NCAA BANS BLOGGERS?
Mind your blackberries–you may be booted from the nearest sports event of choice for representing the events of the day. Louisville Courier-Journal reporter Brian Bennett was ejected from the NCAA Baseball Tournament for blogging about Louisville’s eventual 20-2 victory over UConn, and his credentials might not ever be restored. The NCAA regards his blogging about the facts of the game as a de facto rebroadcast of copyrighted material, and said as much in a pregame memo.
Bennett went on anyway until the Dorkstapo found him:
I continued blogging until the bottom of the fifth inning, an NCAA representative came to my seat on press row and asked for my credential and asked me to leave. I complied.

Blogging patriot? Brian Bennett, now-rebel blogger.
Somewhere, Walter Benjamin is wandering the streets of the afterlife in a leisurely fashion and laughing to himself. Everyone in the stadium holding a Blackberry or cell phone who said as much as a peep about the game in a digital medium stands guilty of what Bennett did–relaying live information about a copyrighted event. As the Courier-Journal pointed out, the semantic triple lindy here is this: the NCAA seeks not to protect its broadcast rights, but to copyright the actual live facts of the event:
Once a player hits a home run, that’s a fact. It’s on TV, everybody sees it. They (the NCAA) can’t copyright that fact. The blog wasn’t a simulcast or a recreation of the game. It was an analysis.
Thus…our liveblogs of games could be verboten. Along with any updates we send to friends over the internet, any discussion, a picture we snap at the game that gets posted a website with fifteen readers and .38 cents of monthly revenue…all sacrosanct property of the NCAA, or possibly ESPN, or Fox, or whomever holds the broadcast rights to the event. It’s a stance only the finest minds of the 18th century could have invented.
We didn’t care at all about the College World Series now, but just to piss off the NCAA we’ll post a live update while watching the game just to chafe their harbls right good. This is the glorious age of amateurs, and not its centripetal phase, either. Until the NCAA starts taking away cell phones at the gate, Brian Bennett or any other blogger can perform the nastiest of protests: they can buy a seat and immediately start texting away.
Unless the next step is cell phone jammers at stadiums. Don’t put it past them.












30
#26 NewAZTiger: I wonder if Lousiville’s official dollar bid to the NCAA for the super-regional game detailed anything about exclusive rights, etc. and what theose rights cover. If this went very far, a judge/jury/arbitration would have to determine is it OK if a guy on a cell phone piped to a radio broadcast doing play-by-play was any different, if not, do they need permission? A guy reading a book over the air would, or at least so says Dick Estell every morning at 8:29.
Comment by Out of Conference — June 14, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
29
Oh, and Orson, I think you’re ok either way, because what you do is more like color commentary than play by play, and most of the time it would fall under the “satire” exemption anyway.
Comment by PeterPumpkinhead — June 14, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
28
I’m having trouble with this one, because on it’s face it seems insane, but the more I think about it, the more I see the NCAA’s side.
I didn’t see his bloging on the event, but one of the comments on his thread about being kicked out called it a “blow by blow” recap. There’s a big difference between calling a friend, or txting them, and giving them the score and sending out each play, as it happens, over the web.
And Don V is right, if that kind of blogging is ok, does that mean video-blogging is ok, too? Because once it is, ESPN isn’t paying a cent for the broadcast rights. Then you get to watch it in VGA quality.
Which brings up another interesting question… in 5 years when every cell phone has a 10MP, 45-frame/second, HD video camera in it, why do we need ESPN anymore?
Comment by PeterPumpkinhead — June 14, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
27
#18
What difference does it make if it’s a foreign website? As the Hartford fan-site said, it’s just a matter of ‘guy having a lot of money’. If a football club from Europe threatens to bring an American ISP in front of a judge in England, the ISP would still have to find the $$ to argue that the English court didn’t have the jurisdiction.
In other words, the ISP would probably still just kill the site. It’s not about what’s legal - it’s about how much power you have to threaten people because you have a lot of money.
The idea of being able to license schedules is just retarded on its face. The FA’s really screwed itself in the pooch with this rule, because, to the company’s point, they’ve created a revenue stream that supports their clubs, and now that the Internet exsists and this revenue stream is completey idiotic, they can’t just get rid of it, because then, where would they get another revenue stream from while reducing a known stream of $$?
That said, the fanzine’s response was great - ‘just because we recognize it as a stream of revenue to the club doesn’t mean we think it’s morally correct’. It’s analagous to the company arguing that it’s OK to kill puppies in front of children because it generates revenue. Just stupid.
Comment by Jason — June 14, 2007 @ 12:34 am
26
Uh, how about this was a public event funded by public monies and involved public institutions.
First Amendment, BITCHES!!!
Comment by NewAZTiger — June 13, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
25
Well put Rob. In fact, I have some of the Super Regional games Tivoe’d and ready to burn if anyone wants to see how good they are (since there’s no way that would be illegal)
Comment by jakldawg — June 13, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
24
to agree with #19, the WB reference is just wonderful–my dissertation is on him, sort of.
What degree of aura is lost by blogging about a live game, and then blog about the blog? I think discussion of Baudrilliard’s simulacra (RIP) must be next.
or the wing option. either one, really
Comment by jon — June 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
23
Damnit Don V,
Just when I thought everyone was agreeing on something. You got a point though. The next step would be to strap on an antenna and camera. I still hate Myles Brand though.
Comment by Cardiac Kids — June 13, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
22
Tim in Tampa:
Under that logic, what prevents me from bringing a camera and an antenna and broadcasting the game?
First Amendment is not a catch-all.
Comment by Don V — June 13, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
21
and I have no idea where the second half of my post went.
People who don’t follow college baseball have no idea how good the postseason action is. Not just the CWS, but the regionals and the super regionals as well. It’s a shame this is how the NCAA is planning to draw attention to it.
Comment by Rob — June 13, 2007 @ 3:19 pm