Since you seem to be stuck on where the tweeting took place, in your view, if the reporter was at home watching it on TV and tweeting, that would be ok?
Also, I think there's a large amount of wiggle room in the term "broadcast". If you consider 140 character tweets about a game to be broadcasting, what about an attendee describing the game in detail to a friend afterwards? Couldn't that be considered broadcasting as well? And how far do you have to go in your tweets to cross the threshold into broadcasting? Is tweeting "This game is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!" broadcasting? Tweeting a play-by-play? Somewhere in between? Who decides?
Right now, it's all carrot for lawyers who choose to go this route. There's no stick.
Here's a radical idea.
Change the system to where, if you file a lawsuit, it MUST go to trial. No payoffs to just go away. Lawyers fees for both sides are rolled into the final settlement as a percentage. The losing side lawyers get minimum wage for hours worked, while the winning side lawyers get what's left. And that's added ON TOP of the base settlement that MUST go directly to the winning side, NOT the lawyers.
I know, I know, there's probably a million and one holes in that plan, but it's nice to dream.
To me, it's about hindering my ability to be an informed consumer. If I go to buy a DVD at the store, I check it out to see what I'm getting for my money. What extras, if any, does it have? Is it Blu-ray? 3D? I make sure that I'm spending my money wisely.
Except that it doesn't matter because there's a very good chance that they've slipped in things that they didn't tell you about. Unskippable ads, FBI warnings, auto-install programs, etc.
Why is it that, when I have JUST GIVEN YOU MONEY, do you see it as a great marketing opportunity?
I can tolerate ads, but unskippable ones? That's just lazy programming. If seeing it once didn't do the trick, the 50th time won't do it either.
The FBI warnings always crack me up. If I bought it, I'M THE WRONG PERSON TO BE WARNING.
I may be crazy, but I don't consider the Olympics to be a simple "sporting event", and that's how it feels like NBC treated it. It's an event of world-wide importance, and it should be treated as such.
Yes, I know they paid a lot to have the "privilege" of broadcasting(which is a problem in itself). I have no issue with them trying to make a buck. Just don't package it. In this day and age, if you sign on to broadcast it, you need to broadcast it all as it happens. If you want to create a "best of" show for your primetime audience, great. Just don't withhold coverage to boost it.
I loved the online stuff, especially since a lot of them didn't have the idiotic, babbling commentators. You got to enjoy the events naturally, and I would love for coverage of other sporting events to follow suit. How great would it be to be able to turn off the audio track for the commentators on a football game and instead enjoy the game with the ambient sounds? The one thing that irritated me was that they put the results in the description of the event. Seriously not cool.
To put all of this in perspective, take any other event and put it in place of the Olympics and see if the way NBC handled it makes sense.
"Tune in tonight to watch the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots in Superbowl XLVI with a thrilling last minute touchdown!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Tune in tonight to see if the fearless US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin succeed in being the first humans to land on the moon!!!!!!!!!!!"*
*While every newspaper in the world has the headline "Fearless US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin succeed in being the first humans to land on the moon!"
I have to ask. Why would this tip the balance of anything? Do you really think that Google has that big a role in connecting people who you call "pirates" to sites that cater to that?
I have scary news for you. "Pirates" will "pirate", and they don't use Google to do it. If their favorite site goes down, they move to one of the other 50 that they already know about. They don't need Google to point them.
This will ultimately mean nothing, and that's the ultimate take-away from this. Once again, the "Content Industry" does something that doesn't address the issue while clinging to their "business model" and refusing to even consider change.
Yes, I understand that people getting content for free sucks. People should be paid for their work. I haven't seen anyone here argue against that, despite your claims to the contrary. What people ARE saying is that, if the market shows you, point blank, what they want, you're a fool to ignore it. A wise and savvy businessperson will look at it and think "What can I do to capitalize on that?". Instead, you think "How can I squash that behavior?".
Comparing a new game to existing games is as old as games themselves.
Pong? Ping-pong, but on your TV.
Hell, it's not even limited to video games. EVERYTHING that's sold does this to some degree.
New author? The new Stephen King.
Step off the high-horse and quit acting like this was some nefarious plan. OF COURSE it's used to drive potential users to your program. As long as it's accurate (your program can logically be compared to Masters of Orion, for example), then it is in no way keyword spam.
This just smells of Google trying to use a crawler with no human intervention. Keyword spam is not black and white. It takes judgement.