<?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 filed under &quot;football&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:34:31 PST</pubDate>
<title>Kickalicious Uses YouTube Video To Get A Tryout With The NY Jets</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121229/07072421524/kickalicious-uses-youtube-video-to-get-tryout-with-ny-jets.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121229/07072421524/kickalicious-uses-youtube-video-to-get-tryout-with-ny-jets.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The stories of how YouTube has lowered the barrier for entry into the entertainment business are becoming common enough that they&#39;re no longer the shock they once were. Justin Bieber got himself <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/12464012082/youtube-sensation-justin-bieber-blocked-uploading-his-own-music-to-youtube-copyright.shtml">noticed</a> on YouTube, of course. Add to his story that of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/13145714721/infamous-rebecca-black-youtube-video-friday-taken-down-over-copyright-issue.shtml">Rebecca Black</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/11573120572/gangnam-style-shows-what-can-happen-when-you-dont-lean-copyright.shtml">Gangnam Style</a> and we begin to see YouTube as a steady platform for musical stardom. While there are certainly examples of movie magic happening on YouTube as well, this has long been the realm of music and weird memes.<br />
<br />
That&#39;s what makes the story of Norwegian futbol player Havard Rugland so much fun, now that his <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/sports/football/norwegian-earns-internet-stardom-and-an-nfl-tryout-to-boot.html?smid=tw-share&#038;_r=0">YouTube kicking video has gone viral and led to a tryout</a> with the New York Jets football squad. The video itself is insane, nearly as insane as Rugland potentially becoming an NFL kicker when he doesn&#39;t know a thing about the game.
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jDwbjHV8jLo" width="560"></iframe></center>
<p>
<br />
The events leading to an NFL tryout from that video began when Rugland&#39;s futbol team disbanded. He had a booming leg, but now he had to figure out what to do with it. Apparently the Rockettes weren&#39;t hiring, because Rugland turned instead to videos of NFL kickers, studying how they performed their craft.
<blockquote>
<i>Using tools not typically associated with athletic prowess &mdash; YouTube, Facebook, Skype and Gmail &mdash; Rugland parlayed a homemade video that went viral into a tryout as a kicker with the Jets last week. He might be the first professional prospect to replace college football experience with social media savvy. In the four-minute video, posted on YouTube in mid-September under the title &ldquo;Kickalicious,&rdquo; the left-footed Rugland pulls off some of the most amusing tricks with a football since Lucy began duping Charlie Brown. It has been viewed more than 1.5 million times.</i></blockquote>
If you took the time to watch the video above and have managed to put your jaw back in place, all you really need to know about it is that the video has been independently verified as real and un-doctored. After the video went viral, a former NFL kicker in the States found it and connected with Rugland via Facebook. From there it was a simple matter of networking before Rugland was working out with American coaches. Soon after, the New York Jets came calling.
