Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Removed From NCAA Game for Blogging
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."'"
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.
Heck, we got more live updates from the Paris Hilton court hearing on tmz.com than we can get on an NCAA game.
And here I was hoping that the Great Blogger Purge had begun.
A man can dream, though. A man can dream...
End transmission.
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.
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.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
People actually blog about NCAA baseball? And they threw him out.. I bet that kept a total 0 people from getting the latest from the game.
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.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
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 they can see if they supported live bloggin it could be a win - win for both parties
they should have made a revenue sharing deal, not get him arrested
times are changin , one must navigate, not resist
back in the day we didnt have no old school
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
I do not agree with the blocking of blogging, but if he was in there for free , they have the right to eject him. If he had paid to attend, I think ejecting him would be completely wrong.
Free press stops when it trends on private property.
Wrong.
NCAA policy expressly prohibits live-blogging/coverage of the game by press, he was informed of it in advance, he had press credentials; he violated the policy anyway, got caught, and got removed.
End of story.
And no, there is no first amendment question here at all, government or no. And if there is, it's the same for any other live coverage of an event by any mechanism. I know the whole "Congress shall pass no law" thing is pesky, but yet there it is. I guess that's why your argument is always best served by trying to link government and corporate interests, making corporate "censorship" a de facto first amendment issue.
This isn't some journalist innocently trying to report the game with new technology that bucks a business model, or a guy who might want to tell his buddies about the game via computer. It's someone who wants to be considered a journalist, with journalist credentials, violating the policy set forth by the issuer of said credentials.
Not much more to say about it.
No, that's not true at all. There's nothing that the NCAA can do to prevent him from writing about the game on his blog AFTER the game is over, but they can certainly restrict him from writing about it while he's AT the actual game. This isn't a first amendment issue. You have no first amendment rights on someone else's property. The NCAA is not the government, he's only AT the venue at their pleasure, and they own all rights to any live reporting on the game. As the GP so rightfully pointed out, if bloggers want to be taken as legitimate journalists they're going to have to play by the same rules, ESPECIALLY if they're being given press passes.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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 games are a great way to encourage grass-roots fandom. especially if you have multiple providers for the same game, some local, some not, it adds a colorful aspect that can only help boost the enthusiasm for fans. c) prohibiting the live blogs is *only* going to annoy the people who would have read them. personally, i was very disappointed to see they had prohibited the live-blogs. i'd really enjoyed going back and reading cstv.com 's live-blogs from the regional round of the tournament, and it was disappointing they wouldn't be able to provide the same service for the super-regionals. i think it's just another example of a corporation having a knee-jerk negative reaction that doesn't take into account what might actually be best for the customers.
In retrospect, he probably shouldn't have titled his blogpost "nappy-headed hos."
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.
Does/can the NCAA stop you from blogging about a game, as it happens, based purely on what you see being broadcast on TV? (i.e., from home) Not trying to make a point, just curious.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
NCAA policy expressly prohibits live-blogging/coverage of the game by press, he was informed of it in advance, he had press credentials; he violated the policy anyway, got caught, and got removed.
If that was your first post, I'd be right behind you. But you went the reciprocal-tinfoil strawman route and got caught.
Not much more to say about it.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
They as SO off my friends list.
Only he did say that in his first post.
If that was your first post, I'd be right behind you. But you went the reciprocal-tinfoil strawman route and got caught.
That was also in my first post:
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.
[...] The guy just got caught violating a policy that he knew about and probably even agreed to as a person with press credentials.
That doesn't invalidate the other legitimate arguments I made, and just because you don't personally agree with them doesn't make them invalid, or incorrect, for that matter.
It is filed under the Your Rights Online category! You're not allowed to bring logic into these articles!
Is this an ETLA? Is the RSPCA or RoSPA involved? Does the EBU have any influence? Should we contact PDFORRA? I imagine the IALA might be able to help.
Actually, the NCAA's right to control live/semi-live/recorded broadcast of its events, from public/state institutions or otherwise, has been tested and confirmed time and again in the courts. The fact that some NCAA institutions are quasi-governmental entities is incidental to this argument. If you extend your argument, then unrestricted video, audio, text, or any other kind of broadcast should also be allowed without licensing from the events.
