Thank Copyright Infringers For Still Being Able To Hear Great Moments In World Series History
from the giants-win-the-pennant dept
If you’re a baseball fan, you know that the World Series is going on right now, between the San Francisco Giants and the Texas Rangers (with the Giants looking damn good so far). On the night they won the League Championship Series to advance to the World Series, I was actually out walking my dog, listening to the game on the radio (it was a pretty nerve-wracking finish), and was actually a bit disappointed that radio announcer Jon Miller didn’t pull out the obvious “The Giants win the pennant!” line, even though they had, in fact, won the pennant. As you hopefully know, that line was the famous call — considered one of the greatest broadcasting moments in history — back in 1951, when the (then) NY Giants’ Bobby Thomson hit a homerun off the (then) Brooklyn Dodgers’ Ralph Branca to secure the National League championship:
The man we all need to thank is someone named Larry Goldberg, a travel agent who had the good sense to ask his mother to tape Russ Hodges’ call so he could listen to it after work. Because of Larry, we have the most joyous call in the history of sports to enjoy forever.
Yes, thanks to infringement, we have that moment in history.
And it’s not the only one. Just about a month ago, the news came out that video tapes of the (previously lost) 1960 World Series had been found in the former wine cellar of Bing Crosby, who had been a part-owner of The Pirates. The final game of that series is considered one of the greatest games ever (well, less so if you’re a Yankee fan…), but it had been lost… until last month. Crosby apparently couldn’t bear to actually watch the game, he was so nervous (he went to Europe instead), but wanted to be able to watch it later, so he actually hired a film crew to record the official broadcast, and they were just recovered (actually, right outside of San Francisco…) last month.
So here we have two of the greatest moments in baseball that we only have the archive of the actual game recordings because of people technically infringing.
Filed Under: baseball, copyright infringement, world series
Comments on “Thank Copyright Infringers For Still Being Able To Hear Great Moments In World Series History”
Also, Whovians
A fair number of the early Doctor Who episodes only exist because of the same thing.
When are people going to learn that copying isn’t piracy, it’s preservation?
I wonder if “The Preservation Party” wouldn’t be a better name for the PP folks.
Re: Also, Whovians
But you can’t have past works competing with the profits generated from present works.
Re: Re: Also, Whovians
Then we might as well give up Writing.
So it wont compete with NEWER versions.
Iv seen 6 TYPES/styles of shows based on the idea of body snatching. And they all started from books.
there are even releases that are EBOOK ONLY now.
Even at that, let us not to Erase all of past history.(as if we hadnt already)
Re: Re: Re: Also, Whovians
The constitution might as well said, “to promote the profits”
Star Wars Holiday Special
The Star Wars Holiday Special is another great example of something a lot of people would have never seen if it wasn’t bootlegged. I know a few older Star Wars fans who were absolutely thrilled when I was able to procure copies of this for them to watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Wars_Holiday_Special#Versions_and_availability_today
Re: Star Wars Holiday Special
As a Star Wars fan, I can honestly say it would have been better if the Star Wars Holiday Special were lost.
And I actually like the prequel trilogy.
Those recordings should obviously be immediately handed to their rightful owners (the copyright holders, who made absolutely no effort to preserve these historical moments) and the infringers (and their family and their dog) should be forced to pay obscene amounts of money for all the damages they caused (those freetard thieves!).
What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
MIKE why are you so silent about Oracle sueing Google over LINE FOR LINE copying of parts (or probably most) of JAVA ??
Where are you ????
Please be honest for once, and admit you are not talking about it, because its just too hard for you to spin it in such a way to make goolge look good. (after all they pay your bills)..
So what about a bit of balance, and honesty in reporting, why is it you only report on the subjects (purile mostly) that you can spin in such a way to make an ‘argument’.
When when it is clear Google do very nastly things, and illegal things, they steal patents, code and anything else they can get their hands on..
You are unusually SILENT on the issue.. !!!!!!
So you are censoring us, ??? are you deciding what we should read and what we should not be allowed to see ?
SO thats what it is, Mikes own censorship system, if Mike feels that the information would be harmfull to his ’cause’ then he will censor that information, to protect us poor, stupid plebs from knowing the full story, or the truth..
The fact you leave out Google stealing code, and include OLD tales about Halloween.. Mike.. as that an attempt of deflection ??
