Is It Illegal To Describe The Sporting Event You're Watching?
from the questions-to-answer dept
A few years back, there was a service launched that would let anyone become their own sports announcer. It let web users broadcast their own audio commentary of a sporting event over the web. I can't remember when I read about it, and don't know if it's still around at all -- but the idea was certainly intriguing. There certainly are some people who just can't stand certain professional sportscasters, and the opportunity to open up sports commentary to just about anyone is an interesting idea. Of course, that doesn't fit with the way most organized sports view themselves. We've discussed in the past how ruthless Major League Baseball has been in claiming it owns nearly all aspects of a game. At the time, one of the questions was whether or not it would be illegal to sit in the stands and "broadcast" an audio description of the game to a friend using a mobile phone. Sports leagues may claim it's illegal, but it seems unlikely that the courts would agree.This issue is only going to get a lot more legal attention in the near future. As amateur to amateur content becomes more common, it's going to hit organized sports in ways they don't seem to realize. Take a look at the World Cup, for example. Again, this is an organized sporting event that has been quite aggressive in trying to protect all game-related content -- going so far as to pre-warn random websites not to rebroadcast games. However, with the means of production and distribution now reaching the hands of just about everyone (for example a cameraphone and YouTube) some are starting to wonder whether organized sports will be able to cope. It certainly raises some questions about the boundaries of what can actually be presented. Where is the line? Can I call someone and describe what I'm seeing? What if it's a videocall? What if there are two people on the line? Or 200? Or 2 million? It becomes increasingly difficult to figure out what's okay and what isn't when it's no longer just a few big broadcast companies at the table. It also could destroy the idea that one broadcaster gets exclusive rights to an event. If individuals are able to broadcast their own content from a game, how long will it be until other professional sports broadcasters start to ask why they can't just show up and broadcast on their own, even without securing the "rights". If the events of a game are considered facts that are part of a news story -- what's to stop just about anyone, professional or amateur, from sending out their own version of the game?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not so simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is It Illegal To Describe The Sporting Event You'r
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Olympic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arbitary rules
> organized sporting event that has been quite aggressive in trying
> to protect all game-related content
And trying to protect advertising monopolies. To the extent of excluding 1000 Dutch fans from a game they had paid to see because they were wearing shirts with the logo a non-official sponsor. As usual this was arbitary, unannounced and made up on the spot. The fans lost their money and didn't see the game.
> Can I call someone and describe what I'm seeing?
Yes, if phones are permitted in the ground. It's a private call and nobody can stop you yet. However since the stadium is private property they're quite within their rights to exclude you from bringing in a phone.
> What if it's a videocall?
Same thing.
> What if there are two people on the line? Or 200? Or 2 million?
Then it's a broadcast. By definition. And the laws applying to broadcasters now apply to you.
> It becomes increasingly difficult to figure out what's okay and
> what isn't when it's no longer just a few big broadcast companies
> at the table.
By "okay" do you mean moral or legal? The two increasingly have nothing to do with one another. Anything can be made "illegal" at a whim which is why ordinary respect for law is all but vanished.
Morality requires reason. Law has become arbitary and only requires the threat of force.
> If the events of a game are considered facts that are part of a news
> story -- what's to stop just about anyone, professional or amateur,
> from sending out their own version of the game?
Men with guns. Seriously, before we get to some kind of massive backlash when everyone has finally had enough, you will see places like sports stadiums become completely sealed environments with no line of sight to the outside world, Faraday cages, phone jammers and armed quasi-police agents patrolling the aisles confiscating mobile phones and intimidating the crowd.
Perhaps the backlash will be in falling attendances. After 40 years supporting Manchester United my family now boycott all mechandise and have no interest in the team. Once dinner conversation was all about United, but now my brothers and sisters and relatives don't even know who is in the squad. We decided, when United was bought as a trophy gift by some sleazy American businessman, that it was no longer relevant to our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbitary rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arbitary rules
Sleazy American was uncalled for.
