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.
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...
By the NCAA's rules, the players can't even accept money for playing unless it's part of a scholarship, but they sure don't mind raking in nice piles of tax-exempt dough from the broadcasts.
Money which is used to pay for promotion/running of NCAA events and is passed back to the partner schools to help them fund their activities (including things like athletic scholarships, funnily enough). That's a bad example to use to make your case.
Solution: next time, talk into your cell phone to your buddy, who's blogging it for you. I'd like to see 'em try to ban all cell phones at games. Or to monitor every cell phone conversation in the place.
And if you were caught, you'd be warned and then ejected. Why? Because your buddy didn't pay for a ticket to the game.
The point is: it's stupid to try to say these people are allowed to communicate in a certain way (because they paid us), and these people are not.
How the hell is that stupid? That's how licensing works. Welcome to the real world. No we will not stop the ride so you may get off. This has been tested in court, the NCAA has the right to control this. End of story. If you don't like it, don't patronize NCAA events.
Isn't it great how the rallying cry for blogs is that they're the new press, and they should be treated the same as any other journalist, but when that suddenly becomes inconvenient the cry is that they're NOT the same as the any other journalist and should be treated differently?
"Blogging, all the benefits of being a journalist with none of the responsibilities!"
They did handle it better. They sent out a memo informing everyone this behavior would not be allowed. He's the asswipe that chose to ignore it and forced them to enforce their policy.
As a not-for-profit entity (educational institution status), it funnels most of that money back to its members
So your comment has just morphed this "reporter" from a shining champion of free speech to Snidely Whiplash in a black hat snickering as he steals the mortgage money away from the schoolhouse. Awesome. How do we work tying the attractive school marm to the railroad tracks into this?
The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games. This has been tested in court. End of story. He can report on the game all he wants OUTSIDE of an NCAA controlled venue. But in getting a press pass he agreed to a policy which he is bound to obey but failed to do so. As such, he was ejected. This is a non story, except maybe the fact that this means Bloggers are being treated the same as any other journalist in this instance, which at the end of the day is a Good Thing.
So if I bought a ticket and then sat in the stands reporting on the game using a small radio transmitter, that would be okay? No, obviously it wouldn't. If you want to report on a game, you get a press pass and you abide by their rules. Failing to do either will result in ejection, as it should. You're free to write whatever you think about the game after it's over without doing either.
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.
I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing, which is why they enforce this sort of thing. News agencies PAY to provide live coverage of events.
Star Wars Galaxies which was, at one time, probably the best and deepest MMO around
Did they destroy it? Most assuredly. Was it the best and deepest MMO around? Get a life.
But this is what Sony does, they destroy. My favorite example was PlanetSide which I played literally up until the minute the beta servers went down. The next day my roommate bought himself a copy--I hadn't been paid yet that week (luckily)--and discovered that everything about the experience system had changed and significant gameplay alterations had occurred in LESS THAN 24 HOURS between beta and release. I didn't buy it. Later, the developers managed to undo much of the "lol grinding" crap Sony introduced, but the damage was already done.
Sony has a problem with viewing MMOs through the "Everquest" lens (see: "lol grinding") where player achievement is punished, casual play is penalized, and the answer for demands for new content is the addition of timesinks. That said, there are still things I miss about EQ even in WoW, but they're few and far between (and more akin to how a survivor of domestic abuse might still feel something for their old co-dependent spouse that would beat them every night).
Sony can go eat a dick if they think I'll ever play another MMO they're in charge of. I just got my last friend off of EQ/EQII and into WoW last month, and I'm never looking back.
The fact that you can't even quote the damn law kinda casts doubt on your claims that it's "very old and very clear". Don't quote it for my municipality, quote it for ANY municipality. I think your recollection of this law is much like a Pirate's recollection that you can download pirated media and use it for 24 hours legally. And even were this now mythical law to exist in the majority of municipalities, it still has no bearing whatsoever on the acts of a vandal with a spray can, so the point is moot.