<blockquote>
<i>[Jets Assistant General Manager Scott] Cohen was reluctant to give details about last week&rsquo;s workout but said the Jets saw enough to conclude that Rugland had a chance to play in the N.F.L. Rugland said the Jets wanted him to return for a workout in March. He added that he planned to spend the next few months in Norway practicing field goals and kickoffs (he is leaving the trick shots behind).</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>Rugland has also hired an agent, Jill McBride Baxter. After Rugland&rsquo;s tryout with the Jets, Baxter said, the Oakland Raiders, the Green Bay Packers and the Philadelphia Eagles expressed interest in him.</i></blockquote>
He&#39;ll have to impress in March, but Rugland looks to have a good shot at becoming the first NFL football player resulting from a viral YouTube video.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121229/07072421524/kickalicious-uses-youtube-video-to-get-tryout-with-ny-jets.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121229/07072421524/kickalicious-uses-youtube-video-to-get-tryout-with-ny-jets.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121229/07072421524/kickalicious-uses-youtube-video-to-get-tryout-with-ny-jets.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>YouKick</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121229/07072421524</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>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:34:40 PST</pubDate>
<title>College Football Playoffs Patented?!?; Mark Cuban Warned Not To Infringe</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/02211812395/college-football-playoffs-patented-mark-cuban-warned-not-to-infringe.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/02211812395/college-football-playoffs-patented-mark-cuban-warned-not-to-infringe.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, fans of college football have been clamoring for some sort of playoff system, rather than the messy rankings and bowl system that currently exists.  It's a topic that people can get pretty passionate about.  Even President Obama has <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-09/politics/political.football_1_bcs-playoff-system-college-football-playoff-act?_s=PM:POLITICS" target="_blank">weighed in on the subject</a> arguing for a playoff system.  I'm not a college football fan, so I don't really care one way or the other what happens, but there is a little tidbit in the latest discussion that I find interesting.  <a href="http://jstreebin.com">Jarrett Streebin</a> alerts us to the news that Mark Cuban is <a href="http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/12/16/mark-cuban-exploring-creation-of-college-football-playoff-but-how-would-he-get-the-bcs-conferences-involved/" target="_blank">pushing hard to create a college football playoff system</a>, which normally wouldn't be of that much interest to folks around here, except in Cuban's blog post about the topic, he posts an anonymous email <A href="http://blogmaverick.com/2010/12/17/starting-the-process-college-football-playoffs/" target="_blank">from someone who <i>claims to hold a patent on a football playoff system</i></a>.  Here's an excerpt from the email that Cuban posted:
<blockquote><i>
My advise is, don't waste your money.  There are three perfected alternatives to the BCS.  I own one, a guy with CBS owns another
and a guy in Arizona owns the third.  By that, I don't mean the screw-ball ideas you see on the internet, but actual branded
properties.
<br><br>
[... a bunch of stuff skipped, some by me, and some by Cuban ...]
<br><br>
You should also consider that the playoffs are already owned by someone, as in, the patent for resolving the FBS championship by way of a playoff was issued long ago.  It's called a method patent, so be careful not to infringe it.
<br><br>
Anyway, if you want to know who owns assets in this field, let me know.  I can put you in touch with one of my attorneys who can let you know what you're in for.  It's much more complex that it's commonly understood to be.
</i></blockquote>
Ownership of a sporting playoff system?  Seriously, USPTO?  Cuban uses this as an opportunity to point out the ridiculousness of patents and how they're abused by people "who have no intention of solving a problem or building a business but want to get paid by those that do."  It's a nice little rant, but no different than what you've probably read here on Techdirt a hundred times.
<br><Br>
What interested me was this idea that the concept of college football playoffs <i>could be patented</i>.  It looks like, from the email, that the guy did not reveal the patent.  If anyone knows what it is, please share.  I went looking myself, and have found two possibilities -- one an issued patent, and another that's still in the application stage.
<br><br>
The issued patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=1JUDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">6,053,823</a> -- full patent embedded below) is held by Marc Mathews and was issued in 2000.  The patent indicates that Mathews lives in Arizona, so he's likely to be "the third guy" mentioned above.  The patent application (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=-JGYAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">application #11/327,584</a> -- full application embedded below) was filed by three guys: Edward Baxter Williams, Tyler James Williams and Edgar Richard Williams Jr., all from New Hampshire.  Perhaps one of them emailed Cuban.  That patent application is especially odd, as it looks as though the "abstract" is for something entirely different.  The application is supposedly for "a flex schedule playoff system" and the claims definitely discuss that -- but the abstract appears to be for "a protective fender is provided for use on a pontoon boat."  Not quite who screwed up there, but someone clearly did.
