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

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 09:46:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why ESPN's Offer To Pay To Have Its Content Bypass Data Cap Meters Plays Right Into The Hands Of Wireless Providers</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130510/18001823041/why-espns-offer-to-pay-to-have-its-content-bypass-data-cap-meters-plays-right-into-hands-wireless-providers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130510/18001823041/why-espns-offer-to-pay-to-have-its-content-bypass-data-cap-meters-plays-right-into-hands-wireless-providers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
ESPN has been making a little bit of noise recently about being willing to throw a few bucks towards wireless providers in exchange for letting its content roll through to users without affecting their data caps. While this may sound like a good deal for sports fans stuck with low data caps, there's a whole lot wrong with this "offer," above and beyond the obvious "pay-to-skirt-net-neutrality" issue.
Chris Morran <a href="http://consumerist.com/2013/05/10/why-were-praying-that-espn-does-not-begin-subsidizing-wireless-plans/" target="_blank">has a good rundown of the negative side effects ESPN's data subsidy would unleash</a>. First and foremost, ESPN offering to help out users with data caps plays right into the industry's talking points.
<blockquote>
<i>
</i><i>Subsidizing wireless usage in this way would only give rise to this myth that smartphone data plans are capped because of congestion and a supposed high cost of moving data. However, studies show that the <a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/12/18/new-report-says-cash-cow-data-caps-are-about-pleasing-investors-not-congestion/" target="_blank">cost of delivering content to wireless customers has dropped</a> while the user base has increased.</i></blockquote>
Morran's right. The last thing the wireless providers need is someone granting credence (albeit in a very roundabout way) to their ongoing myth of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml" target="_blank">congestion and costs</a>. This allows these providers to continue dining out on this story while simultaneously casting themselves as "good guys" in the new narrative. "See, we're allowing you to access popular content without using up a chunk of your data plan!" ESPN gets preferential treatment, the providers make more money and everyone wins. Well, almost.
<blockquote>
<i>Well-heeled content providers like ESPN would not be hurt financially by subsidies, but if they became standard, that extra could effectively put up a huge roadblock &mdash; or at least a very nasty speed bump &mdash; to smaller startups seeking to compete.</i></blockquote>
Basically, if one content provider is shown preference in exchange for a fee, it makes it tougher for the competition to reach consumers. If FOX Sports is just going to eat away at your data plan, it only makes sense to switch to the "free" data ESPN is providing. Wireless companies will be able to leverage content providers against each other, gradually levelling the playing field with fat stacks of subsidy dollars.
<br /><br />
If ESPN is able to follow through on its plan, this will become the norm. Wireless providers will have a new source of income and exactly zero reasons to increase or remove <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130226/10324722119/mobile-operator-ceo-customers-under-our-data-caps-dont-use-much-data-so-nobody-needs-unlimited-data.shtml" target="_blank">data caps</a>, seeing as the caps themselves are providing the incentive for content providers to ante up for unmetered data to keep consumers hooked.
<br /><br />
As unmetered data usage increases, the wireless providers will simply adjust the argument, stating that this new level of network strain requires data caps to stay in place and that the infrastructure improvements needed to support this will require higher overage fees and lower caps.
<br /><br />
Morran argues it shouldn't be that way, and again, he's right, but given the track record of most providers when it comes to data caps, nothing will change but the amount of cash flowing towards wireless companies.
<blockquote>
<i>If content providers do begin subsidizing wireless plans, then consumers should demand lower monthly rates &mdash; or the elimination of data caps entirely, as that extra cost will be borne by ESPN and others. Of course, we all know that will never happen.</i></blockquote>
Consumers can make all the demands they want, but the simple fact is most of them lack the options to make a stand on principle. Even in areas covered by more than one provider, the differences between the "competing" companies is almost imperceptible.
<br /><br />
From a business standpoint, this works out extremely well for ESPN. Even if most customers are in no danger of hitting their data cap, the pull of unmetered data is very strong. Unfortunately, it works out all too well for wireless providers, most of whom have shown little interest in upgrading their infrastructure even as they shed crocodile tears over congestion.
<br /><br />
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130510/18001823041/why-espns-offer-to-pay-to-have-its-content-bypass-data-cap-meters-plays-right-into-hands-wireless-providers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130510/18001823041/why-espns-offer-to-pay-to-have-its-content-bypass-data-cap-meters-plays-right-into-hands-wireless-providers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130510/18001823041/why-espns-offer-to-pay-to-have-its-content-bypass-data-cap-meters-plays-right-into-hands-wireless-providers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>stop-it,-ESPN.-you'll-just-encourage-them.</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130510/18001823041</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:07:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>2k Sports Fixes The MLB2K Baseball Contest It Previously Said Wasn't Broke</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/10595022537/2k-sports-fixes-mlb2k-baseball-contest-it-previously-said-wasnt-broke.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/10595022537/2k-sports-fixes-mlb2k-baseball-contest-it-previously-said-wasnt-broke.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
If you're a fan of playing baseball the way its inventor intended, meaning on your couch in front of the television with a controller in your hand, you may recall our <a href="http://kotaku.com/mlb-2k13s-million-dollar-challenge-fixes-exploit-that-464857848">discussion</a> last year around 2K Sports' famous Perfect Game Challenge. Should you not be familiar with it, that contest revolves around a competition between anyone who was able to pitch a perfect game in the MLB2K series (no hits, no walks, no errors in a complete game shutout by one pitcher) for various large cash prizes. Deadspin's Owen Good discovered an exploit in the system that allowed players to manually replace the starting lineups of the teams they were opposing, essentially rigging it to face the worst possible lineup for their pitching performance, and still have it be counted as a valid perfecto. He also <a href="http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/9/2012/05/takeoutredsoxac.jpg">outted</a> at least one specific entrant into the subsequent playoff contest for the challenge that used that system. 2K Sports declined to do anything about it, saying instead:
<blockquote>
<i>"The contest was run properly," 2K Sports said. "We look forward to awarding someone a million dollars on May 10 in New York."</i>
</blockquote>
Utilizing the black magic called "reductive reasoning", I can only assume that that the company is deciding this year to actively make their annual contest <i>improper</i>. What else would one conclude, <a href="http://kotaku.com/mlb-2k13s-million-dollar-challenge-fixes-exploit-that-464857848">given that they have fixed the exploit</a>? As Owen Good once more notes:
<blockquote>
<i>Today, I started a game under the Million Dollar Challenge menu option and as soon as I pressed start to go the substitution menu in the loading screen, I lost the official logo. According to the contest's official rules, you may not pause the game, substitute any player on either team, make a mound visit, or delay the game longer than 10 seconds between pitches.</i>
</blockquote>
I learned long ago that the greatest power you have when you make a mistake is to own it, fix it, and move on. 2K Sports appears to have skipped a step, which just makes them look proud and petty. Unfortunately for them, both the internet and baseball keep long memories.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/10595022537/2k-sports-fixes-mlb2k-baseball-contest-it-previously-said-wasnt-broke.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/10595022537/2k-sports-fixes-mlb2k-baseball-contest-it-previously-said-wasnt-broke.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130401/10595022537/2k-sports-fixes-mlb2k-baseball-contest-it-previously-said-wasnt-broke.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-it-ain't-broke,-fix-it?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130401/10595022537</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:07:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Connecting Athletes With Fans Via Video Games... And Via Crowdfunding</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/10133722323/connecting-athletes-with-fans-via-video-games-via-crowdfunding.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/10133722323/connecting-athletes-with-fans-via-video-games-via-crowdfunding.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Given all the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130109/18230721623/274-million-raised-via-kickstarter-2012.shtml">money</a> backers have pledged to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=kickstarter">Kickstarter</a> projects, and all the cool things that have been subsequently produced, I think it's safe to call Kickstarter a successful business model option for anyone looking to produce something. That said, it's still just an option, and it isn't going to be successful in every case. That doesn't mean a "failed" project hasn't produced valuable information, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130228/00041522145/kickstarter-projects-that-dont-meet-their-goal-are-not-failures-they-help-people-avoid-failures.shtml">results and lessons</a> to the those that put the project together, of course. At the very least, Kickstarter is a great way to connect a producer with fans and potential fans, a hallmark of what we talk about at Techdirt.
<br /><br />
One ex-NFL player, Hunter Hillenmeyer, is now looking to extend the concept of connecting with backers on Kickstarter <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1660125404/overdog-play-your-favorite-athletes-in-your-favori" target="_blank">to help connect gamers with their favorite athletes to compete online in their favorite video games</a>. The app, called OverDog, is still in very early beta and the project hasn't been fully funded yet, but Hillenmeyer was nice enough to give me some background in an email exchange that I thought would provide some nice insight on how the people, who put these projects together, plan for them, and how they view Kickstarter over all. I mentioned first to Hillenmeyer that we talk a great deal about connecting with fans as part of a business model and asked to get his thoughts on what role that plays with OverDog.
<blockquote>
<i>OverDog is taking a very simple premise, connecting athletes who love video games with fans who love video games, and flipping that dynamic on its head. Twitter is popular for, amongst other reasons, the fact that it allows immediate and sustained interaction between celebrities and fans, while the celebrity still keeps that arms-length privacy. OverDog is building an experience that gives fans the chance to do something they love with athletes who share that same interest, video games. That both fans and athletes would be excited about this seems so obvious I was honestly surprised to discover that nothing like OverDog already existed. </i></blockquote>
<center>
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1660125404/overdog-play-your-favorite-athletes-in-your-favori/widget/video.html" frameborder="0"> </iframe>
</center>
The concept behind the app aside, I was curious as to how he viewed Kickstarter overall. I did a Kickstarter once and I went into it thinking that unless it was fully funded, the project was a failure. I've since decided that this line of thinking was myopic and it seems Hillenmeyer agrees.
