How about the “rubber balls” 
Can’t expect journalists to get their facts right, wait… thats their job :ahh:.
Other wise it was really well done and enjoyable to watch.
I just assumed that they weren’t allowed to use the real name, you know? Trademarks or something, but whatever, close enough
Ding ding! Trademarks are only supposed to be used if they are the main topic of the story. (aka if you’re doing a story on tissues you wouldn’t say Kleenex)
I got the segment courtesy of Kyle Fenton, and have uploaded it to our team site, since the yousendit will only stick around for 7 days.
http://www.masteryrobotics.org/video.htm
This will remain up untill I run so far out of server space that I need those 47.7 mb. Enjoy.
That was such a good segment. It made me get all nostalgic even though championship was only like two and a half weeks ago.
It was so funny seeing our mentor Rob Mainieri freaking out after we won a match. Oh, And you guys probably didn’t notice, but while they were interviewing our mentor in front of that field between the pits and the dome, they had us like play with a poof ball in the background. Pretty hillarious.
And I pretty much fell in love with 159 after watching that. You guys are freaking awesome. But I think you should recruit more girls for your team. -nudgenudge- At least, it didn’t seem like there were many…but I know how news segments can me.
Anywho…that was a happy couple of minutes for me, watching that.
Fo Sho. 
Whoops. Here we go again… (we go through this discussion every year - see this thread and this thread for prior examples. Yes, we have had this discussion before.)
Not to be a wet blanket here or anything, but you do all realize that you are engaging in piracy, don’t you? What you are doing is a blatently illegal activity.
The Public Broadcasting System broadcast of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer segment featuring the FIRST robotics competition is a commercial broadcast, and it is not in the public domain. MacNeil/Lehrer Productions retain all right to the material in that broadcast, including all content, intellectual property, and rebroadcasting rights. It is their program, and they have not given any FIRST teams permission to capture it, store it, or make it available to anyone else. MacNeil/Lehrer Productions retain all the rights to that show, and we are honor-bound to respect those rights.
Yes, it is a really cool show. Yes, lots of us want to see it. Yes, folks are “only trying to help” by making copies of it available on the web for those that did not get to see the broadcast. But the fact is making an illegal copy of a broadcast program and posting it for public download is an illegal act, no matter how well intentioned you may be.
You have two options if you missed this show: watch the show on PBS when it is re-broadcast (as Andy mentioned, it is being broadcast again on May 23), or obtain a legal, licenced copy from a permitted source (e.g. buy a copy from PBS).
If you have captued the show and are hosting it for download, you are infringing on the rights of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions to control and distribute material that they - not you - own. You are committing piracy of a copyrighted product, and you are breaking the law. If you are downloading the show from one of these sources to view it, then - there is no nice way to say this - you are a thief. Modifiers such as “it is only a little thing” or “everybody is doing it” or “it’s not for me, it’s for the team” or “I wouldn’t buy it anyway” or “I’m not selling it to make any money” don’t make any difference - you are a thief.
Look, nobody is trying to be exceptionally pedantic about this. PBS is not likely to jump all over you and call the police just because you set up a mirror site. But part of our purpose here is to set an example for the teams of professional behavior. Part of being a professional includes a respect for the law - including copyright law. Plus, it is a simple matter of courtesy to ask someone that has developed such materials if they mind if you copy their materials to your site. Doing so, in addition to avoiding a copyright violation, is an act of respect for the efforts of the producers of the show, and is just plain good manners.
-dave
Actually, I always laugh when I watch the end of a show on the Discovery Channel, PBS, the History Channel and such and see…
“If you would like a video transcript on crappy VHS of this half-hour program, please send $45.00 and half your possessions to blah blah blah blah blah…”
That, to me, is highway robbery. But hey, it’s their right to charge those ridiculous prices for their property.
Dave is correct.
Actually as far as I know PBS has a policy (or at least they had) that stated that it is alright to redistribute the programming on any of its TV shows as long it is not for profit, and is for educational purposes. When I was in school they used to show taped PBS shows all the time.
In fact they host the video themselves, free of charge
Dave does indeed have a good point.
The NewsHour folks do have a link where you can view the video here:
And they do have a contact for anyone wishing to purchase a video:
Videos available from:
Strictly Business
P.O. Box 473
Warsaw, Missouri 65355
(866) 678-NEWS (6397)
I was excited earlier at the report and was one of the guilty ones looking for the video :o
Excellent segment and very well produced - kudos to teams 159 and 812!
Then I am sure that you have somewhere - in writing - permission from PBS to redistribute their programming for an educational purpose. Short of that, whatever you may have heard second hand about their policies is irrelevant.
