lets just start with a ankle and wrist taping seminar :DQuote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
and best knee pad comparisons :D
Printable View
lets just start with a ankle and wrist taping seminar :DQuote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
and best knee pad comparisons :D
I laugh every time I hear someone say this. Wickard v. Filburn killed any meaningful distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. Even US v. Lopez dealt with something that was completely unrelated to commerce of any kind in a traditional sense....Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
You are correct that "interstate commerce" has almost been defined by our Supreme Court to the point that there is virtually zero limit on our Federal Government. Basically every act just has to say "interstate commerce" is affected in it and then can be completely ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Orygun
Obama et al. are arguing that just being alive amounts to affecting interstate commerce so they can force you to purchase health insurance. If Obamacare is upheld there is NO limit on the Federal Government's power and they can force us to do whatever they want (so long as they deem it to affect interstate commerce). The Americans Must Buy Brocoli Act anyone?
IMHO, Wickard was/is a HORRIBLE decision and I hope the SCOTUS can slowly but surely but some teeth back into the interstate commerce requirement of the Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of the 50 (or is it 57) states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Orygun
Yeah, what you guys said.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
Likewise, minus the "H." If Art 1 Sec 8 was meant to be that encompassing there would be no need for the plenary vs. enumerated powers structure, the 9th or 10 Amendment, etc. Wickard does an excellent job of illustrating that the Supreme Court is not "Final because we are right, but right because we are final." (William Wayne I think but that's off the top of my head so don't flame lol)Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
False.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slu...obertson012611
Quote:
Oscar Robertson is asked to affix his autograph to various items every day and he recently discovered a new one being pushed in front of him by fans – trading cards featuring him as a player at the University of Cincinnati. Some come with a swath of his “game jersey” attached. Others have him in his freshman number, 22.
This was not a product he recalled approving for his likeness to be used. He tried calling the trading card companies (Upper Deck, Donruss) for an explanation yet couldn’t get a response.
The answer was the NCAA had signed licensing deals with the companies without Robertson’s direct consent. The association maintains it has the right to control a player’s likeness in perpetuity.
In the case of the 72-year-old Big O, that means 51 years and counting. He left UC in 1960.
Okay failed athletes, and athletes from long ago that have run out of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Or never really made any.:lb:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
ex amateur players suing a commercial company while the NCAA still cashes in on them is odd as well
this should be his avatarQuote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...YT906KyNph&t=1
good use of the new emoticon :lb:Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Nice! :D That makes me want to watch Vinny right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Article from ESPN which is the best article I have seen to date explaining the situation as I understand it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6487782Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has dismissed video game maker Electronic Arts Inc. from a high-profile antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA's long-standing prohibition against paying student athletes for their performance.
But U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Monday refused to drop the bulk of the case, which accuses the NCAA and its marketing company of operating an illegal sports marketing monopoly. Led by former UCLA basketball standout Ed O'Bannon, former athletes allege they are forced to forever sign away their commercial rights to play collegiate sports.
The judge refused to dismiss the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co. from the lawsuit that seeks to become a class action representing thousands of former football and basketball players who say the NCAA illegally controls their images forever without compensation.
The NCAA responds that players are free to make commercial deals after they leave college. NCAA policy prohibits players from receiving compensation while they are playing.
The judge said there is enough evidence to continue the litigation. But she said Monday that there was no evidence that Redwood City-based EA conspired with the NCAA to deny the players compensation and she dismissed the company from the lawsuit.
The O'Bannon case and another led by former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller are being closely watched because of their potential to dramatically reshape the commercial relationship between the NCAA and its athletes. Keller's lawsuit also alleges that the NCAA is unfairly depriving athletes of their share of revenues generated by their performances. But Keller's lawsuit makes different legal arguments, claiming the NCAA is violating the players' commercial rights when it refuses to cut them in on marketing deals using their images. The Keller lawsuit also names EA as a defendant.
Last year, Wilken refused to dismiss EA from the Keller case. EA has appealed that decision.
Which may be why he has an issue with the idea that the NCAA is making money off of him to this day, yes? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
Another article with some interesting tidbits:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...-obannons-ncaaQuote:
Former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against the NCAA will proceed after a federal judge dismissed claims against Electronic Arts Inc. but refused to do so with the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co.
O'Bannon is leading a group of former college athletes in an antitrust lawsuit filed in 2009 over the use of their images and likenesses. There are signs that it could be getting increasingly uncomfortable for the NCAA. According to USA Today, NCAA president Mark Emmert faces a deposition date.
Jon T. King, a lawyer for the players, also has filed notice to take the deposition of NCAA President Mark Emmert on June 22, though that could change slightly depending on Emmert's schedule, King said.
"As the plaintiffs well know, Dr. Emmert was not at the NCAA during the time period at issue in this lawsuit," the NCAA's Bob Williams said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "The plaintiff's notice of his deposition at this point is inappropriate, and we will take action accordingly."
Emmert became NCAA president in October 2010.
The case is scheduled for trial in March 2013, but fact discovery is scheduled for completion by late January 2012, King said.
The lawsuit has gotten notoriety for its potential game-changing effects on how the NCAA conducts business. The organization currently bars players from being paid during their college careers.
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a recent poll found that nearly half of the 300 football and men's basketball players surveyed said they didn't understand they had signed away their rights to commercial use of their images without receiving a share of the proceeds.
The athletes' confusion didn’t stop with the form. Fifty-four percent of the survey's respondents thought that by appearing in video games bearing their images or likenesses, they were endorsing those commercial goods, said Anastasios Kaburakis, an assistant professor of management and sports business at Saint Louis University and the study's lead author.
