PDA

View Full Version : DO NOT ASK FOR OR SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT STREAMING VIDEO OF GAMES



Hicks
01-08-2010, 07:59 PM
I've been repeating myself way too often on this in game threads, yet some people still don't seem to know where I stand on this or seem to forget, so I'm therefore taking an extra step to make sure it is well known and that my wishes are perfectly clear.

In regards to streaming videos of NBA games that are not coming directly from the NBA itself, we do not allow them to be linked to or requested. That includes describing websites where you can find them even if you don't directly link to them. Nothing, even in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" kind of way.

By this point there should be no more excuses for people to plead ignorant on this. If I catch anyone doing this, they're getting a week suspension from the boards.

For those who didn't know, now you know. If you're wondering why, it's because it's something that I probably should have enforced from day 1, but didn't strictly do so, and I'm now (as of a month or two ago) trying to do the right thing to be "cool" with the League.

They never gave me grief about it, but they easily could have, and now they won't have a reason to at all.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

able
01-09-2010, 09:01 AM
BUMP

bellisimo
01-09-2010, 10:20 AM
why not sticky this for a bit?

QuickRelease
01-09-2010, 12:31 PM
Can you give an example? Would *removed* be an illegal stream? I've referenced them before, but didn't know it's an illegal stream if so.

Hicks
01-09-2010, 12:58 PM
I'm considering anything that isn't directly from the league to be off limits.

vapacersfan
01-09-2010, 01:03 PM
I completely understand this (If you do not just look at how some forums have been shut down in the past because of legal ramifications from different leagues or organizations)

With that said would it be possible to start a thread (maybe even sticky it) giving the most current ways to watch games if you are not able to access a TV at game time. For example NBA Audio League Pass, or slingboxes, or even the Broadband internet thing (though I must admit I honestly have no idea how that works)

Hicks
01-09-2010, 01:49 PM
Maybe that's something I could ask BostonConnection to add at the bottom (or somewhere else) of each game thread?

Pacersfan46
01-10-2010, 12:22 PM
If I recall, didn't some genius suggest you make a stickied post about this the first time you said it? ;)

Who could that incredibly handsome, and overly intelligent fellow be?

Hmmmmm ....

That's right ..... it was me! Wooo! I saw this problem coming a mile a way.

-- Steve --

Kaufman
01-12-2010, 07:24 PM
Not to be disagreeable, I usually agree with the policies on this site - but I'm not sure that mentioning what websites are streaming NBA games is really illegal. If the NBA wanted to go after a website, it would seem that they would go after the owner of the streaming sites. If the NBA doesn't have the ability or jurisdiction to go after those owners, than I don't think it would be able to penalize anyone sharing information on where to find such streams.

I don't know, I am not a lawyer, but I am interested to know how my thinking is wrong here.

Hicks
01-12-2010, 07:42 PM
It may not be illegal, but it's still assisting people who want to use the streams. We will be, as much as possible, in the NBA's good graces on this issue/topic. That is the goal.

I will edit the wording of the initial post.

bellisimo
01-13-2010, 06:36 AM
league pass broadband for US:
http://www.nba.com/leaguepass/online.html

league pass broadband for International:
http://ilp.nba.com/

audio league pass:
http://www.nba.com/broadband/alp_schedule.html

Bball
01-13-2010, 09:21 AM
Not to be disagreeable, I usually agree with the policies on this site - but I'm not sure that mentioning what websites are streaming NBA games is really illegal. If the NBA wanted to go after a website, it would seem that they would go after the owner of the streaming sites. If the NBA doesn't have the ability or jurisdiction to go after those owners, than I don't think it would be able to penalize anyone sharing information on where to find such streams.

I don't know, I am not a lawyer, but I am interested to know how my thinking is wrong here.

I'm reasonably sure it's not illegal to mention the streaming sites or their possible existence. I'm sure the issue is the NBA doesn't like it so they'd find other things to crack down on a site for that right now they (pretend) not to see....

