. Just a few minutes ago, YouTube emailed me to say that Flo had caused my only wrestling upload to be taken down--Cenzo's trip of Massa--and now I have my first "copyright strike" against me, blah blah. Apparently, too many "copyright strikes" can lead to cancellation of one's YouTube account.
It i$ great content. I would be inve$ting my energie$ in figuring out how I could get it......and more. Innovation cru$hing, otherwi$e. At lea$t the weather is getting nice........it won't be $o bad in the hor$e and buggy on the way to work.
Ju$t protecting the $lu$h find I gue$$.
Ju$t protecting the $lu$h find I gue$$.
I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I have no idea what the legal rights are in this case. But this was a fun video for what I would imagine is a fairly significant fan base for your business. Even if you were within your legal right to do so, was it really worth it to potentially piss people off by doing so? Doesn't seem like the most prudent business move to me, especially after recently selling that same fan base a championship dual meet and then not being able to actually deliver said match. It's not my company, but seems like a myopic business move.
Okay, so... Flo takes down footage it can't legally broadcast itself? Again, you're on safe ground in that nothing will come of this, and I appreciate you responding, but to my eye this is overreach. Think of it like Russian dolls; you own the smallest doll and you're asserting in the DMCA takedown that you own the largest. Per the DMCA you either possess the rights to the thing you're requesting be removed (and here you don't) or you're explicitly authorized by the rights holder to issue takedowns (and you implied you weren't). 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(i). Maybe Flo's attorney is fine with that approach, but I'd much prefer to be on the other side if it were litigated.
Maybe Flo's attorney can turn their attention to training management on what fiduciary responsibly to your paying customers means.
Similar threads
