Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Your Rights Online

Blogger Removed From NCAA Game for Blogging 302

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the in-soviet-america dept.
CNet is reporting that a blogger from the Courier-Journal of Louisville, KY was recently ejected from an NCAA game for live-blogging. "According to the Courier-Journal, staff blogger Brian Bennett was approached by NCAA officials in the fifth inning of a game between the University of Lousville and Oklahoma State, told that blogging 'from an NCAA championship event "is against NCAA policies (and) we're revoking the (press) credential and need to ask you to leave the stadium."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blogger Removed From NCAA Game for Blogging

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:36PM (#19470823)
    What a doozy of a sensationalistic story. The "See any serious problems with this story?" link took on a whole new meaning.

    First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

    Second, let's go to TFA:

    The Courier-Journal said that the University of Louisville sent out a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game. The memo said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game.

    Check.

    But Bennett had not been approached after live-blogging previous games in the playoffs.

    Oh, so then it must be okay? Talk about a non-story. The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.

    This was a person who wasn't removed for "blogging", but a person with press credentials who was providing live coverage of the event.

    The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "blogging" magically different or protected?

    Could someone set up a radio broadcast station from within an NCAA event without arranging the necessary licensing with the teams and the NCAA? Could someone do the same with a cell phone and broadcast it to a pirate radio station? Sure. The answer is you can do it if you don't get caught. Conspiracy theorists will wail about how it's all about money and control, just another example of censorship in our corporate/government-controlled police state society, ignoring any and all other aspects to order and law in a civil society, and the fact that, believe it or not, economic factors actually do come into play when a lot of money is involved in producing something.

    Do you think ESPN, CNNSI, CBS and other sports news aggregators get the content for their live play-by-play event services on web sites and mobile devices for free? Hell no. The "information wants to be free" and "everything is okay when it's done using technology, but only when it's the people and not corporations or government" arguments can be saved for elsewhere.

    What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No? Where do you draw the line?

    If everyone wants to have bloggers be considered legitimate "journalists" no matter who they are, they're going to have to play by the same rules everyone else does, too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sure, sure, he's just "reporting on the event" with "newer technology" than the old antiquated dinosaurs, right? Wrong. He's providing some semblance of live coverage of the event, and that's something other content providers have to license and pay for.

    If you're live-broadcasting an event, the NCAA is likely to get its feathers ruffled, and not allow you to do it. This is not the government, and if you think it's "censorship" or inhibiting free speech or that bloggers are just "journalists", except in more real time, then why don't you get all up in arms about not being able to broadcast the video or audio from the events live or in near realtime, either?

    This isn't about "blogging". It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials - that is another critical point - without having paid to do so, like everyone else who provides such coverage has.
    • Sigh (Score:5, Funny)

      by evil agent (918566) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:43PM (#19470933)

      And here I was hoping that the Great Blogger Purge had begun.

      A man can dream, though. A man can dream...

    • by AaxelB (1034884) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:46PM (#19470991)
      I think you may have just started and ended the entirety of the possible (intelligent) debate on this topic single-handedly in the first post.

      Bravo. My hat is off to you.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I think you may have just started and ended the entirety of the possible (intelligent) debate on this topic single-handedly in the first post
        I disagree. While the FP is articulate and comprehensive, there is stll the debate about whether or not scuttlemonkey is incompetent for posting such a pointless and easily-refuted article.
    • by MollyB (162595) * on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:47PM (#19470995) Journal
      What will happen when technology allows any attendee at any function to transmit information (multimedia, for example) to anywhere s/he wants to?
      I think our business models are in for a tough shakeout. Sidenote: the lawyers will make money either way...
      • FP was rather thorough, but you bring up an extremely valid point. What happens when there's 10,000 fans trying to blog from their phones.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Mononoke (88668)
          What happens when there's 10,000 fans trying to blog from their phones.
          Cell towers going off like roman candles.
        • by Intron (870560)
          • cell phone jammer
          • search on entry
          • big signs
          • burly officials throw you out