If it is, you suck at it..
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
http://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Someone’s undies are a tad too tight.
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Always hilarious!
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
*sigh* I’m only replying this to stop the nonsense, and I’ll make it brief.
Oracle bought Sun. Prior to this purchase, Sun made Java Open Source, and used the GPL license which explicitly states:
ANYONE CAN FREELY USE THIS CODE. IF CHANGES ARE MADE, YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS CODE.
Google, complying with said license did just that.
Now Oracle, realizing that their “should be cash cow” is really nothing more than milked (see what I did there?) is having a fit because someone actually read the license meant for it.
Granted, it’s a bit more complicated than this when it comes to corporate use and the fact that both Android and Java are platforms (and as such both have their own licenses,) but that’s basically it. If you don’t believe me, do the research.
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Oh darryl, atleast TAM was far more entertaining as a troll, sigh
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
How is Mike ‘censoring’ when he chooses what to give us – it is /his/ blog after all! Besides, he seems perfectly happy to criticise Google when necessary, so don’t harp on more about Mike having double standards about Google.
Also, it’s a little boring hearing another of your anti-Mike whines. You could have brought this up in a much better way, such as saying “What about this topic?” or something similar, politer, and with less unnecessary personal attacking. Even better, you could have done a little research, given us a couple of paragraphs of actual info, and posted a useful link or two. But now, it’s much easier to whine on about your personal beef with Mike.
I don’t think Mike is ‘protecting’ anyone from anything. If he had the ’cause’ you claim he has, why does he have a prominent link saying “Why I Hope The RIAA Succeeds“?
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
darryl,
It’s always a good idea to stay on topic, but wth, let us know what you really think.
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Wow, thank you!
If it wasn’t for you, I would never ever hear about this story because NO WAY do I read other tech news sites (like Slashdot, that is linked in the front page of this website).
Incidentally, did Oracle hire you to spread FUD, or is your head filled with bricks?
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Wow, are YOU an idiot.
So you are censoring us, ??? are you deciding what we should ‘read and what we should not be allowed to see ?
SO thats what it is, Mikes own censorship system, if Mike feels that the information would be harmfull to his ’cause’ then he will censor that information, to protect us poor, stupid plebs from knowing the full story, or the truth.. “
Listen bucky, and listen good. Its not censorship if you simply DONT TALK ABOUT SOMETHING. How is Mike censoring YOU? Or anyone on this site? Did he alter or remove your comments? No? Then its NOT CENSORSHIP.
CHOOSING to NOT speak about something
IS
NOT
CENSORSHIP
Got it? I know, you dont, you have such a burning hatred-hard-on for Mike you are blinded to anything resembling logic and reason, but it had to be said anyway.
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Stop picking on the drug addict.
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Because Google didn’t copy anything from Java. Google is getting sued for using an OPEN SOURCE Virtual machine that so happens to use Java byte code. The only reason it isn’t called “java” because there are certain API calls that are completely useless but are required to call something a “Java VM”.
Since it only implements 99% of the Java api, it is not called java. But it is compatible with the other 99% of the Java API and byte code. Sun doesn’t like this.
Sun wants to be the ONLY gateway into making a Java compatible VM, but the open source community didn’t want to play by Sun’s rules. The API and byte code that the open source VM does use, is actually open source. Sun documented and released those APIs and byte codes under open source themselves.
Essentially, Sun wants to say that 99% of Java is open source, but you can’t *just* implement the open source parts, you must implement the whole thing. But this is contrary to the open source license it was released under.
Another "pirated" call from NBA lore...
IIRC, a dental student in NY was studying one night listening to an NBA game b/t NY and Philly. Realizing something great was happening, he had the foresight to record the last few minutes on his tape recorder. Because of this NBA fans can now hear the last few minutes of the legendary Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points against the Knicks. As an aside, Wilt actually drove back to NY that night with a couple of Knicks who razzed him for his historic feat that nite. LOL.
Does anyone have information concerning whether or not broadcasts in the 50’s and early 60’s contained notices of copyright? Remember, back then the 1909 Act governed, and the Act was chock full of legal formalities necessary to secure copyright.
All broadcast signals should be freely copyable and redistributable. If you don’t like it get your radio signals off my lawn and keep them off public property!!!!
