NFL Extends Its Action To Control Reporting

[psychoPat]

NFL forbids websites to carry more than 45-second feeds.

Sounds like an extension of last year's ban of in-stadium local tv coverage.

"Ya wanna know what happened? Get it from us!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902187.html?sub=AR

 

[Pujo]

Can the NFL say "antitrust"?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Can the NFL say "antitrust"?

They can say "we own the product." Probably something to do with that announcement they make regarding every broadcast.

 

[upstater1]

They can say "we own the product." Probably something to do with that announcement they make regarding every broadcast.

Well, there's the 10% fair use rule.

I'm not sre how you'd apply that to a game. Maybe 45 se3conds is 10% of the actual action in a football game. That would be 450 seconds total, or 8 minutes. heh.

 

[QuiGon]

NFL forbids websites to carry more than 45-second feeds.

Sounds like an extension of last year's ban of in-stadium local tv coverage.

I believe I read somewhere that they have eased that rule and things are going to be more like what they used to be.

"Ya wanna know what happened? Get it from us!"

It's not quite like that... what they want to do is protect the people that pay them money (lots of money) for rebroadcasting rights. If you pay X million dollars to have highlight rebroadcast rights, you'd be pissed if every website out there could one-up you for free.

That's why Brian Urlacher gets fined for drinking vitamin water at the Super Bowl press conference. Gatorade pays millions of dollars to be the exclusive provider of sports drinks, so if you want to keep those millions flowing in, you have to come down on the competitors trying to get the same thing for free.

 

[Pujo]

They can say "we own the product." Probably something to do with that announcement they make regarding every broadcast.

Disclaimers will only get you so far, then the Sherman Act takes over. Let's not forget that the NFL has a monopoly and collusion (in this case with the NFL's preferred news media) is an element of anti-trust law. It'll be interesting if anyone persues it.

 

[Pujo]

Well, there's the 10% fair use rule.

The 10% fair use rule is complete fiction (so are the so-called "30 second" or "24 hour" fair-use rules). Fair use is actually very non-specific and the amount of fair use allowed depends on the totality of the circumstances. The four factors that go into it are (this is a quote from the Copyright Act of 1976):
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

A judge would look at those factors to decide whether something was fair use or infringement. Unfortunately there is nothing clear-cut about it.