I just think Glazers boy is is a slimeball, it went with him not his country. I retract the sleazy. All hail the greatest nation.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arbitary rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbitary rules
I don't think it's fair to characterise the businessman in that way. Being a businessman makes him sleazy; "American" may as well be "tall," "Asian," or "- and I mean, really sleazy -." Sure, the American may only see Man U. as a cash cow, or perhaps something to complement the steer horns on his Cadillac, but do you really think the rest of the major football clubs are owned by altruistic lovers of a beautiful game? They are owned and operated by people interested in turning a profit.
Sure, don't buy the mechandise, and don't pay for tickets (most Americans treat baseball in the same manner; they are more likely to root for their favorite team from the comfort of a pub than with giant foam hands and $10 beers at the park). But don't try to kill a sport because the owners and marketers are a bunch of turds; wait until the players become a bunch of money-hungry pansies, like the NHL (hockey) or NBA (basketball).
[now for some ranting]
Of course, it is becoming harder to watch football (soccer) on American TV. While world-class teams are battling on the pitch, ESPN (and ESPN HD) has talk shows and ESPN2 (and ESPN2 HD) shows past years' Poker tournaments or (yes, this actually happened) the Jump Rope championship! FC Barcelona v. Real Madrid, and the leading US sports network is showing jump rope? WTF!? How did the broadcast rights get so screwed up that only ESPN Deportes - in Spanish and available at an additional US$50 per month - is showing that game? Is jump rope more likely to sell laundry detergent? Did the demographic research really show more interest in jump rope? It's depressing, but it is reality.
Boycott the products they advertise, write angry letters, get a soapbox and find a corner, set yourself on fire...whatever it takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arbitary rules
If this is actually the case, I dont blame them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbitary rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arbitary rules
Yes, to be perfectly honest the fact that they're now owned by an American is a factor. At the risk of further offending the members of the greatest nation on Earth, who can't seem to take a bit of friendly ribbing, that involves the fact that Amercans, know exactly jack about football. Continuing with the honesty, it's only fair to point out that Glazer Jr is a very enthusiastic and, it's widely said, knowledgable chap on the subject. But to buy the greatest football team on Earth (Okay actually that's Real Madrid - now, thanks to you) as a trophy present for the lad stinks of ignorant money to northen English types. You can buy it but you'll never own it. :)
What really stinks though is the knowledge of what will happen later. It's not really Glazer that bugs us, it's the fact that Man U are no longer a shareholders club. We all know money will kill the club in the end. If you don't understand this you've never been to Manchester.
You see, as a lifelong supporter I owned shares in the club. I went to the shareholder meetings. The takeover of Man U was hostile. We were all told that we were compelled to sell and any shares not sold would be worthless. Well, I'll tell you... I am the proud owner of a few hundred WORTHLESS Man U shares. I intend to give the certificate to my grandchildren one day as a symbol of when Manchester United were the best *British* football team on the planet.
So, over here on this side - we're just as proud and full of it as you over there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbitary rules
Maybe next time the controlling interest in the team wont let their ego/pride float on the NYSE and be open to people with more money then them. Moreover, the shared did not manifest themselves for Glazer to take a controlling interest. They had to be bought from people who had them. So, instead of pointing across the pond perhaps your disregard should be torward the poor management that allowed the takeover to happen to begin with.
And yes its American pride (or arrogance) that provoked this reply. You hold a carrot out in front of someone do not be pissed off if they get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pointless
just in case...
this is not something they can actually stop, and if you are performing a commentary yourself, well thats *your* creation not theirs. you can't use thier pictures etc but you can talk about them.
and yes they can stop you recording the game at the stadium etc, even stop you talking about it live. but i can see a market for watching it with the sound muted on telly and getting an audio commentary 'live' via the net from a fan site or two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pointless
In any case I agree it's a bit absurd. I travelled all the way to germany and could only drink Bud in the stadiums. Not something I was looking forward to.
But it's an international event, not a German one, and Budweiser paid the most money. Such is the way of the world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sports become passe
It comes down to this, if you enjoy a sport go PLAY it and don't watch it. You will accomplish at least two things:
1) Save your hard-earned money for something you want to spend it on.
2) Gotten some well-deserved exercise too.