<br><br>
Either way, if you wanted to see how one might go around patenting the concept of a football playoff system, go ahead and dig into the patents.  I'm just going to sit back and wonder what the USPTO was thinking when it approved that first one.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/02211812395/college-football-playoffs-patented-mark-cuban-warned-not-to-infringe.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/02211812395/college-football-playoffs-patented-mark-cuban-warned-not-to-infringe.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101223/02211812395/college-football-playoffs-patented-mark-cuban-warned-not-to-infringe.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>patent-madness</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101223/02211812395</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:24:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is It Legal For A UK Pub To Access A Greek Satellite System To Get Cheaper Football Games On TV?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12232011294/is-it-legal-for-a-uk-pub-to-access-a-greek-satellite-system-to-get-cheaper-football-games-on-tv.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12232011294/is-it-legal-for-a-uk-pub-to-access-a-greek-satellite-system-to-get-cheaper-football-games-on-tv.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=awd">cc</a> alerts us to a very interesting legal case in Europe that's now going before the European Court of Justice.  It involves a UK pub, which thought the rates that satellite TV provider Sky Sports was offering for Premier League football were ridiculously high -- and instead went and got a satellite card from a Greek satellite TV provider who offered Premier League matches for about 1/10th the cost.  The Premier League, who is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082:cx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID:9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=premier+league">notorious</a> for over-aggressively trying to limit people from watching the games except through (expensive) approved methods sued.  The pub is <a href="http://www.digitalspy.com/broadcasting/news/a280077/euro-court-to-hear-landmark-tv-rights-case.html" target="_blank">arguing that this is a restraint on basic free trade principles</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"If I wanted to go and buy a car, I could go to any garage I like. Me, as a publican, if I want to show football, I can only go to the Sky garage, and have to pay ten times the price of anybody else [in Europe]. I don't believe that's fair." 
<br /><br />
Murphy's case rests on her freedom to trade, as she argues that restricting her choice of satellite TV provider to just Sky contravenes the principles of free movement of goods and services between countries in the EU.
</i></blockquote>
This could be a huge deal if she wins.  Currently, in Europe, each country has entirely different licensing schemes and systems for all sorts of content, creating something of a mess at times.  There's long been an effort underway to create pan-European licensing, and a ruling in favor of the pub owner here might take at least some aspects of the content market to a point where there's now a de facto open market across borders.  Copyright holders will scream bloody murder if this happens, but they also screamed <a href="http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000241;p=0" target="_blank">bloody murder</a> when the VCR was introduced, so sometimes it's a bit difficult to take them seriously on such things.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12232011294/is-it-legal-for-a-uk-pub-to-access-a-greek-satellite-system-to-get-cheaper-football-games-on-tv.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12232011294/is-it-legal-for-a-uk-pub-to-access-a-greek-satellite-system-to-get-cheaper-football-games-on-tv.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12232011294/is-it-legal-for-a-uk-pub-to-access-a-greek-satellite-system-to-get-cheaper-football-games-on-tv.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>we'll-soon-find-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101005/12232011294</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:24:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/21424511172/yet-another-example-of-creativity-exploding-without-copyright-law-football-plays.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/21424511172/yet-another-example-of-creativity-exploding-without-copyright-law-football-plays.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The theory behind copyright, of course, is that such government-granted monopolies are necessary to encourage innovation in a market.  The idea is that, without such protectionism, no one would bother innovating, because they'd know that others would immediately copy them.  This was based on theory, however, and tragically, many people have continued to assume this theory must absolutely be true. As we've noted in the past, it's this odd "faith-based" approach to copyright law.  That's a problem, because every bit of evidence suggests this theory is <a href="http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/182" target="_blank">simply not true</a>.  Every time we look at creative industries where there is no or little copyright protection, we seem to find an awful lot of innovation and creativity, where the theory would suggest it doesn't make sense for that to happen.  In fact, when we've compared industries across countries where one country has copyright protection and the other does not, those without copyright <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l@bbs.thing.net/msg02544.html" target="_blank">tend to be bigger</a>, more innovative and more creative.