<blockquote>
<i>We look at Kickstarter more as marketing than fundraising. We will still deploy a product in April even if we don't hit our funding goal. Our goal is to attract enough users through Kickstarter that we can take that dedicated community of soon-to-be users and give them exclusive access to our athletes during beta. We want them to be our test market, with unprecedented access to athletes, to test, to provide feedback, and ultimately, to help build a better final product to launch in the fall.</i></blockquote>
This isn't a new concept, either. I've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/09261722038/crowd-funding-also-method-proving-marketability-to-investors.shtml">discussed</a> before how Kickstarter shouldn't be solely viewed as a way to get money directly from backers for a project, but it can also be viewed as an incredibly valuable tool for market research and consumer feedback. This may be doubly important in this instance, since the app really needs to serve to different kinds of users, the athletes and their fans. There's going to be some concern on the part of athletes about abusive users, but this is apparently being kept in mind as design for the app and how it's used moves forward.
<br /><br />
It's interesting to note that the app will be free as well, and player vs. player within the community will be included as a feature. The subscription is what gets you access to the famous athletes, however, since that partnership and accessibility is a valuable, scarce asset. It seems like an approach made with <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml&#038;sa=U&#038;ei=JARCUfmyGISJ2gX-pYDADw&#038;ved=0CAcQFjAA&#038;client=internal-uds-cse&#038;usg=AFQjCNHYt3_nL4u1MDXoVhoGo4eJfkuVEw">Cwf+RtB</a> in mind. The rewards in the Kickstarter project are varied enough that fans of specific sports should find something to choose from. I was a bit skeptical on how Hillenmeyer would be able to deliver so many athlete connections to so many fans, but talks with the athletes around the country have apparently gone well.
<blockquote>
<i>We certainly don't want to be presumptuous about athlete involvement, but luckily, we have deep relationships in every major sport. We can deliver on everything in that rewards section. Players associations like the NFLPA, MLBPA, and MLSPA have been instrumental in helping OverDog communicate with and attract the right athletes from the right teams to our platform. This will only get easier when we finally have a product for them to see and touch and use come April.</i></blockquote>
We'll have to wait and see what comes of the Kickstarter project, which has less than two weeks to go. Regardless, it seems sports fans will be able to test the app for themselves in a month or so, connecting with their favorite athletes to play video games.
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="380" src="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1660125404/overdog-play-your-favorite-athletes-in-your-favori/widget/card.html" width="220"></iframe>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/10133722323/connecting-athletes-with-fans-via-video-games-via-crowdfunding.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/10133722323/connecting-athletes-with-fans-via-video-games-via-crowdfunding.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/10133722323/connecting-athletes-with-fans-via-video-games-via-crowdfunding.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-i-can-flagrant-foul-dwight-howard?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130314/10133722323</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:23:24 PST</pubDate>
<title>University Of Washington's Defense Of Twitter Limits On Journalists More Ridiculous Than The Restrictions Themselves</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/01001821051/university-washingtons-defense-twitter-limits-journalists-more-ridiculous-than-restrictions-themselves.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/01001821051/university-washingtons-defense-twitter-limits-journalists-more-ridiculous-than-restrictions-themselves.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following the story of how the University of Washington <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/17033321023/university-reprimands-reporter-livetweeting-basketball-game.shtml">reprimanded</a> a reporter for live tweeting a game, the University has been trying to "defend" its ridiculous social media policy.  The <a href="http://www.geekwire.com/2012/university-washington-pac12-school-live-coverage-policy/" target="_blank">basic justification</a> is, to put it mildly, bullshit:
<blockquote><i>
UW athletic director Scott Woodward was on Dave &#8220;Softy&#8221; Mahler&#8217;s radio show this morning and Softy began the interview by asking Woodward about the UW&#8217;s live coverage policy. The athletic director said he didn&#8217;t think it was a big story, pointing out that the school simply wants to protect its live media rights.
<br /><br />
&#8220;We&#8217;re always going to protect live descriptions of events,&#8221; Woodward said. &#8220;That&#8217;s something that has always been our right for decades and continues to be so. As technology gets better and better, we&#8217;re going to have to be more vigilant about how we do it, but also understand that reporting has changed, too. There&#8217;s a fine line there and we&#8217;re always going to be cognizant and reasonable.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
Except... that's not true.  The "live description of events" is <b>not protectable</b> by the University.  It's <i>possible</i> that someone could claim copyright over <i>their own description</i> of the events, but the University has no IP rights on the "live description of events."  Such a thing simply doesn't exist and it would be a massive First Amendment issue if it did.  That someone there thinks such a "right" exists is ridiculous.
<br /><br />
Of course, we know what this is <i>really</i> about.  It's about money.  Specifically, the University's broadcast deals:
<blockquote><i>
Woodward continued, telling Softy that his own radio station pays a premium to broadcast UW games live and &#8220;we don&#8217;t want that diminished, nor do we anything else diminished whether it&#8217;s T.V. or live events.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
But there's no intellectual property right to protect the bad deal someone made just because technology makes live reporting less scarce.  This is the University making stuff up because it thinks it's protecting a broadcast deal.
<br /><br />
Elsewhere, the University pushed out an even more ridiculous claim: <a href="http://socialnewsdaily.com/4639/university-of-washington-twitter-restrictions-explained/" target="_blank">that this was really about "benefiting the fans."</a>  Stunningly, an incredibly gullible reporter seemed to buy this argument:
<blockquote><i>
My conversation with a University of Washington departmental source on the issue of Twitter restrictions (specifically live-tweeting during games) was not only informative, but surprising. I came to find out that UW not only reserves a sort of &#8220;creative protection&#8221; right over their sporting events, but that the policy is actually of benefit to their fans. Further, in a surprising twist, it seems that UW&#8217;s Twitter restrictions policy constitutes a step forward in social engagement &#8230; not backwards, the way it seems on its face.
</i></blockquote>
Kudos to the UofW spinmeister who spun that one.  First off, you can't just make up a "creative protection" right that <b>does not exist</b> under the law.  Sorry.  You can't do it.  There are certain protections granted under copyright law -- but protection from someone describing events on their own is <i>not</i> one of them, no matter how much the University wishes it to be true.  And what ever happened to reporters fact checking when people tell them something that's completely made up.  Oh and, really?  This complete bullshit claim is a step forward?  Do tell...
<blockquote><i>
Sporting events put on by the University of Washington can be considered the school&#8217;s &#8220;creative property&#8221; in a way.
</i></blockquote>
No, actually, they can't.  They're events and the University can put limitations on who can attend and such, but they have no "property" right in someone describing a game.  None.  Stop repeating it.  It's not true.
<blockquote><i>
They&#8217;re paying for the promotion, the venue, all of it. From a business perspective, they&#8217;re taking the greatest investment risk regarding their events, and they&#8217;re gambling on your fan-ship of their sport teams. It&#8217;s not unreasonable to want (and deserve) some control over the accuracy of the flow of information.
</i></blockquote>
Actually, yes it is unreasonable, and there's no law that gives them that right.  Sorry, "reporter" Dusten Carlson, you've been spun, hard.  Imagine this thinking anywhere else in the world.  Let's see... "From a business perspective, Enron took the greatest investment risk regarding their business, and they're gambling on the money customers are spending.  It's not unreasonable to want (and deserve) some control over how reporters provide the flow of information."  See?  In <b>any other context</b> anyone would realize this is completely ridiculous.  
<br /><br />
Even a <i>tiny</i> bit of research would have turned up the case <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/105_F3d_841.htm" target="_blank">NBA vs. Motorola</a>, which actually tested some of these concepts, and they were laughed out of court.  Just a few relevant quotes:
<blockquote><i>
In our view, <b>the underlying basketball games do not fall within the subject matter of federal copyright protection because they do not constitute "original works of authorship"</b> under 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a). Section 102(a) lists eight categories of "works of authorship" covered by the act, including such categories as "literary works," "musical works," and "dramatic works."[n3] The list does not include athletic events, and, although the list is concededly non-exclusive, such events are neither similar nor analogous to any of the listed categories.
<br /><br />
Sports events are not "authored" in any common sense of the word. There is, of course, at least at the professional level, considerable preparation for a game. However, the preparation is as much an expression of hope or faith as a determination of what will actually happen. Unlike movies, plays, television programs, or operas, athletic events are competitive and have no underlying script. Preparation may even cause mistakes to succeed, like the broken play in football that gains yardage because the opposition could not expect it. Athletic events may also result in wholly unanticipated occurrences, the most notable recent event being in a championship baseball game in which interference with a fly ball caused an umpire to signal erroneously a home run.
<br /><br />
[....] We believe that the lack of caselaw is attributable to a general understanding that athletic events were, and are, uncopyrightable. Indeed, prior to 1976, there was even doubt that broadcasts describing or depicting such events, which have a far stronger case for copyrightability than the events themselves, were entitled to copyright protection. Indeed, as described in the next subsection of this opinion, Congress found it necessary to extend such protection to recorded broadcasts of live events. <b>The fact that Congress did not extend such protection to the events themselves confirms our view that the district court correctly held that appellants were not infringing a copyright</b> in the NBA games.
</i></blockquote>
That case also looked at the possibility of a "hot news" misappropriation claim.  As we've discussed a bunch lately, in the last few years, there's been a sudden new interest in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090225/0321273898.shtml">"hot news"</a> -- a legal theory that had been almost entirely discarded.  Thankfully, courts hearing hot news cases are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml">not impressed</a> lately, and it's extremely doubtful UofW has a real hot news case here as well.  Again, going back to the NBA v. Motorola case, the court made it clear that information about a game simply doesn't meet the tests required to get a hot news right.  While the technology (distributing data to pagers) was slightly different, replace a few obsolete technologies with the modern equivalent, and the court could easily be talking about Twitter:
<blockquote><i>
An indispensable element of an INS "hot-news" claim is free-riding by a defendant on a plaintiff's product, enabling the defendant to produce a directly competitive product for less money because it has lower costs. SportsTrax is not such a product. The use of pagers to transmit real-time information about NBA games requires: (i) the collecting of facts about the games; (ii) the transmission of these facts on a network; (iii) the assembling of them by the particular service; and (iv) the transmission of them to pagers or an on-line computer site. Appellants are in no way free-riding on Gamestats. Motorola and STATS expend their own resources to collect purely factual information generated in NBA games to transmit to SportsTrax pagers. They have their own network and assemble and transmit data themselves.
