Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Saunders]

A lot of talk about TV deals going on and us going PPV. The key word in the article was "Unauthorized". Games on the tele are authorized through tv deals and the only way the players might have a case if they are on commercials that they didn't give the go ahead. Other then that, the players wouldn't be able to sue the tv station but would have to sue the conference for signing the deal in the 1st place. Which I am sure there are legal papers somewhere stating if that school is in the conference, then the students give up that right to be on tv while playing a game.

You realize that EA has a deal with the NCAA as well, right?

[knapplc]

I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.

[Saunders]

I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.

 

Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence. Contribute to the subject at hand.

[knapplc]

I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.

 

Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence.

 

You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much.

[okaive]

The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

 

 

 

And why would we. We pay for our cable and have to sit thru the idiotic commercials to watch the game (in that way we are paying for it). I aslo don't think that they are profiteering thru the athletes themselves but the school.

 

In 2009, did you watch the Huskers play only because of Suh? Did you do something else and not watch the tv when our offense was playing? I highly doubt it. Maybe in the Major leagues (how many ppl NOW watch the Lions becasue of Suh that didn't before), but not in college. We as fans usually don't watch a team because of just one player, so to say that TV networks are making their money off the players is obsurbed to me. The fans watch because we want to see our TEAM play.

[Saunders]

I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.

 

Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence.

 

You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? You're taking this on an extreme tangent. I simply asked what somebody considered as art. I then stated what I thought could be considered as art, and you came in and said "you're wrong" without providing any shred of evidence to the contrary. When in a debate, it's generally a good idea to present evidence when telling the other side that they are incorrect, unless of course you are a politician.

[knapplc]

I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.

 

Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence.

 

You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? You're taking this on an extreme tangent. I simply asked what somebody considered as art. I then stated what I thought could be considered as art, and you came in and said "you're wrong" without providing any shred of evidence to the contrary. When in a debate, it's generally a good idea to present evidence when telling the other side that they are incorrect, unless of course you are a politician.

 

I simply stated you were using an incorrect definition of the term, which you were. Any time you want this tangent to end, you can find the correct definition and speak from an educated position. Or you can keep perpetuating this tangent.

[Saunders]

The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

 

 

 

And why would we. We pay for our cable and have to sit thru the idiotic commercials to watch the game (in that way we are paying for it). I aslo don't think that they are profiteering thru the athletes themselves but the school.

 

In 2009, did you watch the Huskers play only because of Suh? Did you do something else and not watch the tv when our offense was playing? I highly doubt it. Maybe in the Major leagues (how many ppl NOW watch the Lions becasue of Suh that didn't before), but not in college. We as fans usually don't watch a team because of just one player, so to say that TV networks are making their money off the players is obsurbed to me. The fans watch because we want to see our TEAM play.

 

And without athletes, you have no team.

 

FYI, people buy a video game because they want to play as their team (not all, alot of people create their own schools).

 

It applies to both, or neither. So, which is it?

[okaive]

The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

 

 

 

And why would we. We pay for our cable and have to sit thru the idiotic commercials to watch the game (in that way we are paying for it). I aslo don't think that they are profiteering thru the athletes themselves but the school.

 

In 2009, did you watch the Huskers play only because of Suh? Did you do something else and not watch the tv when our offense was playing? I highly doubt it. Maybe in the Major leagues (how many ppl NOW watch the Lions becasue of Suh that didn't before), but not in college. We as fans usually don't watch a team because of just one player, so to say that TV networks are making their money off the players is obsurbed to me. The fans watch because we want to see our TEAM play.

 

And without athletes, you have no team.

 

FYI, people buy a video game because they want to play as their team (not all, alot of people create their own schools).

 

It applies to both, or neither. So, which is it?

 

And I totally agree with your statement. I could have sworn that Fantasy Football and other teams, the players have to agree before their names can be put on the list to play. But with games, how many covers have a certain players image? For that I believe the person would have a case to sue. But if it is a digital with no name on the back, then this is a waste of tax payers money.

[Saunders]

I'm going by the second oldest and most common dictionary source in human history.

Webster's defines terms for use in the spoken common tongue. It has nothing to do with legal definitions. It doesn't matter how old it is, it's not the correct source for the definition you're using.

 

Then give me the "legal" definition. Do something besides saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence.

 

You're the person defining "art," not me. I'm simply pointing out that your methods are wrong. If you want to be correct in your stance, go do the leg work and find the correct definition. Failing that, stop acting as if you know what the definition is. You don't, and you've admitted as much.

 

What in the hell are you talking about? You're taking this on an extreme tangent. I simply asked what somebody considered as art. I then stated what I thought could be considered as art, and you came in and said "you're wrong" without providing any shred of evidence to the contrary. When in a debate, it's generally a good idea to present evidence when telling the other side that they are incorrect, unless of course you are a politician.

 

I simply stated you were using an incorrect definition of the term, which you were. Any time you want this tangent to end, you can find the correct definition and speak from an educated position. Or you can keep perpetuating this tangent.

I'm using the incorrect definition based on what evidence? Your opinion? Gotcha.

 

I followed up the wikipedia definition with an official webster's one.The same source that is excepted at every university and college in the country. Then you give me the "it's a definition from the spoken common tongue." Uh, written language is an extension of the spoken tongue. It's how we as a species record data. I've provided a correct and accepted definition of what a word can mean.