If you want to kind of make the stretch argument that this is "taxpayer funded", well, any events that the NCAA would even care about kicking a "live blogger" with press credentials out of are going to be at programs that are already highly profitable for the institution, and thus not funded by taxpayer dollars.
I believe I have addressed your concerns here and a bit here.
Journalist shouldn't have taken it too seriously.Its only college ball and no one really cares but participants,their families and anyone involved at a job level.
Frankly this year I've seen High School games that were more exciting.
Officials just had to pretend their life means something,so they act like they're in pro-ball.No real surprise there.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
See, I've avoided that argument myself because honestly I'm not sure. On the one hand I'd say no, but on the other the network broadcasting the game has paid for the right to broadcast it, so by reporting on it live you are infringing on their license... I don't think the NCAA would care about it much unless the website started actually making revenue, at which point they would immediately crack down. There's obviously a line between some friend discussing a game as it's going on using a web forum or live blow-by-blow reporting on a game based on the broadcast you're watching... But in the end it's up to the NCAA to decide and the courts to confirm or deny. I'd try to stay out of a court if I were a smalltime sports blogger, myself, though...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
"strawman" != "legitimate". Try again.
The question "does blogging equal broadcast" has not been answered. Until then, it's a 1st Amendment question.
Your personal biases are irrelevant.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
There's nothing that the NCAA can do to prevent him from writing about the game on his blog AFTER the game is over, but they can certainly restrict him from writing about it while he's AT the actual game. This isn't a first amendment issue. You have no first amendment rights on someone else's property. The NCAA is not the government, he's only AT the venue at their pleasure, and they own all rights to any live reporting on the game.
And what exactly is it that *gives* them that insane level of control over something that they do not and can not legitimately own?
Oh, that would be the government.
I'm not saying it absolutely is a first amendment issue, but you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't. The only reason they can even claim to have such far overreaching powers is due to the government granting them that monopoly power. If you're claiming it is not a first amendment issue, then you'll have to address that.
As the GP so rightfully pointed out, if bloggers want to be taken as legitimate journalists they're going to have to play by the same rules, ESPECIALLY if they're being given press passes.
But as he failed to point out, those who are currently playing by the rules aren't considered legitimate journalists by reasonable people any longer. They are, in fact, one of the biggest parts of the problem. They are corporate/government shills and nothing more. We need actual legitimate journalists who do not play by the rules more than just about anything at this point in time
So, there are points in your and the GPs posts, but they are not all that clear, complete, or anywhere near as obvious as you're trying to pretend that they are.
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 for being allowed to talk about a sponsored event? There's no other reason than that the powers that be decided that way.
Historically speaking, only people with money had access to a press, which means that only people with money had the ability to cover events. This in turn meant that it was possible to ask for money when providing access to media people, without preventing everyone else from participating in the event in their normal fashion. Today however, everyone can cover an event, and pretty much everyone does. This means that preventing someone with official press credentials from live-casting, blogging, vlogging (or via any other lexical abomination) an event only means that that person will try to do so without press credentials next - because the press credentials make no difference to the end-product. What's next? You can't talk about an event, unless you paid the governing body money? That's just madness in the making, and a ticket to oblivion for the event in question. Obviously, that's not a solution.
The problem with the NCAAA's approach not that an article in a blog is magically different from an article in a newspaper. 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. Personally, I'd say that all these rules should be declared against the public interest of being able to talk about the game in a way that goes beyond face to face or the phone. Organizations like the MLB could then do the same thing that videogame makers do: have an "Official" voice that gets primo access, and everyone else can do whatever they want, short of disrupting operations and the flow of the event.
Will this mean that traditional media takes another hit? Sure does. Do I care? No. No one is entitled to a revenue stream just because they had one in the past.
Finally, this is also a lesson in why you should always answer your rhethorical questions: it ensures that you get the right reaction from your audience.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
drenched in fallacy, which is the subject of my posts ("Overrated" coward mods notwithstanding).
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Hasn't been answered by who? Morons? I'm not sure how you could argue that blogging is not broadcasting.
Until then, it's a 1st Amendment question.
No, it's not. You are perfectly free to waive your Constitutional rights in private contracts (barring separate laws such as slavery, etc). He agreed to not broadcast live from the game in exchange for press credentials. He did so anyway and faced the consequences.