<br /><br />
To be sure, if appellants in the future were to collect facts from an enhanced Gamestats pager to retransmit them to SportsTrax pagers, that would constitute free-riding and might well cause Gamestats to be unprofitable because it had to bear costs to collect facts that SportsTrax did not. If the appropriation of facts from one pager to another pager service were allowed, transmission of current information on NBA games to pagers or similar devices would be substantially deterred because any potential transmitter would know that the first entrant would quickly encounter a lower cost competitor free-riding on the originator's transmissions.[n9]
<br /><br />
However, that is not the case in the instant matter. SportsTrax and Gamestats are each bearing their own costs of collecting factual information on NBA games, and, if one produces a product that is cheaper or otherwise superior to the other, that producer will prevail in the marketplace. This is obviously not the situation against which INS was intended to prevent: the potential lack of any such product or service because of the anticipation of free-riding.
</i></blockquote>
In other words, no dice.  At all.
<br /><br />
Back to UofW's ridiculous defense:
<blockquote><i>
Lastly, UW doesn&#8217;t want its own social engagement trumped. Their social media directory is incredibly dense: Instead of shutting out the media, UW has already beaten them to the punch with regard to social, live coverage, in-game tweeting, etc. etc. ad nauseam. Further, their fans already know where to go to get these live updates and usually turn there first, making any credentialed media coverage kind of redundant in the end.
<br /><br />
My source says that the university takes social very seriously, and implementing journalistic policy for Twitter like the kind that exists already for radio and TV is a sign that UW takes the power of social media as a journalistic tool incredibly seriously. From this perspective, the University of Washington is ahead of the curve, not behind.
</i></blockquote>
Again, this is complete bullshit.  The fact that the University doesn't want its own "social engagement trumped" is meaningless.  Who would possibly think that's a legitimate explanation?  "I'm sorry, you can't write about my company, because we have our own social engagement effort going on, and you might trump it."  A real reporter would laugh at such a ridiculous explanation.  There is nothing in the law that says UofW has a right to be free from competition, no matter how awesome its social media engagement might be.  If it's true that it's really so great and that "fans already know" to go there and "usually turn there first" then <b>why would the University care</b> about the live tweeter?  According to that argument, fans would already be getting the official feed, and so the journalist tweeting wouldn't make any difference.
<br /><br />
Even if we take the University of Washington's ridiculous and clearly bogus argument as factual, the argument is <b>still</b> completely wrong and stupid.  The idea that a reporter tweeting out info about a game somehow takes away from demand of fans to watch or listen to official broadcasts is ludicrous, and suggests a policy written by people who aren't actual sport fans.  In what world does a 140 character update replace a broadcast of the game?  As a sports fan who uses both, I can assure you that at no point have I ever considered the many people who tweet about things happening in a game I'm interested in an adequate replacement for an audio or video broadcast.  Never.  Yes, I'll use it in a pinch to see what's going on while I'm busy doing something else, but that's different.
<br /><br />
More importantly, what a team should want is for fans to be able to remain connected and interested however possible.  Because if they don't care about the team at all, it won't matter where they're funneling people.  It'll keep them as fans, who will want to attend live events or watch/listen to official broadcasts <i>when they're available</i>.
<br /><br />
Sorry, University of Washington (and gullible reporters), just because you make up some sort of bogus imaginary property right that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean anyone has to pay attention to it.  And, yes, as we noted originally, it is true that the University can choose who to credential and who not to.  But that's merely a policy decision, not anything to do with a property right -- and as explained above, either way, it's not reasonable.  It's shortsighted and can only serve to annoy fans, rather than help them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/01001821051/university-washingtons-defense-twitter-limits-journalists-more-ridiculous-than-restrictions-themselves.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/01001821051/university-washingtons-defense-twitter-limits-journalists-more-ridiculous-than-restrictions-themselves.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/01001821051/university-washingtons-defense-twitter-limits-journalists-more-ridiculous-than-restrictions-themselves.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-you-DON'T-get-to-own-descriptions-of-the-game</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121115/01001821051</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Digging Into Sports Statistics</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12140611007/dailydirt-digging-into-sports-statistics.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12140611007/dailydirt-digging-into-sports-statistics.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Baseball fans have been fascinated with player statistics for a really, really long time. Sabermetrics changed a few things about baseball in recent years, so it's about time other sports started looking into more rigorous data analysis, too. Fantasy team managers and actual professional coaches are both looking for diamond-in-the-rough players, and more player statistics are being collected and analyzed to find them. Here are just a few interesting developments in the field of performance analysis.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/04/analytics-basketball/" href="http://bit.ly/OJuM87">Looking at the stats for 452 NBA players, there are far more than the five traditional positions in basketball -- try 13 different kinds of players.</a> The 'Paint Protector' position gets more fouls than shots and collects rebounds like crazy. The 'Scoring Rebounder' might be a more highly-paid player, though. [<a href="http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/04/analytics-basketball/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.news-sap.com/nba-selects-sap-to-develop-unprecedented-nba-com-statistical-experience-for-fans/" href="http://bit.ly/RDG5zt">The NBA wants to provide more engaging statistics to its fans, so it's turned to enterprise software solutions -- SAP HANA.</a> Will re-purposed business analytics software be able to appeal to millions of fans? [<a href="http://www.news-sap.com/nba-selects-sap-to-develop-unprecedented-nba-com-statistical-experience-for-fans/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428399/pagerank-algorithm-reveals-soccer-teams/" href="http://bit.ly/R39S7R">The PageRank algorithm can be applied to soccer players, based on how many passes a player receives from his teammates, to help analyze how players fit into a team and quantify the overall strength of a team.</a> Obviously, this algorithm has several limitations, but soccer isn't as statistic-friendly as other sports, so data analysis strategies for soccer are not as well developed. [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428399/pagerank-algorithm-reveals-soccer-teams/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12140611007/dailydirt-digging-into-sports-statistics.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12140611007/dailydirt-digging-into-sports-statistics.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100914/12140611007/dailydirt-digging-into-sports-statistics.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100914/12140611007</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>US Women's Gymnastics Team Decides Self-Chosen Nickname 'Fierce Five' Needs Trademark Protection</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17364420053/us-womens-gymnastics-team-decides-self-chosen-nickname-fierce-five-needs-trademark-protection.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17364420053/us-womens-gymnastics-team-decides-self-chosen-nickname-fierce-five-needs-trademark-protection.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Is anyone else out there excited to hear about athletes <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120813/07425420005/honey-badger-dont-care-unless-youre-cheering-college-player-with-that-nickname.shtml" target="_blank">trademarking nicknames</a>? Anyone? Or is it just another one of those things that seems to go hand-in-hand with buying defensive patents by the bucket-load and fending off onerous members of artists' estates? These <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/14074118261/trademarking-trayvon-martin-sad-statement-our-times.shtml" target="_blank">IP land grabs</a> seem to be a sign of the times, a brave new world of preemptive protectionism that leads people to believe that they have to quickly lock down everything pertaining to them, even if it's a spur of the moment nickname handed out by an enthusiastic sportscaster.<br />
<br />
From the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/01523817765/linsanity-trademark-office.shtml" target="_blank">(L)insanity</a> of last year to the trademarked unibrow of a few months ago, athletes are seemingly becoming their own marketing force, rushing off to the trademark office in order to nail down rights to anything <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/23325219499/sports-stars-rushing-to-trademark-office-fear-brow-thats-clown-question-bro.shtml" target="_blank">remotely catchy/marketable</a>. The latest trademark grab comes on the heels of the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/-fierce-five-gymnasts-face-hurdle-in-landing-nickname-trademark.html" target="_blank">Greatest Trademark Show on Earth, the 2012 Olympics</a>.&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<i>USA Gymnastics is preparing a trademark filing for the term &ldquo;Fierce Five,&rdquo; which was attached to the gold medal-winning women&rsquo;s gymnastics team at the London Olympics, spokeswoman Luan Peszek said in an e-mail.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Peszek has said the team, including Gabby Douglas, the first black gymnast to win the all-around, preferred Fierce Five to Fab Five.</i></blockquote>
Good thing, too. The article points out that, preference or no, Fab Five is already taken, <a href="http://www.trademarkia.com/fab-five-85122505.html" target="_blank">secured by Jalen Rose</a> a mere <i>19 years</i> after University of Michigan's 1991 draft class was given that nickname. I'm not sure what the opportunities are to capitalize on a catch phrase two decades down the road, but if any exist, it's probably in the "undergarments" and "pajamas" field.<br />
<br />
The road to "Fierce Five" isn't entirely bump-free, however. Someone has beaten the Olympic medalists to the Trademark Office:
<blockquote>
<i>A California man, Paolo Mazza, filed for a &ldquo;Fierce Five&rdquo; trademark on Aug. 8, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website. No attorney was listed on the filing, which provided only a post-office box in Millbrae, California, as an address. There is no telephone listing available.*</i></blockquote>
*(There is. You just have to <a href="http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85546891#" target="_blank">dig a little deeper</a>.)<br />
<br />
Mazza is no stranger to the trademark field, <a href="http://www.trademarkia.com/linsational-85546891.html" target="_blank">having filed one for the phrase "Lin-sational"</a> back in February. Wisely deciding to avoid the rush on the more popular phrase "Lin-sanity," Mazza instead attempted to nail down his uncontested phrase only to find it very much contested by the USPTO, which has asked him to provide proof that Jeremy Lin is totally cool with this (orig. wording slightly paraphrased). No doubt Mazza will find himself 0-for-2 in the near future, <strike>as no one is allowed to fuck with any Olympics-related IP</strike> as it's likely the USPTO will view <a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&#038;state=4002:2iaurl.2.1" target="_blank">this new attempt</a> as just another trademark squat, something that is becoming somewhat of a "trademark" for Paola Mazza.<br />
<br />
So, it's a little bit of everything that's ridiculous about IP "ownership." Sportscasters use the term "Fab Five" to refer to a gymnastics team, which it can freely do as long as it doesn't slap the phrase on some pajamas, thus violating Jalen Rose's 20-years-from-the-point-of-impact trademark, which has recently been extended. The gymnastics team grants itself its own nickname, the "Fierce Five," and rushes to the USPTO to find itself second in line behind another person who thought he might capitalize on something somehow by swiftly locking the phrase down. (The whole "choose your own nickname" part of this seems a bit disingenuous. I mean, I'd like to be known as "The Impossibly Photogenic Writer" but it's more likely I'll be known as "Pirate Mike's B-Lister," among other things. Just like you don't get to choose your family members or parole officers, <i>you just don't get to choose your own nickname</i>.)&nbsp;<br />
<br />
If the granting of trademark protection is supposed to protect consumers from bad actors and allow enforcement by the rights holders to prevent dilution, how does jumping all over a catch-phrase do any of the above? Are consumers really going to be "damaged" if they purchase a counterfeit "Furious Five" unitard? Are we really in need of a bunch of catch-phrases with a (TM) attached in order to dispel the confused haze that surely must surround us at all times? Would it be a lost opportunity if a mildly viral quote went unregistered?&nbsp;<br />
<br />
I would think that a key move towards cutting down abuse of this system (trademark trolling/trademark bullying) would be to trim down on the number of, for lack of a better term, "frivolous" filings. I realize the USPTO isn't in any position to try to gauge the level of post-championship, post-interview, post-viral quote atmosphere in which the application was filed (especially months down the road when it gets reviewed), but as it stands now, the system does absolutely nothing to discourage these sorts of actions -- either the quick-fire trademark squatting or the equally-fast attempts to monetize fleeting moments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17364420053/us-womens-gymnastics-team-decides-self-chosen-nickname-fierce-five-needs-trademark-protection.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17364420053/us-womens-gymnastics-team-decides-self-chosen-nickname-fierce-five-needs-trademark-protection.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17364420053/us-womens-gymnastics-team-decides-self-chosen-nickname-fierce-five-needs-trademark-protection.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>because,-these-days,-NOT-filing-is-never-an-option</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120814/17364420053</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Mar 2012 00:06:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>EU Court Ruling Saying Sports Schedules May Not Covered By Copyright Pushes Back On Dangerous Database Copyrights</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12271717955/eu-court-ruling-saying-sports-schedules-may-not-covered-copyright-pushes-back-dangerous-database-copyrights.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12271717955/eu-court-ruling-saying-sports-schedules-may-not-covered-copyright-pushes-back-dangerous-database-copyrights.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The US has long rejected the idea that you get a copyright in return for the "sweat of your brow."  It's not about the labor, it's about the <i>creativity</i>.  That's why we don't allow "database rights" -- or copyrights on collections of factual data, such as a phone book.  Europe, however, has gone in the other direction, allowing such database rights, much to the chagrin of many experts who recognize that such database rights <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080907/1642432187.shtml">are economically damaging</a>.  The one nice thing about this major difference in Europe and the US is that it's given us some natural experiments to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050225/1728231.shtml">compare like industries</a> from the US with those in Europe.  That research has shown that, for all the talk of how copyrights are needed to keep an industry strong, the US database market (where no such copyrights are allowed) has grown at a much faster rate than the European one -- with no significant other differences involved.  In other words, the theory that copyright is needed to grow an industry has been proved false.  In fact, the situation with the US stance on database copyright presents evidence that you can get greater growth and innovation without copyright -- because there's more openness, more value, and greater opportunities outside of locking down the data.
