Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Social Media In These College Stadiums

Posted by kdawson on from the ninety-thousand-reporters dept.

RawJoe writes "Today, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) is expected to release a final version of its new media policy that, at the moment, can best be described as a ban on all social media usage at SEC games. Earlier this month, the conference informed its schools of the new policy, which says that ticketed fans can't 'produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event.' Translated, that means no Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, TwitPic, or any other service that could in any way compete with authorized media coverage of the event. In the case of the SEC, authorized media coverage rights belong to CBS, who has a $3B deal with the conference over the next 15 years, according to The St Petersburg Times." Good luck with that. To quote Clay Shirky, "The idea that people can't capture their own lived experience is a losing proposition."

9 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Trying to police this... by jaymzter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Another long time Gator fan here. I believe what's driving this decision is that the SEC held on to their digital rights from the big multi-billion dollar deals with ESPN and CBS. Not only are they currently trying to ban twitter, facebook, et al., they are also "prohibiting" digital broadcasts of the games, since they are starting the SEC Digital Network.

    Although I dislike this decision, it's pretty much par for course with Major League Baseball and the NBA, correct?

    Go Gators

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  2. A Little Clarification by cypherwise · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems the ban applies to the press (ie. the media) that are covering the game. Those people actually are entering into a legally binding contract when they enter the stadium and begin covering the game. Much needed clarification is given by a Nashville Is Talking article with updates, their producer did what Slashdot should have done about 7 hours ago and actually read the f'in policy. Here is the actual Southeastern Conference Media Credentials EULA thinger.

    1. Re:A Little Clarification by asynchronous13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, the file you linked to is indeed the policy for someone with Media Credentials. The SEC also released a policy for those with Tickets and Non-Media Credentials. See page 4 That's the one this article is talking about.

  3. Nothing new by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Informative

    These idiotic "protect your turf" rules have been around a while and are just getting worse. I attended a Steelers game last year in 20 degree weather and I had a shopping bag filled with cold weather gear. The morons at the door made me ditch the bag and carry it all in my hands because the shopping bag had an unapproved logo.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Nothing new by St.Creed · · Score: 2, Informative

      A few years ago that happened at the World Football Championships. Heineken (beer brewery) gave everyone a big hat with their logo, but the competition had bought the right to advertize. Since the hats were very popular with the Dutch fans, some games had tens of thousands of people trying to enter with that hat. They were all impounded.

      So the next time someone tried this, it was Bavaria this time, they passed out trousers :)

      You think that might have foiled the officials, but no. Not to be stopped by this, they were actually impounded as well and 1000s of fans had to watch the games in their underwear :)

      Some good questions on the topic were raised by http://www.loosewireblog.com/2006/06/guerrilla_marke.html .

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  4. Re:The sensible answer is a protest by Homburg · · Score: 2, Informative

    Protesting against rules that a private business sets for behavior on their own property is a ridiculous idea.

    Luckily, the Civil Rights Movement disagreed with you. The sit-ins were protesting against segregation imposed as private rules by private businesses, and now, laws prevent private businesses from setting unjust rules on their own property. You don't have the right to set down just any conditions you want on the use of your property, and rightly so; allowing property owners to use their ownership to promote injustice, is not just.

  5. Re:The sensible answer is a protest by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Protesting against rules that a private business sets for behavior on their own property is a ridiculous idea.

    Except in this case, 11 out of the 12 Universities belonging to the SEC are public schools, and only one is private.

  6. Re:The sensible answer is a protest by cloudmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    A quick web search revelas this handy URL: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/

  7. They already corrected it: by Sans_A_Cause · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://twitter.com/SECSportsUpdate