I am pretty sure the NFL would shut down any distribution very quickly - not sure how much of an opportunity there is if it blatantly violates someone's IP rights. What I don't understand is why the NFL wouldn't use it to generate more revenue. Do they really think the criticism would be any worse than it is today with 24/7 sports talk and online message boards? Why not have the criticism be more grounded in reality?
I'm a pretty strong supporter of IP rights - but in this case I feel capturing the game that I'm watching falls into grey area - something akin to a bootleg of a concert.
I agree it's likely that a live stream would be shut down fairly quickly, particularly at scale, but I'm thinking a combination of after-the-fact + some intelligent post-processing might be useful/valuable.
Admittedly, the majority-value is in the real-time production, but, by providing after-the game all-22 videos, you might be able to fly somewhat under the radar.
I've never been asked to stop taking pictures with my (admittedly small) 70-200 lens - and it's usually perched atop a rail for the entire game - I could just as easily have been filming the entire game as snapping pictures.
Yeah, I think that's just an excuse they're using. Today's 24-hour media subjects athletes to extreme scrutiny. Any action results in intense criticism. If any athlete does something tabloid-worthy, people will know. Adding more "data", the All-22 footage, won't change the situation much. The owners probably have this irrational fear that this footage will let opposing teams gain greater insights into their teams strategies, and while the NFL might want to open this additional line of revenue, the owners might have their hands tied.