          How is this different then rock concerts, first-run movies, etc.?
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by cyphercell (843398)
            It's not any different than those places, it's a different device. A dr. (or anyone for that matter) at a hockey game, movie or whatever has a very valid purpose for carrying a cell phone with them. These cell phones are slowly turning into catch all devices, that will inevitably lead to abuse.
      • Exactly. It is only a matter of time when everyone will have access to a cell phone that can stream live video to their blog (or wherever). Information does want to be free and you can't stop the signal. The fact of the matter is that the NCAA/NBA/(insert your favorite sports-industrial complex) has gotten away with charging everyone involved way too much money. They receive money from: corporate sponsors, media licensing, merchandise, high ticket prices. Corporate sponsorship alone can probably fund m
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by master_p (608214)
        Extending the question: what would happen if we discover how we can manipulate time and space as we see fit? if reality can be shaped up as we wish?
    • by ptbarnett (159784)
      First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

      No, it's not the NCAA. It's the University of Louisville [louisville.edu]:

      The University of Louisville is a state supported research university located in Kentucky's largest metropolitan area. [louisville.edu]

      • I like the angle you took, but it has way too many thickets in it:

        So what research is the State paying for at this particular sports game, exactly?

        There is a difference between State "supported" and state "owned". I get a huge tax deduction each year for the interest on my house mortgage, on energy-saving measures I perform on the home, my home office space, etc etc. In short, the State supports my housing in a small indirect way - same way the State (ditto) supports college sports programs in indire

    • Greetings new member of my friend's list. Well said! I think any further commenting on this has now been rendered redundant.
    • by Atario (673917)
      Solution: next time, talk into your cell phone to your buddy, who's blogging it for you. I'd like to see 'em try to ban all cell phones at games. Or to monitor every cell phone conversation in the place.

      The point is: it's stupid to try to say these people are allowed to communicate in a certain way (because they paid us), and these people are not.

      Reminds me of my visit to the Kremlin — you had to buy a special sticker for your shirt if you wanted to be allowed to take photos. Soviet America indee
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chibi Merrow (226057)

        Solution: next time, talk into your cell phone to your buddy, who's blogging it for you. I'd like to see 'em try to ban all cell phones at games. Or to monitor every cell phone conversation in the place.

        And if you were caught, you'd be warned and then ejected. Why? Because your buddy didn't pay for a ticket to the game.

        The point is: it's stupid to try to say these people are allowed to communicate in a certain way (because they paid us), and these people are not.

        How the hell is that stupid? That's how licen

        • by Atario (673917)

          And if you were caught

          Caught? How?

          you'd be warned and then ejected. Why? Because your buddy didn't pay for a ticket to the game.

          A ticket gets you into the game. My buddy is not at the game. He has not received the benefit of buying a ticket and has not bought one. Seems fair to me.

          How the hell is that stupid? That's how licensing works. Welcome to the real world.

          You still haven't explained how it's not stupid.

          This has been tested in court, the NCAA has the right to control this. End of story.

          Wha

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Pinkybum (960069)
      This was not "live-broadcasting" of an event - this was reporting, that's why he has credentials as a journalist. Your equating of live streaming video with text interpreted by a human is laughable. Sometimes I watch sporting events on the television AND read the report the next day in the paper. The reason is because of the added value the reporter gives through their interpretation. The only other benefit from live blogging is the broadcast of the score in near real time - big effing deal.
      • And, as I said, there is licensing involved in the live, semi-realtime play-by-play textual (web, mobile) content that media entities such as CBS, CNNSI, and ESPN provide.

        The bottom line is, no matter how extensive it is or isn't, "live blogging" or any other kind of live coverage is NOT ALLOWED by persons with press passes, and they were told this. That is the end of the discussion.

