WSJ Defies NFL's Restriction On Live Blogging

from the whatcha-gonna-do-about-it? dept

Fri, Oct 2nd 2009 3:48pm — Mike Masnick

Remember how the NFL told the press that they weren't allowed to live blog or live Tweet 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. Ben alerts us to the news that a WSJ reporter, safely on his couch at home, live blogged a recent football game between the NY Jets and the Tennessee Titans. Your move, NFL...

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

Filed Under: free speech, licenses, live blogging, reporting, sports
Companies: nfl, wsj

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Misanthropist (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 4:09pm

more importantly
more importantly.. this guy might be staff of WSJ, but hes using all free resources to accomplish his "job".

How;s the NFL gonna stop the 5000 people who copy him when the NFL tries to slap WSJ for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Hubbard (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 4:17pm

Ooh! Google Wave
They have rules against live-blogging, but not against using Google Wave. You want to really see them flip out...real time, character-by-character updates of a game, people discussing and interacting... It'll be the end of sports as we know it! People will share and collaborate as thought they were all in a stadium together, but without having to BE in a stadium! The horror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HolaJohnny (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re: Ooh! Google Wave
  I haven't checked out Wave yet or even have any inkling about it but I like how you think. Get more draconian? Well we just collaborate to drive you insane... But then again I take a sick pleasure in messing with people and getting them riled up...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lens42 (profile), 3 Oct 2009 @ 12:10am
  
  Re: Ooh! Google Wave
  The "end of sports as we know it!"??? You're kidding, right? It doesn't matter what happens in this case. The more people blogging, tweeting, texting, whatevering about the NFL means more money in their pocket. The NFL is being stupid here for sure. The only way they lose is if people stop paying attention to football. In spite of their claims, they NEVER lose if people "steal" their content. No one bends over to get fleeced like a football fan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2009 @ 4:19pm

Well its obvious what has to happen now:
1. The NFL gets a list of all reporters and their address for every newspaper in the country
2. They hire security guards
3. Send those guards to the houses of every reporter and prevent them from watching TV as well
4. ?????
5. Profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 2 Oct 2009 @ 4:20pm

Oh, this is gonna be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarah Black, 2 Oct 2009 @ 4:20pm

Is the "Big Game" anything like the "Super Bowl"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re:
  It;s what you call the Super Bowl when you don't want to pay the NFL for the right to say superbowl.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2009 @ 5:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Isn't there some other thing they're calling it now because the NFL was cracking down on calling it "The Big Game"? I think so but I'm not sure.
    
    They don't really get that advertising oneself is something one typically pays for, rather than get paid for. Not sure why. Maybe it's just a corporate thing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 5:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "It;s what you call the Super Bowl when you don't want to pay the NFL for the right to say superbowl."
    
    Frak 'em.
    
    I had a hinky lunch the other day, and I was super bowling every couple hours for the next day. Man, I don't think I'd have super bowled like that if I had Swine Flu. Must have been some kind of food poisoning to make me super bowl like that. I was nearly dehydrated from all that super bowling.
    
    Good thing I had some Gatorade(tm) at hand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HolaJohnny (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I disagree Tuck I have a feeling your bowl was far from super after that...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 4:34pm

Was it?
The article as it currently stands looks like a post-game breakdown. Are we sure it was live-blogged at the time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 6:03pm

No Win
It looks to me like the NFL is in a no-win situation on this. They either have to back down or try to shut this guy down. If they try to shut him down it may work because of the cost of defending himself, but he would be replaced by a hundred others who do it just to make a point.
And after all, what is the damage to the NFL? It builds interest in the game. It build community. They might argue that it will hurt the broadcast revenue, but this type of presentation is so different from a broadcast that I doubt it is actually competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verve (profile), 2 Oct 2009 @ 6:40pm

ESPN's web columnists have been doing this for years... Good luck to the NFL to shut THEM down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 2 Oct 2009 @ 10:57pm

Need A Three-Strikes Law For TV
Watching TV is a privilege, not a right. Just as we need a three-strikes law to cut off the Internet access of those who misuse it, so we need a corresponding law for broadcast media, for those who abuse their media-consumption privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sarah Black (profile), 3 Oct 2009 @ 3:19am
  
  Re: Need A Three-Strikes Law For TV
  If watching TV is as you say, a "privilege", what license or test (or payment) is required to attain this "privilege"?
  
  and sarcasm should be noted as such
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 3 Oct 2009 @ 3:38am

I knew it
This is what comes from letting people watch football games on their TV without proper licensing.

Only personnel authorized by the NFL, who have signed a legal contract with the NFL, and took the NFL Oath of Silence may attend in person or watch games at home.

That way we will finally be rid of all the communist parasites who are ruining American Football as we know it, the people who are willfully destroying one of the pillars of American Economy, sending millions into unemployment and, eventually, prostitution and drug dealing and other crimes.
All because of live blogging, a vile practice that, with the proper federal legislation and enforcement in place, could have been avoided.

I implore you, fellow TechDirtians, to do the right thing: do not watch American Football or talk about it unless you have been vetted and licensed by the proper NFL authorities.

Please join me in a prayer for the continued well-being of the NFL, America and Apple Pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn Friesen, 3 Oct 2009 @ 1:50pm

NFL and WSJ
This is too incredible. I can't wait for the NFL to get over themselves and be a part of the new paradigm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Schmitt, 4 Oct 2009 @ 5:13pm

NFL and Tweets
The NFL is obtaining valuable publicity by causing this debate.

However, the NFL has to protect against unmonitored tweeting out of the locker rooms. Bookies may be able to obtain last minute updates on injuries and playing status. Part of the NFL's product is an event on which wagers may be placed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lux (profile), 4 Oct 2009 @ 9:30pm

...?
"However, the NFL has to protect against unmonitored tweeting out of the locker rooms. Bookies may be able to obtain last minute updates on injuries and playing status. Part of the NFL's product is an event on which wagers may be placed."

Somehow I don't see the NFL basing decisions on what would benefit Vegas bookies. Call me crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimmy Ribbitt (profile), 5 Oct 2009 @ 3:15am

To be commended
This reporter is to be commended for standing up for free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2009 @ 8:25am

man, the other day when the game was on in another room and I heard cheering, I asked what happened, and someone in the other room told me about the play. Now I realize, he should have paid the NFL licensing fees to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]