Bottom line: I just don't care anymore and you won't see me voluntarily paying to attend a sporting event any time in the future. I like my money (and free time) in my hands not being abrogated to a bunch of losers who don't deserve it in the first place.
Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Broadcasters increasingly use Broadband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFL disclaimer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NFL disclaimer
Rebroadcasting, or any other pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game, without the NFL's express written consent, is strictly prohibited.
So, Payton Manning plays for the Indianapolis Colts. I just broke the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The entire entertainment industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arbitary rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is there to worry about?
In the case of the World Cup, where tickets have been sold out for months, the fact that people outside the stadiums are seeing the games not through the regular channels is moot. I mean, FIFA has already made their money on these events, even before the first ball was kicked. The only case where some channels might loose money is in ad revenue if they feel more people are watching it through amateur channels, but again, watching the World Cup on a wide-screen HD television is superior to watching it on some low resolution intermittent webcast.
The bottom line is that people will prefer to be there, but when there are limited ticket sales and they get sold out, people will look at other ways to see the game. IN many cases, the regular distribution channels are blacked out if you live in the city hosting the game. In these cases, you are left with no choice but to look for alternative to traditional game broadcasts.
I can see organized sports getting worried if in a few years the only people attending a game are a handful of people with cameraphones trained on the fields, but when you can still fill a stadium with World Cup fanatics, or a rink with NHL fanatics, or a diamond with MLB fanatics, I wouldn't worry.
And of course, they should worry when they keep jacking up the price of tickets. Eventually, people will compromise to watch the game on a cellphone or website when it becomes too prohibitive to watch the game live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll bet you would find some very talented amateurs that would draw listeners for the between pitch patter as much as listening to the game itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fantasy baseball
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Constitutional-Law Requirements
If we had an honest Supreme Court (as both Eldred and Kelo prove that we don't), then the text from the original Supreme Court decision that created the doctrine of Fair Use would make this one a no-brainer: according to that Nineteenth-Century US Supreme Court, Congress is forbidden to make any copyright or contract-enforceability law so stringent that it suppresses either Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press. More recent Supreme Court decisions make it clear that what I put on my web site is every much a protected freedom-of-the-press activity as what the New York Times does. Put these together and MLB (and the IOC and ...) should have no leg to stand on in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dutch Fans Correction
This weekend on NPR's show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" one of the trivia questions was about those Dutch fans. They said the 1,000 fans were wearing shorts (pants) with a local Dutch beer company logo on them. Bud is the official sponsor. They were initially denied access to the game, but then they removed their pants and were allowed entry. BBC.UK source article below.
Also, I know some Dutch people and I heard how much tickets (+ travel) cost. I'm guessing that a little thing like a piece of clothing is going to keep them from the game. To directly refute your points, they did not loose their ticket money and they did see the game.
"Fans lose trousers to gain entry"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5091154.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dutch Fans Correction
The way I heard it on yesterdays morning news there "were turned away from the game".
The fact that they came back wearing only their kecks and got in just raised the Dutch up 10 points on my scale. Good for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sports?
Sports team owners have the imagination and business savvy to match the RIAA or MPAA. They want to lock in any source of revenue. In the case of the NHL players, they managed to put a cap on salaries without any commesurate cap on their revenue opportunities.
I suppose they could make it a condition of entry that someone not disclose details of the game (until they leave), but how are you going to stpo someone in another country from publishing details off of TV? Some countries (unfortunately, not Canada) still have "freedom of speech" and the broadcaster only owns the presentation, not the facts. You can't plug the "analog hole" any better with sports than with TV or movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GO AWAY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Author is confused...
I think the label for this person should be "global corpratist" (aka NeoCon).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right approach
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Arbitary rules by I, for one
Actually we know everything there is to know about football. It's soccer that we don't understand. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just like any other sport. If you don't know the teams or the names of the players, you won't find it interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soccer vs Football
On American football - I'd like to see some of those guys go up against the Kiwis at RUGBY!! Now there's a mans sport. :)
"We're not all a-holes "
Nobody thinks that. It's mostly the self-haters over there with a persecution complex.
But your government...that's another story....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
madness
Let the internet set you free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]