Namaste
No. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming FIRST AMENDMENT over and over again in hopes that it will suddenly become true. He can exercise his first amendment rights elsewhere all he wants. If blogging is journalism, then it operates under the same rules as any other form of journalism. Broadcasting involves widely disseminating information, which blogging obviously does. Yes the traditional definition of broadcast refers to television/radio stations, but before that it referred only to radio and TV broadcasts over the air (and was expanded to cover cable television), and even before that it referred just to small spark-gap transmitters held by private individuals. Definitions update themselves with the times, and posting (near) real-time descriptions of a game are as much broadcasting as a commentator speaking a blow-by-blow into a microphone or a typist providing real-time closed captions for a television broadcast. The endpoint device for the data doesn't change that.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
The question "does blogging equal broadcast" has not been answered. Until then, it's a 1st Amendment question.
The question of ANY kind of live coverage of an NCAA event requiring licensing to cover said event, by any mechanism, including "blogging", has already been asked and answered numerous times in the courts. There already are numerous web-based, mobile, paging, datacast, and other textual services that do live or near-live coverage of such events, and they pay for and license the content and right to do so from the rights holder. Also, the blogger is not prohibited from reporting on the event after the fact. The question "does blogging equal broadcast" doesn't have to be answered; any live or near-realtime coverage of the event must be licensed. In this particular scenario, the person was even informed that his specific activity was prohibited.
it's not a first amendment question.
Parent says it all.
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".
Another evil ??AA?
"..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... )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But only from religious events....
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however. But that is their primary (and in the end, only just) purpose, to ENFORCE and PROTECT rights. In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games. They can choose to license or not license that right as they see fit. It's theirs. There's nothing in the first amendment that says they have to let you sit in the stands and report on their games if they don't want you there. That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
You should try visiting reality sometime. Journalists can write about whatever they wish, but they do not get a free license to be wherever they wish when they do this. This is the purpose of a press pass; it's a way for an entity to tell and individual "We recognize the contribution your reporting on this event will add to society and as such we are giving you the ability to view it freely and report on it afterwards." This does not make someone a corporate shill, it simply allows them access that they otherwise would have to pay for (or even in some cases could NOT pay for, as evidenced by my experience w/ Press badges at GDC). This is being done as a FAVOR to the journalist, not as some mercenary contract. If the journalist chooses to spit on such kindness, then they can report on the event from outside.
As I've said to many people today: Get a life.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
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.
It's a very large private gathering.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
And as far as I'm concerned the NCAA can go jump off a cliff WRT that policy. I can understand the right to control broadcasts with video, but as far as I care they have no right to say that you are not allowed to say what is happening. They do not own what is happening and they do not own what I write, so screw them, and any courts which support this.
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It does not matter what the relationship between blogging and broadcasting is. That's a red herring.
He can say what he likes about the game on his own property, on his own dime. The 1st Amendment does not address the issue of entering property belonging to others, such as the place where the game was played. The property owners may set conditions on entry. They did. He knew of those conditions. He violated those conditions. So he was ejected. The only legal issues are those regarding his permission to enter private property - not a free speech issue at all.
The University can eject anyone from their property for any reason or no reason at all. They did NOT restrict his speech; they restricted his access to the event that he wanted to speak about. If I decide to speak about your sex life, the 1st Amendment does not give me permission to enter your bedroom.
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 reporting of *any* individual?
I hold they do not. In our twisted society, of course, it is not only allowed, but encouraged. However, that does not make it *right*.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So your argument comes down to "I think they're poopieheads"? Good luck with that.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
posting (near) real-time descriptions of a game are as much broadcasting as a commentator speaking a blow-by-blow into a microphone or a typist providing real-time closed captions for a television broadcast
Feel free to post a citation in support of that. No? Then it is still a 1st Amendment question.
Your opinions and biases don't change that.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
All you're going on is opinions and biases. There's nothing in the law that requires the NCAA to allow someone to remain in their venue engaging in live reporting of a game. The first amendment doesn't protect the location of your speech, just whether or not you're allowed to speak. Live-blogging is journalism. The NCAA can control attendance of journalists to their events. You're just trying to argue ad nauseum that someone's non-existent rights are being violated.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Its not arbitrary at all - its the rules he must agree to for a press pass.
