(07-31-2013 09:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  with all this new talk of conference realignment and GOR being discussed (and some questioning if they can hold up in court). this article does raise questions about GOR and if they are as strong as we think they are. For the record im not saying this stuff is 100% true, but it is something to be discussed

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/myth-o...rights.php

Seems like an article mostly devoted to showing by accident the difference between intellectual property rights contracts and the kinds of contracts the author deals with. That's a difference between a contract to deliver, say, a load of paving blocks, paving baselayer and paving sand and a contract to transfer intellectual property rights. The contract to perform physical work takes time to complete. The transfer of intellectual property takes place at the instant the contract is finalized, since the intellectual property is just rule in law.

So the Grant of Rights is not a promise to deliver rights sometime in the future, its a grant of rights over the specified period that is executed when the contract is signed, sealed, and delivered.

If School X wants to leave Conference A for Conference B, but has already granted its rights to Conference A for a specific period, there is isn't any breach of the GOR, so there isn't any damages owed under the GOR, because School X doesn't have rights to give to Conference B until the GOR expires.

And contrary to the author's argument, it is a lot simpler to work out who was first granted exclusive rights and what was included in that grant than it is to determine damages, so if the court takes the easy way out in the event of a dispute, they will just rule that Conference B can't have any home game rights from School X without Conference A agreeing to it.

Or as the Asst Prof of Music Industry & Entertainment Studies in the comments says:

Quote: This means that when you grant an exclusive license, even you may not exercise the granted right, nor may you authorize anyone else to do so. This is not a new idea. Examples of contracts which contain a GOR clause include recording contracts, publishing contracts, and software licensing contracts. GOR have been upheld in the past and are hard to get out of (see mellencamp v. riva music). If what you are suggesting would actually get someone out of a GOR clause, it would have been argued by now.

(08-02-2013 06:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-31-2013 09:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  with all this new talk of conference realignment and GOR being discussed (and some questioning if they can hold up in court). this article does raise questions about GOR and if they are as strong as we think they are. For the record im not saying this stuff is 100% true, but it is something to be discussed

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/myth-o...rights.php

Seems like an article mostly devoted to showing by accident the difference between intellectual property rights contracts and the kinds of contracts the author deals with. That's a difference between a contract to deliver, say, a load of paving blocks, paving baselayer and paving sand and a contract to transfer intellectual property rights. The contract to perform physical work takes time to complete. The transfer of intellectual property takes place at the instant the contract is finalized, since the intellectual property is just rule in law.

So the Grant of Rights is not a promise to deliver rights sometime in the future, its a grant of rights over the specified period that is executed when the contract is signed, sealed, and delivered.

If School X wants to leave Conference A for Conference B, but has already granted its rights to Conference A for a specific period, there is isn't any breach of the GOR, so there isn't any damages owed under the GOR, because School X doesn't have rights to give to Conference B until the GOR expires.

And contrary to the author's argument, it is a lot simpler to work out who was first granted exclusive rights and what was included in that grant than it is to determine damages, so if the court takes the easy way out in the event of a dispute, they will just rule that Conference B can't have any home game rights from School X without Conference A agreeing to it.

Or as the Asst Prof of Music Industry & Entertainment Studies in the comments says:

Quote: This means that when you grant an exclusive license, even you may not exercise the granted right, nor may you authorize anyone else to do so. This is not a new idea. Examples of contracts which contain a GOR clause include recording contracts, publishing contracts, and software licensing contracts. GOR have been upheld in the past and are hard to get out of (see mellencamp v. riva music). If what you are suggesting would actually get someone out of a GOR clause, it would have been argued by now.

Well said.

(08-02-2013 06:23 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  If School X wants to leave Conference A for Conference B, but has already granted its rights to Conference A for a specific period, there is isn't any breach of the GOR, so there isn't any damages owed under the GOR, because School X doesn't have rights to give to Conference B until the GOR expires.

And contrary to the author's argument, it is a lot simpler to work out who was first granted exclusive rights and what was included in that grant than it is to determine damages, so if the court takes the easy way out in the event of a dispute, they will just rule that Conference B can't have any home game rights from School X without Conference A agreeing to it.

The twist in the college conference context is that "Conference A" and "Conference B" have already re-assigned the telecast rights they received from the GOR to TV networks. The conferences get the money, but they can't keep a defecting school "off the air" -- which would be enormous leverage if they had it. John Mellencamp's old record company can either issue 300 greatest hits records against Mellencamp's wishes or bury the master tapes in a vault forever, but the ACC can't keep Duke basketball off of TV if Duke defects to the SEC. The ACC would still get paid when a Duke home game is on TV, but they signed away to ESPN the decision on whether or not to telecast the game.