<br /><br />
So a recent ruling that reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=aldestrawk">aldestrawk</a> brought to our attention is pretty interesting.  It involves a case we talked about a few years ago, where a UK court found that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/0338489236.shtml">sports schedules</a> could be covered by a database copyright, since it took effort to put together.  Thus, newspapers and websites couldn't just repost a sports schedule without a license, even though it was just factual information.
<br /><br />
It looks like that case got kicked up to the EU Court of Justice, who appears to have given <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17218968" target="_blank">another sensible ruling</a> pushing back on what can be covered by a database copyright.  Specifically, it appears the court suggests that <a href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/03/football-dataco-ruling-if-no-creative.html" target="_blank">a pure "sweat of the brow" argument is not sufficient</a>, and instead, the work <i>needs</i> to show some element of creativity.  In fact, it suggests that the copyright in a database copyright doesn't actually cover the data, but merely the creative input into "the structure" of the database.
<blockquote><i>
The fact that the setting up of the database required, irrespective of the creation of the data which it contains, significant labour and skill on the part of its author does not justify, as such, the protection of it by copyright if that labour and that skill do not express any originality in the selection or arrangement of that data. 
</i></blockquote>
The court does not make a final ruling on the copyrightability of the football schedules, but kicks it back to the UK court to make a ruling given the EUCJ's guidance.  Thus, the court will now have to look at whether there's any actual creativity in setting up the league schedule.  It seems that should likely greatly limit the database copyright in the EU.  It makes you wonder if others who have thought the database copyright was stronger, might start branching out a bit and experimenting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12271717955/eu-court-ruling-saying-sports-schedules-may-not-covered-copyright-pushes-back-dangerous-database-copyrights.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12271717955/eu-court-ruling-saying-sports-schedules-may-not-covered-copyright-pushes-back-dangerous-database-copyrights.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120302/12271717955/eu-court-ruling-saying-sports-schedules-may-not-covered-copyright-pushes-back-dangerous-database-copyrights.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-a-step</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120302/12271717955</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Build It And They Will Come...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Moneyball (the movie) has recently popularized the concept of sabermetrics, but for a while now, real sports fans (and mathletes) have been applying rigorous analysis to just about every sport. There still aren't any sure bets, but forecasting player performance has gotten a lot better in the last decade or so. Here are just a few examples of math geeks taking some shots at jocks.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225562995441868.html?mod=e2fb" href="http://on.wsj.com/wIc6FF">Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, Ed Weiland -- for being a bit less surprised than most about Linsanity.</a> Weiland wrote in 2010: "<i>... Jeremy Lin is a good enough player to start in the NBA and possibly star.</i>" [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225562995441868.html?mod=e2fb">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2659" href="http://bit.ly/wJ9pw5">Nate Silver called himself a forecaster, explained how he looked at baseball stats, and created the PECOTA system for evaluating MLB players.</a> Baseball Prospectus bought the PECOTA system in 2003 and publishes its forecasts for all kinds of baseball fans and fantasy baseball leagues. [<a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2659">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/_/id/4691/mit-sloan-conference-paper-previews" href="http://es.pn/wsnGhb">The annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference has picked its top ten finalists for its Research Paper of the Year.</a> These papers discuss various stats like "15% of basketball rebounds hit the floor before being collected." [<a href="http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/_/id/4691/mit-sloan-conference-paper-previews">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To find some other online challenges and games, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:117" href="http://bit.ly/ifsJE4">check out what StumbleUpon has found to play.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:117">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100209/1104298096/dailydirt-build-it-they-will-come.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100209/1104298096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:16:45 PST</pubDate>
<title>Dear Pro Sports Leagues: Can I Watch The Game Please?</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In Mike's latest annual New Year's message about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/15322617240/new-years-message-optimism-innovation-to-power-to-make-difference.shtml">innovation and opportunity</a>, he mentioned how technology is allowing the masses to say "no" to impediments set down by those seeking to control: <blockquote><i>"The key element this year: the power of large groups of people to make use of the technology to start to say, "No!" to those who have sought to hold back progress."</i>
</blockquote>
A heady concept, but one which I think will only prevail as technology marches forward. That said, I had a slightly different take as a result of a personal story that happened on Christmas Day. Like many of you, I made the trek with my girlfriend to my parent's house to exchange gifts, eat too much food, and sit around with my family and friends talking as the television sat in the background displaying football and basketball. As the night progressed, the food cooled, the board games became boring, and the way my family slings around red wine resulted in the urge to go home early in the evening. Since my girlfriend was kind enough to drive us home (sober, of course), I was free to do what I wanted in the passenger seat. <br /><br />
And what I wanted to do was watch sports. The tail end of the Bulls game was still on. The Bears game would shortly follow. Sports on radio never did much for me. I wanted to <i>watch</i>. So I yanked out my smart phone and checked out the NBA site, the NFL site, and the sites of our local television stations. What I found was what I expected: the local stations didn't offer any streaming of the games, but the NBA and NFL have their versions of mobile streaming packages which generally start right around the $50/season mark. This gets you access to their respective broadcasts (not the local ones). <br /><br />
Here's my question: why is any of this necessary? With that same smart phone, I could have gone to one of dozens of websites (evil, evil websites) that would simply stream the games I wanted directly to my device for free. More to the point, they'd stream the local broadcast that I wanted, complete with commercials. Why wouldn't the major sports leagues do the same thing? If advertising is still the major money-maker for professional sports (and, along with merchandise, it is), why wouldn't they want to increase their reach by offering their own free advertisement-laden stream? Coupled with location identifiers, I'd think the leagues could partner with local broadcasters to make sure that people were getting the same geographical broadcast they'd get watching at home. Again, the same commercials can be in place, so what's lost? Why charge me $50 a season to watch the game on my phone or tablet, but not levy that same charge for watching on my television? It's the ads that matter, isn't it? 
<br /><br />
It seems I'm not the only one with this kind of experience, either. VC Fred Wilson <a href="http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/screwcable.html">relates a similar tale</a>, touching on the additional idiocy of navigating local blackouts of games with many of these league packages, all in the name of protecting the same local broadcasters whose numbers could be boosted by offering free streams of the game:
<blockquote>
<i>"Last night we were turned into "pirates" as the entertainment industry likes to call us. As 2011 turned into 2012, the executives at Time Warner Cable and MSG Network were unable to make a deal to keep MSG on Time Warner Cable. My son was fuming and so was I."</i>
</blockquote>
But he wasn't fuming for long, as helpful Twitter followers showed him a plethora of sites where he could get the stream he wanted, for free, with none of that viewership resulting in revenue for the league or the broadcaster. Which is a shame, because if they wanted to, everyone could be making money off this stuff while enhancing the fan's experience with a better quality stream.