If this guy is live blogging, he is providing a live source that either circumvents the advertising of the sponsors, or circumvents live-feeds that require a fee to watch. In short, he is messing with their revenue streams.
btw - the coverage is private, not the event. Just like the MLB etc.
People on the internet are censorship-noobs. They have no idea where their rights end and their privileges begin.
1st covers more than speech... And I never said rights were violated; just that there was an open questions. You and OP let your opinions and biases argue as strawmen, ad infinitum. OP was especially poor by arguing video. It wasn't his first time, and I got sick of his bellicose fallacious argumentation.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I am SOOOO tired of this being over used. The first amendment as much as I and many like you may wish otherwise ONLY applies to public places. Period, end of story. A private stadium holding a private game (yes it is private because you must buy a ticket to attend and it is NOT government land) invalidates any form of first amendment rights.
If you start mouthing off in my home or broadcasting my eating dinner I have EVERY right to kick you out of my house. In some states I have the right to do so physically and not just metaphorically. Same rule applies. He walked into their PRIVATE property thus giving up any first amendment protection.
Like it or no that is what the constitution protects and all it protects. Public areas as defined by government/state owned property.
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however.
You went from an incomplete but possibly correct argument to something that is absolutely positively false.
The very existence of a corporation is due solely to the government *bestowing* that right. Avoidance of consequences for your actions through legal mumbo jumbo is not a natural right and can not exist without it being granted.
In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games.
Right. Now your homework is to go and look up what a copyright is. It's a right that did not exist in any way shape or form until the government granted it. It is not a natural right and without a government grant of it, it does not exist anywhere. Without that government granted right, it is your natural right to do whatever the hell you want with your description of the game.
That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
And you contradict yourself yet again. It's only THEIR game *because* of a government granted monopoly.
This does not make someone a corporate shill, it simply allows them access that they otherwise would have to pay for (or even in some cases could NOT pay for, as evidenced by my experience w/ Press badges at GDC).
I never said that made them corporate shills. The unassailable fact is that all of the major media reporters are corporate shills. Claiming that anybody else who wants to report should emulate them is a very bad idea for that reason.
Jesus. They did not stop this person from blogging. Where the hell would they get the authority to do that? What they did was eject a person from the property who was not following the rules. Did they take his laptop? Insist he delete whatever he was working on? Threaten to shoot him if he told anybody about it? Anybody who thinks this is a free speech issue is an idiot.
I don't have any sporting events ticket stubs handy, but I am sure they have rules on them... my Zoo ticket even says I can't take pictures of the animals for "commercial use"...
If there is a "commercial use" clause in the NCAA rules, did the blogger really violate them? I haven't looked, but does this blogger have referral ads or anything else that might be construed as commercial?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
...but fans should really start crying "bullshit" to all the crap being flung by professional sports organizations. Basketball, football, baseball. Stop supporting these assholes! They can only get away with their assault on fans as long as the fans let them.
Private stadium? Um, UofL is a public university, and it happened in our Stadium. Not private. If this were a private school or private venue, sure, then your arguement holds up, but no, this was in a publically funded stadium. I'm not saying it's a first amendment issue, but your arguement holds no water, nor does your comparison to if someone trie to blog from inside your house.
Ryan Stultz
.... He was also asked to remove all memory of the day from his mind as recalling it later is against their policies, Unless he buys a ticket for each time the memory is recalled. When leaving the stadium spectators were told "first rule of NCAA is: Don't talk about NCAA, Second rule of NCAA is: Don't blog about NCAA and the third rule of NCAA is: No outside food or drink".
By the way, I'm English, I have no idea what NCAA is.
God Be Gone
That's a point I was about to try to make, but you beat me to it. The NCAA can't stop you from blogging about a game, as it happens, based on what you see being broadcast on TV or what you hear being broadcast on the radio. (Strictly speaking, they could, by frivolously suing you, but their suit would be groundless.) Therefore, it's foolish of them to try to stop someone from blogging from the site of the event; the only difference between on-site and off-site blogging is that on-site blogging is more likely to promote actually going to the game, which is in the interest of NCAA members (they sell more tickets that way).
Your opinion and bias is meaningless. You need to start dealing with facts, not your emotions.
Here is the blog in question if you'd like to read for yourself.
Ergo, not a first amendment issue.
