Carla Richards Journals may be pulled

[DHCJr]

Craig, this is definitely for you, since you are also carrying Carla's Journals.

This is from CNN web site, http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

The International Olympic Committee is barring competitors, as well as coaches, support personnel and other officials, from writing firsthand accounts for news and other Web sites.

See the whole story on CNN.

[Rolls]

Intresting article. Here's my favorite part:

The IOC's rationale for the restrictions is ... that the interests of broadcast rightsholders and accredited media come first.

That's a classic line. Umm... I thought the Olympics was about the athletes...

Rolls.

[bryce_d]

personally, i think this is total bull****.

it seems to me that our society is becoming overly litigous with intellectual property.

being asked not to discuss an ongoing legal matter may be one thing, but asking someone not to create a journal about their olympic experience seems to overstep some boundaries. i've got 0 legal experience here, so i'm going to base this all on "it just feels wrong".

my $0.02.

[JEC]

This is quite similar to the problem about fair use restrictions on DVD and music imposed by the ECONOMIC interests, leaving consumers and to some extent artist at the mercy of the distribution houses.

[darius]

From the article:

"Participants in the games may respond to written questions from reporters..."

So, Carla Mae, could you give us a detailed account of what happened on Day 6?

darius

[kalivor]

Strange ... and I can't see it as enforcable. Free speech, and all that, you know. Unless the athletes have all been forced to sign a confidentiality agreement about the Olympics?

(Edit):

And how would they try to enforce it, anyways? Strip somebody's medal for posting a picture of themselves online? I'd like to see the fuss that would raise.

[DHCJr]

Free speech is not universal and they might or at least they will threaten.

I sent an e-mail to Carla and she took time out of her limited free time to respond. She had not been told, which gives rise to the last sentence of the article. Did the IOC tell the USOC and did the USOC tell the USFA, etc.

[Inquartata]

Yes, but the concept of free speech varies from country to country, and the Olympics are not in the US. They may be able to enforce it there...although she can certainly take notes and then write it up when she gets back home to First Amendment-land.

[kalivor]

Yes, but the concept of free speech varies from country to country, and the Olympics are not in the US. They may be able to enforce it there...although she can certainly take notes and then write it up when she gets back home to First Amendment-land.

Yes, there may be some way to bully the athletes while they're still in Greece ... but the article also included a ban on publishing any personal photos or videos from the Olympics afterwards (without permission of the IOC -- or, I'm guessing, NBC). I'm very curious as to how they expect that to work.

And while there may not be the same freedoms in various places, I'm not sure how they'd manage to punish an athlete or coach who decided to write something anyways. Do you really expect an American athlete (or Canadian, or Russian, or Chinese) to be fined, punished, stripped of a medal or thrown in a Greek prison over this? What would they do?

A ban isn't effective unless there's an enforcable penalty if it's broken. And I don't see the IOC as having that kind of power. Even if it's a smaller country found in violation, I would expect the athletes to rally behind that person, and eventually force the hand of their Olympic committees and the IOC.

It really seems pretty rediculous ...

[JEC]

There is free (first ammendment) speech and "commercial" speech. When your speech earns you money, it because commercial and is regulated by copyright and trade laws.

[achilleus]

This is nothing new nor shocking.

In fact, the IOC and the broadcasting companies have been trying to limit what we here have been doing. Watching the stream from another country. I've pointed the stream out to non-fencing friends who wanted to watch fencing and they've been watching on their computers all day. One even told me, 'It's great, I have em on in the background, catch who wins, and the exciting moments, and I don't need to watch NBC at night. Plus I actually see the sports instead of 30 min. of personal story 5 min of sport.'

A quick internet search turned up articles that IOC, as of 2000, had banned streaming video till 2010...

I'm not sure if what we are seeing is illegal, or the ruling was overturned...

[Inquartata]

We are seeing the market in action. Attempts at enforcing unnatural monopolies or attempts to stifle competition are doomed to failure...

[kalivor]

There is free (first ammendment) speech and "commercial" speech. When your speech earns you money, it because commercial and is regulated by copyright and trade laws.

Uh-huh ... and the act of writing in blogs or posting pictures to blogs is commercial, how? If a member of this board were in Athens right now (as part of a national team), this would ban them from making a post about their day.

By targeting blogs specifically, what they're doing is restricting free speech, not "commercial speech" (though certainly some commercial speech is being restricted along with it). Few blogs (if any) actually make money.

[achilleus]

We are seeing the market in action. Attempts at enforcing unnatural monopolies or attempts to stifle competition are doomed to failure...

Yeah, it's funny, rather than NBC realizing people want to watch the sports. As many as possible, and not the ones they see year round, they try to restrict the broadcast even further.

They seem to be totally clueless that people are confused by their schedule, disappointed about how limited the sports are, and are actually interested in watching sports not biographies of the athletes.