And as far as your claim that a city council can just come along and do as they please to your property... Such is almost never the case. There's significant bureaucratic paperwork to go through and much red tape to cut before any city employee can do anything on private property, along with significant opportunity for the owner of said property to appeal such things. How do I know this? Up until Fall '05 I worked in my local government and spent significant time in the Environmental Quality department, which regularly had to go and clean up yards that had become public health/safety risks. It would take MONTHS for the paperwork to be completed. And even then, there was always a chance for appeal, which even really crazy cases sometimes even win.
See what I did there? It's called backing up my argument with reference material. You should try it sometime.
Except that the OP was referring to an "80's dinosaur", the shuttle itself, not the launch process. There is nothing inherent to electrolyzing water that produces carbon dioxide. It could be powered by nuclear reactors, wind farms, solar mirror arrays, etc. In fact every step of the process could be powered by nuclear reactors. So there's nothing inherent to the SHUTTLE that makes it dirty, just economics and people's irrational fear of anything with the word "nuclear".
No, you provide proof. If you're going to claim something then you need to be able to back it up. The onus is on you, not me.
Your property line is defined by where you build that wall. Doesn't matter if you build it 10 feet into where you think your property line starts.
Now that's absolute crap in any society that has any concept of private property. If my property line goes to the sidewalk and I have a wall 10 feet from the sidewalk, the outer side of that wall does NOT become public property. That would be especially funny in states such as Texas where anyone on your property without permission after dark can be shot. Try and get close enough to that wall to paint it, I dare you...:P
Even in the hypothetical case where a city council has decided to paint your wall by vote, they're elected representatives of the citizens of your city (which includes you) and can be challenged in court. That has NOTHING to do with a vandal decided to "bless" your wall with a paint can. One is done through legal channels the other is completely illegal. (Though constitutionally speaking, the first should be illegal as well... Hence the avenue for legal challenge in the courts.) There are several powers we've reserved for our government that ordinary citizens do not have access to, since they elect the government to wield those powers for them. Randomly deciding to paint someone else's wall would be one of those.
I find it so funny that people have to bring politics into an apolitical discussion such as this because that's the only lens they can view the world with: That they're victims of oppression by the "Man". Get a life. If there's value in your expression, then the value is not diminished by obtaining permission to use someone else's wall to express yourself. I find it especially funny that this troll is attacking me with knowing so little about me... Such as the fact that my hometown is known for some exceedingly beautiful murals that were painted to restore the faces of old and plain/ugly buildings downtown on the taxpayer's tab, and I happen to like those very much. Which is part of the reason I point to the fact that obtaining permission first does not diminish your work. If anything, NOT obtaining permission does. You may think you're the latest Monet or a great champion of freedom of speech, but at the end of the day you're just a vandal, and society will never view you as anything but scum.
And in that respect I agree with you. If the county/town government has a problem with it, then they should foot the cost of repainting it, not the guy who's done nothing wrong. But that doesn't give a pass to the person who did the graffiti in the first place--THEY should be the ones cleaning it up.
No, if it's on my property it's MY WALL. By your line of reasoning, since the wall of my house faces the public they'd have a right to paint what they want on it. That'd ludicrous. If you want to paint something then there's no harm in getting permission first. At that point it ceases being vandalism and becomes legitimate art.
Okay, and for every story that you can dredge up where someone was happy with having their property "artistically vandalized" I can probably find at least ten where the opposite was true. If the people involved with putting up that mural really wanted to get their message out, and the guy really had no problem with it, then there would have been no harm in asking for PERMISSION first.
Voyager, Voyager... Not Viking. Viking went to Mars. But yes, good point. I think the eruptions on Io were one of those things got really surprised and excited about when reviewing the mission data a few years later. First time a volcano was caught in the act outside of Earth. This image is, of course, about 1000x better quality than the old Voyager data.:) And done over a time lapse as well, where Voyager just snapped some quick shots as it screamed past.
