Yuku free message boards

applefan84 wrote:

---

To the extent that the MHSAA has a copyright interest in photographs or videos of their tournament games (not regular season games), it doesn't matter whether they are trying to distribute it or make money off of it in any way. This is why it's still illegal to copy and distribute old video game ROMs that the owners of the copyright are no longer selling. The copyright belongs to the rights holder. Whether they choose to use it or not is their business. If they choose not to, then people who don't have the right have to live without it, or pressure the rights holder to start producing/selling the content (or license it).

applefan84 wrote:

---

pavlov wrote:

---

applefan84 wrote:

---

To the extent that the MHSAA has a copyright interest in photographs or videos of their tournament games (not regular season games), it doesn't matter whether they are trying to distribute it or make money off of it in any way. This is why it's still illegal to copy and distribute old video game ROMs that the owners of the copyright are no longer selling. The copyright belongs to the rights holder. Whether they choose to use it or not is their business. If they choose not to, then people who don't have the right have to live without it, or pressure the rights holder to start producing/selling the content (or license it).

I understand the basics of copyrights, and intellectual property. Thank you. It still doesn't make me "get it" with respect to enforcing this policy. The MHSAA is depriving kids and families and fans of the ability to preserve memories. They are not doing it so that they can maintain the rights themselves for any distribution, they are doing it so that no one can have anything at all. No one wins here. It's silly. Allow the video/photo to take place, or record and distribute them yourselves. To enforce a policy whereby the MHSAA is the sole party that can record or photograph games, and then they decline to is just depriving kids, families and fans of memories for no good reason. Legal doesn't necessarily mean moral, ethical, or right.

Law is a public substitute for disputed private notions of ethics, morality, and right/wrong. That's the whole point of having rules: since we can't agree on what's right and wrong, we'll agree to follow the rules instead. It's no different with the MHSAA's transfer rules: different people have notions of what is acceptable and what isn't, what level of involvement the MHSAA should have and what they shouldn't, but we don't rely on notions of "right and wrong," we rely on what the actual MHSAA rules and policies say.

applefan84 wrote:

---

pavlov wrote:

---

applefan84 wrote:

---

pavlov wrote:

---

applefan84 wrote:

---

To the extent that the MHSAA has a copyright interest in photographs or videos of their tournament games (not regular season games), it doesn't matter whether they are trying to distribute it or make money off of it in any way. This is why it's still illegal to copy and distribute old video game ROMs that the owners of the copyright are no longer selling. The copyright belongs to the rights holder. Whether they choose to use it or not is their business. If they choose not to, then people who don't have the right have to live without it, or pressure the rights holder to start producing/selling the content (or license it).

I understand the basics of copyrights, and intellectual property. Thank you. It still doesn't make me "get it" with respect to enforcing this policy. The MHSAA is depriving kids and families and fans of the ability to preserve memories. They are not doing it so that they can maintain the rights themselves for any distribution, they are doing it so that no one can have anything at all. No one wins here. It's silly. Allow the video/photo to take place, or record and distribute them yourselves. To enforce a policy whereby the MHSAA is the sole party that can record or photograph games, and then they decline to is just depriving kids, families and fans of memories for no good reason. Legal doesn't necessarily mean moral, ethical, or right.

Law is a public substitute for disputed private notions of ethics, morality, and right/wrong. That's the whole point of having rules: since we can't agree on what's right and wrong, we'll agree to follow the rules instead. It's no different with the MHSAA's transfer rules: different people have notions of what is acceptable and what isn't, what level of involvement the MHSAA should have and what they shouldn't, but we don't rely on notions of "right and wrong," we rely on what the actual MHSAA rules and policies say.

Thanks again Mr. Obvious. Yes, we all must abide by binding rules of society, like them or not. In this case (and many others) I disagree with the rule.

Take off your constitutional hat for a moment and answer this: Do you think it's totally beyond reproach that there is a rule preventing a Dad from recording his son's final organized football game of his life? Kid gets in for a couple plays at the end, and there's no home movies to ever reflect on. We of course abide by it, because it's the binding rule in this situation. But do you think that just because it is a binding rule, that makes it right and just in all ways?

Are there no binding rules of society that you feel are at least a little inappropriate?

I don't always agree with the law. Are there bad rules in the world? Absolutely. I, for one, don't particularly care for the rule.

applefan84 wrote:

---

I would not say it was harder or more long-winded than it needed to me. There is an enormous difference between cheerful disagreement which recognizes legitimate differences in opinion and weighting of priorities, and negative cynicism grounded in a self-righteous assertion of one's own superior moral or ethical sensibilities.