Temporary (I hope) Insanity in the NCAA

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 11, 2007 8:44 AM EDT in Commentary Comment 11 comments

WARNING: This post falls firmly under the rubric of "rant". If you are looking for UK basketball analysis, please scroll down.

The NCAA has revoked the press credentials of a blogger for the Courier-Journal, who was apparently live-blogging a U of L vs. Oklahoma State baseball game.

The NCAA's reason for sending Brian Bennett packing is ostensibly the following:

The College World Series Media Coordination staff along with the NCAA Broadcasting group needs to remind all media coordinators that any statistical or other live representation of the Super Regional games falls under the exclusive broadcasting and Internet rights granted to the NCAA's official rights holders and therefore is not allowed by any other entity. Since blogs are considered a live representation of the game, any blog that has action photos or game reports, including play-by-play, scores or any in-game updates, is specifically prohibited. In essence, no blog entries are permitted between the first pitch and the final out of each game.

What the NCAA is saying here is that because they "consider" blogs to be a "live" media, anyone who uses them to communicate event details during the game is violating their copyrights.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a flagrant, obvious and absolutely brazen misinterpretation of copyright law, specifically what may be copyrighted and what may not. The instant after an event occurs, it passes from the realm of "live" to the realm of "fact". It would be the same thing as forbidding a patron to call a friend on his cell phone and update the score.

The idea that a blogger's observation of game events is equivalent to a radio or TV broadcast is beyond absurd, and would surely not survive a legal challenge. Jon Fleischaker, the Courier-Journal's attorney when it comes to First Amendment issues, has already spoken Rick Bozich this, and Bozich has written an article on the subject today:

"Once a player hits a home run, that's a fact. It's on TV. Everybody sees it. (The NCAA) can't copyright that fact. The blog wasn't a simulcast or a recreation of the game. It was an analysis."

The question is though, will there be a legal challenge? The NCAA had this to say to the Courier-Journal:

During the middle of yesterday's game, Courier-Journal representatives were told by two members of the U of L athletic staff that if the school did not revoke Bennett's credential it would jeopardize the school's chances of hosting another NCAA baseball event.

Why am I blogging about the trials of U of L in a baseball game, and what has this to do with the Kentucky Wildcats? Everything. The NCAA is engaging in an act of extortion and thuggery by threatening U of L's opportunity to host NCAA events over this "interpretation" of it's rights. In my opinion, the NCAA is wrong, both in it's interpretation of the law and its behavior in general in this case, and if this battle goes to court, I think the NCAA will lose -- HUGE.

Unfortunately, that is just the problem. The NCAA would then simply not allow U of L to host any events in retribution for a lawsuit exposing it's fraudulent interpretation of law. This is an outrage, and this could just as easily happen to us as to them.

By the way, congratulations to the Cardinals for advancing to the college world series. Too bad their bloggers won't be able to report on the games, thanks to the disgustingly byzantine and flagrant abuse by the NCAA of the authority granted it by it's member institutions.

Thanks to More Than Derby and SPORTSbyBROOKS for bringing this to our attention. You can find their take on the subject at the links above.

John Clay has his take on this story over at Sidelines. He also has some links to a few others who are reporting on the story.

Michael David Smith at the AOL Fanhouse blogs on this story.

The Knoxville News weighs in, making several of the same points as yours truly.

Eric McErlain of AOL Fanhouse has a different take, basically taking the position that the NCAA, as well as various professional leagues, have always had this restriction:

Why did I go to all that trouble? Because before I ever climbed in the press box, I was well aware of the restrictions that the NHL, like other sports leagues, places on real-time accounts of games in progress. After all, what red-blooded American kid can't recite the following line from memory: Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited.

