Setting the Right Blogger Terms

I've said for the past few weeks that the time has come for us to begin changing the terms away from the Kleenex-like references to Tweeting to a term that best expresses what is going on: real-time coverage. Similar to saying social networking website, or SNW, RTC is platform agnostic.

And today, for those who want to turn the Southeastern Conference's new policies toward non-pros attempting to do RTC in violation of the league's rights, a pair of reporters from the New York Times had a very balanced and accurate story today. Here's one of the soup bone quotes:

"The rules are aimed not at the casual fan who might post a few pictures of Saturday's football game on a personal web site, but rather at those who copy television broadcasts, create their own highlight reels and post them on sites charging for access or advertising."

In other words, pirates.

Let's not kid ourselves -- you know who they are and you know where they capture games and restream them on the internet.

This part of the "new" SEC credential policies got a lot of heat last week as it was pitched that the league was trying to stifle the First Amendment rights of the masses. No, the SEC was trying to protect it's own 14th Amendment rights as a corporate entity to protect its "life, liberty, or property."

As explained to the league members in July, many things within the new policies actually are not new. They have existed for years, even decades. Some were understood by all, but technology changed the rules. Some were never acknowledged, and now become hue and cry.

First, the understood. To walk into a stadium and broadcast a game took millions in capital and assets like distribution networks. Today, the right cell phone, enough batteries and a decent connection (good luck with that when 70K-plus try to call home about the last touchdown at Razorback Stadium) is all it takes.

The media -- and the fans -- understood that schools and leagues assigned the right to telecast games. Along with that went the exclusivity. No one credibly thought they could just walk in and claim a First Amendment right to broadcast games.

Continuing on the game broadcast path into the hidden -- for all these years, the network creating the broadcast had the right to tell others how and when that footage could be used. Look at the Olympics as a common example. Most rights holders did not bother to pursue the crude copies made of events, or simply had no way of knowing for sure that the 10 p.m. sports in the 147th market in the country was re-airing highlights without permission.

Enter digital. The ability to harvest video at a high quality and repost forces the rights holder to begin to consider pursuit. When people sell ads on such pages, it's no longer "fan" oriented, it's a business. And when that video is placed on line, it becomes discoverable.

Increasingly, there is real money in The Long Tail of old highlights backed by Google ads. Is anyone really surprised that the rights holders are now asking for their part of those proceeds?

Let me change terms for the sake of illustration. If the Rolling Stones were performing in Razorback Stadium, would anyone question the language on the back of the tickets that said it was a violation of the copyright of the performance to take audio or video recordings? Is it different when it's Arkansas vs. Ole Miss in football? Legally, no.

Emotionally, yes -- and let me say that the collective "we" get that. Fans are upset about this, and so are some media -- particularly new media.

At some point, big time college athletics is seen as a big business -- in fairness, it often is. And everyone likes to stick it to the man. So, yeah, what does it matter if I use a capture card to stream the game to my fellow fans who can't afford or can't get access to see the Razorback games live. The man is just tryin' to hose the fans for as much money as he can get.

No, the man is trying to pay for that stadium expansion. That practice facility. That team's expenses -- including those coach's salaries, especially when the fans want to pay "whatever it takes" to acquire a new coach or keep an old coach from becoming somebody else's trophy hire. Those sports that we all love to root but somehow don't find the time to either attend or pay for season tickets to support. And, the man is paying for the equipment, production truck rental, talent fees, satellite time, distribution networks, etc. to bring you the original broadcast.

So remember next Monday, when classes begin at the University of Arkansas that for the first time in 24 years, basic tuition is not increasing. In large part, that was thanks to a $1 million gift from athletics to the general operating fund of the university. On top of the existing roughly $3 million in direct or in-kind support to the school.

That $1 million didn't come from donors. It didn't come from ticket revenue. It didn't come from fundraising.

It came from rights holders.