Does the Law Hinder Blogging?
|
The National Collegiate Athletic Association ejected earlier this week a newspaper reporter from a college baseball game in Louisville, Ky., because the journalist was blogging about the game while it was in progress. Is this the latest example of the law not keeping up with technology? |
The ejection of Brian Bennett could have First Amendment rights implications; the game took place at the stadium of the University of Louisville, a state institution. According to a report in The New York Times on Thursday, the NCAA action to eject Bennett was ostensibly to protect the broadcast rights that were sold to ESPN, which was telecasting the game, and CBS Sportsline.com, the official Internet provider of detailed descriptions for the NCCA baseball tournament. But a blog is more than a description of the game. It provides insight and opinion.
This is the latest example how laws to protect intellectual property--that's what a sporting event is considered--haven't kept up with technology. Cable TV provider Cablevision wants to replace set-top digital video recorders installed in customers' homes with network DVRs it would managed. The functionality to the viewer would be the same. Yet, a federal court ruled in April that reallocating data management from client to server would be unauthorized public performance by the cable operator when the customer pushed the play button.
"We need no further evidence that the concept of intellectual property has lost its meaning in the digital age," writes lawyer Larry Downes in his May column for CIO Insight. "As technology advances and the law stays rooted firmly in the past, expect more billion dollar lawsuits. And guess who gets caught in the middle."
Comments (1)
I suppose, then, that if I were on my cell phone relaying my personal opinion of the game or whatever aspects of the game I chose to comment on, that my comments would be deemed a violation of the intellectual property rights of the broadcasters.
What a load of s**t! The IP is not the game, the IP is in the broadcast rights across whatever space has been defined in a contract between the team/sports association and the broadcaster. If cell phone commentaries and blogs are not permitted, then the sport event's host should not permit those devices in the stadium/park/arena. How long would that team survive in terms of public interest?
Any individual attending that game has every right to comment on it, privately or publicly in the form of a phone call or blog entry. Unless someone has set up cameras and is broadcasting the event in direct competition with the broadcaster, how is the broadcaster being damaged?
A true sports fan that tunes into the game on TV is not the same person that will "watch" the game on blogger's site. Maybe they'll look at the blogger's site and contribute to it, but there is no real loss to the broadcaster or the team in question. It would be difficult if not impossible to prove damages or loss of interest directly attributed to the blogger's commentary.
That's just my two cents.
Posted by Ania Levy | September 26, 2007 11:49 AM