        I find it amusing that people can put forth all kinds of ridiculous slippery slope arguments on other technology issues, but c
        • Isn't it great how the rallying cry for blogs is that they're the new press, and they should be treated the same as any other journalist, but when that suddenly becomes inconvenient the cry is that they're NOT the same as the any other journalist and should be treated differently?

          "Blogging, all the benefits of being a journalist with none of the responsibilities!"
      • Not really - radio broadcasts of sports events do this all the time, with the commentator(s) describing the action as it progresses - and this act is considered a live broadcast event to do so.

        Just because it's on the Internet doesn't exempt the act from its brethren on older tech, y'know?

        /P

    • What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No?

      Yes.

      If I understand correctly, your main issue is with people who are confusing this with government-sponsored censorship, and I agree with you on tha

      • By the NCAA's rules, the players can't even accept money for playing unless it's part of a scholarship, but they sure don't mind raking in nice piles of tax-exempt dough from the broadcasts.


        Money which is used to pay for promotion/running of NCAA events and is passed back to the partner schools to help them fund their activities (including things like athletic scholarships, funnily enough). That's a bad example to use to make your case.
    • It is filed under the Your Rights Online category! You're not allowed to bring logic into these articles!
    • Welcome to /. This is where a story about someone sitting in a car outside an internet cafe and stealing the wireless connection gets the headline "Poor innocent Linux user arrested for browsing the web." Or a story about a student posting Nazi slogans from a college computer gets the headline "Student suspended for blogging." Misleading propaganda headlines are becoming so common around here that it's becoming one big exercise in reading between the lines.
      • Welcome to /. This is where a story about someone sitting in a car outside an internet cafe and stealing the wireless connection gets the headline "Poor innocent Linux user arrested for browsing the web." Or a story about a student posting Nazi slogans from a college computer gets the headline "Student suspended for blogging."

        In the first case, the place had a sign up that said "free wireless" and a network that was broadcasting its SSID. The store owner didn't even think it was illegal; a nosy cop decided

    • What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No? Where do you draw the line?

      And why should this be a problem? Yes, they haven't paid for the right to do so. But why ought that to be a requirement fo

      • The problem is that the logical conclusion of this approach is that anyone electronically disseminating an account of an event like this opens him/herself up to litigation for breach of contract, TOS, EULA or whatever else is in play.

        No. There was not a moratorium on blogging about the game AFTER it was over. There was a moratorium on blogging on the game WHILE you were THERE. Just like a newspaper reporter would publish his article after the game was over, an evening sports newscaster would go over the gam

        • I was talking about talking/writing to friends while the game is on-going. Tell me: what's the difference between the following two text messages?

          "UNC gslam!!!!!"

          "UNC Pedro gslam w 2 O in 7th - crowd goes wild"

          Or, two emails:

          "OMG - Pedro just hit a grandslam in the bottom of the 7th - we're up by 3!!! Everyone's dancing, and the other team is in shambles - they're having a conference on the mound!!!"

          "UNC's Pedro hits grandslam in the bottom of the 7th with 2 outs - count was 2-1, and he hit a high fastball
    • Oh, so then it must be okay? Talk about a non-story. The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.

      The story isn't "this guy got caught violating a policy that he knew about," the story is "Look what a ridiculous policy the NCAA has."

      The NCAA naturally wants to control access to live (and recorded) broadcasts of games (and currently has the legal right to do so), whether they be video, audio, or even text. How or why is "bloggi

      • No law that I am aware of stops you from telling somebody what you think about the game, be it over the water cooler at work or on your blog.


        You're correct. They can't stop you. But they don't have to let you sit in the stadium while you do it.

        See what I did there?
      • by Obfuscant (592200)
        The story isn't "this guy got caught violating a policy that he knew about," the story is "Look what a ridiculous policy the NCAA has."