He's right, up to a point, but there are several points of difference in this case. One involves a potential question of an unconstitutional prior restraint on the press. The second involves a misunderstanding about what "real time" is. Bloggers cannot give "real time" descriptions -- it is a practical impossibility.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Clay

John Clay live blogs just about every UK football and basketball game. I wonder if the NCAA could do the same thing to him. That would really suck because if you cant get to a tv his blog is a really great way to keep up with the score.

by davw83 on Jun 11, 2007 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Absurd

Even for the NCAA this is beyond absurdity. This kind of behavior should generate a lot of bad publicity for the NCAA, but unfortunately it probably won't because it's college baseball.

Looking for a rock to wind a piece of string around.

by JLeverenz on Jun 11, 2007 9:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting topic, actually

This is fascinating, and could be rather groundbreaking.

There has been a scuffle for some time in the world of politics over the differentiation between blogs and news media, basically over fair usage and first amendment protections. This is similar, if more focused on copyright.

Personally, the NCAA's argument is flawed in my view, but that has never stopped them from domineering and suing in the past.

The Online home of Big Blue Nation ...

by JL Blue on Jun 11, 2007 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Very Interesting indeed

JL raises a good point. I think this is the NCAA's attempt at squashing first amendment rights! Seems to me this is exactly the kind of case were the Supreme Court should get involved and render a decision. For too long the NCAA has been a giant entity with it's thumb on the throats of it's institutions.

Go Cats!

by Blueman2000 on Jun 11, 2007 11:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The First Amendment ...

is only peripherally involved in this case. The real issue is ascribing copyrights to what are essentially uncopyrightable facts.

Their position does some downstream violence to FA rights, but my problem is with the expansion of copyrights to include whatever the NCAA wants to include. That's wrong, and copyrights and the Internet (and blogs in particular) are already bumping heads in other arenas like politics as JL mentioned above, where the First Amendment is truly under attack by this sort of insidious legal gerrymandering.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 11, 2007 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They need to leave the blogs alone!!!

If I have the option of viewing coverage on TV or listening on radio, I'm going to do that. Reading a "live" blog is not my first choice, although I like the different perspectives. Unfortunately, I live in an area that when we get national coverage of a UK event, it often gets preempted by regional coverage of more "local" teams. Reading coverage on a blog is a great way to experience a fellow fan's perspective on what has occurred. We might not want to be limited to Billy Packer's perspective. Imagine that!

Say ESPN has exclusive rights to cover an event, what does that mean for cbssportsline's live score updates or stats? How is that any different than a blog?

It will be interesting indeed to see what comes out of this.

by cthom on Jun 11, 2007 2:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is the Dark Tower's doing

The reason this happened? ESPN...

by btcoop71 on Jun 11, 2007 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Indeed ...

it has all the hallmarks of Barad Dûr.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 11, 2007 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds to me like....

a potential to show the NCAA and all other sources just what the common man is capable of doing with the internet. What if fans all over the country started blogging their teams? Could the NCAA just stop the whole season? I think not, the NCAA is just worried that they might be losing money from media outlets. I wonder what the profit margin is for the NCAA. Seems to me that there shouldn't be a profit margin, however I see the likelyhood of that to be none to less than none.

by blueblood on Jun 11, 2007 3:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What of radio talk shows like Fox Sports Radio...

I know for a fact that they announce everytime there is a home run during MLB games. Does Fox have exclusive rights to the entire MLB schedule..what about halftime updates on ESPN while CBS has the rights to the specific games? What about ESPNs sportsticker on the bottom of the screen? I'm sure they don't have the rights to every single one of those events, and they are updated often during the game; maybe not 100% live, but definitely doesn't follow the quoted statement by the NCAA.
Sounds like the bully in the kindergarten schoolyard to me, he knows that he's wrong, but the kids can't afford to argue with him 'cause he's too big to fight.

by blueblood on Jun 11, 2007 3:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope, sincerely ...

that the C-J pursues this. Jon Fleischaker is a powerful constitutional law attorney, and I can't remember the last time he was wrong about something like this.

I would love to see the NCAA in a court fight with the C-J. I think the C-J would not only win, but that the case might clear up a few ambiguous points, at least in the Sixth Circuit.

by Truzenzuzex on Jun 11, 2007 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs