Dave Volsky's YouTube channel

[Citizen]

Looks like he's gotten the boot again. Oher accounts are hosting some of his stuff, but his is gone. Probably wasn't wise for him to poke that particular bear (the NFL) a second time.

[Brian wolf]

Just shows you how greedy and stupid the NFL can be ... his videos celebrate NFL history, but they dont care about that, they dont care about fans watching how the game USED to be played, they want fans to watch how the game is played and promoted now -- especially to women and children. Also, the League may have to worry about player highlights residuals; through his showings, but I dont think so, since he, others, and game collectors like myself, arent officially allowed to own, solicit or share games etc.
They tolerate collectors, as long as it isnt profitable solicitation.

[7DnBrnc53]

His channel has been gone since late November.

[SeahawkFever]

Just shows you how greedy and stupid the NFL can be ... his videos celebrate NFL history, but they dont care about that, they dont care about fans watching how the game USED to be played, they want fans to watch how the game is played and promoted now -- especially to women and children. Also, the League may have to worry about player highlights residuals; through his showings, but I dont think so, since he, others, and game collectors like myself, arent officially allowed to own, solicit or share games etc.
They tolerate collectors, as long as it isnt profitable solicitation.

As far as I'm concerned it's not a good thing that copyright holders take channels like that down. In particular if the rights holder has no plans of using the footage or content that was taken down.

At that point, you are effectively removing content that people could see.

In my opinion it is even less justifiable to take down the content if it is something that in all likelihood has no commercial viability to it (ergo: NFL Network is not likely to re air it, and if they sold it, few people would pay for it).

[Brian wolf]

Thats the thing, SeahawkFever, NFL Films profited for so long off team-players-games highlights, that the players finally put their foot down--led by former player advocate Bernie Parrish--and fought for name-likeness usage residuals, the case that the NFL lost, and didnt want to pay. Thats why they dont show classic highlights and filmed history as much anymore, though they still show classic games. Hopefully, they pay out some type of residuals to players but they may have found legal loopholes around it?

In my opinion, like Volsky, NFL Films should restore and release everything--including game broadcasts--from the archival vaults for anyone to buy, sell or trade, with players receiving residuals, just like actors. Fans would buy alot of visual history they havent already collected, though much of it is out there ...

[JeffreyMiller]

As an author, I respect copyrights. The players have been compensated so that isn't an issue here. Volsky had no right to post content he did not own. NFL Films has every right to have it removed. . Do I love old film? Have I watched old film on YouTube? Yes and yes. But I totally support a copyright owner's right to control what is rightly theirs.

[Throwin_Samoan]

It is possible to hold both of these thoughts in your mind at the same time: that copyright laws exist to protect people who create things, and that seeing restored (in fact, better) versions of classic games was wonderful and a great way to bring history to those who have no idea about it.

Dave did great work, but, as he told me, he's off the treadmill now, and there's value in that.

[SeahawkFever]

It is possible to hold both of these thoughts in your mind at the same time: that copyright laws exist to protect people who create things, and that seeing restored (in fact, better) versions of classic games was wonderful and a great way to bring history to those who have no idea about it.

Dave did great work, but, as he told me, he's off the treadmill now, and there's value in that.

Very well put.

To clarify, I didn’t want what I said to come off as an anti-copyright sentiment. People who create things absolutely deserve to be compensated for what they created.

I was just saying that I think it would be great if people who hold the rights to older pieces of media (sports, TV broadcasts, etc.) did more with those older pieces of media, or at the very least gave the public a way to legally purchase copies of said pieces of media if they don’t have any plans to use it in anything.

For the record, I do not create media or artistic works myself, but if I did, I would be stricter with the copyrights on the pieces of media that are perceived to have more commercial viability than those that don’t.

Ex: if I were the NFL, I would be more likely to go after people who are uploading stuff related to the Super Bowl, than people who are uploading say, old team highlight films from 40 years ago on teams that aren’t being talked about much, and with film NFL Film that I typically never use.

[RichardBak]

Every once in a while I get mailers from that Rare Sports Films guy in Illinois. I've sometimes wondered how he navigates any copyright issues on all of those DVDs he sells. It seems most of them are season highlight films so I assume those were either never copyrighted by the team or the copyright wasn't renewed. But he also offers NFL Game of the Week DVDs from the '60s and '70s and I would think some of that footage has to be from the networks and/or NFL Films. Copyrights are tricky little buggers to deal with.

[Citizen]

The Rare Sports guy is a straight-up bootlegger. You can't tell me that the copyright to those GOTW shows isn't still in effect. It certainly was when NFL Films offered them in their special-order catalog. I don't know how he gets away with it either. Volsky never got anything for his work (and it was work, unlike simply selling physical copies) other than a few virtual pats on the back.