The Los Angeles Kings Hires A Reporter To Cover... Themselves

from the changing-models-of-journalism dept

As we've discussed here before, the biggest beneficiaries of sports reporting are probably the teams themselves. The more news & analysis that is published about a team, the more relevant they remain in the public eye -- no stories, and the teams risk falling into oblivion. So, it's interesting to see that the hockey team, Los Angeles Kings, has recently hired its own full time reporter to cover the team. Rich Hammond once covered the Kings for the Los Angeles Daily News, and has been given complete autonomy to post commentary and stories on the Kings' web site, kings.nhl.com. Sure, some are wary of how "impartial" this news will be if the reporter is on the Kings' payroll; but really, that contention really plays a bit moot nowadays. In an era where the audience is no longer beholden to a few media outlets, the supposed guise of impartiality is less important, replaced by the more useful quality of transparency and accountability. If Hammond reports with genuine, well thought-out coverage, then his audience will reward him with their trust and readership, regardless of where his paycheck comes from.

Filed Under: hockey, journalism, reporting, rich hammond, sports
Companies: los angeles kings, nhl

MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend

from the expressed-written-permission dept

A couple years ago, law professor Wendy Seltzer used the NFL as an example of sports leagues performing copyfraud, by claiming copyright control beyond what is allowed by law. Specifically, she was talking about the warning mentioned at some point during every game. For the NFL it was: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." In Seltzer's case, amazingly, the NFL sent a DMCA takedown of her posting that clip to YouTube -- giving her another "teachable moment" on copyright abuse.

And yet, sports leagues still continue the copyfraud. One of the fine folks over at Consumerist, Phil Villarreal, found the wording of Major League Baseball's warning quite questionable:

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

Unlike the NFL one, at least it didn't say "descriptions," but "account" is pretty close. So, Villarreal contacted MLB to request "express written consent" to provide an "account" of the game he had watched to a friend. To its credit, MLB responded and asked him to call someone in its business development department... who (perhaps reasonably) thought it was a joke and did not provide the written consent (and stopped responding to calls and emails).

Now, obviously, this is a bit of a joke (and a funny one), but it does highlight a rather serious problem. Copyright holders are pretty regularly claiming significantly more rights than they actually hold over content, and many people simply assume that they can do this. This leads to them to think that they don't have basic rights concerning not just "fair use" but stuff that is obviously not covered by copyright, such as an "account of this game." There really should be sanctions against such copyfraud.

Filed Under: baseball, copyfraud, copyright, permission, sports
Companies: mlb.com

Wisconsin Sports League Sends Newspapers Invoices For Live Blogging

from the just-try-to-charge dept

The NY Times checked in with its own version of the story about sports leagues restricting what fans can do in the stands to share their experience -- a story that we've already covered. However, Romenesko points us to a little tidbit down at the bottom of the NYT article, talking about other leagues that have tried to do something similar, mentioning that a sports league in Wisconsin went so far as to send invoices to newspapers it felt were "live blogging" its events. We had written about this dispute a few months ago, but I hadn't heard about the invoices before.

Every newspaper who received an invoice smartly ignored it, but the whole concept is ridiculous. The league is claiming that such a live blogging of what's happening at the sports event counts as a "broadcast" and thus should be required to pay the same fees that, say, local radio stations pay to broadcast the events. But the idea that you can stop people from, or charge people for, telling the world what's happening in a sporting venue is preposterous, not just from a legal or technological standpoint, but because these events depend on news coverage for advertising. Attempting to charge newspapers (or fans) for trying to keep others informed seems incredibly self-defeating.

Filed Under: free speech, licenses, live blogging, reporting, sports

Premier League's Fear Of The Internet A Case Study In What Not To Do

from the this-is-not-a-good-idea dept

While we have many problems with the way MLB.com conducts itself concerning its attempts to claim ownership of factual information, you can't deny that (separate from that), it's built up a nice business by really focusing on giving fans what they want in terms of online video. While the product has had technical problems, on the whole MLB.com continues to improve it, adding many unique and useful features, such that it's actually well worth purchasing. If you order the package to watch baseball games, it gives you all sorts of neat tools that can't be found elsewhere, and are great for tracking pretty much any game you want. There are still some problems -- including silly blackout zones (so it's tough to watch local teams) and blackout times when games are being shown on national TV, but on the whole MLB.com has done a pretty good job making the service worth buying.

Compare that to the Premier League in the UK. It's been nearly five years since the league first started freaking out about people watching unauthorized streams online. But rather than trying to serve those underserved customers, the Premier League has repeatedly lashed out at anyone who might possibly enable these games to be seen online. For example, it's sued YouTube apparently unaware that the company is protected by the safe harbors of the DMCA, and (if anyone) it should be going after those who actually upload the games. It's also suing Justin.tv in the same misguided fashion.