<br /><br />
And so we get back to the start of this piece, in contrast to Mike's message of masses saying "no" to those who impede technological progress. Because in my case, driving home that blustery Christmas night, with only thoughts of Derrick Rose and Brian Urlacher in my head, I felt no urge to say "no". I only recognized one sentiment as I glanced over the league's packages for streaming and then turned to one of the evil, horrible, death-enducing sites that gave me the stream I wanted just in time to see Derrick Rose drive the lane and score the winning layup to beat the Lakers: I don't need their packages.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/06070417275/dear-pro-sports-leagues-can-i-watch-game-please.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-make-it-easy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120104/06070417275</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:28:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>SOPA Will Have Serious Implications For Sports Fans And Blogs</title>
<dc:creator>Brian Frederick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/00180516690/sopa-will-have-serious-implications-sports-fans-blogs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/00180516690/sopa-will-have-serious-implications-sports-fans-blogs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <i>This is a guest post from Brian Frederick, Executive Director of the <a href="http://sportsfans.org/" target="_blank">Sports Fans Coalition</a> and an assistant professor at Georgetown University. </i>
<br /><br />
Congress is currently considering legislation that could seriously harm sports fans and their favorite sports websites. If sports fans don't speak up, some sports blogs could be shut down in the future for violating copyright or if users post links to sites that stream games online. Worse, those sports fans trying to find their favorite games streaming online will be more susceptible to identity theft and cyberattacks.
<br /><br />
The <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/189999-house-members-unveil-stop-online-piracy-act" target="_blank">Stop Online Piracy Act</a> (the Senate version is known as <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show" target="_blank">PROTECT IP</a>) is the latest attempt to crack down on illegal pirating of movies and music and sites that stream television programming. But this legislation is much more draconian than existing law -- greatly expanding the reach of the federal government .
<br /><br />
SOPA will target websites distributing pirated material and illegal online streaming by allowing copyright owners to shut down payments and ads to alleged infringers. Under current law, copyright owners (movie studios and record labels) must go to court to block such sites or demand copyrighted content be taken down. The new legislation allows copyright owners to effectively shut down websites simply by accusing them of having copyrighted materials without permission.
<br /><br />
SOPA will also allow the Department of Justice to block those websites. The legislation lets the Attorney General get court orders sent to DNS server operators from resolving the domain names of sites in question to their corresponding Internet protocol addresses (DNS filtering). Search engines would also be required to remove or block links to sites that are accused of infringement. Finally, payment processors and Internet advertising services would be required to cease doing business with any sites that even contain links to online streaming sites.
<br /><br />
The legislation is so extreme that a group of prominent Internet engineers penned a letter to SOPA's sponsors stating that DNS filtering, as proposed, is "not technically feasible" and jeopardizes Internet security advances that have been in the works for 15 years. They explained that, in order to comply with court-ordered mandates in copyright cases, Internet service providers would have to choose between complying with those mandates or maintaining DNS security. In other words, this law will jeopardize total Internet security.
<br /><br />
Of course, no one is condoning illegal websites that allow copyrighted content for free or stream copyrighted programming. But why should sports fans in particular be concerned?
<br /><br />
For starters, as a result of this legislation, blogging networks like SB Nation, FanSided and others could effectively be shut down if users post too much copyrighted material or too many links to streaming sites. Some of these larger sites may have the resources to effectively police their comments to remove such posts but some individual fan sites may not. In addition, the legislation certainly contains a chilling effect on free speech.
<br /><br />
More seriously, sports fans could be among the users most harmed if the DNS security is compromised. While a movie or music fan might think twice before downloading software or content from one of these sites, a sports fan faced with trying to catch the game in real time will be much more likely to throw caution to the wind and download whatever software is necessary to see the game. Sports fans are thus more likely to become victims of hackers.
<br /><br />
Of course, sports fans shouldn't have to turn to such sites in the first place, but the leagues take advantage of antitrust exemptions and public subsidies, yet still sell exclusive access to games. For instance, NFL fans, whose favorite team is in another city, have only one option for seeing all the games of their team: DirecTV's Sunday Ticket package. Fans must shell out $350, switch providers and sign at least a two-year contract just to watch their favorite team.
<br /><br />
Most of these fans would be willing to pay a fee to watch their games on the Internet, but the NFL will not offer that. So fans turn to (foreign) streaming sites on the web. As do fans who live in cities plagued by unethical and counterproductive blackouts.
<br /><br />
When one streaming site gets shut down, another springs up, as do malicious new sites. As long as fans want access to their favorite games on the Internet - and the league is not providing it to them - these sites will continue to exist. Not only will this new legislation will be ineffectual in cracking down on such sites in general, it will likely leave sports fans who use these sites more susceptible to identity theft and cyberattacks.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/00180516690/sopa-will-have-serious-implications-sports-fans-blogs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/00180516690/sopa-will-have-serious-implications-sports-fans-blogs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/00180516690/sopa-will-have-serious-implications-sports-fans-blogs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-avoids-the-real-issue</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111109/00180516690</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:16:18 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/15450015708/federal-court-invents-new-intellectual-property-right-money-makes-it-so-exclusive-right-to-record.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/15450015708/federal-court-invents-new-intellectual-property-right-money-makes-it-so-exclusive-right-to-record.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two years ago we wrote about a troubling case coming out of Wisconsin, in which the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) claimed that it could allow a single <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0101264016.shtml">exclusive broadcaster</a> for high school sporting events in the state.  The Gannett newspapers challenged this by streaming four different events online, eventually leading to this lawsuit.  There were other highly questionable limitations on news media, including a claim that they could not even report play-by-play data.  That part is the most ridiculous, as that seems like a clear violation on free speech rights, and also goes against previous caselaw that has allowed the reporting of factual game information.  But, stunningly, last year, a district court judge ruled that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100606/2303269701.shtml">commerce trumps the First Amendment</a>, and since the WIAA needs to make money, such deals are just fine. This didn't make much sense to us, and we hoped that it would be overturned on appeal.
<br /><br />
No such luck.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=imafish">Ima Fish</a> alerts us to the appeals court ruling which <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/26/39316.htm" target="_blank">upheld the lower court</a> and seems to endorse the creation of a wholly made up new form of intellectual property right that has no basis in the law.  The court clearly says that this is not a copyright case, so copyright law doesn't apply.  So what right exactly is WIAA granting to its broadcasting partner?  That's not clear at all from the ruling.  If it's not copyright, it appears to be something entirely made up by the appeals court, which might be loosely defined as "the right to make up restrictions if it makes money."  I'm not joking.  The court repeatedly focuses in on the idea that the WIAA needs to make money, and that somehow makes it okay to grant a single company an exclusive license.
<br /><br />
I don't see how this makes much sense.  I could see that they should be allowed to grant a license to an "official" broadcaster, and even give them additional access, but I don't see how they can stop someone else from recording the material and broadcasting it as well -- especially when they admit that it's not a copyright issue.
<br /><br />
And since this new exclusive made up imaginary right has no basis in law, we don't know what any exceptions are.  Is there a fair use exception like in copyright?  The contract says other agencies can show two minutes of streaming video from events, but it doesn't need to say that, and fair use shouldn't be determined by a contract anyway.  The whole thing seems bizarre and troubling, in that it seems to suggest that public entities can create a special kind of exclusive broadcast intellectual property right if they use it to make money.
<br /><br />
Separately, one small part of the case struck me as interesting in relation to a different case we talked about recently. In the Zediva case, we thought it was ridiculous that the court declared a paid video broadcast to your home as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110802/02374615353/court-shuts-down-zediva-apparently-length-cable-determines-if-something-is-infringing.shtml">a public performance</a> because the Zediva service was offered to "the public."  Yet, in this case, the court insists that sporting events at public schools (which are open to the public) are, in fact, "nonpublic forums."  I don't think either description makes sense.  A private home is a private place.  A public sporting event is a public event.
<br /><br />
Finally, the court seems to totally overstate the situation in the ruling here and suggests a clear misunderstanding of the public domain:
<blockquote><i>
The logical implications of Gannett&rsquo;s argument are breathtaking. Suppose a high-school orchestra were to perform one of Bach&rsquo;s Brandenburg Concertos or the drama club put together a rendition of Othello (both of which are in the public domain). Gannett&rsquo;s argument would require the conclusion that the students have no right to engage in the common practice of packaging their performance and selling it to raise money for school trips.
</i></blockquote>
While some of Gannett's arguments may have risen to that level (it did suggest that public institutions shouldn't be able to make money this way), the court also seems to suggest that just because you can't have exclusivity, you can't make money.  That's silly, and wrong.
<br /><br />
Gannett is still considering its options, but it can ask for an en banc (full court) review or it can appeal to the Supreme Court.  I'm hoping it will fight this, because the ruling seems totally nonsensical.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/15450015708/federal-court-invents-new-intellectual-property-right-money-makes-it-so-exclusive-right-to-record.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/15450015708/federal-court-invents-new-intellectual-property-right-money-makes-it-so-exclusive-right-to-record.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/15450015708/federal-court-invents-new-intellectual-property-right-money-makes-it-so-exclusive-right-to-record.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wtf?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110826/15450015708</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:35:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Guy Sues Over 'Da Da Da Da Da Da.... CHARGE!' Jingle He Might Not Have Written</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110419/00514513953/guy-sues-over-da-da-da-da-da-da-charge-jingle-he-might-not-have-written.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110419/00514513953/guy-sues-over-da-da-da-da-da-da-charge-jingle-he-might-not-have-written.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few different folks sent over variations on this story about how a guy named Bobby Kent <a href="http://benmaller.com/2011/04/fan-wants-millions-for-writing-nfl-team-fight-song/" target="_blank">claims to have come up with</a> the now ubiquitous "da da da da da da... CHARGE!" music in 1978.  If you've been to a major sporting event in the US in the past few decades, you've almost certainly heard it.  You can finds tons of examples on YouTube, but here's a decent one:
<center>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wRjFsiWhAac" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
Kent apparently was the musical director for the San Diego Chargers football team in 1978, and claims he came up with (and registered a copyright for) the song "Stadium Doo Dads," which apparently includes the same notes, though I cannot find a full version of the song anywhere to compare.  Either way, Kent is now suing ASCAP for not paying him royalties for all the stadiums playing those six notes, and that he intends to sue <i>every professional sports team in the US</i>, with the exception of the Los Angeles Lakers, who coughed up $3,000 when he sent them a letter.
