×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blogger Removed From NCAA Game for Blogging

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the in-soviet-america dept.

The Media 302

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."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

302 comments

"In Soviet America"? Please. (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470823)

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.

Sigh (4, Funny)

evil agent (918566) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470933)

And here I was hoping that the Great Blogger Purge had begun.

A man can dream, though. A man can dream...

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (5, Interesting)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470991)

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.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471135)

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
I disagree. While the FP is articulate and comprehensive, there is stll the debate about whether or not scuttlemonkey is incompetent for posting such a pointless and easily-refuted article.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (4, Funny)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471281)

there is stll the debate about whether or not scuttlemonkey is incompetent for posting such a pointless and easily-refuted article.


Is that really debatable?

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471635)

It would be if you provided an opinion. With out your opinion on whether or not scuttlemonkey is incompetent there is no way I can take the opposite opinion and call you incompetent for your opinion.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (4, Interesting)

MollyB (162595) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470995)

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...

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471337)

FP was rather thorough, but you bring up an extremely valid point. What happens when there's 10,000 fans trying to blog from their phones.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (2, Funny)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471683)

What happens when there's 10,000 fans trying to blog from their phones.
Cell towers going off like roman candles.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471719)

  • cell phone jammer
  • search on entry
  • big signs
  • burly officials throw you out

How is this different then rock concerts, first-run movies, etc.?

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471011)

Full net. First cast.

Thanks for shutting that up before it continued.

-5 Strawman (-1, Troll)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471067)

No camera, no video, no soundstream, no live action, no broadcast.

There is a real 1st Amendment question (as close as your government strawman comes). Blogging and broadcast are very different subjects.

You're just an asshole and your whole fallacy proves it.

Re:-5 Strawman (3, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471125)

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (0)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471397)

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471451)

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (0)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471611)

"strawman [wikipedia.org]" != "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.

Re:-5 Strawman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471685)

The question "does blogging equal broadcast" has not been answered.

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (2, Interesting)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471717)

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471169)

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (4, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471349)

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.

Re:-5 Strawman (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471577)

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...

Re:-5 Strawman (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471617)

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.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471143)

First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

No, it's not the NCAA. It's the University of Louisville [louisville.edu]:

The University of Louisville is a state supported research university located in Kentucky's largest metropolitan area. [louisville.edu]

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (-1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471275)

Yes, many NCAA institutions are public research universities that are essentially quasi-governmental entities. I even considered raising this point in my post.

But, a few points:

1. It's not a federal entity. (But to play devil's advocate to my own position, many public, and even private, universities receive a good amount of federal funding.)

2. It is the NCAA. From TFA:

"[...] Brian Bennett was approached by NCAA officials [...]"

"blogging from an NCAA championship event 'is against NCAA policies'"

"a memo from NCAA manager of broadcasting Jeramy Michiaels, prior to Friday's game [...]said, in essence, that no blogging was allowed during the game."

3. The rights for NCAA events do belong jointly to schools and the NCAA, and the schools allow (and prefer) the NCAA to manage aspects of such events.

4. If live blogging without licensing is acceptable for some reason, then so should live broadcast by any other mechanism.

5. You can argue that the NCAA is acting as a proxy for "the government" in the context of state schools, but that argument doesn't wash. He wasn't kicked out for "blogging"; he was kicked out for violating terms that he agreed to as a person with press credentials, which meant that unauthorized live (or semi-live; even broadcast coverage is delayed slightly) coverage is prohibited. The fact that he was blogging or doing it via "text" is incidental. Replace blogging with a camera or a microphone, and then try to make a free speech argument out of it. That would at least be logically consistent.

Bottom line: a lot of money is involved in the NCAA and for schools; money that greatly benefits those institutions not just in the form of the sports themselves, but in income that supports so many other programs, athletic and otherwise, facilities, alumni donations, and so on. NCAA, and the schools, rightly want to control that process to some extent, and they have the rights to do so in our current legal system.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (0)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471489)

Yes, many NCAA institutions are public research universities that are essentially quasi-governmental entities. I even considered raising this point in my post.

Then you should have said so. While there are other mitigating factors, there's no question that a government entity is a party to this particular dispute.

1. It's not a federal entity. (But to play devil's advocate to my own position, many public, and even private, universities receive a good amount of federal funding.)

