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.









1
PW says:
The NCAA makes a jackass decision?! Thought I’d never see the day.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:51 am
2
Mark says:
If you can’t watch/listen to a game over the interweb without having to pay somebody for it, it should be only fair that somebody, somewhere can help you out with a recent history update. However, if they banned the guy at football games yelling play-by-play and his opinion and unrealistic expectations of each such play into a cell phone, I don’t think I would protest too much.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
3
Pete says:
“Thus…our liveblogs of games could be verboten.”
That’s a whole lot of reaching. If you’re liveblogging from the game you could be kicked out, but they couldn’t actually stop you from doing the liveblog. Just walk to the nearest sports bar, pop your wifi, and blog away.
The NCAA exercised their complete right to remove people from the games. Their reason for choosing to do that is a different issue. It shouldn’t be surprising, though. The NCAA is bought and paid for by the media companies.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
4
Brian says:
Who cares? So some sports wonk lost his press pass blogging. It’s not like people were sitting there on the edge of their seats waiting for his masterful blog entries. I woulda been like “sweet less for me to do during the game, nice.”
June 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
5
Oops Pow Surprise says:
Pete’s right, it’s more of the “live” than the “blog” that they’re concerned about when it comes to press staff at the games. It’s still backwards, idiotic, and as dumb as dumb can be.
Can you imagine the upswing in interest NCAA baseball would get if they publicly stated “We encourage bloggers” and set up some wifi at Rosenblatt to better facilitate it? They’d be in a much better position than where they find themselves after such a curmudgeonly, “we don’t understand how the internet works”-like decision.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
6
Kanu says:
Is ridiculously insane as this is, I can beat it.
The English Premier charges ANYONE 266 pounds as a license fee just to print the list of fixtures (schedule) for 1 club, and 6000 pounds to print the schedule for all 20 teams. Newspaper, blog, whatever, and if they come across your site they will sue you and try to shut you down.
The equivalent would be the NCAA demanding $500 from EDSBS for simply typing in a post:
This week’s matchup:
Sat 10/13: Florida @ South Carolina
and demanding $10,000 for the right to list all of the games, and threatening to sue you and trying to shut your site down via your service provider if you don’t comply.
It’s really unfathomable.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1671699,00.html
And if you really don’t feel like working, here is the epic email exchange between the Watford bloggers and The Man:
http://www.bsad.org/0506/reports/fixtures_letter.html
June 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
7
Leopold Stotch says:
Orson-
Hate to be picky, but they beat Oklahoma St. 20-2, not UCONN.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
8
Oops Pow Surprise says:
Orson, can you please delete Kanu’s post immediately? I shudder to think of the consequences if Myles Brand ever stumbles upon it and starts getting ideas.
Thanks for the link to the email exchange, Kanu. There’s nothing much more to add than what the gentlemen laid out in that final e-mail. Trying to license upcoming schedules seems like utter fucking nonsense.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
9
Holly says:
Trying to license upcoming schedules seems like utter fucking nonsense.
And see, THAT’S the salient point here. Not that a blogger got pulled from the press box, but that a scenario where schedules are licensed is growing hilariously feasibler (it’s a word) with each incident.
June 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
10
panhandler says:
There’s a parallel here to DRM on your favorite music, but I’m not quite smart enough to draw it all out.
They should put the live game and fans in an impenetrable box and let the game play, then open the box to the world after it’s over. Schrodinger’s Cat FTW!
June 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
11
jakldawg says:
So you’ll be watching an NCAA event that otherwise you’d barely know was even on? I guess there’s no such thing as bad publicity
(and P.S.: go dogs.).
June 13th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
12
Coop says:
The key to all this is the following:
We all grew up hearing someone during the Braves game or the MLB Game of the Week state, around the 7th or after the game, to the same effect, the following: No reproduction, or was it rebroadcast, of the game without MLB’s consent.
An argument could/would easily be made that “blogging” is a modern day extension of news reporting, and God knows the NCAA is not taking away the newspaper reporters credentials.
The guy left because he was told to, but I don’t really see how the NCAA can stand behind a “rebroadcasting or reproducing” line in copyright law, unless the wording is much broader than I thought.
