You guys like sports?

EA Sports has been making sport video games since I was playing them on a Sega Genesis. Some of their most popular games are based on college sports; NCAA Baseball, NCAA basketball, and NCAA Football (I'm still waiting for Hockey). The NCAA football game is very popular and a big money maker, 100s of millions in sales. To use the colleges, universities, uniforms and team names EA shares undisclosed royalties with the NCAA. Because the athletes in the games are amateur athletes they are not allowed to make anything off the games. In the games everything about the athletes is used except their name; height, weight, likeness, hometown, and jersey number.

Well now certain former college athletes are bringing suit against EA sports for using their likeness and images in their video games. If the suit is successful EA could owe thousands of current and former players millions of dollars. The trial court ruled in favor of the athletes and EA has appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court.

This lawsuit, which was started by one disgruntled player, has turned into a big First Amendment issue. Hollywood movie studios and lots of other entities have gotten involved. EA's argument is that they use the player images to make works of art in the same way as author's, filmmakers and songwriters who also put real people in their novels, movies and songs. In 2010 a judge ruled against EA when they attempted to be granted free-speech protection and dismiss this lawsuit. The judge said that EA had failed to "transform" the players enough to qualify for protection. Even though the names were removed it wasn't enough because it was still obvious who each player was.

The big concern for EA, and especially Hollywood studios and even the Comic Book Defense Fund, who are also involved, is that a ruling against EA will severely stifle artistic expression. One example the lawyers for EA used was the movie Forest Gump would not be allowed to be made because a lot of celebrity images and likenesses were used. I am guessing Southpark would be in a little trouble too.

The lawyers for the athletes argue that EA's games are based on reality and that realism is the opposite of creative expression. This is also a case that a lot of people feel will make it to the Supreme Court.

I found this case really interesting, and not just cause I am a video game nerd. I work for the Compliance Department and UND and we deal with a lot of issues of what our student-athletes can and cannot do and what will violate NCAA rules. I have been playing the college football game in question for a number of years and it is obvious who the athletes are even if the names are removed. But I can not decide where I fall on this issue because I know how important it is for the college athletic system that we do not start paying college athletes, but on the other hand shouldn't they be rewarded if another company is making this much money off of their likeness?  Also, is it artistic expression? Does EA have a protected 1st Amendment right to use these likeness and if they are ruled against how will it affect other industries like the movie business. I am very interested to see how this case works out but I ultimately think EA will win but may have to do a better job "transforming" player images in the future.

Tim Tebow (the chosen one) in the flesh

 Tim Tebow in the game (if you couldn't tell)

Whatever you do, do not press the red button

With the recent events overseas and our discussion in class last week I have been thinking a lot about the possilbity of an Internet "Kill Switch" here in the United States. As with all good arguments there are two sides that both make sense to me. As we discussed in class that shutting down the internet in a time of crisis can easily be seen as a violation of our first admentment rights. The more I thought of it the more I went back and forth. Can't the government already take over the radio and television broadcasts when there is an emergency? Is the internet really that different. I know that the internet is more of an outlet tool and an open forum for expression for people. It is much more of a personal voice then TV or the radio, but is also much more then that, a marketplace, a newstation, a workplace to name a few.

Jesse Walstad has a good post this week about the nuts and bolts of what the kill switch is, that can be found here: Freelectrospeech: 1st Amendment in the Digital Age

My big question with this debate comes with the line between our safety and our rights and freedoms (Heather Harris is still looking for the line, should be found by class on Thursday). In my opinion we elect people to make the tough choices for us and to make the decisions that keep us best protected. I personally do not have a problem with there being a "big red button" that cuts off the internet if it means protecting our country from an internet based attack. If the choice lies between having the internet cut off for a matter of days or leaving us open to an online attack that could set us back months or years I think I would feel safer knowing that someone could protect us from that.

I understand that this could open up a "slippery slope" argument and that if internet access can be controlled then whats next. I am interested to hear more about why people would be strongly opposed to the "kill switch" idea. On a side note I know that it would much more difficult to have a "kill switch" in the US then it was in Egypt because of the complexity of the system but the idea I think will be more of reality in the future.

One nation under ?

I am going to deviate away from music for this week. I read this article about a case against a judge in Ohio http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23850. The case is about  judge who displayed a poster of the Ten Commandments in his court room. The poster was titled "Philosophies of Law in Conflict" and it showed the Ten Commandments in a column listed as "moral absolutes" and secular humanist principles in another column listed as "moral relatives."

The Judge argued that he sees a conflict of legal philosophies in the United States between moral absolutism and moral relativism and that he believes legal philosophy must be based on fixed moral standards. At the bottom of the poster frame, readers are invited to obtain a pamphlet further explaining the Judge's philosophy.

The panel of judges ultimately decided that "replacing the word religion with the word philosophy does not mask the religious nature" and ordered the removal of the poster. 

Reading this article brought to mind a number of things. I completely understand the ruling here and the separation of Church and State is an important part of our country's makeup. But it made me wonder if there was a way to have both. The judge in this situation was trying to pass of his religious beliefs as philosophy, and maybe would of been more believable if he hadn't hung a different Ten Commandments poster in 2000, but is there an argument that would allow the display of religious items? Cases and situations seem much more prevalent in the past decade or two with people speaking out against open religious displays especially when it is tied to the government at all. It feels to me, and I am not a very religious person, that if we keep moving in this direction where any form of religious displays or acts are not allowed that we will eventually not make anyone happy by trying to make everyone happy.

This has always been a really difficult argument as I see both sides. People want to display their beliefs and other people don't want to feel like someone else's beliefs are being shoved in their face. But my personal feeling is the more the merrier. I have always seen the freedom of religion in this country as that, freedom to worship in the way you see fit. If you don't want to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance don't say it, or fill in any name you want for God but don't get rid of it all together. If you don't want to say "Merry Christmas" then don't, say Happy Holidays or Hanukkah or whatever but lets not hide from the fact that people have different beliefs. I think it should be celebrated. 

I agree with the outcome in the case about the Ohio Judge as I don't think it has a place in the courtroom. This case just got me to thinking that more we chip away at what is allowed and what is politically correct and socially acceptable are we taking away from people's first amendment right of freedom of religion?