No More Highlight Reels: How SOPA Would Hurt Sports Fans

The people who want to ruin the way you watch and share sports are the people whose salaries are paid out of sports fans' pockets.


Did you see the mind-blowing Hail Mary catch at the end of the first half of the Giants-Packers game this weekend? Check it out. How about that improbable Vernon Davis touchdown that knocked the Saints out of the playoffs? Here’s the highlight. Or the game-winning 80-foot buzzer-beater in the Div. III college basketball game? Watch it here.

I saw Davis’ catch with a couple of friends in real time, the three of us yelling tremendously creative phrases like “Oh my god!” and “No way!” at the TV. But a play that ridiculous deserves to be watched over and over again, so I’ve replayed the clip online perhaps half a dozen times. I missed the other craziest plays of the weekend, but Deadspin and YouTube had me covered. I had never heard of Lindsey Wilson College before its basketball team won on a shot that traveled nearly the entire length of the floor, but by the end of the weekend I was sharing the clip on Twitter. I was hardly alone: At one point, it was the fourth-highest-trending video on YouTube.

Of all the ways technology has changed the sports world, the ability to post and watch game footage online is arguably the biggest. It wasn’t that long ago that you actually had to see a game to see its greatest play. Even after ESPN became “The Worldwide Leader,” missing SportsCenter meant missing the play that everyone would be talking about the next day. Now? You can find at least half a dozen versions of any important play—ranging from shaky FlipCam images of someone’s TV to footage swiped from an illegal streaming website—on YouTube within half an hour. That shift has made sports fandom way more fun, and SOPA’s sponsors want to take it all away.

The Stop Online Piracy Act would restrict free speech, eliminate jobs, and stifle American innovation. Google cofounder Sergey Brin says it would “put [the United States] on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world.” And while my ability to watch Blake Griffin highlight reels is by no means the most important thing at risk in Congress’ debate over SOPA and its Senate counterpart PIPA, the bill also would undermine the entire framework of modern sports.

It might not shock you to learn that people posting highlights online usually haven’t gone through the process of acquiring the copyrights for the footage. Under SOPA, not only would the individuals be criminally liable for uploading copyrighted material, the websites would be, too. YouTube could be forced to shut down unless it found a way of policing the 48 hours of video uploaded every minute. And because at least two of the three videos I link to above are likely copyright violations, this magazine and I would be criminals, too.

The backlash against SOPA has been heartening, particularly the boycotts of some of the hundreds of companies that have made the tone-deaf decision to support the bill. But few people seem to realize that among those tone-deaf companies are all four major American sports leagues, plus ESPN [PDF]. That means the people who want to ruin the way you watch and share sports are the people whose salaries you and I pay through ticket and merchandise revenue and watching games on TV.

At first blush, the sports world’s desire to crack down on piracy makes sense: After all, if I stream a game illegally instead of paying for cable or an online package like NFL Game Pass ($249.99 for the season), I'm taking money away from the league and its executives. But SOPA wouldn’t stop professional pirates from streaming games. They have plenty of ways to circumvent U.S. restrictions, and the bill wouldn’t cut off their funding.

No, SOPA would allow large-scale offshore piracy sites that stream entire games to continue existing, instead targeting your ability to send a 30-second clip of that amazing touchdown catch to your friends. And that, in turn, will hurt sports leagues and the networks that show their games. Having constant access to the most interesting sports highlights—whether from last night or 50-plus years ago—has made me a more engaged fan. Trading those clips with my friends over email or Twitter makes me more excited to see the next week’s games. I wouldn’t stop watching sports if SOPA passed, but I’d almost certainly be giving the leagues less revenue.

That league commissioners and ESPN executives are shortsighted enough to support such absurdly flawed legislation shouldn’t surprise anyone. Let’s just hope their misunderstanding of the dynamics of modern-day sports fandom isn’t enough to drive fans away.

via Honor Africans / Twitter

The problem with American Sign Language (ASL) is that over 500,000 people in the U.S. use it, but the country has over 330 million people.

So for those with hearing loss, the chances of coming into contact with someone who uses the language are rare. Especially outside of the deaf community.

Keep Reading Show less

Looking back, the year 1995 seems like such an innocent time. America was in the midst of its longest streak of peace and prosperity. September 11, 2001 was six years away, and the internet didn't seem like much more than a passing fad.

Twenty-four years ago, 18 million U.S. homes had modem-equipped computers, 7 million more than the year before. Most logged in through America Online where they got their email or communicated with random strangers in chat rooms.

According to a Pew Research study that year, only 32% of those who go online say they would miss it "a lot" if no longer available.

Imagine what those poll numbers would look like if the question was asked today.

RELATED: Bill and Melinda Gates had a surprising answer when asked about a 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans

"Few see online activities as essential to them, and no single online feature, with the exception of E-Mail, is used with any regularity," the Pew article said. "Consumers have yet to begin purchasing goods and services online, and there is little indication that online news features are changing traditional news consumption patterns."

"Late Night" host David Letterman had Microsoft founder and, at that time the richest man in the world, on his show for an interview in '95 to discuss the "the big new thing."

During the interview Letterman chided Gates about the usefulness of the new technology, comparing it to radio and tape recorders.

Gates seems excited by the internet because it will soon allow people to listen to a baseball game on their computer. To which Letterman smugly replies, "Does radio ring a bell?" to laughter from the crowd.

But Gates presses Letterman saying that the new technology allows you to listen to the game "whenever you want," to which Letterman responds, "Do tape recorders ring a bell?"

Gates then tells Letterman he can keep up with the latest in his favorite hobbies such as cigar smoking or race cars through the internet. Letterman shuts him down saying that he reads about his interests in magazines.

RELATED: Bill Gates has five books he thinks you should read this summer.

The discussion ends with the two laughing over meeting like-minded people in "troubled loner chat room on the internet."

The clip brings to mind a 1994 segment on "The Today Show" where host Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric have a similar discussion.

"What is internet anyway?" an exasperated Gumball asks. "What do you write to it like mail?"

"It's a computer billboard but it's nationwide and it's several universities all joined together and it's getting bigger and bigger all the time," a producer explains from off-stage.

Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

The future generations will have to live on this Earth for years to come, and, not surprisingly, they're very concerned about the fate of our planet. We've seen a rise in youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who are raising awareness for climate change. A recent survey indicates that those efforts are working, as more and more Americans (especially young Americans) feel concerned about climate change.

A new CBS News poll found that 70% of Americans between 18 and 29 feel climate change is a crisis or a serious problem, while 58% of Americans over the age of 65 share those beliefs. Additionally, younger generations are more likely to feel like it's their personal responsibility to address climate change, as well as think that transitioning to 100% renewable energy is viable. Overall, 25% of Americans feel that climate change is a "crisis," and 35% feel it is a "serious problem." 10% of Americans said they think climate change is a minor problem, and 16% of Americans feel it is not a problem that worries them.

The poll found that concern for the environment isn't a partisan issue – or at least when it comes to younger generations. Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 45 feel that addressing climate change is their duty, sentiments shared by only 38% of Republicans over the age of 45.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet