Article: NFL to Limit Web Media

[theogt]

Let me first quote you:

"The Dallas Cowboys and the NFL are separate entities. Property owned by the NFL is not necessarily property owned by the Dallas Cowboys. Property owned by the Dallas Cowboys is not necessarily property owned by the NFL."

And my response was that for the purposes of this particular edict, what media content the dallascowboys.com website puts out IS considered part of what Greg Aiello referred to as "our content"... as such, it is NOT covered by this latest edict from the league... indeed, that edict was issued to protect the individual teams' websites as much as it was to protect content we might find on NFL.com...

THAT'S why I said you were wrong... and as you just admitted, I was right about that...

Keyword: "not necessarily."

I'll explain this phrase to you. Within the context of this sentence, it means that in some cases ownership may be common and in other cases it may not be. Thus, ownership by one entity does not, as of necessity, indicate ownership by another entity.

You said I was wrong. I was right. Therefore, you were wrong. It's ok. It's not the first and probably won't be the last.

Perhaps it "wasn't apparent" to you, but I was pretty sure that was the case right from the start... but hey, now you seem to recognize the reality of the situation, and agree that the Cowboys' official website is still free to put up such video content, I see no reason to continue the argument...

From a purely objective standpoint it wasn't apparent from the original article. You may have assumed that that was the case, but that doesn't have any impact on the objective determination as to whether it was apparent or not.

 

[theogt]

I think a package sold at NFL.com that includes PCs, pre-season games streamed live, and archives of the previous week's games would be a big seller. I'd pay for it. What would you pay for a 40-disc DVD set of "The Dallas Cowboys of 2006?" It includes all 16 regular season games in their entirety, as well as playoff games, PCs, interviews and other special features.

I'd pay good money for that. I'm sure it would sell like hotcakes. This type of thing gets brought up a lot and I simply can't understand why it's not being done. I guess that's because it makes too much damned sense.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

I think a package sold at NFL.com that includes PCs, pre-season games streamed live, and archives of the previous week's games would be a big seller. I'd pay for it. What would you pay for a 40-disc DVD set of "The Dallas Cowboys of 2006?" It includes all 16 regular season games in their entirety, as well as playoff games, PCs, interviews and other special features.

I wish the NFL would put the old games (telecast) on dvd, they did this with the Stealers superbowl run last year, a package of all the playoff games the won and the SB. How cool would it be to buy the entire games of the Cowboys '92, '93, '95 SB runs on dvd. I'd pay $40 for that. The NBA does this with past games like the 90s Bulls, 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics and so on, why not the NFL. The game I always wanted to see again was the '93 NFC Championship Game when the Cowboys gave a beat down to the 49ers at Texas Stadium.

 

[silverbear]

Keyword: "not necessarily."

I'll explain this phrase to you. Within the context of this sentence, it means that in some cases ownership may be common and in other cases it may not be. Thus, ownership by one entity does not, as of necessity, indicate ownership by another entity.

You said I was wrong.

As you suggested to me in your last post to this thread, LEARN TO READ... my point was not that you were wrong about the league and the teams being separate entities, of course you're right about that... my point was that this distinction was NOT RELEVANT to this particular issue, that is the issue about the NFL cracking down on the usage of their video content...

And lo and behold, you have since determined for your own self that it wasn't relevant, that the NFL considers the video content on the assorted teams' websites to be "our content"...

From a purely objective standpoint it wasn't apparent from the original article. You may have assumed that that was the case, but that doesn't have any impact on the objective determination as to whether it was apparent or not.

LOL... you still can't admit that you misinterpreted that new rule, and that I interpreted it correctly right from the start... even after you've admitted that you were wrong in your interpretation...

I never suggested you were some kind of idiot for misinterpreting it, I can see how it would be open to misinterpretation... I merely told you that I thought you were interpreting it incorrectly... that's OK, I just find it amusing that you're so incapable of admitting to making a perfectly understandable mistake...

 

[theogt]

As you suggested to me in your last post to this thread, LEARN TO READ... my point was not that you were wrong about the league and the teams being separate entities, of course you're right about that... my point was that this distinction was NOT RELEVANT to this particular issue, that is the issue about the NFL cracking down on the usage of their video content...

And lo and behold, you have since determined for your own self that it wasn't relevant, that the NFL considers the video content on the assorted teams' websites to be "our content"...

You stated that I was wrong. If your point was that I was right, but that the distinction was irrelevant, then you misspoke. I think it's great that you're willing to acknowledge your error.

LOL... you still can't admit that you misinterpreted that new rule, and that I interpreted it correctly right from the start... even after you've admitted that you were wrong in your interpretation...

There was no rule to interpret. It was a news article. I interpreted the news article. Objectively, you could not interpret the news article to include or exclude team websites. I stated as much earlier in the thread. You could assume the one way or the other, but I didn't do that. So, saying that I was wrong is ... wrong.

I never suggested you were some kind of idiot for misinterpreting it, I can see how it would be open to misinterpretation... I merely told you that I thought you were interpreting it incorrectly... that's OK, I just find it amusing that you're so incapable of admitting to making a perfectly understandable mistake...

Your interpretation of the article was wrong. There was nothing in the article indicating one interpretation as opposed to another. Your assumption turned out to be correct. I never stated an assumption one way or the other. In fact, I stated there was insufficient information to make an assumption.

It's a very fine distinction, but if you read carefully, you'll see it.