I would certainly call that a huge carbon footprint, the carbon has simply been removed by the time it reaches the Shuttle. Sure, you can make the fuel in more environmentally-friendly ways, but that's not how we do things in this country. Pretending that the fuel in the Space Shuttle doesn't have dino roots is a fool's errand.
But even if that were the case, that's not something unique to the Shuttle's design, just part of doing business in general. So while I understood the OP's point, I think it's stupid, since any other design for a vehicle that accomplishes the same mission as the shuttle would produce the same "carbon footprint", and he/she/it were implying the shuttle's "carbon footprint" could be replaced with a newer, cleaner design. The unique feature of the shuttle (its liquid rocket engines) is in fact a very clean process for launching a vehicle (though some people complain about the added water vapor...).
Liquid oxygen/hydrogen can be obtained from breaking down water, which can very easily be accomplished with nuclear power, bringing the "carbon footprint" of such a process down to almost zero. Unfortunately people have this irrational fear of anything with the word "nuclear" in it. In fact, every part of the process could most likely be powered by nuclear reactors, right down to the huge crawler that brings the shuttle to its launch pad. So again, I think the OP's comment about the carbon footprint of the--in his/her/it's own words--80's dinosaur (ie: the SHUTTLE itself, not the launch process) is stupid. You're giving him/her/it too much credit.
Carbon footprint? Are you trying to be funny? The shuttle burns liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. The resulting exhaust is not carbon dioxide, it's water vapor. Get a life.
What the hell are you talking about? Yes foam and ice has always fallen off and yes it was always a risk, and yes TPS tiles have been damaged on previous shuttle flights. The new non-Freon based foam however did significantly exacerbate these risks. And Columbia most assuredly did NOT fly with an "old" tank, as the contractor who makes the tank had switched to the new foam several years earlier and they don't keep these things stockpiled. They're built to order for the mission. Do you have some reference to back that claim up? Otherwise whoever marked you as informative has done a severe disservice to the moderation system.
And as far as Challenger, the O-rings didn't erode, they became stiff and non-resilient when reduced to near freezing. Funnily enough the O-rings were replaced for a political reason much like the foam on the Shuttle's tank, and in both cases that lead to a loss of vehicle and crew. Where exactly are you getting your information?
Slashdot Mirror
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...
Money which is used to pay for promotion/running of NCAA events and is passed back to the partner schools to help them fund their activities (including things like athletic scholarships, funnily enough). That's a bad example to use to make your case.
And if you were caught, you'd be warned and then ejected. Why? Because your buddy didn't pay for a ticket to the game.
How the hell is that stupid? That's how licensing works. Welcome to the real world. No we will not stop the ride so you may get off. This has been tested in court, the NCAA has the right to control this. End of story. If you don't like it, don't patronize NCAA events.
Isn't it great how the rallying cry for blogs is that they're the new press, and they should be treated the same as any other journalist, but when that suddenly becomes inconvenient the cry is that they're NOT the same as the any other journalist and should be treated differently?
"Blogging, all the benefits of being a journalist with none of the responsibilities!"
They did handle it better. They sent out a memo informing everyone this behavior would not be allowed. He's the asswipe that chose to ignore it and forced them to enforce their policy.
So your comment has just morphed this "reporter" from a shining champion of free speech to Snidely Whiplash in a black hat snickering as he steals the mortgage money away from the schoolhouse. Awesome. How do we work tying the attractive school marm to the railroad tracks into this?
The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games. This has been tested in court. End of story. He can report on the game all he wants OUTSIDE of an NCAA controlled venue. But in getting a press pass he agreed to a policy which he is bound to obey but failed to do so. As such, he was ejected. This is a non story, except maybe the fact that this means Bloggers are being treated the same as any other journalist in this instance, which at the end of the day is a Good Thing.