<br /><br />
You can see the full lawsuit against ASCAP embedded below in all its glory.  Of course, it does raise questions about whether or not these six simple notes really rise to the level of creativity required for a copyright.  But, even if you accept that, there's another (big) problem.  For years, it's been claimed that the true originator of the "da da da da da da... CHARGE!" concept was a dude named Tommy Walker, who was both a drum major and the field kicker for the USC Trojans in the late 1940s and claims to have <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136204/index.htm" target="_blank">come up with the basic jingle in 1946</a>.  Of course, others point out that, it's really built on an old calvary bugle call, with <a href="http://able2know.org/topic/86304-1" target="_blank">some reports</a> pointing to a German WWI army manual that has <a href="http://www.lovettartillery.com/WW1%20Era%20Grman%20Army%20Bugle%20Calls.html" target="_blank">the same six notes</a> listed as number 20 "Battery."  Others have pointed out that the (newly moved from Brooklyn) LA Dodgers picked up on using the charge call from USC in 1958 and it spread from there.
<br /><br />
All of that history certainly calls into serious question the legitimacy of Kent's overall claims.  When asked about this, Kent's lawyer says that <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/18/2173999/composer-wants-royalties-for-stadium.html" target="_blank">the two songs have a different tempo</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Kent's attorney acknowledged that the USC song "does contain five notes that are close to the last five notes of the crescendo of Mr. Kent's song." But, he said, the notes are played at a different tempo.
</i></blockquote>
In the end... I'm sorta left with the simple question: what kind of system do we have when there's now going to be legal fights over the "Charge!" jingle?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110419/00514513953/guy-sues-over-da-da-da-da-da-da-charge-jingle-he-might-not-have-written.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110419/00514513953/guy-sues-over-da-da-da-da-da-da-charge-jingle-he-might-not-have-written.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110419/00514513953/guy-sues-over-da-da-da-da-da-da-charge-jingle-he-might-not-have-written.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>da-da-da-da-da-da....-SUE!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110419/00514513953</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:34:47 PST</pubDate>
<title>The NFL Or SkyNET: There Can Be Only One</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/14082113113/nfl-skynet-there-can-be-only-one.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/14082113113/nfl-skynet-there-can-be-only-one.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>We've all giggled at examples of technopanic in the past.&nbsp; We laughed at ER doctors warning about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080730/1816441840.shtml">walking and texting</a> at the same time.&nbsp; We snickered at the notion that Google's steetview was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080922/1902252333.shtml">threat to children</a>.&nbsp; Some of our palms may have met our faces at the notion that digital drugs could be a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080807/1935131924.shtml">real life danger</a>.</p><p>It turns out the joke is on us.&nbsp; SkyNET is coming, my friends, and we're going to lose the war.&nbsp; And you know why?&nbsp; Because of football, hockey and boxing.
</p>
<p>
So says Rick Telander in a piece for the Chicago Sun Times, in which he declares that traumatic head injuries in those sports are <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/sports/telander/3807409-452/telander-brain-against-the-machines.html">stealing away our ability to fight the machines</a>.&nbsp; Seriously.&nbsp; I couldn't make this stuff up.&nbsp; To preface, it should be noted that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Telander">Telander</a> isn't some crackpot pseudo-journalist.&nbsp; He is the senior sports columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, hired away from Sports Illustrated, where he was also a Senior Writer.&nbsp; He attended Northwestern University on a football scholarship and then went to training camp with the Kansas City Chiefs.&nbsp; Personally, I think he might have taken a few blows to the head himself.
</p><p>
Telander starts off talking about the trauma of head injuries in pro sports, namely boxing, football and hockey.  We're okay so far.  Bruising from sustained blows to the head lead to long term medical effects in players -- something that is becoming a growing issue.&nbsp; Then Telander goes completely off the reservation in answering his own question as to why this is more important now than ever:
</p><blockquote><p class="body.textrr"><em>
&quot;Consider it wasn&rsquo;t until last year that the devious and know-nothing NFL Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee was restructured with seemingly authentic and un-buyable neurologists at the helm, and the word &lsquo;&lsquo;Mild&rsquo;&rsquo; was dropped altogether.&nbsp; Mild. Brain injury. Ha.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am reminded here of &lsquo;&lsquo;minor&rsquo;&rsquo; surgery, which, of course, is surgery on somebody else.&quot;</em></p></blockquote><p class="body.textrr">Hmm, well okay, the NFL is beginning to take brain injury more seriously.&nbsp; But the problem has been known for some time.&nbsp; It's thanks to boxers becoming pale drooling ghosts of their former selves that we have the term &quot;punch drunk&quot;.&nbsp; But whatever...
</p>
<blockquote><p class="body.textrr"><em>&quot;Second, we live in a world that is progressing into a vast arena in which mankind has never lived, never even comprehended, the stadium of human-enhanced computer dominance. It is a place where intelligence, real or artificial, will be all. Scientists say that by as early as 2045 there may well be a computer that dwarfs mankind. By then, according to the current cover story in Time, a computer might exist that will surpass &lsquo;&lsquo;the brainpower equivalent to that of all human brains combined.&rsquo;&rsquo;&nbsp; That&rsquo;s smart. Unless we&rsquo;re really dumb. And we&rsquo;re not, except when we do dumb things, like let our heads get damaged continually and call it something like ringing a bell. In our new environment, how can anyone allow his or her IQ, or their children&rsquo;s, to be <span class="body.italic">lowered</span>?&quot;</em>
</p></blockquote>
<p class="body.textrr">Uh, what?&nbsp; Because technology is progressing, head injuries are now more important?&nbsp; And we can't play football?&nbsp; Or hockey?&nbsp; Or box?&nbsp; But why, Rick, why?
</p><blockquote>
<p class="body.textrr"><em>&quot;If you think the talk of silicon joining and even replacing the organic mind is nonsense, remember that your own laptop does the work a global library once did. Consider, as Time points out, that &lsquo;&lsquo;your average cell phone is about a millionth the size of, a millionth the price of and a thousand times more powerful than&rsquo;&rsquo; the best computer at MIT 40 years ago...But the olden days are gone. And you can be assured that if the battle between machines and humans ever becomes confrontational, it won&rsquo;t be won by fists and forearms, helmets and sticks to our delicate heads.&quot;</em>
</p></blockquote><p class="body.textrr">
And there you have it.&nbsp; We cannot have football, hockey or boxing because the war against the machines is coming and we're turning those who would lead us in that fight into men with brain-mush in their formerly bright heads.&nbsp; Because prospective General Brett Favre has clearly shown how acclimated with the <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5663024">dangers of technology</a> he is.&nbsp; And no one is <a href="http://paulknowsfootball.com/tag/chad-ochocino-twitter/">cautious</a> around new technology media like budding Admiral Chad Ochocino.&nbsp; Hell, I don't even want to think about a Colonel Patrick Kane leading the charge against a host of Terminators.</p>
<p>Once again, we <b>all agree</b> that brain injuries in sports are a bad thing.  But the idea that it's suddenly become more important due to the rise of the machines?  That seems like the product of one too many sports-related brain injuries.
</p>
<p class="body.textrr">My suggestion?&nbsp; Just make it mandatory that all machines on earth must do a ten year stint playing football or hockey.&nbsp; Today's matchup, the Texas Toasters up against the Rochester Refrigerators!&nbsp; Join us next week on ESPN when the Carolina Computers skate the ice against the San Diego Smartphones!&nbsp; I could go on, but I'll leave you with Boers and Bernstein's take on their radio show, the most listened to sports show in Chicago (the good stuff starts around 4 minutes and 30 seconds...):</p>
<center>
<div id='2B5F937DC00F'></div><script src='http://player.play.it/PodcastPlayer/Embed.js' type='text/javascript'></script><script type='text/javascript'>player.render('fileUrl=http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d0/dW/dU/d1/dF/WU1F_3.MP3?authtok&name=Boers and Bernstein Hour 1 - 2/14/11&artist=Boers and Bernstein&stationID=391&configFile=config.xml&buttonColor=grey&buttonOverColor=blue&backgroundColor=#FFFFFF&guid=2B5F937DC00F');</script>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/14082113113/nfl-skynet-there-can-be-only-one.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/14082113113/nfl-skynet-there-can-be-only-one.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/14082113113/nfl-skynet-there-can-be-only-one.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-general-favre-won't-save-us-from-the-machines</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110215/14082113113</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:19:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Publishing A Magazine &#038; Website About Ohio State's Sports Teams Infringing?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23035410979.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23035410979.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we highlighted the ridiculousness and troubling implications of various court rulings that held that only sports teams or universities themselves could legally <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1111117566.shtml">offer sports paraphernalia</a> such as t-shirts, completely wiping out the tradition of fan-created t-shirts.  The reasoning behind those rulings was tremendously problematic, and now may be extended much further, showing how those original restrictions could have huge free speech implications.
<br /><br />
Paul Alan Levy, who had also written that earlier story, points us to the news that Ohio State has <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2010/09/ohio-state-abuses-trademark-law-to-suppress-a-fan-magazine-and-website.html" target="_blank">successfully obtained a temporary restraining order</a> against a company that was seeking to publish a magazine and a website devoted to Ohio States' sports.  That seems like a clear freedom of the press situation, and in a sane world, a  situation that would make Ohio State happy.  After all, more press coverage has to be good, right?  But not when the university wants to be able to <i>license</i> the rights to <i>anything</i> having to do with the school's sports teams:
<blockquote><i>
Instead of welcoming this additional coverage as a form of homage, and considering how a second set of web sites and magazines could intensify public interest and thus help promote the University, Ohio State went to court complaining of the defendants' attempt to "rip off" Ohio State's sports enterprise.  The university protested that it had just started to license out the right to publish sports programs, instead of doing such publications inhouse, and if outsiders could publish programs without permission, the value of this licensing would be reduced.  
</i></blockquote>
This argument makes no sense.  None.  You could similarly argue that about any form of news coverage.  I could say that I've licensed out the ability to write about Techdirt posts, and anyone writing about Techdirt without permission will have reduced the value of my license process.  But, everyone would recognize that's a ridiculous claim.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, given little time, the publisher apparently wasn't able to muster compelling arguments against the temporary restraining order, which the judge granted, claiming that such a magazine would infringe on Ohio State's trademarks.  As Levy notes, this is tremendously problematic from a free expression standpoint:
<blockquote><i>
The price of creating a major sports franchise that is the main interest of the populace of a large state is that the teams become a legitimate topic of public conversation.  Indeed, a well-counseled franchise ought to revel in being a subject of such discussion and indeed adulation.  Third parties ought to be able to participate in that discussion even when their motivation is to make money from their participation.  Trademark law should not be available to impede such discussion.  