They would presumably be within their rights to do the same thing they did here, to wit, deny you access to the game in realtime. In other words, they could demand your cable connection be disconnected, probably without refund, for breaking some rule deep in the fine print. Which they could also do if you provided an Internet feed of any other copyrighted content captured from the cable connection.
I think possibly yes. If you ever watch a baseball game on tv, usually some time during the broadcast they will say "this broadcast is copyright of any retransmissions or accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without the express written consent of and major league baseball"
IANAL, but to me that seems that you can't do any kind of reporting on play by play of the game, giving "descriptions" of what happens in it, without the consent of the team and the sport organization, in my example MLB, in the story NCAA.
As other people have said, the NCAA owns the rights to that game and can choose who is allowed to report it to the public. The NCAA is getting advertising revenue from TV and/or Radio broadcast of the game, and is well within their rights to keep someone from circumventing the licensed accounts of the game.
IANAL, but to me that seems that you can't do any kind of reporting on play by play of the game, giving "descriptions" of what happens in it, without the consent of the team and the sport organization, in my example MLB, in the story NCAA.
Okay, but every day in the sports pages (or in the sports segment on the news), reporters "describe" what happened in the game. Are they licensed, or is this somehow okay since the description occurred after the game?
Presumably, they can't go after anyone who says, "On May 7, 2003, Billy-bob Jones scored his 40th home run against the University of Georgia team".
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Okay, but every day in the sports pages (or in the sports segment on the news), reporters "describe" what happened in the game. Are they licensed, or is this somehow okay since the description occurred after the game?
Exactly, the difference is that live coverage and broadcast of these events is licensed differently from print reporters and photographers (not that you have to be "licensed" to write about an event... if you want a front row seat to snap photos you will definitely have to be issued press credentials, though...)
They make money by selling tickets to the event or licensing broadcasts of the event (I'm sure CBS Sportline, ESPN, etc pay for their live Internet coverage as well). The was they see it, putting an article and photo in the paper does not take away their revenues, but providing live coverage might. And if they license Internet live coverage to some people, they have to restrict those who are not licensed, otherwise they won't keep that revenue for long...
This is the same motivation by which professional teams black out their local coverage when a game is not sold out.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with this policy, but as a money-making business (and yes, the NCAA is a huge money making business) they certainly have the right to do this if they want.
What fallacy? I didn't see one. You yell "Strawman strawman!" but fail to point out how his argument is a strawman.
If "blogging" is banned, then what is "blogging"? Is it the act of posting an article to a website? If so then all web publishing is banned.
Is the the act of publishing an article on the web while the event is still in progress? I would say that the majority of web publishing is still banned as most all sites will post updates to articles of the game, especially if something happened like an injury or upset in the making. If we take this to the logical non-web based world, any pre-submitted articles would also be considered banned. So the sporting equivilent of "Dewey Defeats Truman" won't ever happen again, because if it does, then we know you posted the article before the game/event ended, not that deadlines have anything to do with it.
How can blogging while at the live event be distinguished from blogging from say a TV or radio broadcast (asside from name being attached to said article)?
Is it banned if I call on a cell phone and relay the events to someone else who then "blogs" the phone conversation? What if this is a friend who is participating in some social event in which their entire existance is posted on a blog like say some who was listed as a potential terroriest who decided the best way to beat that fact was to post his entire life online in realtime, like professor Hasan Elahi as posted in a previous slashdot article.
It is an incredible slippery slope that the NCAA is trying to walk on here.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Why would you even need to get a press pass to blog? Can't you simply blog from the stands, and bypass the stupid "press credential/contract" crap?
All you would need is a decent PDA and you could post results, scores, updates, etc. from the stands. You are not videotaping or photographing anything, just typing out what you see with your eyes into text and posting it that way.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
By logical extension, pretty soon nobody will be allowed to use cellular phones at sporting events. This means YOU, Captain Retardo with your bluetooth dongle crammed in your ear. You could be giving a play-by-play to somebody outside, who might in turn be BLOGGING the event. For shame!
You may argue the NCAA is within its rights to deny bloggers at sporting events, but this is just another example of a misguided corporation struggling for control over information. But information can't be controlled like the turnstiles to the stadium. So all they've really done is pissed off someone who is just doing their job, and those folks will eventually find someone getting around their restrictions despite the NCAA's greatest efforts.
