<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;nfl&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NFL/ESPN Agree Not To Tweet Draft Picks Early, Because Apparently No Other Sports Journalists Exist</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130426/06365422850/nflespn-agree-not-to-tweet-draft-picks-early-because-apparently-no-other-sports-journalists-exist.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130426/06365422850/nflespn-agree-not-to-tweet-draft-picks-early-because-apparently-no-other-sports-journalists-exist.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Professional sports leagues in general tend to have some degree of desire in controlling information. Some attempts at control are more sensible than others, however. For instance, taking down <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/12374117639/ice-seizes-300-more-sites-cant-have-people-watching-super-bowl-ads-without-permission.shtml">streams</a> of the Super Bowl? I get it. It's still stupid, and I don't agree with their logic, but I understand the basis for their logic. Forcing any non-broadcast partners and advertisers to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml">euphamize</a> the biggest spectacle in sports? Well that's just dumb. There's no logic behind that at all. So you see, there's something of a degree or scale to which these control attempts fall.
<br /><br />
Well, there was anyway, until the NFL broke the scale with a move so myopic and full of fail that it's difficult to imagine it was made by anyone other than a collection of rocks with a history of rock-head trauma. I'm talking about the NFL clamping down for this year's NFL draft on <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000162997/article/2013-nfl-draft-picks-shouldnt-be-revealed-on-twitter">journalists tweeting out the draft picks</a> before they are announced by Commissioner Roger Goodell on stage. For the majority of you who probably didn't watch the first round of the draft on Thursday, the NFL went as far as to purposefully not show live footage they had of draftees talking on the phone with the team picking them, so as not to tip anyone off that they'd been drafted. Even more fun, the on-screen talent went out of their way to remind you over and over and over again that they were withholding information so that you wouldn't know until the moment they wanted you to know. The gentlemen's agreement the NFL has with ESPN, and obviously their edict to NFL Network reporters, meant you also wouldn't find out any tipped draft information on Twitter.
<br /><br />
That is, of course, unless you follow <i>any sports journalist </i>not affiliated with those two entities. What the NFL seems to have forgotten is that the NFL Network and ESPN aren't the only people reporting on the draft and that their desires are meaningless to reporters over which they have no leverage. One example of such a reporter, and in my opinion he's one of the best follows for NFL news, <a href="http://www.shermanreport.com/no-restrictions-cbs-la-canfora-plans-to-tweet-early-often-and-everything-during-nfl-draft/">is CBS's Jason La Canfora</a>. He wasn't having anything to do with the lockdown.
<blockquote>
<i>He intends to tweet as much as possible. Beware: that includes upcoming picks before they are revealed on TV (if he gets them) to his nearly 300,000 followers. He also will be contributing updates to CBSSports.com.</i>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"We're not a broadcast partner for the draft," La Canfora said. "I will be trying to get the information out as quickly and accurately as possible. What event is made more for Twitter than the NFL draft? If the teams have the information; if the guys in the production truck have the information; if the commissioner has the information; why wouldn't passionate football fans want it as well?"</i>
</blockquote>
In round 1 of the draft, La Canfora did exactly as he promised. If you were watching the NFL draft to find out who picked who, you got that information somewhere between 10 and 15 minutes later than La Canfora's 300k followers. No, that time difference isn't a big deal. No, I'm not saying the NFL can't run their business however they choose. But if you're going to force certain broadcasters to lock up information that is available elsewhere, and <i>brag</i> about it no less, all you're telling me is that the place I should be going to for NFL news isn't the NFL or ESPN.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130426/06365422850/nflespn-agree-not-to-tweet-draft-picks-early-because-apparently-no-other-sports-journalists-exist.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130426/06365422850/nflespn-agree-not-to-tweet-draft-picks-early-because-apparently-no-other-sports-journalists-exist.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130426/06365422850/nflespn-agree-not-to-tweet-draft-picks-early-because-apparently-no-other-sports-journalists-exist.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>mega-fail</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130426/06365422850</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:14:07 PST</pubDate>
<title>Oakland Raiders Hack NFL Blackout Rules In Real Life By Shrinking Stadium</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/07173421919/oakland-raiders-hack-nfl-blackout-rules-real-life-shrinking-stadium.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/07173421919/oakland-raiders-hack-nfl-blackout-rules-real-life-shrinking-stadium.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I&#39;ve made it no secret that I think sports leagues need to better embrace getting their product out to as many viewers as possible. Internet <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml">streaming</a> could be a <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130108/10073721607/nhl-comeback-opportunity-streaming.shtml">boon</a> to growing fanbases if the leagues weren&#39;t so busy locking their own streams up and trying to shut everyone else down. And the real dingleberry on top of the crap sundae is that even if you buy one of the major sports leagues&#39; streaming packages, you get smacked with blackout rules every time you want to watch your home team. Still, as if that weren&#39;t enough, some leagues extend blackout rules to broadcast television, setting abitrary threshholds for stadium attendance or else no TV broadcast. Can you imagine anything stupider? Particularly for the NFL, a league whose sport is flatout better experienced on television, where fans can check on their fantasy teams while they take in commercials, a wonderful revenue stream for the league and broadcast partners alike?
<br /><br />
In the case of the NFL, the rule is that teams have to have 85% of their capacity sold by the Thursday before a game to keep the TV blackout rule from being triggered. Well, the Oakland Raiders, one team who has more trouble than most getting fans into the stands (because they're horrible), has a plan to get around the NFL blackout rules. This amazing plan is...<a href="http://deadspin.com/5982547/raiders-will-reduce-seating-capacity-to-the-nfls-smallest-in-attempt-to-avoid-tv-blackouts">covering up a bunch of the seats in O.co Coliseum to reduce capacity</a> and thereby increase the percentage of filled seats for their games.
<blockquote>
<i>CEO Amy Trask announced yesterday that the Raiders will be eliminating nearly 10,000 seats for next season, mostly by covering up Mount Davis with a tarp. Mount Davis is the nickname given to the tier of seats installed in a 1996 renovation, ruining the backdrop view of the Oakland hills that were a staple at A's games. They're steep (nearly to the point of being unsafe) and the upper reaches are comically distant from the action. And they've gone mostly empty, being tarped off for baseball since 2006.</i>
</blockquote>
For those of you who haven't followed much in the way of sports business in the past, this is certifiably<i> insane</i>. That said, the insanity is on the part of the NFL, not the Raiders, who are only trying to get creative in routing around the restrictive blackout policy. They clearly understand that getting their games on TV is the best way to build their fanbase, which will result in more attendance at the stadium. The NFL, however, appears to think that nixing the broadcast a few days before the game will drive more attendance at the gates. This logic fails what I like to call "The Blackhawk Effect" (See, Mike? I can coin terms too!), where once the local blackouts of Chicago Blackhawks games was lifted, the previously unattended games were suddenly filled to capacity.