Kaufman
01-13-2010, 06:34 PM
fair enough, bball, but i don't see a whole lot on this website that isn't beneficial to the indiana pacers or the league in general. the site doesn't use nba logos and clearly states that it isn't endorsed by the league.

the only thing i've never understood is how posters can publish espn insider like documents on this website - material that have obvious "pay to participate" inferences.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-13-2010, 06:52 PM
ESPN Insider pulls all of the info from sites like HoopsHype anyways. They just put the ESPN sticker on it and make it seem like you're paying for some special information no one else has.

Kaufman
01-13-2010, 07:17 PM
ESPN Insider pulls all of the info from sites like HoopsHype anyways. They just put the ESPN sticker on it and make it seem like you're paying for some special information no one else has.

to some extent, that is beside the point - but they want to make money from centralizing information that a subscriber might want to use to avoid doing broader internet searches. and inevitably, some of those articles are written by ESPN employees and thereby are property of espn.

agreed?

Los Angeles
01-13-2010, 07:24 PM
Hicks never claimed he wanted to be in ESPN's good graces.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-13-2010, 07:24 PM
agreed.

i guess what i was saying was, if we lost the ability to post espn insider articles i wouldn't be heartbroken. the rumors you can find elsewhere if you look hard enough. the articles written by espn employees you would lose, but it's nothing that you can't do without.

Kaufman
01-13-2010, 07:32 PM
Hicks never claimed he wanted to be in ESPN's good graces.

And nor did I claim he did - I was just stating that for a board that very appropriately tries avoid legal conflicts (ie posting references for articles) I find it interesting that publishing "pay for material" isn't more heavily scrutinized. If it were my website, which it isn't, its just one of those things that I would regulate.

I don't have a problem with regulating and restricting reference to streaming material - its owned and operated by hicks in conjunction with the owner of the server, so nobody's opinions really matter. I was just questioning out of interest in the reasoning for the policy itself.

Kaufman
01-13-2010, 07:35 PM
Hicks never claimed he wanted to be in ESPN's good graces.

and also, as an aside, i would hope hicks would want to be in ESPN's good graces. they have deeper pockets and that gives them a LONG arm - if they wanted to ruffle some feathers here, they could do it in a heartbeat. I don't know if you remember what they did to video game publisher EASN back in the early 1990's.

able
01-14-2010, 07:40 AM
We ARE in ESPN good graces, we received several times permission to post articles and keep them for posterity, ESPN and writers

They are happy with how we do things, so we leave it at that.

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2010, 06:38 PM
We ARE in ESPN good graces, we received several times permission to post articles and keep them for posterity, ESPN and writers

They are happy with how we do things, so we leave it at that.

Hold up

Disney didnt want a percentage for doing so ?:eek::eek:

wow maybe they have alittle compassion

able
01-16-2010, 06:07 AM
Hold up

Disney didnt want a percentage for doing so ?:eek::eek:

wow maybe they have alittle compassion


No, when done in the "right" way, it leads to being a good thing for both, by now and then having a part of insider on these pages, their target group becomes aware and some decide to buy insider, as long as we dont run it every time and completely (and why on earth would we) it is free advertising for ESPN, so it remains a give and take situation.

Since listening to the games is free anyway I don't find it that hard to tell people to just pay $ 90 for a year of watching the games, no one forces you to take the HD solution at 160 for the year, though i think it is great value.

In most countries outside the USA that kind of money on the current $ conversion rate is very affordable.

Will Galen
01-16-2010, 07:56 AM
No, when done in the "right" way, it leads to being a good thing for both, by now and then having a part of insider on these pages, their target group becomes aware and some decide to buy insider, as long as we dont run it every time and completely (and why on earth would we) it is free advertising for ESPN, so it remains a give and take situation.


That's exactly how I became a member. I just ignored insider when I went to ESPN, but some of the insider articles got posted here and I liked reading them so I paid to have it myself.

Anthem
01-18-2010, 04:02 PM
Come on, that was funny.

silverbax
08-12-2010, 09:35 AM
It's pretty cut and dry how this works. You just can't post protected content in mass amount.

Hicks
09-27-2010, 12:08 AM
I'm unsticking this because I've now mentioned this in the Guidelines of PD.