Infringing or fair use?
Are these copies actually infringing? If anyone did this now, it would be a clear example of fair use (taping it, not re-broadcasting it). Would it have been fair use back then as well?
If so, it’s another example of how important fair use is to society as a whole, and how it may also benefit the copyright holders themselves. (The aforementioned Doctor Who case is another example.)
Re: Infringing or fair use?
Well, if he didn’t rebroadcast it what’s the point to society? By the time the copy protection expires the tape will probably be deteriorated (unless the recorder kept making copies to conserve them himself) and perhaps thrown away if the original recorder hasn’t died of old age and passed the tape onto someone else to hopefully send into the public domain after the copyright expires.
Conclusion: Copyright lasts entirely too long and our current fair use laws aren’t the solution.
Re: Re: Infringing or fair use?
Well, if he didn’t rebroadcast it what’s the point to society?
He didn’t. From a more detailed article in the NY Times:
Now, if the copyright owners had themselves not distributed it, you would be right.
Re: Re: Infringing or fair use?
Copyright lasts entirely too long
As an addendum, I just wanted to say that I agree with this 100%. That doesn’t diminish the fact that fair use is important.
How can techdirt have an article like this and then still try to claim that techdirt does not encourage infringement?
Re: Re:
1951. Soon to be 60 years ago. A moment PRESERVED and shared by a non-rightsholder when a rightsholder couldn’t be bothered with anything like foresight.
That’s how.
Re: Re:
It could definitely be argued that a ‘rights holder’ that didn’t bother to ‘preserve’ (i.e. FIX in permanent form) a copy really couldn’t have much of a leg to stand on… and yes, archiving for posterity should be an unequivocal ‘fair use’. Wouldn’t it be good if you had the transmission equivalent of the Library of Congress…
Re: Re:
With copyright lasting centuries, how can one not commit copyright infringement?
Re: Re:
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with the example recordings here. I have no issue with that, you missed my point. I think that Mike is full of it when he encourages copying, encourages recording and then makes comments about not condoning illegal downloading.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101022/04042611537/fallacy-debunking-successful-new-business-model-examples-are-the-exception.shtml#c1683
Re: Re: Re:
You know what else encourages copying and recording?
Basic human nature.
Re: Re: Encouraging infringement???
I think that Mike is full of it when he encourages copying, encourages recording and then makes comments about not condoning illegal downloading.
Techdirt has a whole slew of articles about why making backups for archival purposes should be legalized:
Should Organizations Get To Ignore Copyright For The Sake Of Preservation?
How Copyright Is Denying Us Our Own History
Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Historical Audio Recordings Disappearing; Copyright Partly To Blame
This post is obviously in the same vein. It is not, at all, remotely, even close to “condoning illegal downloading.”
Stop being an ass.
Re: Re: Re:
you missed my point
Probably because you don’t have any but simply are talking out of your butt.
Re: Re: Re:
You guys are jackasses. It is intellectually dishonest to say that recording is good, copying is good, sharing is good but if any of those things happen to be illegal then downloading them is not good. If were up to Mike then these things would be legal and then there would be no issue with downloading them. Mike wants intellectual honesty and he can start with himself. If pointing out that Mike is full of it makes me an ass then so be it. Again, as I said, I have no issue with the recordings or sharing them or whatever. I have a problem Mikes intellectual dishonesty.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“It is intellectually dishonest to say that recording is good, copying is good, sharing is good but if any of those things happen to be illegal then downloading them is not good.”
Why is it intellectually dishonest? I don’t share Mike’s apparent respect for the law, but I can still understand and accept it. You seem to suggest that it is impossible to make decisions based solely on whether something is legal or not. Respect for the law aside, is it intellectually dishonest to consider the negative consequences of your actions, or is that just rational thought?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Did you click the link I provided above? It makes sense for Mike to consider the consequences of his actions but why should he care about your actions?
Its bogus to say look at all of the good things that come from recording/copying/sharing but then to say that you should not do it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Its bogus to say look at all of the good things that come from recording/copying/sharing but then to say that you should not do it.
For one thing, the recording he talks about here happened for different reasons, and in different circumstances, than illegal file sharing. (File sharing generally isn’t done for archival purposes.)
