Louisville Courier-Journal v. NCAA

But will the NCAA go after ESPN, which pays them millions for broadcast rights? Obviously it hasn't so far.

 

Simmons does not live blog.

He usually does running diaries, which are published a day or two later.

 

Not always. ESPN.com posted NCAA Tournament running diaries as he wrote them. Don't know if Sunday night's action was posted live, but I'm sure it's been more than once.

 

I thuink this ia first ammendment issue. It is the same thing as who owns fantasy baseball stats etc.

The news that is happening is immediate. The NCAA is out of line, and like everything else in the U.S., think they own the game. If they are going to credential people to the game, they can't embargo a live news event. That is patently ridiculous.

This is all because of TV. Long ago fair use went out the window with television stations asking permission to run highlights of a news event. Yo ca't report live broadcast of a game by radio without a radio credential.

Now, the NCAA has moved into the written word and low and behold, they think they can control that too. To them, it's the same thing. Maybe the NCAA thinks they own your game report.

Maybe they own the television and radio broadcast waves, but there is no way they can own aperson's written word. there is a fundamental difference there.

I would be in for a fight. Letting the guy blog again is not important. I think

 

Live TV is broadcasting as it happens.

"Live" blogging is publishing something (technically) after it's happened.

The NCAA is so far out of bounds on this one.

This must be fought.

 

Bennett telling Forde "I think I might get ejected from the press box" (obviously before he did get tossed) brings up a point.

If you're doing 85 on the interstate and see a trooper, what do you do? Slow down. (Hold off on the "Taxi" references for a minute here, folks.) You don't keep going 85 and then look to fight it in court. If you think you're going to get ejected for something you were told two days ago not to do, wouldn't you stop doing it?

 

He was told by his editors to keep doing it. The paper obviously wanted to press the issue. Is that hard to understand? Aren't some rules worth breaking or testing?

 

More info, and from an unexpected URL:
ESPN.com: Ejected blogger speaks out

Kudos to the C-J for taking on this fight.

 

I'd have an easier time defending him if his blog contained something other than play by play

 

It's not about defending Brian Bennett. It doesn't matter if he was writing, "Mary had a little lamb," on his blog. It's about how newspapers are now presenting the news to readers. THIS is one of the ways we now present the news in a quicker fashion. It's a right which needs to be protected.

 

Amazing how many journalists are willing to be fleeced, though.

 

As a regular joe on this site, I found it very interesting to read the reader's comments on C-J, saying that the C-J should have no right to have a "blogger" there and that they should follow the NCAA rules. I will agree with the majority on this thread that he was there to "report" on the super-regionals on a live interactive blog. I look at that as "news" because it's informative.

Apparently, most readers don't understand the complexity in which most of you work with when it comes to what you can or can not do.

The NCAA is in the wrong on this: if they didn't want "blogging" at the games, then they should have put that in place before the regionals and be consistent at each locale. Secondly, those intellectual dumbasses wouldn't know the different phases of blogging if you gave them a lump of coal and told them to make a diamond from ass (with apologies to Ferris Bueller).