Slashdot Mirror


No Social Media In These College Stadiums

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."

50 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Or Whatever the SEC version is. . . by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So in other words, I am not allowed to tweet, "Haha, the Bengals lost again?"

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    1. Re:Or Whatever the SEC version is. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but what does the Securities and Exchange Commission have to do with college sporting events?

    2. Re:Or Whatever the SEC version is. . . by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know, does that happen to many pro sports fans? Because they've had just these sorts of rules for years and years. But let's not allow that to spoil our fun extrapolating the most insane abuses we can imagine.

    3. Re:Or Whatever the SEC version is. . . by ToadProphet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Football. Seriously, football talk on /.?

      I'm confused and scared all at once.

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    4. Re:Or Whatever the SEC version is. . . by stiggle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually - it appears they say that "ticketted fans" cannot Tweet.

      So if you have a ticket and hate football, or don't have a ticket and are a fan then you can still tweet :-)

    5. Re:Or Whatever the SEC version is. . . by SQLGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude! I'm in Baton Rouge at the [removed by SEC] game. You should have seen that awesome hit that [removed by SEC] just laid on the quarterback for [removed by SEC]. He forced a [removed by SEC] and ran it in for a [removed by SEC] bringing the score to [removed by SEC] to [removed by SEC]. It was AWESOME!

  2. Can a hearing aid rebroadcast it? by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, from the surrounding ambient noise to the wearers ear?

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  3. As long as everybody Twitters, it'll be OK by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As long as everybody at the game just goes ahead and Tweets, it'll be OK. There's no way that the SEC can control thousands of people doing this at will. It will illustrate the ridiculousness of the whole policy.

    1. Re:As long as everybody Twitters, it'll be OK by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah well maybe everyone should participate in a flash crowd and dress up as birds in the stands and then tweet away about tweeting.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  4. The sensible answer is a protest by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Using Twitter and Facebook when you're at a game is distracting at best, narcissistic at worst. However, the assumption that they are using to fuel their ban - that personal accounts and expressions are somehow not admissible, that CBS has a monopoly on communication - is dangerous, and should be protested. You can laugh it off and say, "There's no way that this is Constitutional," but you should stand up for your rights. As lame as it may sound, they should organize a huge Twitter contingent to post at the same time, and see if they can get kicked out. That would show people how out of touch the SEC is, and that people's rights cannot be signed away, with OR without their consent.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:The sensible answer is a protest by crispytwo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since people are generally stupid enough to not care until someone is sued, my prediction is that you will see no ban/contempt or consideration of protesting in any way. I think the best protest would be that no one go to the games until the agreement changes, but no - that wont happen either.

      Stupid rules should lose them BIG money.

      People are no longer political minded enough to care. The voting polls are an indication of that.

      I can assure you that I wont go to any event unless I happen to get free tickets; then I will create a twitter account and post comments about a you-tube video I just posted about the event and invite others to do the same, or comment about CBS and their oppression.

    2. Re:The sensible answer is a protest by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because intentionally violating the unjust rule is forcing their hand into enforcing it, thus revealing it to be unjust. I'd liken it to "colored" protesters back in the 60's who sat in the "whites only" sections fully intending to be arrested or to mothers who congregate and all breastfeed their babies together at a restaurant that bans breastfeeding everywhere except in the restroom stalls. (Would you want to eat your meal on some of those toilets?) Let's see the stadiums eject 100 fans per game for tweeting and see what kind of press coverage they get.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:The sensible answer is a protest by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Take some time to think through what you just wrote.

    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/

  5. Seriously? 15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow, what idiot decided to do that? Signing away broadcast rights for 15 years for a measly 3 billion? That's 200 million a year, that really is not that much money.

    Who knows what kind of tech we will get in those 15 years? It's going to be very difficult to control that over the long term.

    1. Re:Seriously? 15 years? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's 200 million a year, that really is not that much money.

      Yeah, the seller sure got bamboozled!

      Who knows what kind of tech we will get in those 15 years? It's going to be very difficult to control that over the long term.

      Yeah, the buyer sure got bamboozled!

      Uh, I mean... everybody sure is an idiot!

  6. Who even cares by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the Southeastern Conference (SEC) is expected to release a final version of its new media policy

    That's nice. I'm releasing a new policy that anyone who says my name 3 times has to send me a $100 check.

    So what if they release a policy? It's not like they have any sort of legal standing to enforce it. What are they going to do, stop selling you tickets?

    1. Re:Who even cares by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't go anywhere in public without my phone. Certainly not into a teeming mass of thousands of people. It's just an obvious safety precaution.