Here's another take: this is the first time the University of Louisville is making an appearance at the College World Series. Do they really want to tell the local newspaper beat writer, who may be just finally starting to get some Cards fans excited about baseball, that he has to pack it up and not cover the event? What kind of idiots run the NCAA anyway? If they wanted to stir up some kind of stink about the Intertubes, they should have waited until the sports doldrums that start here in a few weeks.
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
Do I really have to Google for this shit? Not everyone's American, people... Please write out acronyms for easy understanding, thanks a lot.
:-)
NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association
I guess it's kind of popular over there.. Compared to Europe, where we play real sports in real leagues
"We NEED to X"
You don't NEED, you WANT.
Abdication of responsibility seems to have become a national pastime in Amerikka,.
No. They're not relevant points of discussion.
Ignoring the obvious fact that corporations aren't about to go away, let's consider this. Is it right to go back on your word, after you gave it in good faith? I wont even start into the idea that "well, I did it X times before and I didn't get in trouble..." Only a fucking eight year old would use that kind of retarded logic. Is it right to decide that, for some magical reason, you are the exception and that the rules somehow do not apply to you? No. That kind of thinking is why we have people like Paris Hilton. And where the hell did you get the idea that you have the right to someone ANYONE else's property, even if it is a corporation?
If you're going to make a poster child of someone who clearly can't tell the difference between right and wrong, I'd at least suggest a topic worth picking instead of this one. If he wanted to undauntedly "report" (and I use that term looser than goatse.cx man's asshole when it comes to bloggers) he should have waited until it was broadcast. Play by the god damn rules or don't go in the first place.
And don't give me this self serving individual rights bullshit. Just because you want to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it. That's a narrow and childish way to view the world.
The endpoint device for the data doesn't change that.
That's a good theory, unfortunately, the RIAA worked really hard to ensure that stuff on the net is not "broadcasting" in order to secure special royalties and regulations over and above the normal "broadcast" royalties.
As it stands, logic may say you're right, but law and precedent say you are wrong.
"End of story."
Hell no. Down with the greedy bastards.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This only can happen with NFL games; the rest (namely MLB and NHL) are stipulated by the league and the broadcaster's contract; for example if a game is being covered by both the home TV crew and ESPN, ESPN may be blacked out in certain areas so that viewers are forced to watch the game on the local broadcaster. National coverage seems to becoming more exclusive, see ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball, Fox's Saturday afternoon baseball, and NBC's hockey coverage for instance, when their coverage is the only game being played and they have the exclusive TV rights to it.
The NFL blackouts are worst for the at-home fan, a game has to sell out 72 hours before gametime in order to be aired within something like 75 miles of the stadium. Instead of maybe not seeing the announce team you'd like as with the MLB, you just don't get to see your game at all.
I don't know offhand what the NCAA blackout restrictions are; I believe it's more a factor of the broadcaster's contract than it is a ticket-sales motivator.
Don't troll him.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
... should that be the right state of things?
In other countries such actions of private entities are explicitly outlawed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This is why I'm going to law school!!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
"I submit that it is an open question. You may indeed be right, but I tend to fall on the other side of the argument."
Considering that there is no legitimate reason for you to "fall on the other side of the argument" I am forced to question your qualifications for forming an intelligent opinion.
You've essentially "fallen on the other side" of an argument with no legitimate other side. Whether you submit that it's an open question or not changes nothing.
The government cannot bestow rights upon an individual or a corporation. Rights either exist or they don't. Governments can choose whether or not to enforce rights, however. But that is their primary (and in the end, only just) purpose, to ENFORCE and PROTECT rights. In this case the NCAA has a Copyright on broadcasting of their games. They can choose to license or not license that right as they see fit. It's theirs. There's nothing in the first amendment that says they have to let you sit in the stands and report on their games if they don't want you there. That has nothing to do with the government bestowing any monopoly power upon them. It's THEIR game. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
That's not right. First, only governments can grant rights. Rights do not exist until they are recognized in law by a government. Until a right is recognized it's a principle, not a right.
Secondly, the NCAA does not have a copyright on the broadcasting of their games. They have a private property right to control access to their property. Therefore they can choose who they allow to stay and who they require to leave subject to the usual anti-discrimination laws. They sell the right to broadcast the game to a television network by enforcing their private property rights against anyone who hasn't paid for a broadcast licence. The licensors then own a copyright on the recording they make of the game.