<br /><br />
In the past, we've looked at how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070405/194853.shtml">fashion industry</a>, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml">restaurant industry</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml">the stand-up comedy industry</a>, and even the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/224932.shtml">magician industry</a> all seem to be incredibly creative and thrive without copyright protection.  Now, Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman, who have been studying this same topic for a long, long time, are highlighting the same thing in an area you might not have considered: <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/copyrighting-football-a-guest-post/" target="_blank">football plays</a>.  Yes, football plays -- which are not copyrightable.  As they note, American football has been filled with creative innovation when it comes to new plays.  And, while the faith-based "theory" of copyright suggests that no team would innovate because others would just copy them, reality has shown quite the opposite.  Raustiala and Sprigman go through a series of innovations, from the forward pass, to the "west coast offense" to the "zone blitz" to the "no huddle offense" to the "spread offense."  Each were massive innovations that effectively changed the game.
<br /><br />
As they note, each time there was a new innovation, it was met with "contempt," as others accused teams of "cheating."  And, yet, over time, each of these innovations spread across the league, as teams copied them and continue to innovate as well.  They point out that someone even did try to copyright a football formation once (comparing it to dance choreography -- which is copyrightable).  Raustiala and Sprigman point out that, despite the fact that such plays aren't copyrightable, there's still so much innovation.  One key point they make, is that this is an area where a first mover advantage is quite important.  Of course, that applies in many other industries today as well.
<br /><br />
Towards the end, they make a key point about economic theory, that's absolutely worth sharing:
<blockquote><i>
Finally, the story of innovation in football is tied to a much deeper debate in the economics of innovation.  Economists today disagree about the conditions most conducive to innovation.  Some, following the ideas of Joseph Schumpeter, maintain that innovation requires shelter from competition -- the firm in a competitive market is hard-pressed to focus on anything but the short-term, and because profits are limited by competition, may lack the resources to innovate.  Other scholars, following the lead of Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow, argue that innovation is best fostered by sharp competition -- firms struggling for any advantage over their rivals are forced to innovate or die.  This divergence in views has hardened into a Schumpeterian vs. Arrovian standoff -- and the state of the evidence does not allow us to fully understand yet which view is right.
<br /><br />
Intellectual property law, however, is essentially Schumpeterian. The theory of patent and copyright is that by sheltering innovators from competition -- that is, by prohibiting copying of the innovation -- we encourage innovation.  But perhaps the Arrovians are right.  Football, for example, illustrates innovation occurring in the midst of cut-throat competition.  And football doesn't stand alone.  Some of the other creative industries we've described, such as fashion and food, look like Arrovian innovators as well.
</i></blockquote>
This is a perfect summary of many of the debates around here (and reminds me why I've never been a fan of Schumpeter and keep one of Arrow's texts on the economics of information on my desk at all times).  It also explains why I have so much trouble with today's intellectual property law.  It completely assumes a Schumpeterian view on the world, when a significant amount of evidence suggests Arrow's view is the correct one.  The one point where I disagree with the statement is the idea that the evidence is not compelling enough in one direction.  The more you look, the more it seems to suggest that Arrow is absolutely right on this one, and Schumpeter is -- as with many of his insights -- compelling and thought-provoking, but slightly off in the all important details.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/21424511172/yet-another-example-of-creativity-exploding-without-copyright-law-football-plays.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/21424511172/yet-another-example-of-creativity-exploding-without-copyright-law-football-plays.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/21424511172/yet-another-example-of-creativity-exploding-without-copyright-law-football-plays.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-no-copyright-offense</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100926/21424511172</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:25:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Football Helmet Maker Drives Competitor Into Bankruptcy With Patent Lawsuits</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12133511006/football-helmet-maker-drives-competitor-into-bankruptcy-with-patent-lawsuits.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12133511006/football-helmet-maker-drives-competitor-into-bankruptcy-with-patent-lawsuits.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=dmittleman">Danny</a> alerts us to the story of how sporting goods maker Riddell was able to <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0914-chicago-law-20100914,0,1027797.column" target="_blank">drive competitor Schutt Sports into bankruptcy</a> thanks to patent lawsuits.  