        Yes, the story actually is about some guy who got caught violating a policy he knew about that was a condition of him getting special access into the game. It's actually a pretty modern policy, attempting to incorporate modern technology into its licensing plans. If the NCAA allows everyone to do live broadcasting of game data for free, then why would anyone pay for it? If

    • by vertinox (846076) on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:42PM (#19471713)
      First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

      True, but according to free market economics, I have the ability and right to boycott private organizations who participate in such behavior.

      Getting this information out and the opening and decrying it helps others to do the same and to know the truth about this behavior.

      Even though it is legal, it doesn't make it right in my views and I can voice my opinion by not supporting their private organization.
    • by Tony (765)
      The "information wants to be free" and "everything is okay when it's done using technology, but only when it's the people and not corporations or government" arguments can be saved for elsewhere.

      Why?

      Seriously. Why?

      These are relevant points of discussion. I do not place the rights of the corporation above the rights of the individual. In fact, I hold that the rights of the corporation are inferior to the rights of the individual. I ask honestly, does the corporation even have the right to restrict the report
  • ObParis (Score:5, Funny)

    by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:39PM (#19470871) Homepage
    Heck, we got more live updates from the Paris Hilton court hearing on tmz.com than we can get on an NCAA game.
  • by MalleusEBHC (597600) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:43PM (#19470935)

    In its article, the Courier-Journal quoted its executive editor, Bennie Ivory, as saying, "It's clearly a First Amendment issue. This is part of the evolution of how we present the news to our readers. It's what we did during the Orange Bowl. It's what we did during the NCAA basketball tournament. It's what we do."


    This isn't a First Amendment issue in any way, shape, or form. This is an organization not letting an individual participate because he will not abide by their rules. You can kick people out of private events basically at whim, as long as it's not on the grounds of race, religion, sex, etc. This guy was given a press pass (ie he didn't even pay to get in!), and he got kicked out for doing something they didn't like.

    That said, it's tough to say whether this was a bad move or not. In one way, this blogger is competing with the radio/tv broadcasts. On the other hand, it's some no-name newspaper that probably takes very little attention away, and kicking him out is only going to generate bad press.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by einhverfr (238914)
      The simple issue is that the NCAA has to do this to protect their lucrative TV contracts.

      In essence, it is not a problem to write down the notes on paper, go home, and post them to a blog. Allowing you to post live to a blog may violate the NCAA's tv contracts, though.

      It is a shame, but this should serve to show how commercialized even college sports have become. It is one reason I avoid sports events entirely.
    • by FSWKU (551325)

      On the other hand, it's some no-name newspaper that probably takes very little attention away, and kicking him out is only going to generate bad press.

      The Courier-Journal is hardly a "no-name newspaper." In fact, it's #41 of the top 100 [burrellesluce.com] daily newspapers in the country. With a circulation of 218,796 daily and 266,594 on Sundays, it beats out others such as The Boston Herald and the Salt Lake Tribune.

      That being said, he did violate the policy, and that's why he was asked to leave. As a reporter, it was h

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gravesb (967413)
      Actually, you can kick people out of private events based on the grounds or race, religion, sex, etc. You get in trouble if you are an employer and discriminate on those grounds. That's why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against homosexuals; they are a private organization and the 1st Amend protects a right to association (NAACP v. Alabama), and that's been extended to exclude those from your private organization for any reason at all. As with all 1st Amend law, there are exceptions, such as the previou
    • "..as long as it's not on the grounds of race, religion, sex, etc. .."

      I think in a *private* event, you can legally discriminate. May not win any friends, and the press may eat you alive, but i do think its your right to restrict your own private activities. ( ie, boyscouts... )
  • The NCAA has a lot to gain by keeping a monopoly on live reporting. Who cares anyway? Besides, anyone with a Blackberry at game can blog live.
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:45PM (#19470973) Homepage Journal

    Given that a large percentage of NCAA schools are publicly funded, and the NCAA harps ad nauseam about their role in developing successful students, it would seem to follow that it's mostly a taxpayer-funded educational institution. I can understand them saying "you can't redistribute our coverage without our consent", but I see no way they can justify saying "you can't distribute your own take on the events you're watching that you funded out of your own wallet".

