SCP '09 ROUND 3, WEST CONFERENCE FINAL: DETROIT RED WINGS VS. CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS

As I've said before, Filppula is going to be a star in this league. :KKK:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:Hey DTR, have you ever considered that posting the entire contents of all these articles without proper permission or even a link back to the source is copyright infringement? I'm only mentioning this as it may have an impact on the owners of the gmhockey.com web site if these sites start to notice all of their content being posted here as opposed to just snippets with appropriate references etc...

Not sure if it is copyright infringement or if they've given you permission... just curious if the thought had crossed your mind.

As this is not a paid site, and the sources are properly credited, re-posting is considered 'fair use'. Hope that answers your question.

I'm pretty sure "fair use" only covers portions of materials, not the entire article being re-posted. And whether or not this is a paid site has no impact. But, whatever.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:Hey DTR, have you ever considered that posting the entire contents of all these articles without proper permission or even a link back to the source is copyright infringement? I'm only mentioning this as it may have an impact on the owners of the gmhockey.com web site if these sites start to notice all of their content being posted here as opposed to just snippets with appropriate references etc...

Not sure if it is copyright infringement or if they've given you permission... just curious if the thought had crossed your mind.

As this is not a paid site, and the sources are properly credited, re-posting is considered 'fair use'. Hope that answers your question.

The Supreme Court addressed this question in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004).

From Wikipedia:

It ... establishes six principal criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
   
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
   
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
   
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
   
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
   
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.
   
   

I would argue that #1 and #3 together are sufficient to allow the use of the quotes are they are being done.

But I'm not a lawyer.

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:Hey DTR, have you ever considered that posting the entire contents of all these articles without proper permission or even a link back to the source is copyright infringement? I'm only mentioning this as it may have an impact on the owners of the gmhockey.com web site if these sites start to notice all of their content being posted here as opposed to just snippets with appropriate references etc...

Not sure if it is copyright infringement or if they've given you permission... just curious if the thought had crossed your mind.

As this is not a paid site, and the sources are properly credited, re-posting is considered 'fair use'. Hope that answers your question.

I'm pretty sure "fair use" only covers portions of materials, not the entire article being re-posted. And whether or not this is a paid site has no impact. But, whatever.

Shabbs, if you want me to stop posting here, just say so.

I know all about 'fair use'--media is my business and has been for almost forty years.

But if you don't like what I do, just come out and make your opinion known.

Dave - I believe that Shabbs was one of the earliest supporters of your postings.

His question was a valid one, as it is based on what we are typically taught throughout our education, and it is a notion widely held, as it is perpetuated by the lay press.

Keep in mind that copyright laws in Canada are different from most other countries, and are somewhat archaic - it remains technically illegal to tape shows to watch them later, or to use your PVR, even if legally obtained from Bell or Rogers. I believe that iPods/MP3 players are technically illegal also (you aren't allowed to copy music to them, even if you own it legally).

Some interesting reading, if you are so inclined:
Fair Use (WikiPedia)
Fair Dealing (Wikipedia)
Michael Geist (Internet Law Guru, Univ. of Ottawa)

Acrobat wrote:Dave - I believe that Shabbs was one of the earliest supporters of your postings.

His question was a valid one, as it is based on what we are typically taught throughout our education, and it is a notion widely held, as it is perpetuated by the lay press.

Keep in mind that copyright laws in Canada are different from most other countries, and are somewhat archaic - it remains technically illegal to tape shows to watch them later, or to use your PVR, even if legally obtained from Bell or Rogers. I believe that iPods/MP3 players are technically illegal also (you aren't allowed to copy music to them, even if you own it legally).

Some interesting reading, if you are so inclined:
Fair Use (WikiPedia)
Fair Dealing (Wikipedia)
Michael Geist (Internet Law Guru, Univ. of Ottawa)

Acrobat, no offense taken, and none implied.

Shabbs and I have differences of opinion, but I fully respect his right to question and challenge mine.

I hope he feels the same way.

Just to make something clear...I participate here because it's fun and I enjoy the discussion and debate.

I'm not here to 'win' arguments, or to 'teach' anyone anything. On the contrary, I'm here to learn about what you, and he, and everyone thinks, and how you all see things.

It's been a very illuminating experience...so far.

I also believe it's useful to be able to see things from different perspectives.

Now...to address the very pertinent question Shabbs raised.

This is a forum for public discussion, and as such, we are entitled to share material that is presented to the public.

Without getting into the legal complexities of the matter--and believe me, I have plenty of experience in this area--the public has a right to share material that is presented by the media, for that purpose of public discussion.