Riddell first sued Schutt for patent infringement on its football helmet design, winning a $29 million jury award.  Right afterwards, it sued Schutt again, this time for shoulder pad design.  A week later, Schutt declared bankruptcy.  Now I'm sure, some will be quick to claim that this is exactly what the patent system is designed to do, but it does seem pretty troubling that, especially when it comes to safety issues, we're allowing one company to have a total monopoly on a type of safety gear.  What's wrong with actually competing in the market?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12133511006/football-helmet-maker-drives-competitor-into-bankruptcy-with-patent-lawsuits.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12133511006/football-helmet-maker-drives-competitor-into-bankruptcy-with-patent-lawsuits.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12133511006/football-helmet-maker-drives-competitor-into-bankruptcy-with-patent-lawsuits.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>safety-is-less-important-than-monopolies</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100914/12133511006</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:26:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Newspaper Gets Around Photography Ban At Football Event With Cartoon Illustrations</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/16233110561.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/16233110561.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've covered a few different recent stories of various sports leagues or professional sports teams trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080226/152535364.shtml">limit</a> how journalists and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070724/232718.shtml"> photographers </a> can report on their games, and have even covered cheeky attempts to get around such restrictions by having reporters <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml">cover events from home</a> while watching on TV.  Now, a whole bunch of you have been sending in variations on a story in the UK, where the Southampton football team <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-10914863" target="_blank">apparently has decided to ban photojournalists from taking images of matches</a>, instead telling newspapers they need to buy photos from the team's "official" photographer.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, some of the newspapers covering the latest match felt that was ridiculous, and chose to respond in some rather creative ways.  The  Plymouth Herald, who was covering the visiting team, decided to employ someone to draw cartoons of key moments in the match, rather than using the official photographs:
<center>
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4877535444_8e04613421.jpg"/>
<br /><br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4877535518_b89eca8f00.jpg"/>
</center>
Perhaps even more amusing?  Some reports <a href="http://deadspin.com/5608306/after-photography-ban-soccer-game-pictured-by-cartoonist" target="_blank">point out</a> that The Sun covered the game by carefully making sure <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3086603/Opposition-0-Plymouth-1.html" target="_blank">to never mention Southampton or any of its players</a>.  Well played.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/16233110561.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/16233110561.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/16233110561.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-mess-with-reporters</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100809/16233110561</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>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:14:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>If We Don't Kick People Off The Internet For File Sharing, Football Will Die</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1651027094.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1651027094.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed in the past how the UK's Premier League's <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=premier+league">fear of the internet</a> has been a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1913425851.shtml">case study</a> in what <i>not</i> to do online.  But it seems that the Premier League bosses still want to push forward with plans to make it more difficult and more annoying for fans to actually watch matches. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=jshtaylo">Jeff T</a> alerts us to an opinion piece in The Guardian from the CEO of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/nov/23/creativ-coaltion-digital-bill" target="_blank">in support of Lord Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill</a> for kicking accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet.  It's the usual rant against "piracy" without much basis or knowledge:
<blockquote><i>
Without the safe passage of the bill -- requiring ISPs to take firm measures against unauthorised filesharers who are currently streaming and downloading with virtual impunity -- the marker that this is theft isn't even set down, educating consumers cannot begin in earnest, businesses cannot begin to develop new models because the market won't be functioning properly and, most importantly of all, the current levels of investment that create jobs as well as talent will be lost. And that is when the real cost of digital theft would become apparent.