Amazingly, the league seems proud of the fact that it's going after these companies, rather than the appropriate targets. Jeff T alerts us to an article in the Guardian which is basically a case study in what not to do about these things. It hypes up how the Premier League purposely goes after the platform providers, as if that's a good thing. It also (bizarrely) claims that these anti-fan maneuvers are somehow a different and better response than the way the music industry responded to unauthorized file sharing. But that's not true. While it's not suing fans directly, it's still suing to stop fans from doing what they want to do. It's the same exact mistake.

Rather than recognizing the simple fact that the reason fans watch these streams online is because the Premier League has failed to offer it up themselves, the Premier League seems to relish the fact that it makes it more difficult for fans to see its product. The article talks about the "Saturday blackouts" on video designed to get more fans to go to matches, without recognizing that such blackouts have been shown to be pointless. There used to be rules for baseball in the US that games that weren't sold out wouldn't be shown on TV, but eventually people realized that people weren't watching on TV as a substitute for going to the game, but because they love their favorite team and want to watch them however possible. The more they can watch them on TV, the more interested they are in seeing live games.

Jeff, who sent this story in, makes the point quite clearly, by noting that he watches poor quality streams of Premier League matches in Canada because the League refuses to make most of their matches available to watch online. Rather than going after the companies that run platforms that enable such things, there's a really simple solution: offer high quality online webcasts yourself, and actually serve the fans. But that seems far beyond the Premier League's strategic thinking.

Filed Under: customers, sports, videos
Companies: premier league

Study Says Listening To Sports While Driving Is Dangerous, So Let's Ban That, Too

from the how-far-should-we-take-this dept

A new study from the UK says that people who listen to soccer matches on the radio while driving behave more erratically and dangerously than non-listeners. Indeed, says one of the researchers, "It is widely accepted that the distraction of talking on a hand-held mobile phone may lead to accidents but other activities may have a similar impact – such as listening to sport on the radio." Since the UK's already banned talking on the phone while driving, will it now push for a ban on listening to sports while driving? After all, if "other activities may have a similar impact", they're all worthy of their own bans, aren't they? Here's a novel idea: instead of creating bans on one single activity after another, just crack down on unsafe driving with existing laws, regardless of the cause.

Filed Under: driving distractions, sports

Newspaper Stands Up For Its Right To Report Sporting Events Without Restrictions

from the good-going dept

Last year, we were dismayed that newspapers seemed to be willing to agree to certain rules placed on how they could report on sporting events, as per the National Football League and Major League Baseball. In both cases, these involved significant restrictions on what and how they could report. At the time, we suggested that newspapers stop accepting the restrictions, even if it meant they were no longer granted a press pass -- but every newspaper we know of gave in. Covering baseball and football was just too important -- even though these newspapers could easily still report on games without the benefit of a press pass. You don't need a press pass to report on an event.

That said, while it's on a much smaller scale, it's nice to see the Redding Record Searchlight stop covering the local rodeo over this same issue (found via Romenesko). The rodeo decided that it would only give press passes to those who were "willing to work with us," which meant covering things in a way that was favorable to the rodeo. Good for the Redding Record Searchlight. Hopefully some other newspapers will get up enough courage to tell other (bigger) sports what they can do with their restrictions as well.

Filed Under: journalism, redding, reporting, restrictions, rodeo, sports

Sports Fans On Facebook May Violate NCAA Recruiting Rules?

from the oh-come-on dept

We've seen way too many situations where modern technology has shown how ridiculous certain rules and regulations are. The latest involves the NCAA apparently freaking out about students at certain colleges setting up Facebook groups pleading with high-profile high school sports students to attend their universities. According to the NCAA such "recruiting" violates its rules that forbid trying to influence student athletes over which college to attend. Because of this, the NCAA has pushed the universities to reign in students, to the point that NC State sent one of its students a cease-and-desist, threatening "further action" if he didn't take down a Facebook group trying to attract a student athlete. The folks who sent the cease-and-desist admit that it's ridiculous, but they had to do so due to the NCAA pressure. They're hoping that the NCAA will back down on this:

"I think nationally the NCAA needs to address further Facebook and how these groups play a part in recruiting. Is it realistic for us to be able to monitor them? What harm is a group like this causing? But as the legislation stands right now, this is the position we have to take."

Of course, this is the same NCAA that has tried to limit reporters from live-blogging sporting events (though, it's done little to enforce those rules), so it would come as no surprise if it chose to continue down this path.

Filed Under: ncaa, recruiting, social networks, sports

If A Sporting Event Is Newsworthy, Why Can't News Organizations Broadcast It?

from the ownership-society dept

In the past, sports leagues have tried to claim that transmitting information about their events violated their copyrights, but every time they've tried to enforce that, they've lost (often badly) in court. Despite the exaggerated claims you often hear towards the ends of sporting broadcasts about how "Any use of this broadcast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the league's consent, is prohibited," just because they say it, doesn't make it so -- especially when it comes to "descriptions" of the game.