 

A Fact. Something that is infallible.

 

Until you want to contribute with facts, I suggest you stop trying to derail the thread. We're talking about the keller case, not how many definitions exist for a word.

[Saunders]

The fact of the matter is, the insane gobs of cash that TV makes is far worse than some video game that uses generic models. Is EA dancing around a gray area, yes they are. But the TV networks are far worse in their blatant profiteering from student athletes. Any person who denies this is burying their head in the sand, and doesn't want their precious TV broadcasts of games affected.

 

 

 

And why would we. We pay for our cable and have to sit thru the idiotic commercials to watch the game (in that way we are paying for it). I aslo don't think that they are profiteering thru the athletes themselves but the school.

 

In 2009, did you watch the Huskers play only because of Suh? Did you do something else and not watch the tv when our offense was playing? I highly doubt it. Maybe in the Major leagues (how many ppl NOW watch the Lions becasue of Suh that didn't before), but not in college. We as fans usually don't watch a team because of just one player, so to say that TV networks are making their money off the players is obsurbed to me. The fans watch because we want to see our TEAM play.

 

And without athletes, you have no team.

 

FYI, people buy a video game because they want to play as their team (not all, alot of people create their own schools).

 

It applies to both, or neither. So, which is it?

 

And I totally agree with your statement. I could have sworn that Fantasy Football and other teams, the players have to agree before their names can be put on the list to play. But with games, how many covers have a certain players image? For that I believe the person would have a case to sue. But if it is a digital with no name on the back, then this is a waste of tax payers money.

 

For Fantasy sports, they are negotiated with player unions. This allows the use of names, photos, and league statistics.

 

As for players on the cover, only players that have completed their amateur status and have graduated (or left early) are eligible. The players are the cover also sign contracts with EA and get paid handsomely for their an actual photo of them to be used.

 

The current rosters for each team feature generic players, with (mostly) correct numbers and homestates. Those are the most accurate attributes that can be applied to real persons.

[knapplc]

I'm using the incorrect definition based on what evidence? Your opinion? Gotcha.

 

I followed up the wikipedia definition with an official webster's one.The same source that is excepted at every university and college in the country. Then you give me the "it's a definition from the spoken common tongue." Uh, written language is an extension of the spoken tongue. It's how we as a species record data. I've provided a correct and accepted definition of what a word can mean.

 

A Fact. Something that is infallible.

 

Until you want to contribute with facts, I suggest you stop trying to derail the thread.

 

My apologies. I mistakenly thought you were interested in a sober discussion, not just random angst. Have fun storming the castle.

[Saunders]

I'm using the incorrect definition based on what evidence? Your opinion? Gotcha.

 

I followed up the wikipedia definition with an official webster's one.The same source that is excepted at every university and college in the country. Then you give me the "it's a definition from the spoken common tongue." Uh, written language is an extension of the spoken tongue. It's how we as a species record data. I've provided a correct and accepted definition of what a word can mean.

 

A Fact. Something that is infallible.

 

Until you want to contribute with facts, I suggest you stop trying to derail the thread.

 

My apologies. I mistakenly thought you were interested in a sober discussion, not just random angst. Have fun storming the castle.

Ah, playing the "high road" card I see? You were obviously not interested in a sober discussion either, hence your dancing around the subject, and "you're wrong" comments, without proving why I am wrong. Common courtesy is that if you are going to correct someone, you show them why they are wrong, not just tell them they are. If you don't do this, then it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

[knapplc]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

 

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

[Saunders]

Look.... I understand that there is probably a difference in the "legal" definition of the word art. That's fine. But I don't know what that is. You are acting like you do, and yet you won't put out that information. I'm putting out my opinion based on the facts that I know, and have access to. Yet, you basically told me that I was wrong, inferred that you knew the correct "legal" definition, and yet never took it any farther than "you're wrong." See the problem? In a debate, or even a court of law, I'm pretty sure you can't just say "you're wrong" to the other side without providing evidence to support your claim, and expect the judge to side with you. See where I'm coming from?

 

I didn't say I know the correct definition. I don't. I'm simply saying, for about the seventh time now, that you can't use simple online references to define that term in the discussion you're having. I don't have to know the correct definition to point out that the one you're using is wrong. There is no argument about that, and I don't know why you're going on about it so much.

Fair enough. For now, I will continue to use the only resource I have to base my argument. If new evidence appears, I can re-evaluate then. It's what you're supposed to do. Use the info you have, and evaluate when new info is presented. Sorry for going overboard. I've just seen soo much misinformation about this case flying around (on other boards, I've seen people tell others that EA goes and takes pictures of the athletes to use in the game, and create the models from, which is outrageous).

 

But back to the subject at hand, what are your thoughts on this:

 

"George’s buzzer-beating against Clemson shot in the 1990 NCAA tournament has been resold in DVD form and featured in several commercials, Yahoo Sports reported. Games in which Ellis played appear in commemorative DVDs and are being rebroadcast on the Big Ten Network, Yahoo Sports reported."

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/27/oscar-robertson-2-others-sue-ncaa-over-use-of-images/

 

It's pretty much what I said would happen, only sooner that I thought.