</i></blockquote>
And yet, even as he writes those words, the creative industries that he insists are dying have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090723/0351345633.shtml">growing</a>.  How?  Because the business models have been adapting just fine -- even without additional artificial barriers to competition or the ability to kick people off the internet.  And, in the case of the Premier League, Scudamore seems to be leaving out an awful lot of important facts, such as how incredibly limited an online offering the Premier League has put forth, which is a large part of the reason why lots of people stream it illegally.  He also tosses out some totally made up "facts" such as "the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25% of all online TV piracy taking place here."  Well, perhaps it's not totally made up since he uses the magic words "up to."  But if there is a problem with file sharing of TV shows in the UK, it's likely (as Jeff noted in his submission) because the "creative industries" that Scudamore insists are so important still delay the release of popular shows in the UK and demand that online streaming sites like Hulu not work outside the US.
<br /><br />
Piracy is not the problem.  Piracy is only showing folks like Scudamore that they're doing a terrible job in meeting demand.  He doesn't need people kicked off the internet to adjust his business model.  Lots of others are already doing so.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1651027094.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1651027094.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091125/1651027094.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>evidence-please?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091125/1651027094</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>Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:52:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can A Radio Station Give Away Tickets To A Football Game?  The Eagles Say No...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0131106417.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0131106417.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted the trend of trying to cut down on scalping by using e-tickets to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090917/1747286227.shtml">stop the transfer of tickets</a>, but it appears that the Philadelphia Eagles football team also is trying to <a href="http://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2009/10/philadelphia_ea.html" target="_new">stop radio stations from doing promotional giveaways</a>.  The team has sued the owner of the radio station, saying that the terms on the back of the ticket forbid the use of the tickets for commercial purposes -- such as contests -- and also that the station is violating the Eagles' trademarks in naming them around the ticket giveaway promotion.  This raises a bunch of questions about the right of first sale on a ticket.  While the stadium may have the right to forbid entry to anyone, it seems like that would be a dumb move on the team's part.  My guess is that the team's main concern is that it only wants partner (i.e., those who paid a ton for broadcast rights) radio stations to give away tickets -- but that doesn't mean there's a legal right there.  If the tickets were legitimately bought, why shouldn't the station be able to sell them or give them away?  And, considering that the radio station was <i>accurately</i> describing the team when using the name, that shouldn't be a trademark violation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0131106417.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0131106417.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0131106417.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>right-of-first-sale</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091005/0131106417</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>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:28:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NFL Doesn't Get It: Blocking Fans Doesn't Make Them Like Teams Any More</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1605276043.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1605276043.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I knew this was common years ago, but I honestly had no clue that modern sports leagues were so clueless as to think that it made sense to blackout local TV broadcasting if the attendance at the event wasn't a sell-out.  Those rules were from a time (apparently still existing for some) where people actually thought that being able to see a game on TV would mean fewer people coming out to the actual game.  Of course, as any sports fan knows, there's a massive difference between watching on TV and "being there."  But allowing fans to watch their favorite team on TV does seem to encourage fans to care more about their team, making it <i>more likely</i> that they'll go out and see the team live when they can.  But... not according to the NFL, who still has such blackout rules in effect, and is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082701572.html" target="_new">suddenly worried that attendance this season is dropping</a> (thanks Carlo) due to the economy, meaning that many more games won't be shown to local fans.  It's difficult to see how that makes any sense at all.  All it does is piss off the biggest fans, and give them reasons <i>not</i> to pay attention to the team, and to cut out the most compelling local TV for many fans (harming ad revenue).  On top of that, you risk a sort of death spiral.  Teams that don't get enough fans at the live event piss off their fans who can't watch the games on TV -- and without the games on TV, they're less interested in following the team... leading to less interest in going to the game... leading to more empty seats... leading to even fewer games getting on TV.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1605276043.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1605276043.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/1605276043.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-still-happening?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090828/1605276043</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:23:11 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NFL Tries To Keep A Lid On Legal Sports Betting</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0848555249.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0848555249.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Moves are afoot in Delaware to open legal sports books there, after the state's Supreme Court ruled that certain types of bets are constitutional. The state, like many others, sees taxes on gambling as a potential financial savior, but the NFL doesn't care. The league is 