Of course, this has always made me wonder about the "exclusive contracts" that various sports teams and leagues sign with certain broadcast companies for TV, radio and internet streams. Because, in this day and age, the lines between things start to get blurry really fast. If I'm at a game and using my mobile phone to tell a friend what's happening, am I broadcasting? What if I'm using three way calling so it's more than just one person listening? What if it's 10 people? Now, what if I'm filming the game with my cell phone? These days, there are tons of new services like Qik that allow you to broadcast video directly from your mobile phone. You know there's a lawsuit waiting to happen...

And while it isn't quite as extreme yet, there is a lawsuit happening now that may play into this. Romenesko points us to the news that the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association has sued newspaper giant Gannett for daring to cover its sporting events by including online video of the event. It claims that showing the event infringes "on its exclusive media ownership rights." Specifically, the group is claiming that high school sporting events are not news, and therefore it has the right to "control the transmission, Internet stream, photo, image, film, videotape, audiotape, writing, drawing or other depiction or description" of games.

Already, we know that it's simply not true that they have the right to control "description" of the game, but do they really have the right to any video tape of the event as well? It seems like quite a stretch to claim that a sporting event is not news. Now, if the event is on private property, they could simply ban the ability to film/record the event and throw violators off the property, but that's separate from the "media ownership rights."

The article above, written by the local Gannett-owned newspaper who filed the suit, is a bit misleading, in that most of the article claims it was sued simply for reporting on the game, which is absolutely ridiculous. The reporter doesn't even mention the video streaming until the 10th paragraph. Still, once you realize that a video you film yourself really is just another "depiction" of a news event... you do have to wonder if the sports organizations really can claim ownership over it. Perhaps this lawsuit will let us find out.

Filed Under: broadcast rights, copyright, media rights, news, sports
Companies: gannett

Sports Game Streamers Aren't Pirates, They're Underserved Customers

from the express-written-consent-is-for-schmucks dept

Like the leaders of many pro sports leagues around the world, the people who run English Premier League soccer are worried that the proliferation of sites that stream their games online will hamper their ability to get broadcasters to sign multibillion-dollar TV rights deals. Now the league says it's planning "an aggressive campaign to protect its intellectual property rights" to protect the TV deals. It's the usual stuff: more cease and desist letters, balanced with calls for governments to get more involved and for ISPs to become copyright cops. The article in The Guardian says that the league is "terrified of following the path of the music industry, which saw its business model collapse after it failed to combat digital piracy."

This is typical rhetoric, painting the recording business' problem to be inadequate technological and legal defenses against piracy. It's plainly obvious the issue for the music industry is the failure to adapt its business model to changing times -- and the same could be said for many sports leagues. While the leagues seek to crack down on streaming sites, their existence merely points out missed opportunities for the leagues and their teams to generate business. People don't choose to watch these streams instead of attending a game, or in lieu of watching a crystal-clear legit TV feed in a bar or with friends; they watch them because they're the only option. If piracy is as rampant a problem as groups like the Premier League suggests, it's not a problem -- it's a captive market upon which the league (and perhaps its broadcast partners) should capitalize.

Filed Under: piracy, sports
Companies: premier league

The Real All-Star Action's In The Voting

from the game-on dept

Pro sports' all-star games tend to be pretty tepid affairs, but more and more fans are taking the voting for the games seriously -- perhaps a little too seriously. Once upon a time, I remember that you had to actually go to a major-league baseball game to be able to vote for the all-star team, and ballot-stuffing meant grabbing as many paper ballots as you could find and punching out the baseball-shaped chads for your favorite players. But with leagues expanding voting online and to mobile phones, electronic ballot-stuffing is getting much easier, and becoming much more commonplace. The latest incident involves the Montreal Canadiens hockey team, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Fans decided a fitting way to celebrate would be to have an all-Canadiens starting lineup at the all-star game, so they put their automated-voting scripts to work.

This irked Pittsburgh Penguins fans, as it would keep the league's two leading scorers -- both Penguins, natch -- off the ice for the start of the game. So the Penguins encouraged their fans to vote via text message, which lets fans vote for all of a team's players at once, to great effect: the two players in question now rank 1 and 2 in voting. The NHL has already tossed out a large number of votes placed by the automated scripts, and beefed up its protections against them. While the leagues are obviously looking to expand the pool of all-star voters, particularly to international fans, they need to take great care to protect the integrity of the voting process. Even though most fans would probably agree that, in the grand scheme of things, the all-star games are good for little more than a laugh, their apathy is easily turned to outrage when they feel like their favorite team or player's been shortchanged. Also, anything that further undermines the games' value in fans' eyes could hamper their value to the leagues as money-spinners, a lesson worth learning for any company that does online voting. One possible solution: have Diebold run the all-star voting, since it seems like they might lose plenty of votes anyway.

Filed Under: all-stars, sports, voting