  7. Higher Education by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since schools are disseminators of knowledge, this policy to ban knowledge/information attacks the entire institution of education. What network TV has to do with the educational process beyond Cable In The Classroom is beyond understanding. Clearly these policies will need to change or colleges will no longer be an effective means of higher education.

    1. Re:Higher Education by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clearly these policies will need to change or colleges will no longer be an effective means of higher education.

      The idea that Twitter is even remotely related to 'higher education' just seems, well, bat shit insane.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  8. Trying to police this... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a longtime Gator I'm trying to imagine what kind of hell trying to police this will be. And that is from the prospective of being a Gator being that UF is pretty damn uptight when it comes to how they expect us to act at our home sporting events. Never freaking mind what happens at Ol'Miss or UT games.

    Yeah, good luck with that SEC.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    1. Re:Trying to police this... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an alumni, probably not much, but any student that gets caught with a facebook photo taken in the stadium: immediate suspension.

      Or they'll give the poor student an option of paying a "Reduced fine" ($2-5k) and everything will be taken care of out of court. Everything done RIAA style against students that can't afford a lawyer to fight this.

    2. Re:Trying to police this... by jcrousedotcom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I often work as a Deputy Sheriff for the local ACC (FSU) games during the season - in addition to making sure that drunk doesn't puke all over the kid in front of him or that gal that just downed the bottle of skyy doesn't fall down the stairs I am going to have to 'police' ppl taking pics and using their cell phones during a game?

      I know, I know, this was SEC, but how long before some of the others pick this up? Real sure I took a picture last time I was at the FSU / UF game in Tallahassee - while in uniform and on duty - are they going to eject me as well? ;)

      I think an earlier poster hit the nail on the head - it isn't so much so they will enforce it, just they will have the opportunity to enforce it if they so desire (selectively probably).....

      --
      Illiterate? Write for free help!
    3. 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
    4. Re:Trying to police this... by Geckoman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They won't have to police it at our stadium. Drop an extra 70k people in town and you can barely make a cell call for a mile around the stadium, much less get net access inside of it.

      There's not much need to spend effort enforcing something that's practically impossible anyway.

  9. Suck it out by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hope this sucks the money out of college sports so the schools go back to teaching.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Suck it out by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its more likely that the Pope will declare that God doesn't exist than that US Colleges will stop caring about sports and start caring about education again.

  10. Morons by Grayswan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I WAS an SEC football fan. I'm not whether I'm allowed to be now. Can I not discuss the game with friends the next day now? Fuck that.

    --
    If you open your mind too wide, people will throw trash in it.
  11. The SEC doesn't get Viral Advertising by miracle69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    War Eagle to all, and I can't believe but totally understand the short-sightedness of this.

    The SEC became the best conference in college football because fans are rabid. They live, eat, breath this stuff year round. They talk about it year round. Trying to control pics/video/texts from a SEC game is impossible from a practical standpoint and stupid from a marketing standpoint. You want more people talking about your sport, openly, and while there. That increases your brand penetration and desirablity.

    --
    Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
  12. Court-ready proof that this can't work: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is another social medium, without which the whole event's existence can't even be proven: Good old fashioned direct human-to-human communication.
    In other words: Does this contract rule (as opposed to a law) forbid people to memorize it and then tell it to other people (e.g. by talking to someone later)?
    How would they expect to enforce or even check this? They can't control it. They would have to delete the memory inside the brain every time someone steps outside.
    So if people can tell someone, then that other person can put in on a social medium site, because he/she never had a contract or anything with the SEC.
    Which makes the rule pointless and by definition ineffective.

    They have to face the fact, that the time of exclusive "big media" broadcast rights is over. Besides: Who watches it on "big media" anyway nowadays? I have no TV for nearly a decade now, and many friends of mine don't have one either. Or they only switch it on, to zap for some time, find that nothing is on, and switch it off again.

    Is TV still that big in the USA? (Germany here.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  13. Any Surprise? by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Students are a mere adornment at these football institutions. Football for the students? What a quaint idea . . .

  14. Re:Impossible? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You pay with a credit card? You're a famous blogger?

  15. Pssst! Hey, buddie! by WheelDweller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was this ball game the other day...no, really! And since no one was paying attention, and no one was permitted to share in the reality, NOBODY SHOWED UP.

    Are these the same boneheads who though the Federal government were smart enough to blow 20,000 to 30,000 times the "Cash for Clunkers" program, yet Clunkers was a dismal failure? (The fed is inept, period. No matter which country you talk about.)

    These people smell like the RIAA...

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  16. Re:How many lawsuits are they willing to file? by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

    When the first SEC game is held, and 10,000 people all tweet (or post to Facebook, etc,) from their cell phone "Take that, SEC!", what will they do?