<a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=1270655205">threatening to file suit to try and stop the legalization of sports betting</a> in Delaware, part of its long-running efforts to wipe out betting on its games. The league says that legalized gambling "will inevitably lead those gambling fans to question whether an erroneous officiating call or a dropped pass late in the game resulted from an honest mistake or an intentional act by a corrupt player or referee" -- but to suggest that such speculation won't exist otherwise is erroneous. It's really hard to see why the NFL (like <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070727/084503.shtml">other</a> American sports leagues) thinks that keeping most betting (which is going to carry on anyway, regardless of its feelings on the matter) underground will prevent corruption, or even its mere appearance. It's a <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2243564799.shtml">similar</a> argument as that surrounding other forms of gambling, like internet poker: bringing the activities into a legal, regulated and monitored environment offers greater protection and far more benefits than keeping it in an unregulated, underground black market where anything goes. To this point, legal bookies can play a significant role in rooting out corrupt behavior by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/27/fa-betting-grays-athletic-forest-green-rovers">reporting suspicious betting patterns</a> and other information. Illegal bookies aren't too likely to do that sort of thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0848555249.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0848555249.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090616/0848555249.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>-250-to-succeed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090616/0848555249</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>Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If ESPN Can Replay Games With Madden '09, Let Us Do It Too</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080905/0032532176.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080905/0032532176.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In an effort to become more relevant to a new generation of football fans, this Sunday on "NFL Countdown," ESPN anchors will <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/business/media/05espn.html?_r=2&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss&#038;oref=slogin&#038;oref=slogin">interact with simulated football players created using EA's video game technology</a>.  Using Madden '09, ESPN's football analysts can model different variations of plays to demonstrate possible outcomes.  So, instead of just drawing X's and O's on a telestrator, ESPN anchors will be able to interact with the virtual players on camera to illustrate various football strategies and outcomes.  ESPN and EA forged a 15-year partnership back in 2005, and this move strengthens both brand's ties with their audiences.  
<br /><br />
As the video game has improved, using Madden to illustrate plays has been done increasingly over the past few years, but football spectating still has to cross the chasm of interactivity when compared to the video game experience.  In the video game, you're able to change camera angles, slow down the cameras, and highlight things like passing routes and defensive coverages -- all at the click of a few buttons.  EA's new system, EA Sports Virtual Playbook, loads in actual gameplay data from the previous day's game, with which ESPN's anchors can then replay and modify the simulation to become the ultimate version of a Monday morning quarterback.  That's great and all, it would be even better to let fans download that data to their Xboxes, do their own analysis and then share that back with the community.  Though, that scenario is most likely a pipe dream, considering that the NFL still <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070702/034646.shtml">freaks out about</a> even sharing more than 45-seconds of game footage.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080905/0032532176.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080905/0032532176.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080905/0032532176.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>boom-goes-the-dynamite</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080905/0032532176</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 17:15:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Sen. Arlen Specter Demands Investigation of Spying... In The NFL</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080516/0830181135.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080516/0830181135.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sometimes, no amount of snark can top the real world. Threat Level <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/specter-demandi.html">notes</a> that "Arlen Specter, the Republican leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday demanded an independent investigation into 'Spygate.'" Not the administration's various warrantless eavesdropping programs, but allegations that the New England Patriots have been secretly recording the signals of opposing teams. Because, of course, Congress has nothing more important to worry about than cheating in football. This is particularly galling when juxtaposed with reports that the administration has <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/senate-report-g.html">unveiled (sort of) a "cyber-security" proposal that includes expanded spying on the Internet.