<br /><br />
What the NFL should be encouraging teams to do is go the <i>other </i>direction and open up even more ways for fans to view the games, whether by attending, watching on TV, or streaming. Instead, they're forcing their member teams like the Raiders to tarp over part of their seating capacity just to avoid arbitrary blackout restrictions. How less fan-friendly could a league get?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/07173421919/oakland-raiders-hack-nfl-blackout-rules-real-life-shrinking-stadium.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/07173421919/oakland-raiders-hack-nfl-blackout-rules-real-life-shrinking-stadium.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/07173421919/oakland-raiders-hack-nfl-blackout-rules-real-life-shrinking-stadium.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seriously?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130208/07173421919</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:53:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>As Expected, ICE Seizes 313 Websites In Its Role As The NFL's Private Police Force</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/11563521841/as-expected-ice-seizes-313-websites-its-role-as-nfls-private-police-force.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/11563521841/as-expected-ice-seizes-313-websites-its-role-as-nfls-private-police-force.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this week, we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130129/10471821817/feds-seize-legit-49ers-merchandise-apparently-unconcerned-about-actual-fraud-ticket-sales.shtml">predicted</a> that either today or tomorrow, we'd hear about ICE and the DOJ once again seizing a bunch of websites... and here it is.  This morning, ICE announced that it had <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/013113-super-bowl-bust-us-takes-266308.html?hpg1=bn" target="_blank">seized another 313 websites based on its highly questionable legal theory</a> concerning taking down websites without any adversarial hearing.  Of course, lately it's moved away from doing site seizures concerning websites that deal with content/copyright issues, and focused instead on those it claims are selling counterfeit merchandise.  Along those lines, ICE announced that it arrested a few people with counterfeit Super Bowl merchandise.
<br /><br />
Of course, this is all for show.  Waiting until just a couple days before the Super Bowl is pretty ridiculous, since if people were going to buy merch, <i>they already did so</i>.  This is just ICE, once again, generating headlines for the corporations it seems to think it represents.  As is his usual MO, ICE boss John Morton <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130131/fbn-super-bowl-merchandise/?utm_hp_ref=media&#038;ir=media" target="_blank">talked up just how "successful" this operation was</a>, based on his own metrics, claiming "This just takes good old-fashioned police work, people getting out on the streets." 
<br /><br />
Funny, then, that he completely leaves out the parts where they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130129/10471821817/feds-seize-legit-49ers-merchandise-apparently-unconcerned-about-actual-fraud-ticket-sales.shtml">seized legitimate merchandise</a> and hassled the seller.  It appears that, sometimes, ICE just isn't very good at "good old-fashioned police work."  And that's especially true when it seems to be taking orders from big companies, rather than the public it is supposed to be protecting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/11563521841/as-expected-ice-seizes-313-websites-its-role-as-nfls-private-police-force.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/11563521841/as-expected-ice-seizes-313-websites-its-role-as-nfls-private-police-force.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130131/11563521841/as-expected-ice-seizes-313-websites-its-role-as-nfls-private-police-force.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>government-overreach</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130131/11563521841</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The 'Hey Jude' Replacement Ref Protest Plan: Turning Copyright Maximalism Against Itself</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120927/17071120535/hey-jude-replacement-ref-protest-plan-turning-copyright-maximalism-against-itself.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120927/17071120535/hey-jude-replacement-ref-protest-plan-turning-copyright-maximalism-against-itself.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Even if you don't follow football (the American version), you've probably heard some discussion concerning the replacement referees who had stepped in to officiate games while the real refs sorted out their labor dispute with the NFL. If there had been even a modicum of competence, chances are most non-NFL fans would still be blissfully unaware that Green Bay and Seattle played a game recently, much less one that was <a href="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8422905/the-nfl-needs-end-referee-lockout-immediately" target="_blank">decided by a call blown so badly</a> that b-list writers began cobbling together "amateur night at the brothel" analogies.  Also, the idea that the real refs, upon returning, actually got what was perhaps the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57522025/regular-nfl-refs-return-get-standing-ovation/" target="_blank">first ever standing ovation for refs</a> should tell you something about just how bad the replacements were.<br />
<br />
A couple of days before the NFL reached an agreement with the <i>real</i> referees, Mike Tanier (writer for Football Outsiders and formerly the only thing worth reading at the New York Times Fifth Down blog) <a href="http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39023010" target="_blank">whipped up an idea to shut down the replacement refs before any more damage was done</a>. The scheme relied on crowd participation, the intricacies of public performance rights and a band whose catalog was once referred to (by a b-lister) as being about as approachable as a "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110818/12234515587/is-talking-about-beatles-as-wonderful-shared-experience-really-wise-anti-piracy-psa.shtml" target="_blank">badger covered in live hand grenades</a>."
<blockquote>
<i>Go to the game. If you are a Chargers, Jaguars or Bengals fan, this involves purchasing a ticket and driving to the stadium. There are websites that teach you how to do these things. Anyway, once there, wait for the replacement officials to make an idiotic call or lapse into one of their marathon delays. When it happens, start singing:</i><br />
<br />
<i>Nah nah nah na-na-na-nah, na-na-na-nah, Hey Jude!</i><br />
<br />
<i>Beatles copyrights (held mostly by Paul McCartney and the estate of John Lennon) and publishing rights (held by Paul, Sony/ATV publishing, and possibly by one or two of Michael Jackson&rsquo;s former chimpanzees) are among the most closely guarded music rights in the world. &ldquo;Hey Jude&rdquo; is the most preciously protected song in the Beatles catalogue. Everyone knows it, and it is easy for a huge crowd to sing, as Paul himself proved when he led Olympic fans in a chorus of a song first recorded 15 years before their parents reached puberty.</i><br />
<br />
<i>If the crowd at an NFL game sings &ldquo;Hey Jude,&rdquo; television networks will be stuck broadcasting &ldquo;Hey Jude&rdquo; without the rights-holders permission. The sound editors are pretty good at obscuring the B.S. chant, but that only takes a little bit of white noise. Try editing away one of the most recognizable melodies in the world on live television. The broadcast will sound like it is coming from Venus. But if the NFL doesn&rsquo;t drown out the singing, someone big and powerful is going to show up at league headquarters in a suing mood.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Faced with the choice of a battle against Big Music Publishing and the fourth most beloved human on earth (wedged between Ron Howard and &hellip; wow &hellip; T.J. Lang) or negotiating fairly with the referees, the NFL will be left with no choice. The lockout will end, thanks to you and the Cute Beatle.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I am no copyright lawyer, and there are probably holes in this master plan. But if the NFL can publish a mix of lies and obfuscations and call it an &ldquo;explanation,&rdquo; then I can publish this and call it a &ldquo;solution.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
Tanier may not be a copyright lawyer, but he does certainly understand the stupidity that often masquerades as "needless complexity" in the copyright system. While the stadium would likely have a blanket license to cover the not-very-spontaneous "performance" of a Beatles' tune, the NFL's broadcast would likely be short a sync license.<br />
<br />
Those watching the game on broadcast TV would probably be unaffected, but those watching a livestream might find their gridiron action replaced with the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fA3xd20ANs" target="_blank">soothing images of Heidi doing something Alps-related</a>, or a more familiar message informing them that the stream has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120904/22172920275/copyright-killbots-strike-again-official-dnc-livestream-taken-down-just-about-every-copyright-holder.shtml" target="_blank">taken down due to copyright claims</a> by Michael Jackson's chimpanzees.<br />
<br />
While most of us would find a somewhat spontaneous singalong to fall under "fair use" or at the very least "nothing to get hung about," people singing songs out loud for non-commercial reasons is apparently Very Serious Business. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/13500819733/bmg-doubles-down-issues-takedown-original-clip-obama-singing-al-green.shtml" target="_blank">BMG takes down a clip</a> of Obama singing an Al Green song. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120403/04453818349/easy-come-easy-go-emi-pulls-video-drunk-guy-singing-bohemian-rhapsody-reinstates-it-after-backlash.shtml" target="_blank">EMI takes down a clip</a> of a drunk guy singing a Queen song. A Slovak performance rights organization bills a village for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120612/09035819289/slovak-collecting-society-sends-village-invoice-singing-folk-song-about-itself.shtml" target="_blank">singing folk songs about itself</a>. Bourne Music Publishers demands <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/09434710323.shtml" target="_blank">$2,000 from a 10-year-old girl</a> for singing a theme song to a Charlie Chaplin movie for charity.<br />
<br />