It doesn't matter if it's a federal entity. The 14th Amendment was expressly intended to extend the first eight amendments to state and local governments, even if the Supreme Court carefully parsed the words to avoid doing so. But, the Court subsequently incorporated "freedom of the press" against the states in Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931) [wikipedia.org].

You make other good points, which I'll let others address. But, you were extraordinarily sloppy with this one.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (3, Insightful)

steveshaw (690806) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471583)

Just a few comments:

1. Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a state university, using state property, and using state resources to enforce their policies (police, courts). The Constitutional dimension to this case is not as black-and-white as you seem to believe; however, I tend to agree with the bulk of your analysis. The key is whether state action is present. Lacking that, there is no need to continue the legal analysis.

2. The fact that he was blogging or doing it via "text" is incidental. Replace blogging with a camera or a microphone, and then try to make a free speech argument out of it.

Take it further. Replace blogging with "talking to your friend on a cellphone about the game as it's going on." Under the NCAA interpretation, this would be violating their policies. I would like to see them try to enforce that. The answer is, short of requiring everybody to turn in their cellphones at the gate, they can't.

Simply accepting a license to attend a sporting event does not strip you of all rights. As an example, there is a line of 4th Amendment cases regarding the propriety of, and limits to, searching sporting event attendees.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471705)

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The first amendment applies manifestly to the federal government, even if it can be extended to states. But this isn't really a first amendment issue; under this person's press credentials and terms, he is allowed to relate the events of the game, just not live, from the event, because live or near-live coverage is covered by other licensing and costs. Other journalistic entities do essentially live textual coverage of games, and they have a license to do so.

This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a state university, using state property, and using state resources to enforce their policies (police, courts). The Constitutional dimension to this case is not as black-and-white as you seem to believe; however, I tend to agree with the bulk of your analysis. The key is whether state action is present. Lacking that, there is no need to continue the legal analysis.

The NCAA isn't even a quasi-governmental agency. It's a private association. I'd agree that public universities can be considered quasi-government, albeit state, and that's to what I was referring. I don't pretend that any Constitutional element in this or any other instance is *that* black-and-white; else, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court that can be widely split on Constitutional issues.

Take it further. Replace blogging with "talking to your friend on a cellphone about the game as it's going on." Under the NCAA interpretation, this would be violating their policies. I would like to see them try to enforce that. The answer is, short of requiring everybody to turn in their cellphones at the gate, they can't.

But you're taking it further in the other direction. Yeah, I can call my buddies and tell them the score from my cell phone. But providing live coverage to a newspaper's web site with press credentials when you are not licensed to provide such coverage (and other court-tested licenses and restrictions on such broadcasts already exist) crosses a line. Could the line be blurry? Sure. But not for someone with press credentials who was informed that live blogging wasn't permitted.

Simply accepting a license to attend a sporting event does not strip you of all rights. As an example, there is a line of 4th Amendment cases regarding the propriety of, and limits to, searching sporting event attendees.

The NCAA's right to control and license the live/near-live and recorded contents of its events has been tested and confirmed in the courts. The live scenario has its own set of conditions and restrictions, and doesn't prevent someone from immediately reporting the event after the fact for a newspaper, online service, podcast, or what have you (within the terms of the license). So the point is that the relevant controls that NCAA asserts on its content have already been tested, and blogging is simply a new element that is being treated the same as other mechanisms.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471441)

I like the angle you took, but it has way too many thickets in it:

So what research is the State paying for at this particular sports game, exactly?

There is a difference between State "supported" and state "owned". I get a huge tax deduction each year for the interest on my house mortgage, on energy-saving measures I perform on the home, my home office space, etc etc. In short, the State supports my housing in a small indirect way - same way the State (ditto) supports college sports programs in indirect ways. Does that now give any journalist/blogger the right to come into my house at whim and broadcast/blog on whatever occurs in it? If the dog doesn't get him (okay, okay - Dachshunds aren't exactly man-eaters), I'd certainly have more than the right to throw the schmuck off my property.

Unless stated otherwise in the grant paperwork as a condition of acceptance, money given to a college's labs doesn't automatically give the State the perfect right to dominate rules on the sports program.

/P

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

steveshaw (690806) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471715)

All state universities are state actors, which is the first step in any Constitutional analysis. The University of Louisville is a public, state-supported university, and therefore is a state actor.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471201)

Greetings new member of my friend's list. Well said! I think any further commenting on this has now been rendered redundant.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Atario (673917) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471273)

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.