So long as the integrity of the material is respected; that no attempt to 'unjustly enrich' the individual or entity is involved; and that no 'unfair use' of the material is made, there is no basis for considering that infringement of copyright has occurred.

That said, even if there were a basis for doing so, and the author or media company objected to having the work presented and promoted in a public forum, the moderators and operators of the forum would have the right to take the opportunity to remove the material--IF the use of that material were deemed objectionable.

The bottom line is, this is a free site for hockey fans who want to discuss hockey and what is said about it.

If the founders and moderators feel that posting material from other sources is a problem, then they have the right to impose restrictions as they see fit.

And I have absolutely no problem with that.

cool)

As a footnote, this excerpt from the link you suggested:
Fair use in Canada
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 is the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that establishes the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. The Law Society of Upper Canada was sued for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.

Perhaps to put a cap on this aspect of the discussion, so we can all go back to talking about hockey...

Let me add that I am a person who believes passionately in the incontrovertible and fundamental right of the individual.

As individuals, you and I have the right to believe and say what we feel.

I spent many years living and working in countries where people had that right taken away from them...where they could be arrested, imprisoned or put to death for saying what they felt...or even if they were falsely accused of doing so.

I learned a lot from the people who lived in those countries during the worst of those times.

The freedom we have in Canada is a precious thing.

And if the law is misused by lawyers and the people who employ them, to deny us our right to freedom of expression, it is our right to fight that injustice.

I believe in the power of the people...people like you, and everyone else here.

The right to enjoy our sport. To say what we think and feel about it. And the right to say what we feel about those in the hockey business, and especially those who get paid to talk and write about it.

Let's enjoy that freedom while we can.

Blackhawks Team Report

Yahoo! Sports May 25, 2009
Inside Shots

The Blackhawks’ storybook season is on the brink of ending.

The Hawks were terrible in Game 4 of the Western Conference finals on their home ice, taking a 6-1 pounding even with the Detroit Red Wings playing without captain Niklas Lidstrom (lower body injury) and leading scorer Pavel Datsyuk (bruised foot).

A much better performance will be needed on Wednesday at Joe Louis Arena to keep the season alive. The Hawks trail the best-of-seven series 3-1.

More than anything, the Hawks need to be more disciplined. They took 16 penalties in Game 4. They would also welcome a return to health by leading scorer Martin Havlat, who tried to play Sunday but could last only 7:59, and goaltender Nikolai Khabibulin, who didn’t dress because of a lower body injury suffered in Game 3.

Red Wings 6, Blackhawks 1: A shorthanded goal by Marian Hossa in the first period got the Wings going. Hossa and Henrik Zetterberg scored twice for Detroit in the romp.

Notes, Quotes

• G Corey Crawford finally got into a game for the Blackhawks. The goaltender, who spent virtually the entire season at Rockford, was called up for four regular-season games but sat on the bench throughout each one. He got tapped again between the second and third periods of Game 3 of the Detroit series when Nikolai Khabibulin suffered what the club calls “a lower body injury” but didn’t get in that game, either. When Khabibulin couldn’t dress Sunday, Crawford was Cristobal Huet’s(notes) backup, and when the Wings opened a 4-1 lead Crawford went into the game. He faced seven shots and allowed one power play goal before Huet returned in goal at the start of the third.

• Bob Probert, an enforcer for both the Hawks and Wings during his playing career, dropped the ceremonial first puck wearing a Hawks sweater.

• Chris Chelios, the former Hawks captain, represented the Wings in the puck drop and played in his first game of the series and fifth of this postseason.

• Sunday’s game drew 22,663, which was 55 more than the average over the first seven home playoff games.

• Only one Hawks team has played more regular-season and playoff games than this one. Sunday’s game was the 98th of this season. The 1989-90 Hawks played in 100—80 in the regular season and 20 in the postseason. The 1991-92 team, which also played in 98 games, will be passed when the Hawks visit Detroit on Wednesday. Andrew Ladd, Jonathan Toews, Brian Campbell and Brent Seabrook have played in all 98 games.

• D Brian Campbell, who turned 30 on Saturday, was a minus-3 on Sunday.

• In calling Niklas Kronwall’s Game 3 hit on Martin Havlat “gutless,” Campbell followed a trend set by James Wisniewski, the former Hawks defenseman, in the Western Conference semifinals. Wisniewski, now with Anaheim, called the Wings’ Tomas Holmstrom gutless after what he judged an elbow aimed at his head. As was the case with the Kronwall incident, no disciplinary action was taken. With the Ducks’ season over, Wisniewski was at the United Center for Sunday’s game

Quote To Note: “It’s do or die, I guess. We’ve got to find a way to keep kicking. It’s only gotten tougher as the playoffs have gone on, and this is as tough as it’s been.”—Hawks captain Jonathan Toews with his team facing an elimination game on Wednesday.

davetherave wrote:Shabbs, if you want me to stop posting here, just say so.

