1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Web streaming of games at stake in Wisconsin court case

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by novelist_wannabe, Jan 15, 2011.

  1. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Went back a couple of days and didn't see this. My apologies if it's a D_B.

    In a nutshell -- Wisconsin high school association says papers can't stream entire games on the web because it violates the association's exclusive broadcast contract. Papers saying free speech rights are being infringed.

  2. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    If the association's contract with its broadcast partner includes webcasting the paper is going to lose this case.
  3. KJIM

    KJIM Well-Known Member

    What is the paper's argument that it must stream the games?

    "The newspapers argued Friday before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of press should enable them to put such publicly funded events online as they see fit, free of charge."

    I guess I just don't understand the argument. No one's arguing that the paper can't report on it, but it seems there's a big difference in reporting on and making the entire game available to readers.

    Why does the paper need to essentially broadcast the game?
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    It doesn't matter if the contract doesn't include webcasting. A school or activities association control certain rights. It's not a first amendment issue. If it were, I should be able to get into any game for free.
  5. SixToe

    SixToe Active Member

    Isn't that why it's called "broadcast rights?"
  6. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    What they said.
  7. Jersey_Guy

    Jersey_Guy Active Member

    Stupid, stupid lawsuit.
  8. crimsonace

    crimsonace Active Member

    Dumb lawsuit. This isn't a First Amendment issue. Every state has broadcast rights contracts, et al, and that's been held up in court.

    In Indiana, we have to pay a rights fee to stream tournament games, with the caveat that we cannot stream games that are being streamed by the IHSAA's official partners, nor can we provide more than 3.5 minutes of archives on our websites. The one thing I've been pleased with is the IHSAA has been willing to work with us and change their broadcast rules to fit online broadcasters' needs (not quite to the way I would like them too, but they're at least moving in our direction).
  9. crusoes

    crusoes Active Member

    To bring more visitors to the websites no one wants to advertise on.
  10. lantaur

    lantaur Active Member

    I've said from the beginning that trying to web broadcast an entire game is ridiculous. I more have a problem with them limiting what can be said online in a live blog.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page