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.

Reminds me of my visit to the Kremlin — you had to buy a special sticker for your shirt if you wanted to be allowed to take photos. Soviet America indeed...

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471425)

It wasn't just a sticker, it was a remotely detonated tracking device, in case you snapped any secrets.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (2, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471483)

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.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (2, Interesting)

Pinkybum (960069) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471287)

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.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471367)

And, as I said, there is licensing involved in the live, semi-realtime play-by-play textual (web, mobile) content that media entities such as CBS, CNNSI, and ESPN provide.

The bottom line is, no matter how extensive it is or isn't, "live blogging" or any other kind of live coverage is NOT ALLOWED by persons with press passes, and they were told this. That is the end of the discussion.

I find it amusing that people can put forth all kinds of ridiculous slippery slope arguments on other technology issues, but can't fathom that someone might actually want to, say, "video blog" from an event. Well, why not? Why not "live podcast" an event? I know *this guy* wasn't doing that, but he wasn't allowed to do what he was doing, either.

Sure, maybe one day all the old school "business models" will collapse, and we'll all live in blog and YouTube-utopia. I think most people would prefer to have the chance to have access to things like ESPN HD, and ESPN pays good money to be in that space. And no, some newspaper's blogger isn't going to threaten ESPN. But people do license and pay for the right to cover the events "live", by any mechanism. Why is this guy different? Because he's doing it on a "blog"?

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471431)

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!"

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471509)

Not really - radio broadcasts of sports events do this all the time, with the commentator(s) describing the action as it progresses - and this act is considered a live broadcast event to do so.

Just because it's on the Internet doesn't exempt the act from its brethren on older tech, y'know?

/P

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471393)

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?


Yes.

If I understand correctly, your main issue is with people who are confusing this with government-sponsored censorship, and I agree with you on that point.

However, I _do_ think that I should be able to do those things at a college basketball game, if I cared to. 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. I find that combination a bit dishonest.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471513)

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.

But...but... (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471479)

It is filed under the Your Rights Online category! You're not allowed to bring logic into these articles!

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471503)

Welcome to /. This is where a story about someone sitting in a car outside an internet cafe and stealing the wireless connection gets the headline "Poor innocent Linux user arrested for browsing the web." Or a story about a student posting Nazi slogans from a college computer gets the headline "Student suspended for blogging." Misleading propaganda headlines are becoming so common around here that it's becoming one big exercise in reading between the lines.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471599)

The memo said, in essence

I am sure this "essence", when distilled and mixed with the proper aethers and touched with the appropriate mystic crystals can be magicked into an elixir that once imbibed will grant the drinker wonderous insights into the NCAA's regulations.

It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials

Wow, you don't say. I can't imagine what press people do for a living. Especially press people granted their press coverage by the NCAA. Did the NCAA not bother to check and see if this person was a "real journalist" before handing out that press pass (which I guess must have been free by your statement of not having "paid for it")?

And of course it's perfectly alright for the NCAA to shut him up, after all, they have a patent or trademark or something on any actual events that occur, and everyone in the world must clear anything they want to say that might possibly relate to a real-world incident with an NCAA lawyer, just to be sure. It's not an infringement of free speech, since only the government can infringe on free speech, anyone else can feel free to smash up internet cafes for allowing people to offend them.

And why exactly not? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471643)

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?

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.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471677)

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.

The story isn't "this guy got caught violating a policy that he knew about," the story is "Look what a ridiculous policy the NCAA has."

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?

What gives them the legal right to control access to live or recorded broadcasts of text accounts of games? What gives them the legal right to control access to audio commentary of games made by someone not physically present?

I don't think they have those rights, though many sporting organizations try to claim them. Witness the NFL's ridiculous disclaimer: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." No law that I am aware of stops you from telling somebody what you think about the game, be it over the water cooler at work or on your blog.

Re:"In Soviet America"? Please. (3, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471713)

First, let's get this out of the way: this is the NCAA, not the government.

True, but according to free market economics, I have the ability and right to boycott private organizations who participate in such behavior.

Getting this information out and the opening and decrying it helps others to do the same and to know the truth about this behavior.

Even though it is legal, it doesn't make it right in my views and I can voice my opinion by not supporting their private organization.