It's an obviously facetious post but there's enough truth to the farcical situation to make it seem tenable. Expansion of IP protection hasn't resulted in any great declines in infringement and has criminalized several activities that most people feel would fall under "fair use." As Tanier's very humorous hypothetical situation points out, IP maximalist enforcement has a tendency to do more damage to itself that its intended targets. And by all means, read through Tanier's entire post, which also covers such enjoyable oddities as New Jersey legislators insinuating themselves into the replacement ref debacle and the NFL being covered on NPR of all places.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120927/17071120535/hey-jude-replacement-ref-protest-plan-turning-copyright-maximalism-against-itself.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120927/17071120535/hey-jude-replacement-ref-protest-plan-turning-copyright-maximalism-against-itself.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120927/17071120535/hey-jude-replacement-ref-protest-plan-turning-copyright-maximalism-against-itself.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-takedown-that-takes-itself-down</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120927/17071120535</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EA Settles Price Fixing Lawsuit For $27 Million; NFL Monopoly Left Intact</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/18234419817/ea-settles-price-fixing-lawsuit-27-million-nfl-monopoly-left-intact.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/18234419817/ea-settles-price-fixing-lawsuit-27-million-nfl-monopoly-left-intact.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ EA Games has agreed to a $27 million settlement for charges of price-fixing related to its NFL, NCAA and (lawl) Arena Football League games. While this may come as somewhat a relief to purchasers of EA games, it&#39;s highly unlikely that this will result in EA changing its core strategy. It certainly doesn&#39;t seem to have had any affect on EA&#39;s exclusive license with the NFL (which continues through 2013), a deal that was the impetus for this lawsuit.<br />
<br />
First off, the settlement sounds super-big, but in reality, <a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/07/ea-settles-price-fixing-lawsuit-but-apparently-still-has-monopoly-on-nfl-games.html" target="_blank">it breaks down to couch change for those people who were "fortunate" enough to make a "recent" purchase of one of the named EA Sports titles</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Those who bought games for a PlayStation 2, original Xbox or Nintendo GameCube could receive up to $6.79 per title. Games purchased for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii will garner a $1.95 refund, reports USA Today.</i></blockquote>
The named platforms call to question the term "recent," which is used in <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2012/07/ea-settles-lawsuit-over-alleged-price-fixing/1#.UA8v9rSe6s1" target="_blank">the original USA Today article on the subject</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>In a statement, law firm Hagens Berman says EA will create a $27 million fund for players who purchased a <b>recent</b> copy of any Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football title.</i></blockquote>
The larger payout for older platforms is likely due to the event that led to EA locking down an exclusive deal to publish Madden Roster Update as the sole representative of the National Football League.<br />
<br />
Way back in 2004, 2K Sports released <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_NFL_2K5" target="_blank">ESPN NFL 2K5</a> at the extremely friendly price point of $19.99, or under half the price of EA&#39;s game, which debuted at the normal $50. Not only did it beat Madden in the price war (and force EA to drop Madden&#39;s price to $29.99), but in many critics&#39; estimation, it was a superior game, especially in terms of presentation.<br />
<br />
EA felt threatened by this move and responded the way any corporation that would go on to hold the title of "<a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/04/congratulations-ea-you-are-the-worst-company-in-america-for-2012.html" target="_blank">Worst Company in America</a>" would: by throwing its considerable weight around and locking down an exclusive deal with the NFL. No doubt the NFL was also worried, having momentarily been associated with a budget-priced game. Hence, nothing but Madden until 2013 and this lawsuit, which was filed in 2010.<br />
<br />
The NFL&#39;s vice president of consumer products, Gene Goldberg, <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1945691" target="_blank">said at the time</a> that he wasn&#39;t concerned that EA&#39;s monopoly would result in stagnation, stating that there is "a lot of self-imposed pressure to make [Madden] stand out in a robust and diverse marketplace." Maybe so, but I would imagine that EA&#39;s flagship football game would have improved much more dramatically with a high-quality competitor constantly breathing down its (overpriced) neck. 2K Sports&#39; product was so far ahead of Madden at the time that gamers still find it to be a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COi3Qer15Og" target="_blank">better experience than <i>Madden 11</i></a>.<br />
<br />
This isn&#39;t EA&#39;s only NFL-related lawsuit, either. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg just gave the go-ahead for former NFL players to seek class-action status in their lawsuit against EA for using their likenesses in Madden NFL games. EA had hoped to avoid this sort of situation by stripping names and shuffling jersey numbers, but the retired players pointed out that their digital alter egos were accurate in terms of skills and physical appearance.<br />
<br />
EA played the "stats are facts" card, quoting an earlier decision that saw Major League Baseball being told that player&nbsp;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080602/1216571291.shtml" target="_blank">names and statistics are facts</a>, and therefore cannot be copyrighted. Seeborg&#39;s ruling <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ex-NFL-players-cleared-to-sue-video-game-maker-3457287.php" target="_blank">dismissed this claim</a>, stating that current publicity rights laws and pointing out that Madden games show the retired players "in their conventional role as football players" and is the "digital equivalent" of "using the players&#39; pictures to sell T-shirts."&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Speaking of "couch change," the proposed settlement pales in comparison to the damages originally sought in the price-fixing lawsuit, which alleged that without the exclusive NFL deal, Madden would have been forced to price its games at a more reasonable $29.99, rather than the $50-60 we&#39;re all kind of tired of paying. This difference resulted in gamers <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/07/14/economist-ea039s-madden-monopoly-cost-gamers-926-million" target="_blank">paying an extra $701-926 million</a> for EA sports games between 2005 and 2010.<br />
<br />
But $27 million it is. Gamers shouldn&#39;t start counting that incoming couch change just yet though. This settlement still needs to be approved by the court, a move which could take months. While this might be of some consolation to the gamers who filed the suit, it feels more like a gesture of hands-folded-politely compliance, as if to show that EA is a "Good Corporate Citizen" and, as such, is worthy of its continued NFL-granted monopoly. And despite its exclusive client currently "entertaining" two lawsuits, the NFL doesn&#39;t seem to be interested in shopping around for new suitors, leading one to believe that it really doesn&#39;t care much for non-exclusive deals... or for <a href="http://www.proplayerinsiders.com/eller-retired-players-sue-nflpa/" target="_blank">its former players</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/18234419817/ea-settles-price-fixing-lawsuit-27-million-nfl-monopoly-left-intact.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/18234419817/ea-settles-price-fixing-lawsuit-27-million-nfl-monopoly-left-intact.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120724/18234419817/ea-settles-price-fixing-lawsuit-27-million-nfl-monopoly-left-intact.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-no-'innovate'-in-'exclusive-contract'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120724/18234419817</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:21:26 PST</pubDate>
<title>The NFL Issues Takedown For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/10505917670/nfl-issues-takedown-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/10505917670/nfl-issues-takedown-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, the bogus takedown.  The latest is that apparently the NFL somehow and for some reason <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/06/what-happened-to-the-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial/" target="_blank">took down Chrysler's Clint Eastwood Super Bowl commercial from YouTube</a>.  Pretty much every advertiser put up their commercials on YouTube, and it's unclear why or how the NFL might claim any sort of copyright on any of those ads.  But, for some time that's exactly what happened, making Chrysler's own website promoting the ad look pretty silly:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/5Dkqt"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/5Dkqt.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Considering how much Chrysler had to pay for that ad, you have to wonder if they now feel that the NFL owes them something for making it impossible for people to watch for a while...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/10505917670/nfl-issues-takedown-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/10505917670/nfl-issues-takedown-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/10505917670/nfl-issues-takedown-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nicely-done</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120206/10505917670</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:21:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hey Advertisers! Stop Believing The NFL's Lies About Trademark Law And Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060202/1239257.shtml">years</a> now, we've mocked how the NFL insists that no one can use the term "Super Bowl" in an advertisement unless they're an official sponsor of the event.  That's why it's become so typical to see advertisers using "the big game" instead -- though, five years ago, the NFL even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070223/111900.shtml">sought the trademark</a> on "The Big Game" because so many advertisers were using it.  However, Paul Levy rightly <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/brand-name-weenies-its-time-to-stand-up-to-the-nfl-and-call-it-the-superbowl.html" target="_blank">takes advertisers to task for being "weenies" and not standing up to the NFL on this</a>.  As he says:
<blockquote><i>
Of course, the NFL's position is nonsense -- this is a nominative use that is just as permissible as, for example, referring to the "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the two-time world champions" or "the professional basketball team from Chicago" (<a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/integrity/Links/Cases/newkids.html " target="_blank">Judge Kozinski's example</a> from a different era, when the Bulls mattered).