As for the rest, the person you're responding to is a little overly distraught but functionally correct, the American media is owned by corporate interests. Sure journalists can write whatever they want, but they have editors who control what gets published and they do risk losing their jobs if they try to get the "wrong" writing published. He's not saying anyone with a press pass has sold out, he's saying the entire media is failing to fulfill it's responsibilities. The public relies on the fourth estate to be vigilant on it's behalf, to watch the government and the corporations, and to make their failures known. The mainstream American media is afraid to criticize corporations because they might loose advertising dollars and afraid to criticize government because it might be unpopular. It's part of the reason why there's so much celebretainment and crime coverage. Both topics are lurid and safe.
I just thought I would explain that since you seem to be failing to understand that a diatribe against the media in general is just that. It has little to do with this particular event.
As to the particular event at hand, while the NCAA has the right to eject anyone they wish from their game for violating their rules, the rule itself seems petty and ignorant. Petty because textual coverage of the game is insignificant in terms of revenue generation, and ignorant because it flies in the face of the new reality of pervasive computing. It's clearly not a free speech issue, but it is notable because the NCAA's actions make them look like money-grubbing thugs.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I understand the feeling because I'm sick of seeing people who don't seem to understand the first Amendment:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
You are right it's not a first amendment issue, the government has passed no law governing what the reporter in question can say. However, you are wrong on your reasoning for why it's not a first amendment issue. Your basic rights, such as the freedom of speech don't change whether you're on private or public property. You don't loose your rights because you're on private property, you just have no right to be on private property if the owner doesn't want you there (ignoring, of course, the exceptions to this general rule). So yes, you can kick someone out of your house for saying something you dislike, that's your right as the owner of private property, however, you can't legally do anything to prevent them from saying something you dislike (other than threatening to eject them from your property, trying to convince them not to say it, or binding them into a contractual agreement not to say it).
Fanatically anti-fanatical
"The NCAA does not own any events or the content of those events"
This is when I decided to post in response. Why? Because you're completely wrong. The NCAA owns virtually ALL of the college championship tournaments (INCLUDING the College World Series, which this is about) with the notable exception of the BCS championship game.
I don't know why you think you know what you're talking about, but you're wrong. As to the specifics of the story, your opinion changes a bit when you realize they asked him to leave an event THEY OWN. This isn't about state sponsored blah blah spiel or 1st amendment rights or other ridiculous assertions, it is about the OWNERS of an event enforcing their standards for participation in an event THEY OWN.
You said
"If that was your first post"
Then you admit it was there, just "drenched in fallacy" (which you conveniently fail to point out)
You are a liar. And you go caught.
Not much more to say about it.
You're an imbecile. Feel free to accuse me of an ad-hominem.
You've repeatedly screamed about "1st amendment" yet have provided NO meaningful arguments and failed to refute those that others have posted. You have attempted to deflect criticism of your points by shouting "FALLACY!!!" while failing to clarify exactly what fallacies you see, thereby closing down discussion of whether they are fallacies at all.
You are wrong. The courts have ruled on cases like this several time before, and there is NO 1st amendment question, there is YOU insisting that you're more lucid than everyone else and regurgitating first year rhetoric concepts (that you mangle badly and misuse) while completely failing to posit an argument more advanced than "YES HUH!!!".
The NCAA is a private actor, which said NOTHING about this fellow's ability to disseminate information about their event (that THEY own, not the participating Universities) and only addressed his ability to do it from a specified location. This has NOTHING to do with the 1st, and repeatedly bellowing "YES HUH!!! DOES TOO!!! FALLACY!!!!DOUBLE FALLACY!!!" makes you seem all the more obstinate and ignorant.
You are wrong. Proceed to your standard response.
It's part of the reason why there's so much celebretainment and crime coverage
Or in the case of the Paris Hilton coverage, both at once.
Who would of thought a misdemeanor and its punishment would become the #1 news story in the US?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
You're still wrong. And still an asshole.
To correct your flawed thinking.