ObParis (4, Funny)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470871)

Heck, we got more live updates from the Paris Hilton court hearing on tmz.com than we can get on an NCAA game.

Re:ObParis (1)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470943)

He was probably just bored. It was a baseball game, after all.

Re:ObParis (1)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471089)

Oh wait, he was blogging about the game? Dear God, the only thing worse than watching baseball would be reading a guy's live blog of the game. They were performing a public service by kicking him out.

First Amendment my ass (4, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470935)

In its article, the Courier-Journal quoted its executive editor, Bennie Ivory, as saying, "It's clearly a First Amendment issue. This is part of the evolution of how we present the news to our readers. It's what we did during the Orange Bowl. It's what we did during the NCAA basketball tournament. It's what we do."


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.

Re:First Amendment my ass (2, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471243)

The simple issue is that the NCAA has to do this to protect their lucrative TV contracts.

In essence, it is not a problem to write down the notes on paper, go home, and post them to a blog. Allowing you to post live to a blog may violate the NCAA's tv contracts, though.

It is a shame, but this should serve to show how commercialized even college sports have become. It is one reason I avoid sports events entirely.

Re:First Amendment my ass (1)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471497)

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 Courier-Journal is hardly a "no-name newspaper." In fact, it's #41 of the top 100 [burrellesluce.com] daily newspapers in the country. With a circulation of 218,796 daily and 266,594 on Sundays, it beats out others such as The Boston Herald and the Salt Lake Tribune.

That being said, he did violate the policy, and that's why he was asked to leave. As a reporter, it was his responsibility to know of this beforehand (meaning he read the memo). Is the policy right? In my opinion, no. However, the NCAA stated this as their policy and he violated it. Had he not had a press pass and paid for the ticket himself, there would probably be nothing they could do about it. However, since he was there as a member of the press, and therefore got into the game for free, he should have played by the rules. Nothing said he couldn't do a complete writeup on the game to be posted when he got back to the office.

However, the NCAA is fairly ignorant of the times in this issue. There is no possible way they can keep EVERYONE from doing a live update about [Insert Game Here] with all of the technology available these days. They are well within their rights to have such a policy, and to enforce it by asking violators to leave. At the same time, they need to get with the program and realize that you can't confiscate everyone's communication devices at the door so they can be the only ones allowing the game to be broadcast live.

Re:First Amendment my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471549)

As I recall, the First Amendment also protects freedom of the press. While there is as a policy in place denying those with press credentials from live-blogging, the argument here is that it is an unfair restriction on the press.

Re:First Amendment my ass (2, Insightful)

gravesb (967413) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471691)

Actually, you can kick people out of private events based on the grounds or race, religion, sex, etc. You get in trouble if you are an employer and discriminate on those grounds. That's why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against homosexuals; they are a private organization and the 1st Amend protects a right to association (NAACP v. Alabama), and that's been extended to exclude those from your private organization for any reason at all. As with all 1st Amend law, there are exceptions, such as the previously mentioned employment discrimination and anyone involved in commerce, but that's the general rule.

NCAA likes money. (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470957)

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.

Fair enough - tax refunds? (3, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470973)

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.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (4, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471063)

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.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471137)

I'm pretty sure the primary source of NCAA funding isn't taxes, but in fact from licensing,

That is, licensing the trademarks of the schools comprising it. As a not-for-profit entity (educational institution status), it funnels most of that money back to its members, which are largely taxpayer-funded schools.

Basically, they want all the perks of being a government institution without any of the obligations.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471375)

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.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471519)

The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games. This has been tested in court.
But not in the way you think.

We hold that Motorola and STATS have not unlawfully misappropriated NBA's property by transmitting "real-time" NBA game scores and statistics taken from television and radio broadcasts of games in progress.
The National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc. [bitlaw.com]
The only difference here is that Moto was using 2nd-hand information and the blogger was using 1st-hand. You might try to argue that 1st-hand vs 2nd-hand makes a whole world of difference, but the end result is exactly the same in either case.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471525)

The NCAA controls broadcast rights for their games.
which raises the question, is blogging broadcasting?

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471665)

Depending on which definition of broadcasting you use, yes. Even the definitions that specifically mention radio or television could be weaseled in since technically he's using a radio signal to report from the game. But within the spirit of the definition, definitely. It involves widely disseminating some form of information.