</i></blockquote>
Basically, the game <i>is</i> called the Super Bowl, and calling it that isn't trademark infringement, so long as you don't imply that you're an official sponsor or otherwise officially associated with the game.  Of course, where it gets even more ridiculous is when <i>news organizations</i> heed the NFL's warnings over this -- such as <a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/Boston.comNewsletter.pdf" target="_blank">the email Levy received from the Boston Globe</a> (pdf) about the Super Bowl, where the term doesn't appear at all.  Levy points out that it's simply ridiculous that a news organization (and a big one with plenty of lawyers who get this) would still not use "Super Bowl."  Levy suggests we start calling such ridiculousness out:
<blockquote><i>
Instead of praising retailers who skate close to the edge, we should take a page from <a href="http://www.bollier.org/" target="_self">David Bollier</a>&#8217;s excellent <a href="http://www.brandnamebullies.com/" target="_self">Brand Name Bullies</a> and call them Brand Name Weenies.&nbsp;&nbsp; Indeed, it is disappointing that a major metropolitan newspaper that belongs to an 800 pound gorilla like the New York Times Company is unwilling to defy the NFL by using the term in in its advertising.&nbsp; The <em>Times</em> and the <em>Globe</em> certainly advertise their coverage of the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, also trademarked names.&nbsp; If big players like the Times don&#8217;t have the cojones to stand up for bullying from the NFL, they make it harder for everybody else.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />&nbsp;<br />In their recent book <a href="http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/reclaiming" target="_self">Reclaiming Fair Use</a>, Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi warn that when we refrain from exercising our fair use rights, and act as if those rights do not exist, we help create a culture in which fair use loses ground to overly aggressive copyright enforcement.&nbsp; The same is true in the trademark realm.&nbsp; We can only hope that when the next Superbowl rolls around, the Times and its brethren, and even the HDTV sellers, will have shed their timidity.
</i></blockquote>
It's the Super Bowl.  Call it the Super Bowl.  Just... uh... don't have too many friends over to watch it on a big screen.  Because <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.shtml">that's copyright infringement</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04205917638/hey-advertisers-stop-believing-nfls-lies-about-trademark-law-call-super-bowl-super-bowl.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>suck-it-up,-weenies</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120202/04205917638</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:26:21 PST</pubDate>
<title>ICE Seizes 300 More Sites; Can't Have People Watching Super Bowl Ads Without Permission</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/12374117639/ice-seizes-300-more-sites-cant-have-people-watching-super-bowl-ads-without-permission.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/12374117639/ice-seizes-300-more-sites-cant-have-people-watching-super-bowl-ads-without-permission.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite the massive failures of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) program to seize domains on questionable legal theories, it's right back at it.  ICE has just <a href="http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1202/120202indianapolis.htm" target="_blank">seized over 300 domains</a> apparently all related to the Super Bowl (of course).  They did this last year too... and now the US government is in court over it with the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=rojadirecta">Rojadirecta</a> sites.  Many of the sites were selling counterfeit merchandise, which is a more reasonable target, but still seems to be overblown.  I'm still at a loss as to how this is any of the government's concern, rather than a civil issue that could be taken up by the NFL itself.  Do we really want law enforcement officials spending time working for the NFL?
<br /><br />
Sixteen of the sites in question, however, were supposedly offering video streaming -- which is what Rojadirecta was accused of doing (under a bogus legal theory, since it didn't actually offer the streams, but merely links).  In this case, ICE also <i>arrested</i> one guy for running a streaming site:
<blockquote><i>
Additionally, Yonjo Quiroa, 28, of Comstock Park, Mich., was arrested Wednesday by special agents with HSI. He is charged with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright related to his operation of websites that illegally streamed live sporting event telecasts and pay-per-view events over the Internet. Quiroa operated nine of the 16 streaming websites that were seized, and he operated them from his home in Michigan until yesterday's arrest.
<br /><br />
The website seizures during Operation Fake Sweep represent the 10th phase of Operation In Our Sites, a sustained law enforcement initiative targeting counterfeiting and piracy on the Internet. The 307 websites are in the process of being seized by law enforcement, and will soon be in the custody of the federal government. Visitors to these websites will then find a seizure banner that notifies them that the domain name has been seized by federal authorities and educates them that willful copyright infringement is a federal crime.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, this has to raise a pretty significant question: exactly how is someone streaming the Super Bowl harming... well... anyone?  The entire point of the Super Bowl is to get as many people watching the advertisements as possible.  Having the game streamed only increases the number of people watching those ads.  Who, exactly, is harmed by this?