Is that really debatable?
So if I bought a ticket and then sat in the stands reporting on the game using a small radio transmitter, that would be okay? No, obviously it wouldn't. If you want to report on a game, you get a press pass and you abide by their rules. Failing to do either will result in ejection, as it should. You're free to write whatever you think about the game after it's over without doing either.
Greetings new member of my friend's list. Well said! I think any further commenting on this has now been rendered redundant.
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.
They would have to be making revenue from his activities to lose revenue by disallowing them.
I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing, which is why they enforce this sort of thing. News agencies PAY to provide live coverage of events.
Did they destroy it? Most assuredly. Was it the best and deepest MMO around? Get a life.
But this is what Sony does, they destroy. My favorite example was PlanetSide which I played literally up until the minute the beta servers went down. The next day my roommate bought himself a copy--I hadn't been paid yet that week (luckily)--and discovered that everything about the experience system had changed and significant gameplay alterations had occurred in LESS THAN 24 HOURS between beta and release. I didn't buy it. Later, the developers managed to undo much of the "lol grinding" crap Sony introduced, but the damage was already done.
Sony has a problem with viewing MMOs through the "Everquest" lens (see: "lol grinding") where player achievement is punished, casual play is penalized, and the answer for demands for new content is the addition of timesinks. That said, there are still things I miss about EQ even in WoW, but they're few and far between (and more akin to how a survivor of domestic abuse might still feel something for their old co-dependent spouse that would beat them every night).
Sony can go eat a dick if they think I'll ever play another MMO they're in charge of. I just got my last friend off of EQ/EQII and into WoW last month, and I'm never looking back.
That's actually not legal in pretty much the entire United States, so I think GP is on crack, or in some worthless part of the world...
The fact that you can't even quote the damn law kinda casts doubt on your claims that it's "very old and very clear". Don't quote it for my municipality, quote it for ANY municipality. I think your recollection of this law is much like a Pirate's recollection that you can download pirated media and use it for 24 hours legally. And even were this now mythical law to exist in the majority of municipalities, it still has no bearing whatsoever on the acts of a vandal with a spray can, so the point is moot.
And as far as your claim that a city council can just come along and do as they please to your property... Such is almost never the case. There's significant bureaucratic paperwork to go through and much red tape to cut before any city employee can do anything on private property, along with significant opportunity for the owner of said property to appeal such things. How do I know this? Up until Fall '05 I worked in my local government and spent significant time in the Environmental Quality department, which regularly had to go and clean up yards that had become public health/safety risks. It would take MONTHS for the paperwork to be completed. And even then, there was always a chance for appeal, which even really crazy cases sometimes even win.
See what I did there? It's called backing up my argument with reference material. You should try it sometime.
Except that the OP was referring to an "80's dinosaur", the shuttle itself, not the launch process. There is nothing inherent to electrolyzing water that produces carbon dioxide. It could be powered by nuclear reactors, wind farms, solar mirror arrays, etc. In fact every step of the process could be powered by nuclear reactors. So there's nothing inherent to the SHUTTLE that makes it dirty, just economics and people's irrational fear of anything with the word "nuclear".
Now that's absolute crap in any society that has any concept of private property. If my property line goes to the sidewalk and I have a wall 10 feet from the sidewalk, the outer side of that wall does NOT become public property. That would be especially funny in states such as Texas where anyone on your property without permission after dark can be shot. Try and get close enough to that wall to paint it, I dare you...
Even in the hypothetical case where a city council has decided to paint your wall by vote, they're elected representatives of the citizens of your city (which includes you) and can be challenged in court. That has NOTHING to do with a vandal decided to "bless" your wall with a paint can. One is done through legal channels the other is completely illegal. (Though constitutionally speaking, the first should be illegal as well... Hence the avenue for legal challenge in the courts.) There are several powers we've reserved for our government that ordinary citizens do not have access to, since they elect the government to wield those powers for them. Randomly deciding to paint someone else's wall would be one of those.