For another thing, it’s entirely possible to advocate for changing laws, without encouraging lawbreaking, and without encouraging the illegal behavior itself.
I’ll give you an example. I believe that marijuana should be legalized. Yet, I don’t smoke pot myself, don’t particularly like most stoners, and don’t encourage getting high. There’s no hypocrisy involved.
Why not encourage illegal file sharing? Well, maybe because he doesn’t want to encourage any illegal behavior. Or maybe because he would be giving bad advice – if you get sued, your life is ruined. Or maybe because he believes that the rights holders’ wishes should be respected, even if they’re wrong-headed. Or any other number of reasons.
You seem to be angry that Mike doesn’t encourage illegal file sharing. Well, you can still do it if you want to – you don’t need Mike’s approval. But by believing he’s a hypocrite, you’re making the same “for us or against us” mistake that drives ideologues like “John Paul Jones.”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If we don’t share the recordings then how exactly do they preserve history? A recording that just sits on the shelf does nothing to preserve history – I think Mike has made this point about rights holders that never release their goods. I think its fine for Mike to say that he does not participate in illegal file sharing. But saying that you should record but not share history is like saying marijuana is bad and you should not do it, wink, wink.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
If we don’t share the recordings then how exactly do they preserve history? A recording that just sits on the shelf does nothing to preserve history – I think Mike has made this point about rights holders that never release their goods. I think its fine for Mike to say that he does not participate in illegal file sharing. But saying that you should record but not share history is like saying marijuana is bad and you should not do it, wink, wink.
You appear to be missing my point totally. I’m not saying infringement is okay. I’m saying it’s dumb to protect these works with copyright in the first place, and we’d be better off if the *rights holders* freed them in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
But the rights holders did not free them and will not free them. So recording and sharing are good but do not do it, wink, wink. You are saying no and shaking your head yes at the same time. Some clear message you have there.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Most recording, copying and sharing is legal. Some of it is not.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Did you click the link I provided above?”
I read the linked article last week, thanks.
“It makes sense for Mike to consider the consequences of his actions but why should he care about your actions?”
Why shouldn’t he care?
“Its bogus to say look at all of the good things that come from recording/copying/sharing but then to say that you should not do it.”
I think Karl has sufficiently explained why it is not bogus.
What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
Darryl, PM me. I’ve got you a new prescription for chlorpromazine. Hope anger doesn’t make you do something stupid. It’s ok to do some babbling at techdirt but wouldn’t be ok to get violent at yourself or anyone else.
Let’s see… Take a breath. Inhale. Pause. Exhale. Repeat.
Good boy.
Re: What's the "techdirt" on Google Mike ??? you know with ORACLE ??? and JAVA ??
He probably needs Vicodin
joyous call?
the most joyous call in the history of sports to enjoy forever.
Hmmm@that. To a Giants fan, perhaps. I say the best call ever is each final call when the Spurs won their championship(s).
Re: joyous call?
Yes, it is rather US provincialism, isn’t it 😉 A ‘World’ Series that is only played (and cared about) in one country…
As for classic moments, how about Germany vs England a few months ago 😉
Re: Re: joyous call?
Right. I’d always wondered why they bothered to call it “World Series” when pretty much noone outside the US gives a crap about Baseball. Blernsball, anyone 😉
Re: Re: Re: joyous call?
What about those of us in the US that don’t give a crap about baseball? Or basketball or ‘football,’ for that matter.
Google Suing Oracle
Please excuse Daryl, he has been drinking again.
How was that 1951 Shot Heard Round the World recorded?
This is just my idle curiosity, but it isn’t clear to me how what we are seeing in that clip was recorded. The article says that Goldberg asked his mother to tape the broadcast. In 1951, that must have meant reel-to-reel audio tape. Audio. Couln’t have been video tape in 1951. Yet the clip we see is video.
I suppose someone else filmed the game, or parts of it, at the stadium, either with no accompanying audio, or just the ambient audio in the stadium, then Goldberg’s audio was later combined with that film. But it would be nice to know whether that is correct, and if so, the details.
Re: How was that 1951 Shot Heard Round the World recorded?
This is just my idle curiosity, but it isn’t clear to me how what we are seeing in that clip was recorded.
Russ Hodges’ famous lines were only delivered on the radio. So, obviously the film footage is from a different source. (Not sure which one.)