<br /><br />
In discussing these particular website seizures (not the ones about counterfeiting products), ICE ridiculously declares that it's somehow protecting American ideas from being stolen.  Do they even realize how idiotic that sounds?  What "idea" is being stolen when someone makes it easier to watch the ads that go with the Super Bowl?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/12374117639/ice-seizes-300-more-sites-cant-have-people-watching-super-bowl-ads-without-permission.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/12374117639/ice-seizes-300-more-sites-cant-have-people-watching-super-bowl-ads-without-permission.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/12374117639/ice-seizes-300-more-sites-cant-have-people-watching-super-bowl-ads-without-permission.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>advertisements-without-permission?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120202/12374117639</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10293116490/ice-seized-20-domain-names-nfl-over-weekend.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10293116490/ice-seized-20-domain-names-nfl-over-weekend.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Despite challenges concerning the legality of ICE seizing domain names prior to any sort of adversarial hearing, it appears that ICE has no intention to slow down.  The group quietly <a href="http://www.dailychanges.com/seizedservers.com/2011-10-23/" target="_blank">seized 20 more domain names over the weekend</a>, and it looks like most involved sites selling unauthorized NFL jerseys.  ICE has been a bit slower about going after copyright related domain names, focusing more on trademark domain names recently, but it's still questionable as to whether or not the group really has the right to censor domain names without an adversarial hearing.  Of course, ICE is relying on the fact that no one behind these sites is likely to speak up, which is why it gets away with its out-and-out censorship.  In the meantime, you would think that ICE would have more important things to do than be the personal private police force of various entertainment industry entities.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10293116490/ice-seized-20-domain-names-nfl-over-weekend.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10293116490/ice-seized-20-domain-names-nfl-over-weekend.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10293116490/ice-seized-20-domain-names-nfl-over-weekend.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-slowing-down</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111024/10293116490</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:46:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NFL Ramps Up Security Theatre</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03450016008/nfl-ramps-up-security-theatre.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03450016008/nfl-ramps-up-security-theatre.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Security theatre has been the goal of the TSA these past few years. Whether they're <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/11065015824/tsa-agent-threatens-woman-with-defamation-demands-500k-calling-intrusive-search-rape.shtml">valiantly inserting their fingers into our orifices </a>, standing bravely to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/17255615418/tsa-confiscates-pregnant-womans-insulin-ice-packs.shtml">defend travelers from insulin and icepacks</a>, or simply lying to people in telling them <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/13152115094/tsa-agents-continue-to-lie-say-you-cant-photograph-videotape-checkpoints.shtml">they can't be taped</a> during their most nefarious actions, The TSA does fake security like no other group can. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has worked harder at not producing any results than these people.
<br /><br />
But that won't keep the NFL from trying, damn it.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=dementia">Dementia</a> writes in about a Yahoo Sports post describing the new <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/NFL-wants-teams-to-give-full-pat-downs-to-fans-a?urn=nfl-wp7243">breakthrough security technique</a> at NFL games this year: pat-downs. That's right, the NFL is going to solve security at their games by somehow patting down seventy thousand people as they enter stadiums within roughly an hour's length of time. No, the pat-downs won't be done by federal employees, just low-paid yellow jacket-wearing folks (seriously, click the article and look at the picture, it's awesome). No there aren't any metal detectors or machine screeners a la the airport. Basically, no, these security measurements won't make anyone more...you know...secure. As Chris Chase notes:
<blockquote><i>
"As far as I can tell, the only purpose gate security has is to create a mass of humanity at the entrances and comb through women's purses. The pat downs are jokes. Security personnel only checked from the waist up. If they felt anything in your pocket, their most likely recourse was to ask, "what's that?" A halfway-decent answer got you a pass."
</i></blockquote>
And, as Chris also notes, if you think these measures are stupid now, just wait until the weather turns. I can just picture myself walking up to Soldier Field on a January morning in Chicago, seven layers deep between regular undergarments, long-underwear, longsleeve t-shirt, t-shirt, hoodie sweatshirt, down-insulated winter jacket, and my lovely Where's Waldo-esque scarf to tie it all together, and giving these security types a sideways glance as they attempt to pat me down. I could carry a 1967 Buick Skylark in my pants and they'd never feel it.
<br /><br />
Why can't we stop this? Who are the NFL playing to with this nonsense? I'd like to think my fellow citizens and football consumers aren't so totally devoid of intelligence that they can't see how pointless and annoying this all is.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03450016008/nfl-ramps-up-security-theatre.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03450016008/nfl-ramps-up-security-theatre.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03450016008/nfl-ramps-up-security-theatre.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-fumble-my-junk</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110919/03450016008</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:01:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23295012777/why-would-nfl-force-toyota-to-pull-ad-about-protecting-players-concussions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23295012777/why-would-nfl-force-toyota-to-pull-ad-about-protecting-players-concussions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/copycense/statuses/28690269935243264" target="_blank">Copycense</a> points us to the news that the NFL apparently freaked out and <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110119/us_nm/us_nfl_toyota" target="_blank">pressured Toyota to edit a TV ad it was running during football games</a> -- a move many people noted was "unusual."  Apparently, the ad discusses how Toyota is using some of their research and technology in car safety for other fields -- such as helping to prevent concussions for football players.  You can see the ad here, with the "offending" part at around 17 seconds:
<center>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OxuFBFQbOqc" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
</center>
I'm trying to figure out what the NFL was upset about.  Here's a story of how efforts are being made to make the game even safer.  That seems like a <i>good</i> thing -- the kind of thing that the NFL should be celebrating.  Does it think that, if it hides the image of helmets colliding, people will magically think people don't get hurt playing football?  And, of course, in pressuring Toyota to remove this commercial, all its done is draw a lot more attention to it.  Toyota's response was apparently not to remove the ad entirely, but to just edit out that helmet-to-helmet crash.  Well, phew, now football feels safe again, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23295012777/why-would-nfl-force-toyota-to-pull-ad-about-protecting-players-concussions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23295012777/why-would-nfl-force-toyota-to-pull-ad-about-protecting-players-concussions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/23295012777/why-would-nfl-force-toyota-to-pull-ad-about-protecting-players-concussions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>does-not-compute</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110121/23295012777</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:19:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Twitter Hands @NFLLockout Handle Over To NFL Union, Despite No Trademark</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11570511508/twitter-hands-nfllockout-handle-over-to-nfl-union-despite-no-trademark.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11570511508/twitter-hands-nfllockout-handle-over-to-nfl-union-despite-no-trademark.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nearly two years ago, we wrote about the pending issue of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1548133348.shtml">Twitter squatting</a>, with various people taking over the trademarked names of well-known companies on Twitter -- and suggesting that Twitter needed a clear policy in handling such disputes.  To date, however, Twitter basically seems to more or less handle these claims on a somewhat arbitrary basis.  
<br /><br />
Case in point, <a href="http://twitter.com/Elan">Elan Arbitsman</a> points us to the news that Twitter simply <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/39741916" target="_blank">handed over the username @NFLLockout</a> to the NFL Players Association.  Some other folks had registered the name and used it to discuss a possible NFL lockout.  <i>After</i> they had done so, the NFLPA had registered the domain name NFLLockout.com, and then sought to get the Twitter handle from the guys.  They offered to give them some stuff (apparently a life-sized poster or something).  When the guys turned this down, the NFLPA went to Twitter, and Twitter just handed them the username.  Even worse, Twitter implied that one of the reasons they did so was because the guys tried to "sell" the username -- though they say they didn't try to sell it, they just listened to offers from the NFLPA.