However, IF, the reporter’s blogging is construed by a court as a reproduction or rebroadcast, then so would everyone else’s texts of scores to friends, unless some sort of “for profit,” distinction is made, which would make sense if the language protects the NCAA in scenarios such as the above.
The Louisville guy’s boss was certainly profiting off of the blogging if the website was getting hits and there are ads to click on.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
13
DC Trojan says:
Kanu, that’s hilariously awful. I especially enjoyed the DataCo employee’s line about:
“I have received 2 telephone calls today from angry supporters of Watford, the first being entirely abusive and the other expressing displeasure.”
I’d very much have liked to have heard the first of those calls.
As for Panhandler’s point about DRM, I think this is the similarity: it’s a mechanism for punishing people who comply, which is completely useless for regulating those who don’t.
I don’t much follow live-blogging for US sport, but even UK newspapers run the equivalent of key mid-week games because there’s a world wide audience that can’t get to a t.v. I’m having a hard time with the idea that independent bloggers get hassled so that Kilmarnock and Blackpool don’ t have to fire the tea-lady. Something’s not right about that.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
14
Beatuofa says:
I’m probably one of the few people on this site that is actually into college baseball, and even was sorta affected by the decision (no streaming audio/video at work, so I’m following ASU through the baseball playoffs via…oh look, live blogs!).
It’s absolutely idiotic, as the NCAA should be thinking that any attention they get is good attention. Their broadcast partners do an absolutely craptastic job of covering the sport (no schedules, statistics, standings for college baseball on ESPN, no game recaps of anything up until the super regionals), maybe they should be getting up off their asses and doing their coddamned jobs instead of whining when other outlets do a better job at it and actually put some effort and/or resources into getting more information out to people who want it.
Had I known you were gonna join the protest, I would have tried to figure a way to send the pics and videos I was taking at the game last Saturday so you could post them here.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
15
sb says:
Holly, though I have never seen it until your contribution, I can understand how more feasible could be feasibler.
Although I find the idea of the NCAA banning blogs of live events offensive, I also fine the NCAA offensive in a large majority of their edicts… I, therefore, am becoming numb to their idiocy and expect anything they do or say is anathema. And my ‘give a damn’ is busted.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
16
oc phil says:
wow, I’d wondered why it sometimes seemed more difficult to find Premier Leauge schedules than it should be. Thanks for clearing that up for me Kanu.
I see from a historical perspective that it made sense as a way of getting money from the gambling interests who were making more money than the clubs at the time. But charging blogs like the Watford guys is one of the most dumbass thing’s I’ve ever heard.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
17
Don V says:
Sorry, I can;t get burned up about this one. Louisville even issued a statement to the press ahead of time that live blogging would not be permitted. This guy did it to shove it in the NCAA’s face. As much as we would all like to do that, I don’t think they acted inappropriately here.
I can’t see it ever getting to the point where schedules will be copyrighted. MLB tried to ban fantasy unless licensed through them but lost that battle on the notion that stats are public domain.
June 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
18
MM says:
What do the English Premier League officials do to foreign websites that post the schedules? Perhaps Orson could post the Premier league schedule as an additional act of protest.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
19
tim in tampa says:
Louisville even issued a statement to the press ahead of time that live blogging would not be permitted.
Tell someone ahead of time all you want, they don’t have the authority under any circumstances to abridge his freedom of the press. Louisville is a public institution and its ballpark is on public land, and thus the first amendment (enabled through the 14th) is in effect.
Also, thank you, Orson, for the Benjamin reference, which reminds me why this really is the fucking greatest blog on the planet.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
20
Rob says:
People who don’t follow college baseball have no idea how good the postseason action is. Not just the CWS, but the regionals and
June 13th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
21
Rob says:
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.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
22
Don V says:
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.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
23
Cardiac Kids says:
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.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
24
jon says:
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
June 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
25
jakldawg says:
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)
June 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
26
NewAZTiger says:
Uh, how about this was a public event funded by public monies and involved public institutions.
First Amendment, BITCHES!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
27
Jason says:
#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.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:34 am
28
PeterPumpkinhead says:
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?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
29
PeterPumpkinhead says:
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.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
30
Out of Conference says:
#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.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:15 pm