Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephcooney | Hacker News Reader

What's the reason for keeping the footage out of the public's hands? "Proprietary NFL coaching information" doesn't really explain it. Are the NFL making money off the teams by cutting them a special deal of All-22 footage of their own games, and opponents?

View on HN

It's basically the "data", in that when you have the all-22 view, you can extract the full player-locations-at-each-time data set reasonably well using computer-vision techniques. It seems reasonable to believe that that data is potentially valuable and/or sensitive, even if they aren't 100% sure what they want to do with it yet.

That sounds plausible, but what makes NFL so special? Football broadcasts (Champions League, World Cup, etc.) generally show a half to 3/4 field view of the action, only zooming in to show the action on replays. I certainly get the sense that they're trying to show as much of the action as possible.

That's because the NFL is a monopoly. In soccer, if the English leagues unreasonably restricted the views and footage broadcasters could capture, then it would affect their competition with the Spanish, Italian, and German leagues. The standards rise, and those standards are translated over to the international competitions. The leagues are also a lot less powerful, since the clubs are independent businesses and can (and did, in the case of the Premier League) choose to withdraw from existing leagues and start their own.

Soccer also uses a lot more of the field at a time, instead of clustering around the line of scrimmage.

The NFL likes to focus on the skill positions (QB, HB, WR, LB, and DB's) more than the entire game so their camera angles reflect that. Most fans do not understand what is going on with the linemen because for the most part it is the most complex action on the field. But when the average fan watches it all they see is 300lb men running into each other.

The NFL's lawyers stated the NFL competes in the "entertainment marketplace" (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?renderfor...) and operates as a single entity, not as 32 teams. The NFL makes a large portion of its revenue from television, and ratings are higher on close, competitive games.

What prevents owners from keeping the games close or trading wins/losses now to help a storyline in exchange for markers for future wins when they're on a championship track?

While it is illegal to fix sporting events for gambling purposes, evidently you can fix sports for entertainment purposes. The All 22 footage would make this more difficult because this type of stuff would be easier for fans to detect.

Any evidence to back this up from previous games? Surely they can't hide what's going on from fans in the stadium, who have cameras.

Are you seriously implying that the NFL is "fixed?" You have actual proof of this besides, "I know it is?"

It is professional entertainment. It is "fixed" in the sense everyone profits from an entertaining "sports" narrative.

Problem is, a lot of memorable and important moments probably couldn't be faked if they tried, like the catch against the helmet when the Patriots lost to the Giants.

It would most certainly be a scandal, likely illegal or jeopardizing the NFL's Congressionally granted monopoly if it were fixed. One precedent is the quiz show scandals of the 50's.

I don't think the NFL has a Congressionally granted monopoly.

They passed a law exempting the NFL from certain antitrust laws during the AFL-NFL merger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL-NFL_merger

The only way the NFL could hope to come anywhere near fixing a game is the either a) change the rules to benefit certain team makesup (as they have done to make passing/scoring easier) or b) get the refs to call fouls more against a certain team.

b) is watched frequently and doesn't seem to be happening statistically a) has occurred but it's not secret and all teams know the rules. It's not really 'fixing' as much as it was the NFL wanting more scoring overall.

There is no way for the NFL to do mass game fixing because that's just too many people that have to agree to doing it. Keep in mind this means they would need current players, ex-players and the ex disgruntled players too all agree to not talk. I've talked to players from all 3 groups at the gym and fixing a game is simply something that doesn't happen. Some of these guys are very negative on the NFL and would have loved to say it's fake if it was true.

All you need is the coach calling the plays and one high-paid player to have a bad day, like the quarterback. "Any given Sunday," right?

What's the reason for keeping the footage out of the public's hands?

Couldn't it be as simple as wanting to preserve some value for the fans who actually buy tickets?

In any case, if this footage is so valuable, why can't somebody with a good camera phone buy a seat in the nosebleed section, set up a tripod, and charge for the stream?

I'm fairly certain the NFL has licensing rights and prohibits any video reproduction of any kind so you could try to get away with it for awhile, but it wouldn't last long!

What is the legal basis that gives them this ability?

I believe the stadiums as private properties can set rules on what is allowed to be brought in. Most ticket have a disclaimer on the back saying you can't film in the stadium but IANAL. It could just be FUD.

They can limit what you bring in - certainly.

But if you anyway do actually record I don't know of any law supporting their position that you are not allowed to transmit that recording.

I believe a recording of a performance would be considered a derivative work under copyright law. As such what you're advocating is large-scale commercial copyright infringement against the NFL and the networks who pay it for exclusive rights.

In summary: unambiguously unlawful + powerful enemies = won't end well

To be a performance there has to be a creative element, not just a skill. Like wrestling for example, which is pre-scripted.

Otherwise someone jumping on a trampoline in his backyard could claim that he is performing and forbid the neighbor from recording him on a copyright basis (rather than a privacy basis - they are completely different laws).

>> why can't somebody with a good camera phone buy a seat in the nosebleed section, set up a tripod, and charge for the stream?

They can but they'd get sued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com