<br /><br />
As the article notes, the NFLPA doesn't own either NFL or "Lockout," so it's not entirely clear how they have a legitimate claim on the user account.  I can see why the NFLPA would <i>want</i> the username, but it seems a bit weak that Twitter just handed it over (and scolded the original users in the process).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11570511508/twitter-hands-nfllockout-handle-over-to-nfl-union-despite-no-trademark.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11570511508/twitter-hands-nfllockout-handle-over-to-nfl-union-despite-no-trademark.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/11570511508/twitter-hands-nfllockout-handle-over-to-nfl-union-despite-no-trademark.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>disputes-in-140-characters</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101020/11570511508</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 16:58:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Supreme Court Says Antitrust Law Applies To The NFL; No Exclusive Licensing Allowed</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/1441469552.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/1441469552.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we mentioned the Supreme Court was reviewing a lawsuit over whether or not the NFL had the right to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1748027685.shtml">have an exclusive license</a> for its apparel.  A company, American Needle, who had supplied apparel to various NFL teams, sued the NFL after it had entered into a long-term exclusive contract with Reebok to handle all team apparel.  American Needle claimed that this was a clear anti-trust violation, as all of the teams had colluded to exclude everyone else from the market.  The NFL argued, instead, that the entire league should be viewed as a single company.  Today, the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/24/nfl.lawsuit/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&#038;utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A rss%2Fcnn_topstories %28RSS%3A Top Stories%29" target="_blank">ruled against the NFL</a>, saying that each team should be viewed as a separate company.  The case then gets sent back down to be reconsidered:
<center>
<object id="_ds_40006283" name="_ds_40006283" width="560" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=40006283&#038;mem_id=715794&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;allowdownload=1&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object>
</center>
The details of this particular case are somewhat unique, in that it really only applies to situations where there are sports leagues (Major League Baseball is the only sports league that has an official exemption from Congress for antitrust issues -- though it's not clear why the different treatment).  However, the decision by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens highlights the importance of competition, and the problems of letting organizations team up, just because teaming up makes better financial sense for all of those organizations:
<blockquote><i>
Directly relevant to this case, the teams compete in the market for intellectual property. To a firm making hats, the Saints and the Colts are two potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks. When each NFL team licenses its intellectual property, it is not pursuing the "common interests of the whole" league but is instead pursuing interests of each "corporation itself," Copperweld, 467 U. S., at 770; teams are acting as "separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests," and each team therefore is a potential "independent cente[r] of decisionmaking," id., at 769. Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that "depriv[e] the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking," ibid., and therefore of actual or potential competition.
</i></blockquote>
This makes a lot of sense.  Otherwise, you could argue that any particular industry could set up an organization of which all the companies in that industry are a "member" and allow that single organization to negotiate exclusive deals, with the argument that it's "for the common interests of the whole."  But, that's obviously collusion, with the intent to harm consumers.  Thankfully, the Supreme Court saw through the flimsy claim that such a structure makes companies immune to antitrust law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/1441469552.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/1441469552.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100524/1441469552.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-move</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100524/1441469552</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:18:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Who Dat Holds The Trademark To Who Dat? NFL Threatens While WhoDat Inc. Asks Why?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/1556267962.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/1556267962.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It seems like every year there's some sort of controversy over trademarks and the Superbowl.  Of course, the NFL has been famous for aggressively defending trademarks.  For example, it's been so aggressive in claiming that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060202/1239257.shtml">no one</a> other than official sponsors can even <i>mention</i> the word Superbowl (even though it should be legal if used descriptively and accurately), that when many advertisers started switching to the euphemism "The Big Game," the NFL <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070223/111900.shtml">tried to trademark that too</a>, even though it wasn't even the one who had come up with the phrase.  This year, apparently, the big issue is over who owns the phrase "Who Dat" which is apparently a catch-phrase associated with the <strike>Superbowl-</strike> <strike>Big Game-</strike> Final Sporting Event Of The Football Season-bound New Orleans Saints.   The NFL apparently claims that it holds the trademark on the phrase and is <a href="http://www.newschief.com/article/20100128/APS/1001282400" target="_blank">threatening some retailers</a> who were offering "Who Dat" merchandise.  Only problem?  There's a company called WhoDat Inc., and <i>it</i> claims to own the trademark.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=node808">a-dub</a> points us to an <a href="http://www.neworleans.com/blogs/who-dat-say-who-can-use-who-dat-trademark-holder-speaks-out.html" target="_blank">interview with the brothers who own WhoDat Inc.</a>, who also recorded the Who Dat song back in the 1980s.  It appears the issue, from the NFL, may be with the use of a fluer de lis with the phrase, since the NFL owns the trademark on the fleur de lis in association with the Saints.  But the WhoDat folks say even there the NFL is overstepping its bounds:
<blockquote><i>
"Sure, a fleur de lis can belong to the Saints, but in very specific usage, and everybody knows what that is," Monistere explained. "If you go back to 1967, to date, they have registered and used the fleur de lis in a very specific way. They put it on the Saints helmet and on the Saints 'shield.' Its colors are very specific -- they're 'old gold and black.' But for the NFL to expand that definition and say that no matter what color and what style of fleur de lis, if you put it on an item, it means Saints, it is, as many believe, is just not correct. The fleur de lis belongs to everyone including the people of New Orleans.
</i></blockquote>
The Monistere brothers seem particularly annoyed by the NFL bullying small t-shirt makers, saying that they're more than happy to grant licenses to those folks to produce <i>Who Dat</i> merchandise, and merchants have said that the NFL communication has been tremendously threatening and aggressive, while the Monistere's have been quite friendly and accommodating.  In fact, the Monistere's seem particularly annoyed that the NFL is bullying small shop owners like Fleurty Girl, who received a cease-and-desist:
<blockquote><i>
"Here we are going to the Superbowl for the first time in 43 years and these NFL guys are here harassing the local small businesses," Monistere said. "Their merchandise sales are well over $320 BILLION a year! The NFL has become an intellectual property company. They make money selling their logos and image. With that kind of money coming in, they focus their attention on Fleurty Girl? I don't have a problem with them protecting their intellectual property, but when they do it to the extent of trying to intimidate people into believing that the Fleur de lis is theirs -- well, that's just a bullying technique."
</i></blockquote>
As for the New Orleans Saints themselves?  The organization there has apparently publicly said that WhoDat <a href="http://www.neworleans.com/sports/super-bowl-xliv-2010/super-bowl-xliv-news/317367.html">holds the rights</a> on the trademark.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/1556267962.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/1556267962.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100128/1556267962.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who-dat-say-dey-gonna-beat-dem-trademarks</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100128/1556267962</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:29:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>Quarterback Drew Brees Explains Why Supreme Court Should Block NFL From Having Exclusive Licensing Deals</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1748027685.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1748027685.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1111117566.shtml">discussing</a> how the idea of "officially licensed" gear for professional sports teams is a relatively new phenomenon.  In the past, anyone could produce gear for fans.  However, there's a Supreme Court case looking at this issue, involving the NFL's exclusive license deal with Reebok, and reader Fitz points us to a quite well argued op-ed by New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010702947.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">explaining the harm that such exclusive deals do</a>, noting that it seems like a clear violation of antitrust rules, in that  all of the different NFL teams are effectively teaming up to exclude competition:
<blockquote><i>
The NFL originally won the case because the lower courts decided that, when it comes to marketing hats and gear, the 32 teams in the league act like one big company, a "single entity," and such an entity can't illegally conspire with itself to restrain trade. The NFL-Reebok deal is worth a lot of money, and fans pay for it: If you want to show support for your team by buying an official hat, it now costs $10 more than before the exclusive arrangement.
<br /><br />
Amazingly, after the NFL won the case, it asked the Supreme Court to dramatically expand the ruling and determine that the teams act as a single entity not only for marketing hats and gear, but for pretty much everything the league does. It was an odd request -- as if I asked an official to review an 80-yard pass of mine that had already been ruled a touchdown. The notion that the teams function as a single entity is absurd; the 32 organizations composing the NFL and the business people who run them compete with unrelenting intensity for players, coaches and, most of all, the loyalty of fans.