Also, if blogging wants to be taken seriously as journalism, then it especially should fall in the realm of broadcasting.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

delong (125205) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471091)

The NCAA schools are publicly funded, but the NCAA is a private organization.

Regardless, the NCAA owns the copyright to the "performance" of the game, and that has been tested in court. You can't distribute your take on the events live without NCAA consent. In addition, when you attend a game, and particularly when you are there on press credentials, you are a licensee and under restrictions of a contract that can be revoked at any time.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1, Insightful)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471191)

I think this regresses to the whole issue of tax status of educational institutions. Even if they are supported by tax dollars and even spend tax dollars on athletes, they also make a profit from these revenues. Huge profits. Why should these be exempt from regular taxes on profits, simply because they teach students on the side?

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471517)

I think this regresses to the whole issue of tax status of educational institutions. Even if they are supported by tax dollars and even spend tax dollars on athletes, they also make a profit from these revenues. Huge profits. Why should these be exempt from regular taxes on profits, simply because they teach students on the side?
I don't have a problem with it. Presumably that's simply more money they can put towards paying the professors, which is something I'm always for.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

j_rhoden (214320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471469)

This is what I can find on their website. It does mention statistics, but I would imagine that something similar to this is what he violated:

The NCAA reserves the right to deny any entity from producing live statistics for NCAA championship play. In the event the NCAA takes on the responsibility of producing a live statistical representation from an NCAA championship event, no other entity will be permitted to do so. Live statistics are considered a protected right that has been granted to CBS as part of a bundled rights agreement, referenced above. For clarification purposes, a live statistical representation includes play-by-play, score updates, shot charts, updated box scores, photos with captions, etc.

In the event the NCAA, through CBS, does not produce live statistics for a specific championship, the host institution is given priority to produce exclusive live statistics. The host institution will be given the same exclusivities the NCAA would reserve for CBS in such an instance.

Once it is determined that neither the NCAA, nor the host institution, plan to exercise their exclusive rights, the ability to produce live statistics - on a non-exclusive basis - will be granted to each participating school. The definition of a participating school constitutes a school playing in the same event at a specific site.

In each case, no commercial advertising is permitted within the live statistics window. Any questions pertaining to live statistics should be sent to Jeramy Michiaels, NCAA Manager of Broadcasting (jmichiaels@ncaa.org).

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

j_rhoden (214320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471571)

Major League Baseball's version of this (Note this is from the guideline to get MLB credentials, so these are the protections you get IF the give you a media badge) :

The use of any account, description, picture, photograph, video, audio, reproduction, or other information concerning the Games (the "Game Information") other than for news coverage of, or magazines, books or stories about, the Games, or for First Amendment-protected purposes, is prohibited, except (a) with the prior written consent of the Baseball Office of the Commissioner or (b) as specifically licensed by Paragraph 7 below. Nothing in these terms and conditions authorizes or allows Bearer to violate the MLB Entities' trademark, copyright and other proprietary rights.

3. While a Game is in progress, Bearer shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any Game Information on a play-by-play or pitch -by-pitch basis, more frequently than once every half-inning of play (except to report on the occasional and significant historic event), or such other longer period as Bearer has agreed to refrain from such transmission except (a) this limitation shall not apply to internal transmissions between the Bearer attending the Game and such Bearer's employer, or (b) with the prior written consent of the Baseball Office of the Commissioner.

4. While a Game is in progress, Bearer shall not transmit, display, aid in transmitting or displaying any video, audio, pictures, photographs or other non -text based accounts or descriptions of Games ("Non-Text Accounts") that Bearer obtains at that Game in any media, except (a) this limitation shall not apply to internal transmissions between the Bearer attending the Games and such Bearer's employer, or (b) with the prior written consent of the Baseball Office of the Commissioner. The foregoing limitation shall not preclude the on-line transmission or display of up to seven still pictures or photographs of any Game during its progress; provided, however, that under no circumstances may Bearer display any more than seven still pictures or photographs of any Game during its progress regardless of whether Bearer obtained such pictures or photographs at the Game.

No taxes to refund... (0, Flamebait)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471543)

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 [slashdot.org] and a bit here [slashdot.org].

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471631)

But the solution to this problem would be to revoke government funding... not to continue to subsidize basketball with tax dollars and let people blog.

Re:Fair enough - tax refunds? (1)

AnonymousCactus (810364) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471675)

My guess is that this kind of event actually saves you tax dollars. Basketball and football usually turn a nice profit.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? (0, Troll)

madsheep (984404) | more than 6 years ago | (#19470999)

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.