"They weren’t getting any money, but they still felt they were actually endorsing the product," he said in a phone interview.
Despite the confusion, 97 percent of respondents liked being featured in video games, and two-thirds believed that the way the NCAA and video-game companies used their image or likeness was fair. But only 33 percent believed that their athletic scholarship was sufficient payment for the use of their image or likeness.
Basically our D1 college athletes are MORONS but I think most of us already knew that.
To be fair, I think the majority of America is just as confused about collegiate likenesses as our athletes are. Obviously the athletes have more stake in knowing, and therefore they should, but it's still worth noting that it's confusing as hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
It's also worth acknowledging that we're going to have to listen to this crap for two more years before it even goes to trial. Sigh.
EA defeats ex-Rutgers QB over video game image
Definitely doesn't sound like it's over yet... the Keller case is still out there.
And, let's be honest, the decision to allow the Keller case to move on could be used as an argument to appeal this decision. If it hasn't been already (not clear from the article).Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, however, if another suit affects your suit that doesn't give you the right to appeal.
How is this any different then the NCAA and schools selling jersey's with names on them? Or is that illegal as well?
They sell jerseys with names on them? All college jerseys that are sold around here don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by keyser soze
Yeah, I have never seen a college jersey sold anywhere around here with names on them. If someone wanted to, I suppose they could personally go to someplace and have a name sewn on by a professional, but I have never seen a jersey sold with names.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
It doesn't give you the right, true. But I was assuming they would appeal anyway, and they could use the allowance of the Keller case to move forward in their appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionMasta
The Rutgers case really won't have any impact on the Keller case (or at least it doesn't have to). Both cases are at the trial court level. The Rutgers case can be appealed. Since the cases are in entirely different Federal Circuits even an appellate decision in the Rutgers decision in favor (or against) EA wouldn't necessarily be binding on the judge in CA either.
Will/could EA use this NJ opinion in CA? Yes. However, it is merely persuasive authority aka the Judge in CA can follow that opinion or just completely ignore it or say that opinion was/is wrong.
EA's request to dismiss a class action lawsuit from former NCAA athletes has been denied, meaning the trial will move forward.
The former NCAA athletes claim EA conspired with the NCAA and the CLC to have players sign away their likenesses and names to be used in video games without compensation. The players allege that in order to participate in NCAA sports they were required to sign a form allowing EA their likenesses in games, even after their college sports careers ended.
The federal judge previously dismissed other claims in the lawsuit, but denied EA's attempt to have an antitrust claim thrown out.
Courtesy: Joystiq
I'd be happy if i was in the college basketball game. I'd say, Hey look theirs me! That one white guy siting on the bench! No im not the waterboy!!! I'd played, ok well praticed.
I believe the majority of players are in favor of their likeness being used, but there's always a minority as well. I do some have issues with the NCAA's ability to use a player's likeness perpetually, though there are also times when I think the NCAA is completely in their right.
Your right most players don't care at all. However, the Sam Kellers (aka losers who didn't pan out in the pros and didn't take their FREE education seriously) of the world can easily ruin it for everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Class action lawsuits do not require the "Tim Tebows" (the players that don't care) to sue EA. Rather, Sam Keller "sues on their behalf" as a representative sample of the class. Of course Tebow et al. can opt out and not sue EA but very few people even read the junk mail notice they receive when a class is certified by the Court.
EA is going to lose this case at trial as the Plaintiffs' lawyers intentionally picked VERY liberal venues to get a jury full of "commies". Their only chance is to make as many issues as possible for appeal. Lose at the 9th Circuit to the whores to the plaintiffs bar there and hope the Supreme Court takes the case.
Your in Houston and u like duke?Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
CLW: Well, yeah. Duh ;)
Though watch it with the liberal = stupid enough to fall for this ;)
Yeah ... and I'm in DC and like Ohio State. People move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Steve
And I'm in Ohio and like Navy and Denver (and have become a part-fan of Florida International), along with all the professional teams in Colorado/Denver.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
since when did the individuals become greater than the university though? when the kids put that jersey on, they're a representative of the school. so in that aspect, the individual player likenesses are irrelevant, as ea already has permission from each school and the license to make a college football game from the ncaa. awarding the lawsuit to the former players says that the player's likeness is above the university they play for, and in turn, above the ncaa.
the same argument can also be made though, that the loser players could have opted out to not have their likenesses in the game. sam keller knew a similar virtual presense of him was going to be in ncaa football....hell, he probably even played as himself in the game...... yet he did nothing about it until he was out of school.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
Fixed it for you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
How does all this affect 13?
It's extremely unlikely that this case is going to get decided anytime soon, IMO. In the theoretical case where it was decided, let's say the day before 13 releases, then the plaintiffs could ask for EA to be prevented to release 13. I'm not sure that would happen, namely because I'm not sure if Keller's "class" (that the suit is on behalf of) included current players, or just former players. If it includes current, then it's likely that they would ask for 13 to be prevented from being sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Steve
Though, again, IMO it's unlikely this gets decided before then. It's more likely that whatever happens in this case will affect 14, or maybe even not until 15.
now your's is fixed. lol :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Semantics. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Not really concerend with 14. I'll be fighting for playing time in a jr college next year. I dough(doubt)t they'd win either, every college does it. Ever watch the Michigen freshmen 5 thing on espn? nike socks, billboards, ect. made alot of money off them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
..thats why most players dont care..they are happy with all the under the table stuff they get LOL