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23035410979.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23035410979.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/23035410979.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-speech-anyone?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100912/23035410979</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:42:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>University Of Texas Discovers It Doesn't Get To Control The Words 'Texas' &#038; 'Sports' When Used Together</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/00555510368.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/00555510368.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://twitter.com/InternetLaw/statuses/19623979272" target="_blank">Michael Scott</a> points us to the news that the University of Texas, who has a bit of a history about claiming <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/1034448184.shtml">ridiculously overbroad intellectual property rights</a>, has been <a href="http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/texassports-org-university-of-texas-lost-bad-faith-udrp-action/" target="_blank">knocked down in its attempt to take over the domain texassports.org</a>.  Apparently, UT already has texassports.com, and claimed that whoever registered the .org violated UT trademarks and registered the name in "bad faith."  Thankfully, the UDRP panel reviewing the claim found this to be ridiculous, pointing out that you can't have a trademark on a descriptive term, and "Texas sports" seems pretty damn descriptive:
<blockquote><i>
    "Texas sports" is geographically descriptive and not protected by trademark.  The University does not have the exclusive rights to "Texas" and "Sports."  The University does not have a registered trademark for "Texas Sports."  There is no likelihood of consumer confusion.
<br /><br />
    The University did not prove "bad faith."  Again, common, geographic terms are not typically going to rise to the level of a bad faith acquisition.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/00555510368.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/00555510368.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/00555510368.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>descriptive-domains</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100727/00555510368</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:39:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time For Sports Leagues To Embrace, Not Fight, Free Online Streams</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0151549972.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0151549972.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted recently the new focus on how online streaming is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081126/1028552964.shtml">causing problems</a> for sports leagues, who have gone <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091215/0940027360.shtml">running to politicians</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1913425851.shtml">the courts</a> to demand they "do something."  Over in The Guardian, Seth Freedman is pointing out that, as with many other parts of the entertainment industry, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/25/tv-sports-pirates-premier-league" target="_blank">fighting against streaming is bound to fail</a>, and a better solution is to get your content out there yourself in a way that you can actually monetize:
<blockquote><i>
Sport, like music and mainstream media beforehand, has a stark choice before its governing bodies. If they remain resolute in their determination to follow old-school methods of disseminating their product, they will quickly drown under the deluge of fraudsters and pirates all too eager to capitalise on their mistakes. On the other hand, if they realise that they have to adapt to financially survive, they need to move fast to prevent a potentially catastrophic loss of income.
</i></blockquote>
He notes that at least some leagues have figured this out:
<blockquote><i>
The Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket games are broadcast live and free via YouTube, effectively heading off at the pass any rogue broadcasters seeking to steal their feed for themselves. The IPL authorities have a guaranteed income from their YouTube deal and, with a dedicated millions-strong audience subscribing to their feed, advertisers know how many people they can reach via the stream and how much each commercial slot is worth.
</i></blockquote>
But, of course, others have not:
<blockquote><i>
Yet with all the signs pointing to a brave new world of online broadcasting, the industry dinosaurs continue plodding along the road to extinction. Premier League enforcers <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/20/premier-league-fights-web-pirates" title="">boast of their success</a> in shutting down a handful of illegal feeds, but most online sports piracy goes unpunished. With mobile phones providing yet another alternative to television in the race for audiences, there is even more pressure on rights owners to be proactive rather than simply shut the stable door behind the bolting horse.
</i></blockquote>
In the end, it's difficult to see how any sports league thinks it makes sense to spend all this effort trying to fight against giving people what they want, when there are plenty of easy and lucrative ways to monetize such demand directly.  It's too bad that so many leagues are slow to realize this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0151549972.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0151549972.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100627/0151549972.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-make-the-same-mistake...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100627/0151549972</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:45:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Says Commerce Outweighs Free Speech Issues When It Comes To Reporting On High School Football</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100606/2303269701.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100606/2303269701.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about how a high school sports association in Wisconsin had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0101264016.shtml">sued some newspapers</a> for their reporting on various high school football games, because that reporting included some broadcasting of video during the games.  As we noted, in this day and age, when more and more smartphones are able to live broadcast <i>anything</i> the idea of "exclusive broadcasting rights" for any kind of event becomes increasingly ridiculous -- especially when you're talking about the freedom of the press to report on anything news worthy.  The league had apparently even gone so far as to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090821/0311335953.shtml">send invoices</a> to media organizations that were live-blogging games.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, however, it looks like <a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_21b2de10-8684-5290-a22a-453d8306fe4d.html" target="_blank">the judge has ruled against the newspapers</a>, saying that their right to free speech does not trump the league's attempt to make money:
<blockquote><i>
"Ultimately, this is a case about commerce, not the right to a free press," Conley wrote. "WIAA has made a business decision that it will be more lucrative to give one company the rights to broadcast its tournament games, a decision that does not stifle speech or discriminate on the basis of viewpoint."
</i></blockquote>
Now, I can understand the basic thinking behind the ruling, and it is true that the high schools can make decisions on who they let in to games and who they keep out.  But it goes a step further to then say that if you did get in and you did record video, that you can't post that video.  There's no issue with the high schools or the sports association denying press credentials to future games, or asking the reporters filming the game to leave the premises.  But I can't see how they have any right to sue or demand that existing video be taken down.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, this is an issue that's only going to become a bigger and more important deal very, very quickly, as smartphones get better and better at broadcasting live video feeds.  How long will it be until some enterprising folks send a team of smartphone-equipped "cameramen" to various live sporting events, and do live broadcasts from the stands?  I can't wait for the legal fight over that one...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100606/2303269701.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100606/2303269701.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100606/2303269701.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-what-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100606/2303269701</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Sports Journalist Blames Fat, Cheeto-Eating Bloggers For The Decline Of His Trade</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1035149037.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1035149037.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was recently caught on video in an apparent state of inebriation <a href="http://deadspin.com/5516297/slurring-jerry-jones-bad+mouths-bill-parcells-tim-tebow">using some pretty colorful language</a> (via <a href="http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/04/15/todays-sign-of-the-impending-apocalypse-dale-hansen-defending-jerry-jones/">Barking Carnival</a>) to describe former Cowboys coach Bill Parcells and NFL draft prospect Tim Tebow. The video, as you might imagine, became pretty popular, prompting Jones to clarify that he was having a "social moment", and when he says somebody "isn't worth a s**t", it's a <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=5095935">"familiar, caring term of endearment"</a>. Lots of old media news outlets ran with the story as well, prompting <a href="http://www.wfaa.com/home/related/Dale-Hansen-This-decision-was-the-wrong-decision-90806069.html">quite a reaction from longtime Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen</a>, who pilloried his own station for running the story:
<blockquote><em>That story we had earlier tonight about Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, if that's what it is (and our news director thinks it is), is yet another example of the decline of journalism as we once knew it. Our business now, too many times, is a fat kid in a T-shirt in his mother's basement, eating Cheetos and writing his blogs -- and we make it news. Jerry Jones in a bar, being Jerry Jones, is not news to me. And the fact that some creep slides up to Jones, records the conversation without Jones knowing, then tries to sell that recording -- and that becomes news -- is an embarrassment to us all."</em></blockquote>
Clearly Hansen is working on his entry for this year's <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080430/224354991.shtml">Buzz Bissinger Award For Achievement In Grouchy Sports Journalism</a>. He characterizes the decision to run the story by his station's news director as: "Public figures are fair game, and our game is reduced to following the lead of others." Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock decries this as yet another <a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/why-guys-like-jones-cant-be-human">horrible example of "gotcha journalism"</a>, saying that it's no wonder athletes don't want to talk to the media when they run stories like this.
<br /><br />
But isn't that the real crux of the issue? Many sports journalists appear to be afraid to do anything that might jeopardize their access to athletes and their teams, so they've supported the PR efforts to carefully craft the outside appearances of sports figures, and are largely hesitant to do anything to upset these appearances. Hansen calls this sort of story evidence of the decline of journalism, but it's really the result of sports journalism. Stories like this become popular and notable among the public because they're so out of character for anybody within professional sports. Other pieces have called Jones' behavior in the video "just Jerry being Jerry." And you know what? That's fine. The content of the video isn't even really that objectionable -- and perhaps has some interesting insight into the fact that Jones might have hired Parcell solely for PR value, something which seems to have gone unacknowledged among the mainstream media. But it's only these reporters, who have been let inside the magic curtain, that know that. The public at large sees the staged media persona of somebody like Jones, and then this video differs significantly from it, making it interesting.
<br /><br />
Whitlock says sportswriters "owe Jerry Jones an apology and all sports fans an honest explanation of why athletes/celebrities have every right to avoid us." That makes it sound as if the goal of sports journalism is to be friends with athletes, to buy into, and to help build up, the carefully crafted, positive images of athletes -- not to cover the world of sports. That's what makes the downfall of somebody like Tiger Woods so sensational and so interesting to the public. But it seems reasonable to ask that given the intense media interest that follows someone like him around, why didn't the story of his escapades break sooner? It wasn't until the situation became irretrievably public -- like the Jones video --  that the mainstream media ran with it. These stories break in blogs because their writers aren't beholden to the same model, and often don't care about being so close to their subjects. Whitlock alleges that sports figures like Jones "can't be human." That's not the case at all; rather the mainstream media often doesn't make any effort to show them as human, making these rare moments where they're seen without their protective PR cover so dramatic, and so compelling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1035149037.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1035149037.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100416/1035149037.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>get-off-my-lawn</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100416/1035149037</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:32:21 PST</pubDate>
<title>Oh Look, People Are Already Looking At Expanding How Selectable Output Control Will Be Abused</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/0226557444.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/0226557444.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For quite some time we've been covering how the MPAA has been <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=selectable+output+control">pushing</a> to get the FCC to allow them to use "Selectable Output Control" (SOC) to stop you from being able to record certain movies.  In theory, the Hollywood studios claim that this will let them put movies out on video-on-demand offerings earlier than they do now.  In actuality, there's nothing stopping them from putting these VoD offerings out now (and some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1324356800.shtml">do already</a>).  The studios' claim that this is needed to stop "piracy" of these movies also makes little sense, since even the studios admit that all of their movies are quickly available through unauthorized means around the time they're released in the theaters (i.e., well before they would be available on TV).