The Why? (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471009)

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.

Re:The Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471433)

I wouldn't be surprised if NCAA wants to introduce its own blog in the future.

Uh, yeah: http://www.doubleazone.com/ [doubleazone.com] --- and there's a blog entry about this story!

next thing you know.... (1)

drfrog (145882) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471019)

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

Re:next thing you know.... (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471083)

and so the powers that be get upitty about lost revenue and arrest him...loosing even more revenue! :|


They would have to be making revenue from his activities to lose revenue by disallowing them.

Re:next thing you know.... (1)

drfrog (145882) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471253)

true, im more talking about a lost op to make more revenue

it all how you look at a situation

they could have handled it better

Re:next thing you know.... (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471407)

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.

Re:next thing you know.... (1)

delong (125205) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471293)

EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!

There is a EULA. You are a licensee. Your continued presence at the event is conditional on the event not throwing you out for whatever reason they want or at least put in the "contract", ie. the back of the ticket nobody reads.

In other news: (4, Funny)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471047)

A website funded mostly by advertisements that is therefore immune to the temptation to sensationalize stories is reporting that a sports talk show host from WSHT was recently ejected from a meaningless sports event for calling the game with a HAM radio.

According to WSHT, host Johnson Jones was approached by NCAA officials right before they stop selling beer and all the fun is gone in a game between the University of Lousville and Oklahoma State, and was told that calling the game '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, before we employ more (parenthesis) and 'nested "quo't'es" at you in a "vicious"' (manner)."'
Clearly, this is a sign our democratic meritocracy has finally collapsed under the weight of the jack booted thugs from college sporting events. The arguments from the N[azi]CAA that they have a right to revoke the press pass they gave him because he's competing with their services are obviously thinly veiled lies. The end of the world will follow shortly.

Not a big deal (1)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471095)

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.

Re:Not a big deal (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471251)

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.

i think the NCAA is being conterproductive (2, Interesting)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471259)

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.

wrong subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19471263)

In retrospect, he probably shouldn't have titled his blogpost "nappy-headed hos."

Related issue with WSOP (1)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471267)

There's a more interesting issue going on right now with live coverage of the World Series of Poker. Harrah's made an exclusive deal with Pokernews.com to cover the event and provide live chip counts, etc. Cardplayer.com has been updating their site with chip counts taken from pokernews. Tony G, the owner of Pokernews.com is angry and threatening a lawsuit [pokerworks.com]:

We put the chip counts up on PokerNews, and one minute later they are up on Cardplayer.com. Cardplayer has no one counting chips at the WSOP, and they know that counting chips is against the rules for them since we beat them to the rights for coverage this year. But they have the counts up on their site, stolen straight from the counts we are doing live in the room at the Rio. We have paid a lot of money for these rights and a lot of money to the 40 people we have hired to cover the series.
Do they have the exclusive rights to this kind of factual information once it is posted on the internet?

Re:Related issue with WSOP (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471651)

ROFL! Sucks to be Pokernews...

No, seriously; if Pokernews can't see the advantage in being first-to-the-punch, or have overpayed for the 'right' to spit out these numbers first, then they can complain to no one, really.

Then again, I'm not a jury, judge, lawyer, or any of that. I just find the whole thing kinda silly (sorta like when Jeep sued Hummer because the Hummers had seven slits in their vehicle's grille... just like the Jeeps do. Never mind that both grille types were built (IIRC) from some minor aspect of US Gov't design specs, or that no one in either customer camp really gives a flying frig about how many holes the front has...)

/P

New doesn't exclude (2, Insightful)

bahwi (43111) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471271)

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.

Whatever (1)

Doomstalk (629173) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471319)

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.

What's an NCAA? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471505)

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.

College Ball Pretending to be Important (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471575)

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.

Ejection no small ordeal (1)

planckscale (579258) | more than 6 years ago | (#19471711)

When those explosive bolts go off, and the jettison rocket fires, I'll tell you, it's a shock. Same thing happened to me when I freed my carrier pigeon from the game the other night. It wasn't the landing on the roof that was so bad, but the slow slide down the slope only to be hung up 10 feet from ground of the parking lot. It took nearly 3 hours for fire dept to arrive and after the game ended a couple kids threw stuff at me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...