"The NCAA acknowledges that there are First Amendment protections afforded to journalists who have been issued press credentials, without enumerating them"
That is why you are wrong. This is in no way a 1st amendment case despite what you and others seem to think. The individual did not have his speech regulated, he had his conduct regulated, as is the NCAA's right, which was agreed to by the individual involved. They said "you cannot do X" which he promptly did. This is no more a first amendment case than someone taking a dump in the sink and getting thrown out is a first amendment case.
Now I have corrected you, you're welcome.
ok, I know this a day late, but for all the stragglers like me..... this is just my opinion, no legal basis whatsoever:
The question: did the NCAA have standing to eject the blogger from the game? I think this hinges on one simple fact. Does the NCAA own the grounds the game was held on, or are they representing the entity which does own it? If either of those conditions are met, it would seem to me that the NCAA can kick out whoever they want.
However, it appears that the University of Louisville is a public school. This, to me at least, means that the only grounds for ejecting someone from the stadium would be some sort of disorderly conduct, and the ejecting would need to be done by law officers or stadium security. So even if NCAA handles security, which I frankly don't know, if the blogger wasn't being disorderly, there's no standing for kicking him out.
Analogy time, what's a sport slashdotters can relate to? Ultimate. So you start a local ultimate frisbee league, and you meet at the local public park. For the sake of argument, let's imagine it gets as popular as baseball, and people start showing up to watch. You, being the entrepeneur that you are, decide to sell some concessions. Now, again for reasons that violate every natural law of coolness, the sport gets really popular, and you decide to up your game and start recording and streaming it online, making money from ads. So you're making money, having fun, so far, so good. That is until some other competing entrepenuers show up with handycams.
So two questions: can you kick them out of the public park, and can you claim copyright over the game itself and exercise your copyright priveleges accordingly?
On both counts, I would say no. Wrt the first, they have as much right to be there as anyone, and that should only be taken away if they truly are, by reasonable standards of a law officer (yeah, i know), disorderly and/or a danger others in some way. Otherwise, you can't touch'em. Anything less is an afront to personal freedom. Wrt the second, hell no you can't copyright the game. Why? Because, history, recordings of facts, hell reality itself IS NOT up for grabs as intellectual property (or at least it shouldn't be).
Now, if you can make a stalking case (thinking paparrazi here) that may be a little different (IANAL). However, it would seem to me that you can only claim stalking/paparrazi if you make a sensible effort to communicate you don't want to be filmed, want to be left alone, and show that the alleged stalking is specifically aimed at an individual, not at an event, or just a place in general. In other words, walking around the city with your handycam is ok, as long as you're not following someone in particular without their consent. But if that person(s) are occupying a city square holding a rally, well then they're fair game.
But of course, you can see where I'm going with this. All of these other variables that might possibly give you (or the NCAA) standing to remove someone just aren't there. You have no standing to do that.
Now, if we change the analogy so that you're playing ultimate in your back yard, charing admission, streaming online with ads, well then that's your private property, you can do what you bloody well want, within confines of the law. But the park is public. Don't like it? Well then use another venue.
I haven't posted to /. in a while, but in reading thru these threads, it just seemed like noone was concerned with the fact that this was a public place (AFAICT), and even beyond that, that noone has ownership over the content of a sports game. Well, at least they shouldn't in a rational society. Like I said, I mostly read, don't post often, but these I felt were two really important points that were being missed, and I just couldn't let it go.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
This only can happen with NFL games; the rest (namely MLB and NHL) are stipulated by the league and the broadcaster's contract
As a (almost former, at this point) Chicago Blackhawks fan, I guarantee you this happens with the NHL, too, at least for regular season games (which is all the Hawks will ever see!) Then again, they may have given up on any kind of "sellout" rule since they haven't sold out a home game in years.
Ah, yes -- a very good point and something I forgot about. The whole reason for that, though, is not the league's policy but can be blamed on one man: Bill Wirtz. As far as I know, no other team in the league has that kind of policy.
For those who don't know, as the owner of the Blackhawks he thinks TV coverage hurts actual game attendance which results in him loosing money. Of course fans hate him for this -- plus he doesn't want his team going to the Stanley Cup Playoffs since they're too expensive, go figure why the fans are angry. ESPN voted his leadership of the team the worst franchise in sports.
It's really a shame for fans like you, between ticket prices, not such a great record, and little TV coverage; it's no wonder you're an "almost former" fan.