</a> <i>That</i> is something that could use more scrutiny from Congress. Indeed, because the Bush administration has shrouded details of its surveillance programs in secrecy, Congress has a unique role in investigating the proposal and exposing any aspects that could violate civil liberties. And the Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee would be a big help in those efforts. But unfortunately, the threat of expanded spying in the NFL is such a serious problem that Sen. Specter doesn't seem to have much time to investigate spying programs that affect those of us who don't play football for a living.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080516/0830181135.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080516/0830181135.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080516/0830181135.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>priorities</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080516/0830181135</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patriots Still Want 19-0 Trademark; So They Can Pretend They Had A Perfect Season</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/055608917.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/055608917.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Right before the Super Bowl this year, we noted that the New England Patriots had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080201/164154153.shtml">filed for a trademark</a> on "19 - 0" to be used in merchandise commemorating what the team believed would be the culmination of an undefeated season.  This, by itself, was rather ridiculous, as the idea that one team could trademark its won-loss record seems totally unacceptable.  It also showed off a bit of hubris, which got knocked back down to earth by Eli Manning and the NY Giants in an unexpected upset of the Patriots in the Super Bowl.  However, it appears that the Patriots are <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0421081pats1.html" target="_new">still pursuing the trademark</a> despite its final record of 18-1.  The Smoking Gun noticed that a lawyer for the team recently updated the trademark application, fixing a typo (changing "toy bans" to "toy banks") which suggests that the team still wants the trademark, despite not having actually won the Super Bowl and not actually having a 19-0 record.  Perhaps the team figures that it talked about it enough that people will actually think it was undefeated, allowing the Patriots to cash in on the term.  Or maybe the team figures that if it can't own a 19-0 record, no one should be able to.  Either way, when the story first broke, the NY Post had jokingly applied for a trademark on 18-1.  If the Patriots really do continue to pursue this 19-0 trademark, then hopefully the Post will continue to pursue its trademark as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/055608917.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/055608917.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/055608917.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>someone-sack-the-lawyer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080422/055608917</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dallas Cowboys Return Cowboys.com After Thinking The Price Was $275 Instead Of $275,000</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/224033.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/224033.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The domain name business is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070627/112254.shtml">hot</a> again, driving up the price of popular domains names, sometimes to ridiculous levels.  However, it appears that no one briefed the Dallas Cowboys on what these types of things typically cost.  The owner of the domain cowboys.com recently sold it in a domain auction, with the winning bid of $275,000 going to the Cowboys.  Apparently, on receiving the invoice, the Dallas Cowboys are claiming that it was a mistake -- they <a href="http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/10/18/yee-hah-dallas-cowboys-clueless-on-domains">thought the bid had been for $275, not $275,000</a> -- and therefore, they wish to cancel the sale.  Of course, some people are suggesting that this is merely a cop out from a team that has a bit of buyer's remorse.  It does seem a bit bizarre that anyone would think they could get such a domain for $275.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/224033.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/224033.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/224033.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>false-start.--10-yard-penalty</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071018/224033</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:27:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>New England Patriots Spying On Ticket Resales; Court Forces Stubhub To Hand Over Ticket Seller Names</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've heard plenty of stories about organizations trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070115/144245.shtml">ban</a> the resale of tickets to events.  It seems a bit silly to tell someone who bought a ticket to a concert or a sporting event that they're not allowed to resell it, but apparently some event organizers feel differently -- especially when the tickets are sold at greater than face value.  The New England Patriots apparently are so adamant that people shouldn't be reselling their tickets for profit that they've convinced a court to force ticket resale marketplace StubHub <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PATRIOTS_SCALPING?SITE=CADIU&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">to hand over the names of everyone who resold Patriots tickets for above face value</a>.  This seems like a rather large privacy violation -- and it clearly violates Stubhub's own terms of service (which is why the company fought it in court).  You could understand being forced to turn over such information in a criminal lawsuit, but this is the New England Patriots requesting and getting the private info of sellers.  For a team that just got into some trouble for <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9777571-7.html">spying on opposing teams</a>, spying on their fans' private transactions doesn't seem like a step forward.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/184111.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>privacy?-schmivacy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071018/184111</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>