I find it so funny that people have to bring politics into an apolitical discussion such as this because that's the only lens they can view the world with: That they're victims of oppression by the "Man". Get a life. If there's value in your expression, then the value is not diminished by obtaining permission to use someone else's wall to express yourself.
I find it especially funny that this troll is attacking me with knowing so little about me... Such as the fact that my hometown is known for some exceedingly beautiful murals that were painted to restore the faces of old and plain/ugly buildings downtown on the taxpayer's tab, and I happen to like those very much. Which is part of the reason I point to the fact that obtaining permission first does not diminish your work. If anything, NOT obtaining permission does. You may think you're the latest Monet or a great champion of freedom of speech, but at the end of the day you're just a vandal, and society will never view you as anything but scum.
And in that respect I agree with you. If the county/town government has a problem with it, then they should foot the cost of repainting it, not the guy who's done nothing wrong. But that doesn't give a pass to the person who did the graffiti in the first place--THEY should be the ones cleaning it up.
No, if it's on my property it's MY WALL. By your line of reasoning, since the wall of my house faces the public they'd have a right to paint what they want on it. That'd ludicrous. If you want to paint something then there's no harm in getting permission first. At that point it ceases being vandalism and becomes legitimate art.
Okay, and for every story that you can dredge up where someone was happy with having their property "artistically vandalized" I can probably find at least ten where the opposite was true. If the people involved with putting up that mural really wanted to get their message out, and the guy really had no problem with it, then there would have been no harm in asking for PERMISSION first.
Voyager, Voyager... Not Viking. Viking went to Mars. But yes, good point. I think the eruptions on Io were one of those things got really surprised and excited about when reviewing the mission data a few years later. First time a volcano was caught in the act outside of Earth. This image is, of course, about 1000x better quality than the old Voyager data. :) And done over a time lapse as well, where Voyager just snapped some quick shots as it screamed past.
But even if that were the case, that's not something unique to the Shuttle's design, just part of doing business in general. So while I understood the OP's point, I think it's stupid, since any other design for a vehicle that accomplishes the same mission as the shuttle would produce the same "carbon footprint", and he/she/it were implying the shuttle's "carbon footprint" could be replaced with a newer, cleaner design. The unique feature of the shuttle (its liquid rocket engines) is in fact a very clean process for launching a vehicle (though some people complain about the added water vapor...).
Liquid oxygen/hydrogen can be obtained from breaking down water, which can very easily be accomplished with nuclear power, bringing the "carbon footprint" of such a process down to almost zero. Unfortunately people have this irrational fear of anything with the word "nuclear" in it. In fact, every part of the process could most likely be powered by nuclear reactors, right down to the huge crawler that brings the shuttle to its launch pad. So again, I think the OP's comment about the carbon footprint of the--in his/her/it's own words--80's dinosaur (ie: the SHUTTLE itself, not the launch process) is stupid. You're giving him/her/it too much credit.
Carbon footprint? Are you trying to be funny? The shuttle burns liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. The resulting exhaust is not carbon dioxide, it's water vapor. Get a life.
What the hell are you talking about? Yes foam and ice has always fallen off and yes it was always a risk, and yes TPS tiles have been damaged on previous shuttle flights. The new non-Freon based foam however did significantly exacerbate these risks. And Columbia most assuredly did NOT fly with an "old" tank, as the contractor who makes the tank had switched to the new foam several years earlier and they don't keep these things stockpiled. They're built to order for the mission. Do you have some reference to back that claim up? Otherwise whoever marked you as informative has done a severe disservice to the moderation system.
And as far as Challenger, the O-rings didn't erode, they became stiff and non-resilient when reduced to near freezing. Funnily enough the O-rings were replaced for a political reason much like the foam on the Shuttle's tank, and in both cases that lead to a loss of vehicle and crew. Where exactly are you getting your information?