The two minute rule

[barmyarmy]

There's a developing story involving live tweeting/updates from cricket matches. Link is here for article and full judgement but the implications would appear to be that anyone at the ground cannot tweet about what is happening for commercial gain until 2 minutes after it has happened.

Clearly this affects live tweets from TestMatchSpecial, Guardian, Times etc although not if the person tweeting was watching the match on television (as the BBC live text commentary team does).

 

[SaiSrini]

This is utter rubbish ruling.... 2 minutes is a pretty long time! From where do these guys come up with cases like this?

So someone watching the match in the ground has to count till 120 to post something about the match to his twitter or Facebook account? Rubbish....

 

[barmyarmy]

Not if they're non-profit.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

This doesnt even make any sense. What will they gain from the 2 minute delay?

BCCI

 

[SaiSrini]

Not if they're non-profit.

Oh ok...

But the lines will get murkier. What if someone posts it on their social media for non-profit, and some company like the ones you mentioned immediately feed off of it? You can argue that you got the info from someone else's social media page.

Nobody should be posing a curb towards information. Curb towards audio and video or images is OK, but towards information itself is going too far.

----------

This doesnt even make any sense. What will they gain from the 2 minute delay?

BCCI

Did you read the article? From the article, STAR India is the one who is arguing in favor of this. They took companies like CricBuzz (who provide ball-by-ball commentary) to court. BCCI is not involved in this case from what I read of the entire article.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Arent the BCCI in charge of broadcast and production of cricket in India? My bad if I misunderstood.

 

[SaiSrini]

Arent the BCCI in charge of broadcast and production of cricket in India? My bad if I misunderstood.

BCCI provides the broadcast and production rights to a third party company through contracts. I think that's why STAR India are the ones who are fighting the case out with Cricbuzz, etc.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Then how can Star India fight the case when the 'information' doesnt technically belong to them?

 

[SaiSrini]

Then how can Star India fight the case when the 'information' doesnt technically belong to them?

That''s what the judge also ruled

In a ruling that went in favor of defendents OnMobile Global, Idea Cellular and Piyush Agarwal (of Cricbuzz.com), the judge said that STAR India?s claim of copyright or property rights by virtue of its contract with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), is not valid

But the judge has also ruled that unless its "qua momentary news" (e.g. fall of wicket), it should not go on public domain within 2 minutes. This, I feel, is a rubbish ruling.

 

[icyman]

This is a simple case where Star wants to gain maximum out of their 'hard-earned rights'. As Star is the sole owner of the rights, all the data [telecast as well as internet updates] pass via a Star authorised centre [this maybe Star Cricket or Cricinfo].

Now the major argument here is that any other news channel / internet channel may not give live updates of the same. Legally, it is correct seeing as Star has shelled out quite a sum for these rights and would prefer the first mover advantage. They would also want maximum subscribers to tune in to their channels and watch the proceedings from there on.

As has been already mentioned in the post, one understands the curbs towards audio and video, but then again, the information too is a part of Star's basket. On purely legal grounds, one has to say that Star does have the control.

On a personal note, Star seems to be taking these steps as they dont really have much control over the cricket. They have simply bid for the pictures and information [BCCI still controls the production]. So, mayeb this is Star's best chance to get back their investment.