</i></blockquote>
Brees rips apart that argument by noting the competition he, himself, faced as a free agent -- a right that players only got after a series of court battles.  This isn't a huge surprise.  Like plenty of other businesses, sports leagues have a keen understanding of what monopoly rents are, and do everything possible to profit from them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1748027685.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1748027685.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100108/1748027685.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>worth-reading</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100108/1748027685</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:47:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Dispute Leads To NFL Not Scouting College Juniors</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0411426676.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0411426676.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=brooks">Brooks</a> writes <i>"For once it looks like the NFL isn't the bad guy in an intellectual property dispute, and actually are the ones trying to explain some of the issues with copyright maximalism to colleges.  The problem is that the company who records scouting tapes for eight major conferences <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/10/23/xos.nfl/index.html" target="_blank">has convinced colleges that the NFL should pay for the right to use those tapes to scout players</a>, in particular juniors who are trying to decide whether to enter the draft.<br />
<br />
From the NFL's point of view, the junior scouting program exists to help keep kids in school if they're unlikely to succeed in the draft in their junior year (it's certainly in the NFL's interest to have those kids continue to develop their talent for one more year).  The colleges, of course, see the "value" the tapes bring to the NFL and want a piece of that pie.  So far, the NFL seems to be sticking to its guns and basically saying "fine, we just won't scout your players."  The dispute has escalated to the point where some colleges aren't even letting NFL scouts look at tape on campus.<br />
<br />
There's a bit of a sweet good-for-the-gander element to the story, since the NFL has been on the other side of the content value argument pretty much forever.  It does kind of suck, though, that some college juniors will be entering the draft based on overoptimistic expectations.  And it can't be good for a college's football program if it becomes known that it doesn't allow NFL scouting."</i>
<br /><br />
Yes, you read that right.  It seems that the in this era of copyright maximalism, a company is trying to claim copyright on scouting tapes that are helpful to everyone (teams get better scouting info to make decisions, players are more accurately ranked, etc.).  A friend who follows minor league baseball mentioned this week that Major League Baseball just took down its own scouting videos that had been online, so I'm wondering if baseball is now facing a similar problem as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0411426676.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0411426676.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/0411426676.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>copyright-gone-insane</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/0411426676</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NFL Star Ochocinco Sets Up His Own Twitter-Based News Network</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1219006680.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1219006680.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, in talking about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090806/1251435787.shtml">changing nature of sports reporting</a>, one of the things we mentioned was that you shouldn't count out players themselves as a part of that ecosystem, since they could now go direct to fans themselves, without having to talk through a reporter.  Of course, sports leagues are scared to death of this concept, and we also noted that the NFL, among others, was seeking to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml">limit</a> how players were interacting with fans, with some teams even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0138596343.shtml">punishing players</a> for being honest with fans.
<br /><br />
However, with all those rules and guidelines, it seems the NFL didn't count on outspoken Bengals player Chad Ochocinco from taking things even further.  Reader DEF was the first to alert us that Ochocinco has decided to <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4590771&#038;campaign=rss&#038;source=ESPNHeadlines" target="_blank">set up his own Twitter-based reporting operation</a> on goings on within the NFL, believing that via other players, he'll be able to get the real scoop and post the information faster and more accurately than any traditional "reporter."  He says he's "knocking out the middleman."
<br /><br />
And this is exactly the point we were making about how the media landscape is changing.  People want relevant news and information in a format they find most useful.  They don't care if it comes from a reporter, an athlete or the guy down the block.  Yes, there are different levels of trust with who delivers the news, but reporters need to realize that they're not the only gatekeepers any more -- no matter how much they wish they were.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1219006680.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1219006680.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1219006680.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck-NFL</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/1219006680</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>WSJ Defies NFL's Restriction On Live Blogging</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember how the NFL told the press that they weren't allowed to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml">live blog or live Tweet</a> games, as it would be a violation of the league's broadcast rights?  I noted that I couldn't see how that was enforceable by the league, other than by kicking reporters out of the stadium.  Of course, even that would backfire, because a reporter could just watch the game on TV and live blog.  And... in fact... that's exactly what the WSJ just did, apparently thumbing its collective nose at the NFL's restrictions.  <a href="http://www.footballzebras.com/">Ben</a> alerts us to the news that a WSJ reporter, safely on his couch at home, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/09/27/nfl-diary-tennessee-titans-at-new-york-jets/" target="_new">live blogged a recent football game between the NY Jets and the Tennessee Titans</a>.  Your move, NFL...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>whatcha-gonna-do-about-it?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091001/0435066389</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:12:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Social Media Allows For Honest Expression... Don't Stifle It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0138596343.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0138596343.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's saying that's been making the rounds lately, in talking about journalism, saying that "trust is the new objectivity."  The idea is that if you're trustworthy, even if you have a bias, people are more interested in what you have to say.  But, of course, that doesn't just apply to journalists.  It pretty much applies to everyone, in any business.  People are tired of fake connections.  They want real connections.  That's what <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml">connecting with fans</a> is really all about.  If you're honest and open, you build trust.  And that trust is valuable.  So it's difficult to understand why so many organizations work so hard to stifle that kind of openness.  We saw it recently with the Washington Post's new <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090927/2223556332.shtml">social media guidelines</a>, and we've seen it elsewhere as well, such as with sports teams.
<br /><br />
For example, JJ sends in the news that the Jets <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post?id=3842" target="_new">benched a player for a Twitter message</a>, despite the fact that the team is actually more open to having its players use social media to connect with fans.  Hearing this, I figured it must be quite a Twitter message -- seeing as there was just a big controversy over a Redskins player who <a href="http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/twittergate-and-the-quarterback-off-the-bench-option/" target="_blank">insulted fans via Twitter</a>, calling them "dimwits" and saying they shouldn't give their opinion on the team since they work at McDonalds.  But what did the Jets player say that was so troubling?
<blockquote><i>
"1 play in the 1st Half, 4 plays in the 2nd half,.... A bit disappointed about my playing time but very happy and satisfied about the win." 
</i></blockquote>
I'm honestly having a hard time seeing how that's a benchable offense.  He was entirely honest, and not accusatory.  He was happy that the team won, but wished he could have been involved in more plays.  He's a professional athlete, and such sentiments are pretty standard.  It actually seems nice that he's sharing with fans in that way.  He didn't seem to be <i>complaining</i> or disparaging the team or anyone.  He just noted that personally he was "a bit disappointed" that he wasn't more involved.
<br /><br />
The fact is, the internet lets people connect with others -- either one-to-one or one-to-many in much more direct and personal ways than ever before in the past.  Yes, that has some risks and downsides, but on the whole, that openness and connection builds trust and a relationship, and that's important.  It makes no sense to try to stifle such communications, whether its a journalist or a professional athlete.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0138596343.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0138596343.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090929/0138596343.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-tweet-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090929/0138596343</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:57:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While it doesn't go nearly as far as the ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1715505827.shtml">policies</a> put in place recently by college's Southeastern Conference (SEC) regarding "tweeting" on gameday, <a href="http://www.zebra.benaustro.com">Ben</a> alerts us to the news that the NFL has <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/31/nfl-adopts-game-day-social-media-policy/" target="_new">instituted its own social media policy</a> that applies to players, referees and the media.  There had been lots of talk about how the NFL was working on such policies, and they seem problematic.  They ban players from doing any tweeting or sending any kind of social media message from 90 minutes before the game starts until well after the post-game press conference ends.  I'm not sure why it's so troubling that players might want to communicate with fans...
<br /><br />
Even odder is that the rules now prohibit NFL referees from <i>using social media, ever</i>.  Apparently, some of this is in response to a ref who <a href="http://www.zebra.benaustro.com/2009/08/31/126" target="_blank">apologized online</a> for a blown call in the week after it happened.  In that case, the ref is an attorney during the week, and apologized via his work email.  But that raises all sorts of questions.  What if the ref's job during the week <i>requires</i> the use of social media?  And, honestly, what's so wrong with letting refs communicate?
