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."'"
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Why in hell do people keep suggesting cell phone jammers?
You want to be effective and legal? Set up mini cells (coverage areas) in theater complexes. Now you can limit general cell phone functionality to between pictures, and to 911-only functionality while the feature is on the screen.
Cell companies set up mini cells all the time in dense urban areas, to get around the fact that you've got a large number of steel, glass and concrete buildings blocking and reflecting distant signals.
For a theater-specific mini-cell setup, you'd have a directional antenna in each theater, with a cable going back to a central multiport transeiver and whatever cell companies use for a PBX.
I bet cell companies would love the opportunity to make some money off of theaters, and theaters would love the opportunity to limit cell phone usage indoors without totally pissing off their customers.
The idea of jammers irritates me, because you're breaking federally-mandated 911 support, and your jamming signal is certain to leak outside your building.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)