    Want to retain all rights to an event's coverage? Well, good luck with that, but don't spend my tax dollars enforcing it.

    • After the fine first post, parent seems to have raised the only issue worth discussing.
    • I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing, which is why they enforce this sort of thing. News agencies PAY to provide live coverage of events.
      • I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing,

        That is, licensing the trademarks of the schools comprising it. As a not-for-profit entity (educational institution status), it funnels most of that money back to its members, which are largely taxpayer-funded schools.

        Basically, they want all the perks of being a government institution without any of the obligations.

        • As a not-for-profit entity (educational institution status), it funnels most of that money back to its members

          So your comment has just morphed this "reporter" from a shining champion of free speech to Snidely Whiplash in a black hat snickering as he steals the mortgage money away from the schoolhouse. Awesome. How do we work tying the attractive school marm to the railroad tracks into this?

          The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games. This has been tested in court. End of story. He can report on the g

          • The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games. This has been tested in court.

            But not in the way you think.

            We hold that Motorola and STATS have not unlawfully misappropriated NBA's property by transmitting "real-time" NBA game scores and statistics taken from television and radio broadcasts of games in progress.
            The National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc. [bitlaw.com]

            The only difference here is that Moto was using 2nd-hand information and the blogger was using 1st-hand. You might try to argue that 1st-hand vs 2nd-hand makes a whole world of difference, but the end result is exactly the same in either case.

            • Yes, so if he wanted to copy and paste scores onto his blog from his home computer they probably couldn't get him. But they could still eject him from the game for doing it in the stands. At the end of the day they may not be able to force him to remove either case from his blog once it's posted, but they don't have to let him sit in one of their seats. Especially one they gave him.
          • The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games.
            which raises the question, is blogging broadcasting?
            • Depending on which definition of broadcasting you use, yes. Even the definitions that specifically mention radio or television could be weaseled in since technically he's using a radio signal to report from the game. But within the spirit of the definition, definitely. It involves widely disseminating some form of information.

              Also, if blogging wants to be taken seriously as journalism, then it especially should fall in the realm of broadcasting.
    • by delong (125205)
      The NCAA schools are publicly funded, but the NCAA is a private organization.

      Regardless, the NCAA owns the copyright to the "performance" of the game, and that has been tested in court. You can't distribute your take on the events live without NCAA consent. In addition, when you attend a game, and particularly when you are there on press credentials, you are a licensee and under restrictions of a contract that can be revoked at any time.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by UbuntuDupe (970646)
      I think this regresses to the whole issue of tax status of educational institutions. Even if they are supported by tax dollars and even spend tax dollars on athletes, they also make a profit from these revenues. Huge profits. Why should these be exempt from regular taxes on profits, simply because they teach students on the side?
    • by RexRhino (769423)
      But the solution to this problem would be to revoke government funding... not to continue to subsidize basketball with tax dollars and let people blog.
    • by fermion (181285)
      I do believe the NCAA does get kids to learn through sports. It is a tough balancing act. Many kids are willing to sell themselves for a bag of silver, and most sports team are more than happy to buy these kids for as long as they are useful. It must be terribly difficult for a kid to turn down a wheel barrel full of money in hopes of future gratification, especially when a torn ACL could end all future hopes in an instance. Better to get a contract now while the getting is good.

      So even though the NCA

  • First of all, NCAA specifically disallows blogging, so I guess it has as much freedom to impose such restriction as that blogger to not attend the event.

    it's hard to see how they can expect news organizations to keep from reporting the news as it happens.

