The NFL Or SkyNET: There Can Be Only One

from the how-general-favre-won't-save-us-from-the-machines dept

We've all giggled at examples of technopanic in the past.  We laughed at ER doctors warning about walking and texting at the same time.  We snickered at the notion that Google's steetview was a threat to children.  Some of our palms may have met our faces at the notion that digital drugs could be a real life danger.

It turns out the joke is on us.  SkyNET is coming, my friends, and we're going to lose the war.  And you know why?  Because of football, hockey and boxing.

So says Rick Telander in a piece for the Chicago Sun Times, in which he declares that traumatic head injuries in those sports are stealing away our ability to fight the machines.  Seriously.  I couldn't make this stuff up.  To preface, it should be noted that Telander isn't some crackpot pseudo-journalist.  He is the senior sports columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, hired away from Sports Illustrated, where he was also a Senior Writer.  He attended Northwestern University on a football scholarship and then went to training camp with the Kansas City Chiefs.  Personally, I think he might have taken a few blows to the head himself.

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.  Then Telander goes completely off the reservation in answering his own question as to why this is more important now than ever:

"Consider it wasn’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 ‘‘Mild’’ was dropped altogether.  Mild. Brain injury. Ha.  I am reminded here of ‘‘minor’’ surgery, which, of course, is surgery on somebody else."

Hmm, well okay, the NFL is beginning to take brain injury more seriously.  But the problem has been known for some time.  It's thanks to boxers becoming pale drooling ghosts of their former selves that we have the term "punch drunk".  But whatever...

"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 ‘‘the brainpower equivalent to that of all human brains combined.’’  That’s smart. Unless we’re really dumb. And we’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’s, to be lowered?"

Uh, what?  Because technology is progressing, head injuries are now more important?  And we can't play football?  Or hockey?  Or box?  But why, Rick, why?

"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 ‘‘your average cell phone is about a millionth the size of, a millionth the price of and a thousand times more powerful than’’ 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’t be won by fists and forearms, helmets and sticks to our delicate heads."

And there you have it.  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.  Because prospective General Brett Favre has clearly shown how acclimated with the dangers of technology he is.  And no one is cautious around new technology media like budding Admiral Chad Ochocino.  Hell, I don't even want to think about a Colonel Patrick Kane leading the charge against a host of Terminators.

Once again, we all agree 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.

My suggestion?  Just make it mandatory that all machines on earth must do a ten year stint playing football or hockey.  Today's matchup, the Texas Toasters up against the Rochester Refrigerators!  Join us next week on ESPN when the Carolina Computers skate the ice against the San Diego Smartphones!  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...):

Filed Under: brain damage, singularity, skynet, sports

Is Publishing A Magazine & Website About Ohio State's Sports Teams Infringing?

from the free-speech-anyone? dept

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 offer sports paraphernalia 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.

Paul Alan Levy, who had also written that earlier story, points us to the news that Ohio State has successfully obtained a temporary restraining order 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 license the rights to anything having to do with the school's sports teams:

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.

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.

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:

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.

Filed Under: fans, ohio state, sports, trademark

University Of Texas Discovers It Doesn't Get To Control The Words 'Texas' & 'Sports' When Used Together

from the descriptive-domains dept

Michael Scott points us to the news that the University of Texas, who has a bit of a history about claiming ridiculously overbroad intellectual property rights, has been knocked down in its attempt to take over the domain texassports.org. 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:

"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.

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.

Filed Under: domain names, sports, texas, trademark
Companies: university of texas

Time For Sports Leagues To Embrace, Not Fight, Free Online Streams

from the don't-make-the-same-mistake... dept

We've noted recently the new focus on how online streaming is causing problems for sports leagues, who have gone running to politicians and the courts to demand they "do something." Over in The Guardian, Seth Freedman is pointing out that, as with many other parts of the entertainment industry, fighting against streaming is bound to fail, and a better solution is to get your content out there yourself in a way that you can actually monetize:

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.

He notes that at least some leagues have figured this out:

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.

But, of course, others have not:

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 boast of their success 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.

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.

Filed Under: business models, online, sports, streaming

Judge Says Commerce Outweighs Free Speech Issues When It Comes To Reporting On High School Football

from the say-what-now? dept

Last year, we wrote about how a high school sports association in Wisconsin had sued some newspapers 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 anything 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 send invoices to media organizations that were live-blogging games.

Unfortunately, however, it looks like the judge has ruled against the newspapers, saying that their right to free speech does not trump the league's attempt to make money:

"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."

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.

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...

Filed Under: free speech, live broadcasting, reporting, sports

Sports Journalist Blames Fat, Cheeto-Eating Bloggers For The Decline Of His Trade

from the get-off-my-lawn dept

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was recently caught on video in an apparent state of inebriation using some pretty colorful language (via Barking Carnival) 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 "familiar, caring term of endearment". Lots of old media news outlets ran with the story as well, prompting quite a reaction from longtime Dallas sportscaster Dale Hansen, who pilloried his own station for running the story:

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."

Clearly Hansen is working on his entry for this year's Buzz Bissinger Award For Achievement In Grouchy Sports Journalism. 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 horrible example of "gotcha journalism", saying that it's no wonder athletes don't want to talk to the media when they run stories like this.

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.

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.

Filed Under: bloggers, journalism, sports

Oh Look, People Are Already Looking At Expanding How Selectable Output Control Will Be Abused

from the no-surprise-there dept

For quite some time we've been covering how the MPAA has been pushing 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 do already). 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).

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 one tiny exemption and nothing else. Except, that's not true at all. Remember that recent Congressional hearing about live streaming and sporting events? Well, the folks at Public Knowledge noticed that one of the speakers there was already noting how the FCC exemption on SOC could be useful in stopping "piracy" of sports broadcasting -- 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?

Filed Under: drm, hollywood, live broadcasts, selectable output control, soc, sports, streaming, tv

Reuters, AP Refuse To Cover Cricket Matches Over Restrictive Press Accreditation Rules

from the but-football?-baseball? dept

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 NFL and the MLB 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 can restrict what kind of access they have. Of course, for basic coverage, when the events are televised, reporters could just as easily cover the event 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.

Apparently, they only do that on sports that don't get as much attention (in the US, at least).

Last year, we wrote how the press was planning to boycott various cricket matches over similar attempts to limit reporting. And, once again, major news organizations like Reuters are proudly announcing that they will not be covering certain cricket matches due to the press policies. The Associated Press has announced similar plans, 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?

Filed Under: australia, cricket, reporting, restrictions, sports

Washington Redskins Won't Let Washington Post Blogger Show Photos Of Upset Fans; WaPo Caves

from the journalistic-integrity dept

We've already discussed how ridiculous it is that any mainstream publication agrees to the NFL's policies 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 suing over 100 fans 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.

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 wear paper bags over their heads 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 confiscated most of the bags, 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.

But not for long.

The photos soon disappeared, and the photo editor for the Washington Post admitted that the Redskins had called them claiming that taking photos of disgruntled fans was a violation of policy:

"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."

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?

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 free advertising 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.

Meanwhile, The Big Lead (which gets a few of the details of the story mixed up) wonders what would happen if other 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...

Filed Under: journalism, photos, sports
Companies: washington redskins

WSJ Defies NFL's Restriction On Live Blogging

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

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...

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