[MyraTrue]

I'm sad to say, I think its because commercially, without blogs and other such materials being posted and made available, we'd have to pay to learn the same information in a much edited version. Why look to the media when you can get it first hand from a fencer?

I agree- this ban makes me angry. Personal property and free speech... well, you've already said what I think. But I don't know how an athlete could be in the wrong for saying, "here's a 3 minute clip of the stadium from my cam corder opening night. Here's some pictures of the team when we went out for Greek... fancy that? And here's some pictures I took of a team mate of mine when they were on strip. I like this one."

[kalivor]

This is nothing new nor shocking.

In fact, the IOC and the broadcasting companies have been trying to limit what we here have been doing. Watching the stream from another country. I've pointed the stream out to non-fencing friends who wanted to watch fencing and they've been watching on their computers all day. One even told me, 'It's great, I have em on in the background, catch who wins, and the exciting moments, and I don't need to watch NBC at night. Plus I actually see the sports instead of 30 min. of personal story 5 min of sport.'

A quick internet search turned up articles that IOC, as of 2000, had banned streaming video till 2010...

I'm not sure if what we are seeing is illegal, or the ruling was overturned...

Both, I think. They've decided to allow the streaming video, but as part of any contract RAI might have to show material online, they'd be required to block IP addresses which originate outside of the market they have the rights to broadcast the Olympics to.

And the real reason why the RAI feed is such a hit? Because they aren't showing the Olympics in real time or in full. Lousy coverage ... most Canadian fencing fans probably watched the WE bronze medal bout (in full, and in real time) on CBC today.

Although the Italian coverage was certainly better, a sometimes-choppy feed on a computer screen is still second to being able to watch it on cable TV, and record it with a good ol' VCR.

However, this sort of thing is very different than preventing the participants from writing about their experience, or showing their personal photographs and videos in a public forum -- the broadcasting is about one company (in this case RAI) infringing on a market in which another company (NBC) has exclusive broadcast rights ... clearly something the IOC ought to have it's hand in. The restrictions on the athletes is more of a ban on the athletes personal photographs, videos, websites and writings -- the IOC's right to interfere is questionable at best.

[FoilyGeezer]

Hey, they can talk to whoever they want.......as long as that person has a press badge. Mmmmmmm.....how can that not seem coercive?

(The media now claims the words and thoughts of the athletes as their own intellectual property???!!!)

[achilleus]

Although the Italian coverage was certainly better, a sometimes-choppy feed on a computer screen is still second to being able to watch it on cable TV, and record it with a good ol' VCR.

Not to some of the people here in the states. Especially with the olympics here on 5 different stations and no one knowing which is on when and which channel.

However, this sort of thing is very different than preventing the participants from writing about their experience, or showing their personal photographs and videos in a public forum -- the broadcasting is about one company (in this case RAI) infringing on a market in which another company (NBC) has exclusive broadcast rights ... clearly something the IOC ought to have it's hand in. The restrictions on the athletes is more of a ban on the athletes personal photographs, videos, websites and writings -- the IOC's right to interfere is questionable at best.

Oh, I know there's a difference in the specifics, but the goal of the broadcasters is the same. They want to be the single source of all information that we receive. That's not right.

[BenTheEMOP]

I think Kavilor had it right when he questioned the enforceability of the ban.

The only thing it seems the IOC has the power to do in this case is revoke credentials in the venues it controls.

As far as posting pictures and videos after the games, I think the issue woul dbe left to each country's courts. In the United States, the precedents hhave generally come down on the side of not preventing speech. So the athletes would be allowed to post or distribute their pictures and the broadcaster would need to prove harm after the fact. Though after the games, it would be hard to argue successfully that an athlete's personal snapshots caused harm.

I can understand why the IOC is trying to do this, since the broadcast rights to the games is probably a major source of funding for holding the Olympics, though I may be wrong. But, it seems they are being overly heavy-handed. Amy Acuff's blog on Playboy.com or Jillian Schwartz's blog on the Duke website don't mean that I didn't commandeer a television in a local bar cheer insanely during the fencing braodcasts.

All that said, if anyone needs a journalist, I am happy to provide the interview part of the blog. I even have a degree that says I am qualified.

[Fencing Mom]

For those of you who are under the age of ...say, 22....and believe any digital message that you can hear or see is rightfully yours because this is a free country, take a deep breath.

I worked in the news department of a local TV station quite a few years ago. Here's what I know was true when I worked there - everything, absolutely everything shot of an NFL football game was owned by NFL films. How that was worked out with the networks when they televised a game - I don't know. I know local stations who sent their own videographer to shoot games did not own the electronic or photographic images - NFL films did. Local stations had an agreement with NFL films that allowed them to shoot. If you notice, hilight films are always made by NFL films, not networks or independent production companies. I believe the same thing was true with baseball - Major League Productions owned those images. I can only speak for then, not now. So, is there a precedent for controlling images of the Olympics in the US? - yes.