On a separate note: Bobby Thomson, the Giants player who hit the home run, died on August 16th.
STILL NOTHING !!!! Hello Mike .... you there ??? answer us ?? :) be honest if you can..
Oh what a surprise !!!.. NO Mike..
Silent on an imporatant issue.
But leaves TD to talk about a over 50 year old baseball match.
Ofcourse, its too hard for Mike to spin the google story his own way, its beyond him.
Fair enough, we all know Mike is not that skilled in these things..
Re: STILL NOTHING !!!! Hello Mike .... you there ??? answer us ?? :) be honest if you can..
I’ll spin it around for you (because I am bored):
The Java programming language specification is licensed under the GNU GPL, and so are it’s main libraries (most of them, I think). It is free (as in speech and beer), so Oracle has no claim here.
But the language specification and libraries, by themselves, are useless. You need an to implement mechanisms that “executes” that language. In Java’s case, that would be the Virtual Machine (and associated mechanisms). Now, as far as I know, Google implemented their own version of the JVM (the Dalvik Virtual Machine or somesuch), so Oracle, again, has no claim here.
So, as you see, Oracle has no claims here. It bought Sun and now is being a bitch to pretty much everyone that ever used anything Sun-related (just because they can).
If you pay attention, you’ll see that developers of Sun-related technologies (like Open Office or the OpenJDK) are trying to run away as far as possible from Oracle and it’s patent-and-copyright-fueled nuclear arsenal. Oracle is digging itself a pretty nice hole with this mess.
There, happy?
Re: Re: STILL NOTHING !!!! Hello Mike .... you there ??? answer us ?? :) be honest if you can..
Which does make things very interesting for OpenSolaris. Different license but the source is floating out there in the wild now and Oracle seems determined to hunt down anyone using so much as a line of it. 🙂
It would be looking dark for MySQL as well other than the fact that the licensing goes back to day one on that project though I’m sure Oracle will try something.
Re: STILL NOTHING !!!! Hello Mike .... you there ??? answer us ?? :) be honest if you can..
Wow! Mike is silent on the weekend, like he usually is, so it has to be a conspiracy!
Keep raving, lunatic. It gives us all a good laugh. 😀
Re: STILL NOTHING !!!! Hello Mike .... you there ??? answer us ?? :) be honest if you can..
Silent on an imporatant issue.
psst… Darryl… over here…
Oracle’s First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun’s Patents To Sue Google
Why The Oracle Java Patents Were Literally A Joke Played By Sun Engineers
Google Points Out That Oracle Asked Sun To Open Source The Java Tech It’s Now Suing Google Over
Re: STILL NOTHING !!!! Hello Mike .... you there ??? answer us ?? :) be honest if you can..
Oh what a surprise !!!.. NO Mike..
Hi Darryl. No surprise. I generally take the weekends off. This weekend I was in Hollywood talking with movie execs and filmmakers, so no time to spend here answering bizarre illogical rantings. Sorry.
In the meantime, if you honestly think I don’t write negative stories about Google, you need to check your reading comprehension scanners. Just last week I called for the company to fire its CEO. Pay attention Darryl, you seem to miss a lot.
Not the Japanese, certainly.
It's probably not piracy
You cannot acquire a copyright unless you fix a copy of a work of authorship in a tangible medium allowing perception of the work at a later date. This is called fixation and is defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 ?? 101, 102.
In other words, you can’t claim copyright of a live radio broadcast unless there was simultaneously recorded.
This is also true for live television: The NFL didn’t acquire a copyright in the Jets / Green Bay game yesterday unless it was simultaneously recording the game. (Which it was, so it did.)
Simultaneous recording was less frequent in the 1950s. Considering the only copy we have to the play call from the shot heard round the world is a recording from a listener, not the broadcaster, means it is highly likely the broadcaster didn’t acquire a copyright.
Interestingly, the person recording does likely have a copyright in the work. It will be thin in the sense it only covers duplicates of the sound recording, but courts have ruled that even millisecond copies of sound recordings violate copyright.
Of course, back in the 1950s the acquisition of a copyright also required you follow proper filing procedures, so no copyright may have been acquired on those grounds.
the giants win the pennant
joe buck did say it, but as he is wont he buried it amidst a muddle of other things.