I know all about 'fair use'--media is my business and has been for almost forty years.

But if you don't like what I do, just come out and make your opinion known.

DTR my man! You have sorely misjudged my intent, and for that I'm sorry. No, I was just concerned because as this site becomes more and more popular and more eyes are on it, I'd hate to see it derailed or in jeopardy with some legal proceedings. I see you are well versed in this area so I'll defer to your knowledge and expertise there. With the plethora of DMCA take-down notices being issued and granted without clear justitication, and with Canada slowly adopting it's own version of the DMCA, it's a mad mad world out there in copyright/fair use land.

Post on my friend, post on!

:___:

Osgood is good to go for Game 5:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/05/24/wings_osgood_game5/

He's all re-hydrated... gotta keep those fluids going man!

I would think that's bulletin board material for the Hawks after reading Osgoods comments saying he was just resting. Ah well the game's in hand I'll just take the third period off. The Hawks are cooked anyway.

NHL fines Blackhawks coach Quenneville $10,000

TORONTO (AP)—The NHL has fined Chicago Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville $10,000 for harsh criticism of officiating in his team’s loss to Detroit in Game 4 of the Western Conference finals.

Quenneville fumed over a roughing call against defenseman Matt Walker during a scrum as the first period ended Sunday. The Red Wings scored on the ensuing power play 1:13 into the second period extending their lead to 3-0, and went on to win 6-1 and take a 3-1 edge in the series.

“I think we witnessed probably the worst call in the history of sports there,” Quenneville said after the game. “Nothing play.

“They scored, it’s 3-0. They ruined a good hockey game and absolutely destroyed what was going on the ice. … Never seen anything like it.”

The Blackhawks will try to avoid elimination Wednesday in Detroit.

shabbs wrote: DTR my man! You have sorely misjudged my intent, and for that I'm sorry. No, I was just concerned because as this site becomes more and more popular and more eyes are on it, I'd hate to see it derailed or in jeopardy with some legal proceedings. I see you are well versed in this area so I'll defer to your knowledge and expertise there. With the plethora of DMCA take-down notices being issued and granted without clear justitication, and with Canada slowly adopting it's own version of the DMCA, it's a mad mad world out there in copyright/fair use land.

Post on my friend, post on!

:___:

No worries, bro...it is indeed a MAD world out there...but we the people have our right to discuss these issues in a public forum.

And I am certain if The Evil Media Empire tried to squash us we could mount our own guerilla war.

But thanks for bringing up the subject.

Post on witcha bad self! ...and always great to joust with you my good man!

:##:

davetherave wrote:NHL fines Blackhawks coach Quenneville $10,000

TORONTO (AP)—The NHL has fined Chicago Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville $10,000 for harsh criticism of officiating in his team’s loss to Detroit in Game 4 of the Western Conference finals.

Quenneville fumed over a roughing call against defenseman Matt Walker during a scrum as the first period ended Sunday. The Red Wings scored on the ensuing power play 1:13 into the second period extending their lead to 3-0, and went on to win 6-1 and take a 3-1 edge in the series.

“I think we witnessed probably the worst call in the history of sports there,” Quenneville said after the game. “Nothing play.

“They scored, it’s 3-0. They ruined a good hockey game and absolutely destroyed what was going on the ice. … Never seen anything like it.”

The Blackhawks will try to avoid elimination Wednesday in Detroit.

This is a very interesting situation because IMHO Quenneville knew very well he was going to be fined for these remarks...at the end of the day ten grand is a fine that can easily be paid, and Q made his point.

His team being as flat as they were in Game 4, I was really curious as to how the Hawks could come out skating like they were nursing a bad hangover.

It then occurred to me that maybe more than a few of them were nursing a bad hangover.

Think about it...you're a 20-something hockey player, bruised and battered after a hundred games--more than you've ever played in one season, in your life.

You come off a huge win Friday night in Chicago...and the pressure's still on.

Those Ice Crew girls are there, soothing your weary body and suggesting you should 'relax' a little...after all, you're a hockey hero...

You wake up Sunday morning and say "Holy $hit...I have a game today!"

Wouldn't be the first time...hm?

I actually brought up the subject and the theory on Over The Edge this morning, and put the question to The Kulkster...after all, he played in the CFL and knows all about what athletes go through. Glenn was very forthcoming on this issue.