    I wouldn't be surprised if NCAA wants to introduce its own blog in the future.
  • EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!

    seriously.. if he or anyone else wanted to keep live bloggin, and risk their journalistic cred, how hard would it be to get people to sms/mms/phone in updates of the game?

    these enterprises have top rethink how they make revenue in this new age....

    the only reason this journalist was caught is because it became a big thing &trade.

    and so the powers that be get upitty about lost revenue and arrest him...loosing even more revenue! :|

    surely t
    • and so the powers that be get upitty about lost revenue and arrest him...loosing even more revenue! :|


      They would have to be making revenue from his activities to lose revenue by disallowing them.
      • by drfrog (145882)
        true, im more talking about a lost op to make more revenue

        it all how you look at a situation

        they could have handled it better
        • They did handle it better. They sent out a memo informing everyone this behavior would not be allowed. He's the asswipe that chose to ignore it and forced them to enforce their policy.
    • by delong (125205)
      EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!

      There is a EULA. You are a licensee. Your continued presence at the event is conditional on the event not throwing you out for whatever reason they want or at least put in the "contract", ie. the back of the ticket nobody reads.
    • He didn't get arrested, he was ejected from the game.
  • by IthnkImParanoid (410494) on Monday June 11, 2007 @04:52PM (#19471047)
    A website funded mostly by advertisements that is therefore immune to the temptation to sensationalize stories is reporting that a sports talk show host from WSHT was recently ejected from a meaningless sports event for calling the game with a HAM radio.

    According to WSHT, host Johnson Jones was approached by NCAA officials right before they stop selling beer and all the fun is gone in a game between the University of Lousville and Oklahoma State, and was told that calling the game 'from an NCAA championship event "is against NCAA policies (and) we're revoking the (press) credential and need to ask you to leave the stadium, before we employ more (parenthesis) and 'nested "quo't'es" at you in a "vicious"' (manner)."'
    Clearly, this is a sign our democratic meritocracy has finally collapsed under the weight of the jack booted thugs from college sporting events. The arguments from the N[azi]CAA that they have a right to revoke the press pass they gave him because he's competing with their services are obviously thinly veiled lies. The end of the world will follow shortly.
  • i'm sure they're legally well within their rights, but that doesn't mean it's smart. a) blogging in No Way Shape Or Form is going to realistically compete with the more lucrative, more important broadcast media. so, assuming they had their own official blog, they might be able to make some spare change from advertisers, but it's not going to be anywhere close to the other media rights. i can't imagine reading someone's live blog in lieu of watching the game on tv, if at all possible. b) blogs from the
  • There's a more interesting issue going on right now with live coverage of the World Series of Poker. Harrah's made an exclusive deal with Pokernews.com to cover the event and provide live chip counts, etc. Cardplayer.com has been updating their site with chip counts taken from pokernews. Tony G, the owner of Pokernews.com is angry and threatening a lawsuit [pokerworks.com]:

    We put the chip counts up on PokerNews, and one minute later they are up on Cardplayer.com. Cardplayer has no one counting chips at the WSOP, and the

    • ROFL! Sucks to be Pokernews...

      No, seriously; if Pokernews can't see the advantage in being first-to-the-punch, or have overpayed for the 'right' to spit out these numbers first, then they can complain to no one, really.

      Then again, I'm not a jury, judge, lawyer, or any of that. I just find the whole thing kinda silly (sorta like when Jeep sued Hummer because the Hummers had seven slits in their vehicle's grille... just like the Jeeps do. Never mind that both grille types were built (IIRC) from some minor

    • by GiMP (10923)

      Do they have the exclusive rights to this kind of factual information once it is posted on the internet?