<br /><br />
Finally, the new rules tell the credentialed media that they can't provide any sort of live "play-by-play" info via social media, though, I can't see how that's enforceable (other than kicking the reporter out of the stadium).  Once again, this seems like part of the league's misguided belief that it can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/004828.shtml">control</a> how reporters report on a game.  The first link above notes how ridiculous it is that someone sitting in the stands can easily live tweet a play-by-play, while the professional reporters cannot.  The whole idea, of course, is that the NFL wants to "protect" its broadcasting contracts, that get sold for a ton.  But the idea that a live tweet somehow replaces a TV broadcast is ridiculous.  Personally, as someone who follows a bunch of sports reporters on Twitter who do tweet info during sporting events, I find it a useful reminder that I wish I had the time to watch a game...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-speech-ain't-so-free</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090901/0402016073</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:02:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yahoo Drops Fantasy Sports Lawsuit Against NFL Players Association; Reasoning Not Clear</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1806125478.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1806125478.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we wrote about Yahoo going to court to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0145265125.shtml">make sure</a> it didn't need to pay any royalties to the NFL's Player Association in order to offer up fantasy football data.  This would be consistent with recent rulings that have noted that services offering fantasy sports offerings don't need to pay up for the use of data (factual information) such as player names and stats.  Oddly, however, Yahoo has now <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10281020-93.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">dropped the case</a>, though no one seems quite sure why.  It's possible that the NFLPA has said that it won't seek money, but if that's the case, why was the lawsuit filed in the first place?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1806125478.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1806125478.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1806125478.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-happened-here?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090707/1806125478</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:06:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yahoo Gets Aggressive: Wants Court To Make It Clear That It Doesn't Need To Pay To Use Player Names/Stats</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0145265125.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0145265125.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Recent court rulings have made it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080602/1216571291.shtml">clear</a> that sports leagues have overreached (by a long shot) in trying to force online fantasy sports sites to license player info.  The courts have pointed out that player names and stats are factual information, not subject to copyright.  Now, this has resulted in many fantasy sports sites to skip renewing any licensing deals.  The NFL Players Assocation, despite already having lost such a case, still went to Yahoo and threatened it with a lawsuit over this issue.  It appears Yahoo decided to be proactive and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10256918-93.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">sued for a declaratory judgment</a> that its uses of player info was not in violation.  It's an aggressive move by Yahoo -- but it also shows (reasonably) that the company believes that it's likely to win (and, perhaps, that it was worried about whatever district the NFL PA would have filed its own lawsuit in).  Either way, it's yet another chance to remind sports leagues that they <i>don't get to copyright factual information.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0145265125.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0145265125.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0145265125.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090604/0145265125</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Mixed Messages From Sprint On EVDO Bandwidth</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1747182761.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1747182761.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, Sprint followed Verizon in tacking on a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080519/2329211175.shtml">5GB cap on its EVDO</a> wireless broadband offering for computers (for either datacard or phone-as-modem users).  Because of that, I find Sprint EVDO a lot less useful, and am actively looking for alternatives.  Unfortunately, for now there aren't many, though I hope that will change.  Either way, I end up using Sprint a lot less, and would be a lot more open to competitors.  One of the reasons I stuck with Sprint for so long was the unlimited nature of the EVDO.  Even if I don't use up 5GB, not worrying about reaching a limit used to be a huge benefit.  Now, when I use EVDO, I feel like I need to carefully track what's happening -- since Sprint might cut off my service if my usage is deemed abusive. 
<br /><br />
Now, to make matters even more ridiculous, it appears that Sprint has signed a deal "valued at $500 million" to <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Cleveland-Browns-Vs-Sprints-5GB-Bandwidth-Cap-98912" target="_new">stream live football games over EVDO</a> to its mobile phones.  (Half a billion sounds like a big deal, but it doesn't actually mean $500 million was paid out -- it's likely much of it involves trades of promotion and services.)  Now, the tricky part is that the 5GB cap on EVDO does not count towards content viewed just on phones, so Sprint is sending a very mixed message.  First Sprint says that there isn't enough bandwidth on its network to support really unlimited usage for PC users, but then it's also coming up with ways to increase the amount of bandwidth its customers are using on phones.  Does that mean Sprint doesn't care about PC users on its network -- and datacard users will be further squeezed as Sprint prefers its phone customers to use up the wireless bandwidth?  Shouldn't Sprint focus on improving its network so that the bandwidth limits for PC users doesn't get worse rather than buying into deals to increase the bandwidth burden?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1747182761.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1747182761.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081106/1747182761.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-doesn't-quite-make-sense</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081106/1747182761</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>CBS Goes To Court To Let The NFL Know That You Can't Copyright Player Stats</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080909/0413172215.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080909/0413172215.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the past few years, there have been a series of lawsuits concerning whether or not fantasy baseball operators need to license player info from Major League Baseball.  Major League Baseball lost at every <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071016/143318.shtml">level</a> and an eventual appeal to the Supreme Court was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080602/1216571291.shtml">turned down</a>.  However, it appears that the National Football League wanted to ignore these rulings, and has still been trying to get fantasy sports sites to pony up to use stats and player info -- despite the fact that you cannot copyright facts.  CBS is now challenging the NFL on this, <a href="http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/09/08/cbs-says-it-will-pass-on-nfl-licensing-fees" target="_new">and has gone to court to get a declaratory judgment that it doesn't need a license</a>.  It's difficult to see this case turning out any differently than the MLB cases, considering the facts of the case are almost identical.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080909/0413172215.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080909/0413172215.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080909/0413172215.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-it's-correct</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080909/0413172215</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:48:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Congress Wants To Separate Church And NFL From Copyright Laws</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/111555226.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/111555226.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following a <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080201/164154153.shtml">second</a> year of stories about the NFL <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.shtml">stopping churches</a> from throwing Superbowl parties if they have TV screens larger than 55", it appears that some folks in Congress are stepping up to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604305.html">create an exception in copyright law</a> for "houses of worship."  For everyone else, the 55" limit would prevail, but churches would now be allowed to show "The Big Game" without worrying about copyright infringement charges.  It's not clear why churches deserve an exemption to this law (or why the 55" limit is in the law in the first place), but don't expect that to stop politicians from jumping on a popular bandwagon issue.  
<br /><br />
Still, it's fun to watch people who clearly have no understanding of what's going on weigh in on the topic -- sometimes in well known publications.  Witness a columnist for the Boston Herald who <a href="http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1072446&#038;srvc=home&#038;position=emailed" target="_new">is upset about the proposed change</a>, but for the wrong reasons.  First, he appears to not understand the difference between copyright and trademark, claiming that the NFL has to enforce its copyright or it will lose it (that would actually be trademark, but who's fact checking?).  He then goes on to state that "the copyrights are private property, and the league has every right within the law to profit from that property."  Indeed, but banning 55" screens doesn't prevent the NFL's right to profit.  In fact, this gets even more ridiculous when the guy says: "To have the government in effect confiscate that property to benefit religious institutions seems a very worrisome precedent."  Wait, and having the government in effect determine the maximum size of a private TV isn't a worrisome precedent?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/111555226.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/111555226.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/111555226.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>keep-'em-separated</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080211/111555226</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>