"You know," he said, "That's a very REAL possibility. I remember very well when I played with the Argonauts and we were playing in the Grey Cup. We had a week before the big game and some guys thought they would celebrate the fact we had gotten there. That partying cost us the game."

He went on, "Maybe some of those young guys gave in to the temptation...and maybe it wasn't the thing that made lose the game, but it could have had an influence on their ability to perform. So instead of being 6-1, the score might otherwise have been 3-2. Not saying that was the reason...but it definitely could have been A reason."

He concluded, "That's a very good question, and it speaks to the human side of the sport we rarely think about. After all, these guys ARE human."

So were some of the Hawks feeling a little 'blown out'? We'll never know.

But, during an online chat on Comcast Chicago, when I asked former Hawk and colour commentator Steve Konroyd why Chicago looked like they had no energy in the early part of the game, Steve--who is normally VERY straightforward in his criticism--was uncharacteristically evasive.

IF there was some issue of that nature, Quenneville would naturally--and he wouldn't be quality coach he is, if he didn't--try to deflect any questions about why the Hawks weren't up to snuff in SUCH a key contest...a contest they should have been able to win, given the Wings were missing key personnel...particularly Lidstrom.

So Quenneville would, so to speak, take the arrows for his guys--and say the officiating cost them the game.

Ah, the perils of being young. I remember them well.

cool)

Taking the fine certainly seems to be well worth the money when all the talk turns to officiating rather than the lacklustre effort from the Hawks players. Well played Q man well played.

It was a calculated blow-up. Trying to motivate his team.

On brink of elimination, Hawks take it one game at a time

Team on brink staying in sync: '1 game at a time'

By Chris Kuc, Chicago Tribune/May 26, 2009

It has come down to this for the Blackhawks: Win three games in a row against the defending champion Detroit Red Wings, or shave off the playoff beards and start summer vacation.

The Hawks are on the brink of elimination following their 6-1 defeat to the Wings in Game 4 on Sunday that left them trailing 3-1 in the best-of-seven Western Conference finals. Game 5 is Wednesday night at Joe Louis Arena.

"It's not going to be easy," Hawks winger Troy Brouwer said. "They're a great team, but we feel like we have the character and the skill and the grit that we can come back. We have to look at it as one game at a time and go into Joe Louis and win Game 5."

If there was ever time for the one-game-at-a-time cliché, it's now for the Hawks.

They were unable to maintain momentum from their 4-3 overtime victory in Game 3 on Friday night as the Wings dominated in every facet in Game 4.

"We can't win three games at once," winger Patrick Sharp said. "We have to worry about the next game on Wednesday in Detroit. We need to have a desperate effort."

The Hawks can be buoyed a bit by their effort in Games 1 and 2 in the Motor City.

They were tied 2-2 in the third period of the opening game before falling 5-2, and they extended the Wings to overtime in Game 2 before succumbing 3-2.

"We played two pretty good games in Detroit to come out with nothing," coach Joel Quenneville said. "Building off those two games and the three games going into [Sunday] were competitive and close.

"We have to get there knowing we have to be better than we were [Sunday] and fight our way right back into this. We're going in there with a one-game attitude."

The task lies somewhere between formidable and impossible, but the Wings aren't yet printing Stanley Cup finals T-shirts.

"You just have to continue to play your game and focus on yourself, understanding all the time that you've done nothing until this point," Wings coach Mike Babc0ck said. "I think that's very, very clear.

"As soon as you let up for one second, and the other team gets more focused, then they beat you. So you just have to stay doing what you're doing and try to make the adjustments you need to win the next game."

In the history of the NHL playoffs, only 21 teams have fought back from a 3-1 deficit to win a series.

The Hawks never have done it, and the last team to accomplish the feat was Washington this season in the Eastern Conference quarterfinals when it won three straight over the New York Rangers to advance.

"The thing we have to do now is focus on the first game, on the next game coming up," center Sammy Pahlsson said. "We can't try to think about the game coming up after that. We have to do it right now. The first period coming in, the first shift, that's where our focus has got to be. We've got to win that game."

ckuc@tribune.com

shabbs wrote:It was a calculated blow-up. Trying to motivate his team.

It won't work (not saying they'll lose, just that this can't motivate them). They know full well that a 6-1 loss cannot be blamed on a roughing call. He may have deflected the questions away from "Were you guys celebrating or something?" line of questions, if that was, in fact, what had happened. That would buy Quenneville a little goodwill from the team, but not enough to push them to a win.

No, the win has to come from the players' desire to not go quietly into the night. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they win one more, but *only* one more.