      This area of law can get really complicated... Is it legal for FatWallet to republish BestBuy's prices online? Is it legal to republish facts taken from the Guiness Book of World records? The scores from a football game? The statistics of a baseball player? Its just data, just facts.. but so is a number (like the AACS one)

      The question is, where are the limits of fair-use, if these things can really

  • by bahwi (43111) <incoming&josephguhlin,com> on Monday June 11, 2007 @05:10PM (#19471271) Homepage
    Just because blogging is a new thing doesn't mean it isn't the press. They don't let the news outlets show it live and they have lots of crazy rules. Just because blogging is a new thing doesn't mean he is excluded. It's still the press and it's still reporting and live reporting is typically not allowed. If you make up "zlogging" and say it's the live reporting of scores and cool stuff that happens at a game doesn't make it any more "allowed" because it's "too new" to have rules against it.
  • They've got about as much right to liveblog the game as I do to create my own radio broadcast of an NCAA playoff. This isn't censorship, it's a licensor protecting the exclusivity of its licensees.
  • When those explosive bolts go off, and the jettison rocket fires, I'll tell you, it's a shock. Same thing happened to me when I freed my carrier pigeon from the game the other night. It wasn't the landing on the roof that was so bad, but the slow slide down the slope only to be hung up 10 feet from ground of the parking lot. It took nearly 3 hours for fire dept to arrive and after the game ended a couple kids threw stuff at me.

  • I remember an episode of the Simpsons that had a movie(or something) advertising "no internet spies". CBG gets thrown out. He asks them how they found out, and you see a desktop computer thrown out. He finishes with "it came with a mouse."
  • This headline is funnier if you read it as "Smurf Removed From NCAA Game for Smurfing".
  • The Real Scoop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EastCoastSID (1114279) on Monday June 11, 2007 @06:00PM (#19471889)
    I'm a devout /. reader and also a sports information director at a major university (you've heard of it). My job puts me between the press and the teams - I run our web site, keep statistics, run press conferences, etc. That means I deal with this crap, and the NCAA's retarded rights issues, every day. I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't be the last.

    But here's the thing with this story.

    Whether or not someone can blog an event depends on some things. If it's an NCAA event (as this game was), it's the NCAA's call. As far as I know, the NCAA prohibits blogging at all of its championship events, including the College World Series and the Superregionals. It sucks, because even I as an institutional representative can't blog about my team, but as several other posters have said, there are a lot of rights and a lot of cash floating out there, between TV and radio, as well as livestats on the web and the ad revenues it generates. Monetarily, the NCAA is doing itself a favor, as well as the institutions, by restricting this.

    Louisville WAS NOT restricting the blogging - the NCAA was. The blogger may have gotten away with it at the basketball, probably because that event is so huge and unwieldy from a media standpoint they couldn't track him down/know he was doing it, and the Orange Bowl isn't an NCAA event.

    Most institutions don't care. I don't care. Hell, I WANT people blogging my school because it means we're getting that much more exposure. 17 year-olds aren't reading about us in the newspaper - they're reading blogs, and they're going to hear about us that way. I blog my own events during the regular season, but unfortunately, once its NCAA time, it goes out the window.

    And don't do the whole "it's a state-funded school" thing - 90% of these schools don't see a dime of state money for athletics. Their athletic depts. are set up as corporations that generate their own revenue and are mostly driven by student tuition activities fees, football, men's basketball and corporate and private donors.

    So, in conclusion, the NCAA is perfectly within their rights to restrict this, even though it's Evil and all that.

    Also, to the earlier poster who said that ESPN, CBS, etc. pay to get their live statistic game feeds - not true. Most all of the scores and stats you see on ESPN and CBS come directly from the institutions themselves. For example, if I'm the statistician for a football game, we send a live stat XML feed to our web provider, and it also gets FTP'd straight to ESPN. For schools that use the CSTV service, it goes to CBS Sportsline (which owns CSTV). For games not feeding stats like that, there are a few companies that will actually call the press row line (or, if they feel like being a pain in my ass, my cell phone) and ask for the score, high scorers, etc. ESPN owns the largest of these, SportsTicker.

  • How asinine. He could have been doing it in front of his television set, seeing the same game, and there would have been nothing they could have done about it. He wasn't rebroadcasting their account of the game. It was his account. Next thing you know, cell phones will be banned -- especially those with cameras!

Chairman of the Bored.

Working...