    Nothing, because that doesn't violate the rules. If they described the game, that would be a different matter.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  17. Re:Times like this by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's times like this I wished I watched sports so I could boycott them. Oh well, guess I will continue not caring.

    Be careful mate.

    "First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didnâ(TM)t speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
    Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  18. They aren't interested in fans by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, in a way, they are. What I'm trying to say is that they couldn't care less if you tweet to your friends or post to Facebook.

    What they ARE interested in is controlling coverage of the game that competes with that of CBS. If you happen to be working for a newspaper, Web site, TV station, blog, or podcast that hasn't been blessed by CBS and/or the SEC, they're gunning for you. After all, you might do something crazy like publish real-time coverage of a game, a frequently-updated scoreboard, or, heaven forbid, you might interview a player. Want a video clip to use? Pay up. Want to post that footage you got of a player sucker-punching an official? Not unless you get approval. Want to do anything that CBS or the SEC doesn't want you to do? They'll show you the exit and place a boot in your ass at no extra charge.

    If you want to really piss off the SEC, forget a mass tweet protest. No, start an unauthorized Web site providing coverage of SEC events, and make it better than what the SEC and CBS offer. That'll get their attention in a big way.

  19. 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.

  20. Re:Physical enforcement is easy by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I text "x just won!" A red light comes on in an operations room at the NSA. The operator verifies that it's illegal information. He looks up my cell number in a police database and forwards my name and number to the SEC quick response team. They search their ticket order database for credit card payment information corresponding to my name. There are 2 Brian Gordons at the game, so a technician dashes down to the video surveillance command. He hunches over an open workstation at the back of the room and calls up seating plans for the stadium and the camera coverage layout. He brings up a still frame from the correct camera. He can't tell exactly what he's looking at so he opens a 3D model of the stadium, counts off the seats to find my seat number, and zooms out toward the camera's position. He switches between the still frame window and the 3D model window until they match up perfectly. He registers a video stream from the video processing cluster since it hasn't been offloaded to storage yet. He connects to the stream, seeing a live feed from that camera. He sshes into the cluster and with a few quick commands to the stream server navigates to the exact time of the text. He zooms in, but my seat is too far from the camera to get a clear image. He has an idea- he'll try to see if the TV cameras passed over that section. He sshes into the producer's control workstation and downloads the XML cache of the camera location control software. The archive was never closed for writing so it's corrupt but WinRAR extracts most of the control commands. He filtered out every command except those 10 seconds around the call. There were about 100 files. He opened them all, and went through one by one. 11 files in, he finds a camera whose origin position and origin angle look down on E section. The HD stream hasn't been encoded for storage yet so he dumps the raw data for that camera, for that 1-minute interval around the call. At around 70MB per frame, it takes a few minutes to become available on the stream server. He streams it, manually seeks until it swings into the proper angle, and zooms in tightly on my seat. Sure enough, I'm texting. So it's definitely that Brian Gordon. He dashes back up to the quick response center and quickly opens a security ticket, assigning the E section attendants and marking it Immediate Alert so it will send them a text. They get the alert, containing my seat number. They spot me.

    "Excuse me sir, please come with us."

  21. Ridiculous by Trogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole mega-sport-corp thing strikes me as utterly ludicrous. Does anyone here remember when sport was about the actual game?

    As far as I can tell it all started going downhill as soon as some guy figured out he could make money off sporting events.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  22. Re:Times like this by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dude, its a freaking sporting event. Comparing not letting people use Twitter from inside the event to Nazis killing people is like an archetypal example of Godwin's Law. In this case we have a group trying to enforce a (stupid) restriction which anyone is free to simply ignore by not buying tickets or going to the games. This isn't the same as a regime systematically killing people. No, for that matter, does your comparison work at a deeper level. The people in a position to "speak up" are the people who go to games normally but don't care about this restriction personally. Someone who isn't at the games (correctly) has no part in it. They can point and laugh. But I doubt that will influence the SEC.

  23. 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)
  24. Don't mix breastfeeding tinto this debate. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That has nothing to do with feminism.

    Breastfeeding is a natural thing, there is nothing feminist about wanting to do it in public when needed.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Don't mix breastfeeding tinto this debate. by machine321 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Besides, how else would Slashdotters get to see titties?

  25. To add another Shirky quote... by nategasser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To add another Shirky quote...

    "The loss of control you fear is already in the past."

  26. Wow They Really Don't Get It! by blueZhift · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whoever keeps making these rules really doesn't get it I guess. Making rules, valid legally or not, that fly in the face of what people almost unconsciously expect just erodes the respect of legitimate law. So thanks a lot for further degrading respect for rules of any kind.

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

    http://twitter.com/SECSportsUpdate