<br /><br />
The real issue, of course, is that Hollywood wants more control over your TV and what you can do with it.  But when people suggest this, the MPAA and the studios scoff and say that's ridiculous.  They just want this <i>one tiny</i> exemption and nothing else.  Except, that's not true at all.  Remember that recent Congressional hearing about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091215/0940027360.shtml">live streaming and sporting events</a>?  Well, the folks at Public Knowledge noticed that one of the speakers there was already noting how the FCC exemption on SOC <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2824" target="_blank">could be useful in stopping "piracy" of sports broadcasting</a> -- which of course is totally outside the realm of what the MPAA is asking for.  But, of course, once the FCC allows someone to break your DVR or other consumer electronics device, it's not hard to see everyone else asking for their own "exception" as well...  How about rather than breaking the devices that everyone purchased for a reason, the content providers stop freaking out about technology, and start learning how to use it to their advantage?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/0226557444.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/0226557444.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/0226557444.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-surprise-there</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091221/0226557444</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:56:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>Reuters, AP Refuse To Cover Cricket Matches Over Restrictive Press Accreditation Rules</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1230027059.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1230027059.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sports leagues around the world have been trying to put more and more restrictive rules on various journalists and news organizations when it comes to reporting on their events.  In the US, both the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/004828.shtml">NFL</a> and the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080226/152535364.shtml">MLB</a> have put ridiculous restrictions on what reporters can write about or post on their websites.  While, technically, these leagues cannot stop news organizations from covering their events, they <i>can</i> restrict what kind of access they have.  Of course, for basic coverage, when the events are televised, reporters could just as easily <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0435066389.shtml">cover the event</a> while watching it on TV.  Still, it's been disappointing that the major news organizations have refused to stand up to the football and baseball leagues over this attempt to restrict their reporting.
<br /><br />
Apparently, they only do that on sports that don't get as much attention (in the US, at least).
<br /><br />
Last year, we wrote how the press was planning to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/022133837.shtml">boycott various cricket matches</a> over similar attempts to limit reporting.  And, once again, major news organizations like Reuters are proudly <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-44093920091119" target="_blank">announcing that they will not be covering certain cricket matches</a> due to the press policies.  The Associated Press has <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091123/ap_on_bi_ge/cri_ap_cricket_coverage_1" target="_blank">announced similar plans</a>, and says that the AFP is also refusing to cover the matches.  At what point do these sports leagues realize that they're better off with press coverage than without?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1230027059.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1230027059.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/1230027059.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-football?-baseball?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091123/1230027059</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:40:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Washington Redskins Won't Let Washington Post Blogger Show Photos Of Upset Fans; WaPo Caves</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already discussed how ridiculous it is that any mainstream publication agrees to the NFL's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0402016073.shtml">policies</a> that effectively set rules for how they can report on sporting events.  How can a publication claim to have journalistic integrity after agreeing to specific rules on what they will and won't report on concerning a news event?  On top of that, we've pointed out how ridiculous one particular football team, the Washington Redskins, has become in dealing with fans.  Despite having the longest record of continuous sellouts in professional sports, the Redskins have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0042326099.shtml">suing over 100 fans</a> who were unable to pay for their season tickets.  The Redskins could have easily just resold the tickets (and, in fact, they are reselling the tickets).  But also suing some of the team's biggest fans after they've been hit by the financial crisis?  That's just obnoxious.
<br /><br />
Lots of fans are pissed off at the Redskins this season, and a local radio station came up with a plan to get fans to <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/get_ready_for_the_paper_bags.html" target="_blank">wear paper bags over their heads</a> during a recent game -- even going out and handing out a bunch of bags outside the stadium for just that purpose.  Of course, gametime came and security <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/scenes_from_the_burgundy_revol.html" target="_blank">confiscated most of the bags</a>, saying that such bags are not allowed in the stadium.  Still, Dan Steinberg, who writes the DC Sports Blog for the Washington Post, went around looking for such disgruntled fans.  And while he didn't find many with paper bags, he did find other disgruntled fans displaying their... disgruntlement.  These included t-shirts that were anti-Dan Snyder (owner of the team) along with some other things.  Steinberg took photos of these protesters and posted them to his blog.
<br /><br />
But not for long.
<br /><br />
The photos soon disappeared, and the photo editor for the Washington Post admitted that <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/10/07/cheap-seats-daily-how-bad-is-dan-snyder-pimping-the-redskins-cheerleaders/" target="_new">the Redskins had called them claiming that taking photos of disgruntled fans was a violation of policy</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"The Redskins said he was in violation of his credentials for taking the photographs. We honored that request, because at the end of the day, they control access to their facility."
</i></blockquote>
First off all, how ridiculous is it that the Redskins are so insanely controlling that it thinks that banning photos of disgruntled fans will suddenly make people not realize that fans are disgruntled?
<br /><br />
But, more importantly, what a shame that the Washington Post would simply fold like that.  Yes, the Redskins control access to the facilities, but the Washington Post is effectively providing <i>free advertising</i> for the Redskins pretty much every day, by writing articles about them.  The Redskins don't want to lose coverage from the Post.  If the Washington Post had any journalistic integrity, why wouldn't it stand up to the Redskins and say "hey, disgruntled fans are news, and we're here to report the news."  And people wonder why folks don't trust the coverage in their local newspapers any more.  Apparently, those newspapers -- even the big "respected" names -- have no problem caving in to ridiculous requests from those they cover.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, The Big Lead (which gets a few of the details of the story mixed up) <a href="http://thebiglead.com/?p=23716" target="_blank">wonders what would happen</a> if <i>other</i> people took such photos and sent them to the Washington Post to put on its blog, since the Redskins' main complaint is that Steinberg violated his credentials by taking the photos.  If others took the photos though...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091009/0110566471.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>journalistic-integrity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091009/0110566471</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 03:49:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Los Angeles Kings Hires A Reporter To Cover... Themselves</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090928/1057236337.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090928/1057236337.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we've discussed here <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/2334105408.shtml">before</a>, the biggest beneficiaries of sports reporting are probably the teams themselves.   The more news &#038; analysis that is published about a team, the more relevant they remain in the public eye -- no stories, and the teams risk falling into oblivion.  So, it's interesting to see that the hockey team, Los Angeles Kings, 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/business/media/28kings.html?_r=1&#038;partner=rss&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all">has recently hired its own full time reporter to cover the team</a>.  Rich Hammond once covered the Kings for the Los Angeles Daily News, and has been given complete autonomy to post commentary and stories on the Kings' web site, <a href="http://kings.nhl.com/">kings.nhl.com</a>.  Sure, some are wary of how "impartial" this news will be if the reporter is on the Kings' payroll; but really, that contention really plays a bit moot nowadays.  In an era where the audience is no longer beholden to a few media outlets, the supposed guise of impartiality is less important, replaced by the more useful quality of transparency and accountability.  If Hammond reports with genuine, well thought-out coverage, then his audience will reward him with their trust and readership, regardless of where his paycheck comes from.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090928/1057236337.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090928/1057236337.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090928/1057236337.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>changing-models-of-journalism</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090928/1057236337</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0304256103.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0304256103.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple years ago, law professor Wendy Seltzer used the NFL as an example of sports leagues performing copyfraud, by claiming copyright control beyond what is allowed by law.  Specifically, she was talking about the warning mentioned at some point during every game.  For the NFL it was: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."  In Seltzer's case, amazingly, the NFL sent a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070214/154327.shtml">DMCA takedown</a> of her posting that clip to YouTube -- giving her another "teachable moment" on copyright abuse.
<br /><br />
And yet, sports leagues still continue the copyfraud.  One of the fine folks over at Consumerist, Phil Villarreal, found the wording of Major League Baseball's warning quite questionable:
<blockquote><i>
"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"
</i></blockquote>
Unlike the NFL one, at least it didn't say "descriptions," but "account" is pretty close.  So, Villarreal <a href="http://consumerist.com/5351662/mlb-wont-give-me-permission-to-describe-game-to-friend" target="_new">contacted MLB to request "express written consent"</a> to provide an "account" of the game he had watched to a friend.  To its credit, MLB responded and asked him to call someone in its business development department... who (perhaps reasonably) thought it was a joke and did not provide the written consent (and stopped responding to calls and emails).
<br /><br />
Now, obviously, this is a bit of a joke (and a funny one), but it does highlight a rather serious problem.  Copyright holders are pretty regularly claiming significantly more rights than they actually hold over content, and many people simply assume that they can do this.  This leads to them to think that they don't have basic rights concerning not just "fair use" but stuff that is obviously <i>not covered by copyright</i>, such as an "account of this game."  There really should be sanctions against such copyfraud.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0304256103.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0304256103.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090904/0304256103.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>expressed-written-permission</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090904/0304256103</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wisconsin Sports League Sends Newspapers Invoices For Live Blogging</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090821/0311335953.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090821/0311335953.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The NY Times checked in with its own version of the story about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/sports/ncaafootball/20rights.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_new">sports leagues restricting what fans can do</a> in the stands to share their experience -- a story that we've already <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/1715505827.shtml">covered</a>.  However, <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&#038;aid=168737" target="_blank">Romenesko</a> points us to a little tidbit down at the bottom of the NYT article, talking about other leagues that have tried to do something similar, mentioning that a sports league in Wisconsin went so far as to <i>send invoices to newspapers</i> it felt were "live blogging" its events.  We had written about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090306/0101264016.shtml">this dispute</a> a few months ago, but I hadn't heard about the invoices before.
<br /><br />
Every newspaper who received an invoice smartly ignored it, but the whole concept is ridiculous.  The league is claiming that such a live blogging of what's happening at the sports event counts as a "broadcast" and thus should be required to pay the same fees that, say, local radio stations pay to broadcast the events.  But the idea that you can stop people from, or charge people for, telling the world what's happening in a sporting venue is preposterous, not just from a legal or technological standpoint, but because these events depend on news coverage for <i>advertising</i>.  Attempting to charge newspapers (or fans) for trying to keep others informed seems incredibly self-defeating.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090821/0311335953.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090821/0311335953.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090821/0311335953.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-try-to-charge</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090821/0311335953</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>