The MacNeil/Lehrer web site clearly states “Copyright ©2006. All Rights Reserved.” The same notice shows up at the end of each segment of their show. This is a clear indication that they label their work product as uniquely theirs, and they own it. Their web site also provides clear, straightforward instructions for obtaining a transcript of the show to use for educational purposes. Nowhere in those instructions do they indicate that anyone may freely copy and redistribute their programming without their permission. In fact, the existence of instructions for how educational users should ask permission is a direct indication that their programming may NOT be freely used just because you intend to use it for “educational purposes.” They also include this quite specific and directly on-point statement: "We’re sorry, but NewsHour streaming video and audio clips are for PBS use only. You may not incorporate the media files directly into your site."
The intent of the MacNeil/Lehrer is quite clear. This is their intellectual property, not yours. If they choose to host a copy of the show on their web site, that is their choice. If you have copied it to your web site without their permission, then you are stealing. Period. No excuses.
-dave
I understand that the unauthorized reproductions of the program violate copyright law.
However, I am not sure that thievery is a correct characterization.
According to some sources, such as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, theft is:
“1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property”
Unlike larceny, copyright violation cannot deprive the owner of the work or its usage.
I also find it difficult characterize copyright violation as akin to embezzlement or burglary for I see the common denominator in those two terms as the removal or intent to remove from the owner some tangible possession.
Basically, here’s what I think it comes down to: Physical objects are rival goods. Data are not.
I do not condone their actions. However, I do not believe that thievery or stealing is a correct characterization of their deeds.
I caught the show completely by accident; one of my robotics buddies was over at my house and we were working on a project when my dad calls out ‘hey you guys, theres something about FIRST on TV’, so we ditched our project to feel those happy chills run down our spines at hearing the buzzer things and just seeing the general FIRST-y atmosphere made us feel all warm and fuzzy
It could be a tragic mistake if you think that you can get away with copyright infrongement without being charged with theft. Because Federal law certainly does consider them to be similar.
Specifically, the US Code, Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506, subsection a: “Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully …] for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain …] shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.” [which has to do with criminal theft]
And your first response will be “but I didn’t download it for financial gain, so I am OK!” Not so fast. The No Electroinic Theft (NET) Act, passed into law by the U.S. Congress in 1997, was specifically targeted at actions like this.
US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101: “The term ‘‘financial gain’’ includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.”
The NET Act directly links copyright infringement to physical-space theft, specifically shoplifting. The boundaries of criminal copyright infringement were signficantly expanded by the NET Act, and the penalties associated with it (in extreme cases up to $3,000,000 in fines and a year in Federal prison). Note that the NET Act also defines a link between the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials and the act of trafficking in counterfeit goods and services. In other words, piracy. Again, my intent is not to be a real killjoy about this. But we need to make sure that we are not fooling ourselves by thinking that copyright infrongement is OK and is an acceptable action. Copyright infringement is a criminal act. It is illegal. Federal law considers it theft. It is not right.
But just as important, part of our purpose here is to set an example of professional behavior. Professionals understand and honor the value of intellectual property and the the work of others, and respect that work by not stealing it. Do I think that PBS is going to try to put someone in jail for a year just because you watch one issue of NewsHour in a less than honest fashion? Probably not. But you do have to be honest with yourself about what it means when you do something like this, and whether you are behaving in an honorable manner that is representative of the values and ethics you stand for.
-dave
From Phil Shapiro, in the DC Robotics message group:
http://digg.com/technology/FIRST_Robotics_on_Lehrer_News_Hour_(Public_Television)
*
You digg (or vote approval of an item submitted to digg) by clicking on the
words “digg this” underneath the number to the left of the story.
Registering for a digg account is free.
If a submitted item to digg receives more than 50 diggs within a 24 hour
period, it rises to the front page of digg. Several million people read the
front page of digg every day.
Everyone within the FIRST robotics movement needs to be registered on
digg. digg is a powerful, no-cost tool for us to get the word out about FIRST.*
The ML segment was great. The kind of TV coverage that gets it all, interviews, game overview and lot’s of student activity shown with excitement and clarity. What a wonderful piece on team 159 from start to finish. Congratulations to all who were a part of this show. It will live on in FIRST history as one of the best.
Not to belabor the discussion on copyright, Dave is right. PBS is far more generous than the other networks, but still must protect their intelectual property. Help them for the fine work they have done on this piece. And watch PBS whenever you can. (a shameless plug by an engineer for a PBS affiliate in Chicago)
According to an email from FIRST this morning, FIRST is looking into usage rights for the piece.
After that, i think my parents finally understand what FIRST is…and what this years game was. I think that also explains why my computer history has more chief delphi stuff than school work related material
when they showed dave talking about the masterlink, it sent shivers down my spine… The awesomeness of FIRST has wierd affects like that i would assume 
It was really good - the best I have seen on TV so far. PBS has the audio here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/index.html
However, their headline is: “Students Compete in Robot Wars” If several of us e-mail them and ask them to fix it, they might.