(08-03-2013 10:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The twist in the college conference context is that "Conference A" and "Conference B" have already re-assigned the telecast rights they received from the GOR to TV networks. The conferences get the money, but they can't keep a defecting school "off the air" -- which would be enormous leverage if they had it.

Yes, of course Conference A can keep the defecting school "off the air" ... Conference B can only re-assign the rights to their broadcast partner that they have. They can only get from School X rights that are School X's rights to give. If School X has already given exclusive rights to someone else, they are no longer School X's to give, so Conference B can't get them, so Conference B can't give them to their broadcast partner.

You can only re-assign rights that are yours to grant.

Of course, the Grant of Rights probably does not include all permissions needed to set up for broadcast. That is is likely covered by the conference by-laws. So its likely that the breakaway school can prevent its home games from being broadcast by Conference A's network partner. Which would leave the School X home games covered by the GOR in license limbo unless Conference B pays Conference A enough to convince Conference A to transfer the rights.

These tangles are why some niche video streaming markets are moving to non-exclusive rights, so they can grant streaming rights to streaming partners and still include (non-exclusive) streaming and SVOD rights as parts of all-in rights bundles.

What renders all of the damages reasoning moot is that this is just an intrinsic side-effect of granting exclusive rights over an extended period, so this is something that applies to every single member of the extended-GOR conference, even though it only acts as a constraint on income generating opportunities should a school voluntarily decide to leave one conference and join another.

(08-03-2013 12:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 10:52 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The twist in the college conference context is that "Conference A" and "Conference B" have already re-assigned the telecast rights they received from the GOR to TV networks. The conferences get the money, but they can't keep a defecting school "off the air" -- which would be enormous leverage if they had it.

Yes, of course Conference A can keep the defecting school "off the air" ... Conference B can only re-assign the rights to their broadcast partner that they have. They can only get from School X rights that are School X's rights to give. If School X has already given exclusive rights to someone else, they are no longer School X's to give, so Conference B can't get them, so Conference B can't give them to their broadcast partner.

You can only re-assign rights that are yours to grant.

The ACC, for example, has already reassigned TV rights to ESPN, and ESPN has paid a lot of money for that. ESPN now has the right to broadcast, or not broadcast, or sublicense, the home games of the teams currently covered by the ACC-ESPN deal.

If Duke joins the SEC before the ACC GOR expires, Duke's home-game rights for the balance of the GOR period remain with the ACC in the first instance -- but the ACC has already re-assigned those TV rights to ESPN, for the same time period as the GOR, in exchange for a lot of money. So it's up to ESPN whether those Duke home games are aired.

(07-31-2013 10:02 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  From the article:

My premise is that the networks have never reduced their payout to an existing contract, and there is no evidence they will going forward.

In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. The Big East added some lesser brands, and their media partners did not reduce their ongoing media deal. 2010,


If I'm not mistaken, and I dont think I am. But ESPN did indeed reduce the BE's tv deal back when Miami, VT and BC left the BE. I think the deal was reduced by half. If that is the case, then there goes part of this guys argument.

You are correct. It went from $10 million a year down to $6 million a year. Pocket change in today's media rights deals.

Cheers,
Neil

I did ask this question on another thread some time ago. Hypothetically, let's say UVA and UNC decide to join the B1G. ESPN/ACC still have their media rights for their home games. Would UVA and UNC still get paid even though ESPN is televising a tOSU @ UNC game for example?

(08-03-2013 02:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If Duke joins the SEC before the ACC GOR expires, Duke's home-game rights for the balance of the GOR period remain with the ACC in the first instance -- but the ACC has already re-assigned those TV rights to ESPN, for the same time period as the GOR, in exchange for a lot of money. So it's up to ESPN whether those Duke home games are aired.

But if the contract with ESPN is rights to broadcast the games of the members of the conference, then Duke would fall out of the scope of that contract when it exits the ACC. The GOR would be most effective in strengthening the extended-GOR conference if the network contract is written in those terms.

As far as what the details of the contract are, if you have a copy, post it.

(08-03-2013 06:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-03-2013 02:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If Duke joins the SEC before the ACC GOR expires, Duke's home-game rights for the balance of the GOR period remain with the ACC in the first instance -- but the ACC has already re-assigned those TV rights to ESPN, for the same time period as the GOR, in exchange for a lot of money. So it's up to ESPN whether those Duke home games are aired.

But if the contract with ESPN is rights to broadcast the games of the members of the conference, then Duke would fall out of the scope of that contract when it exits the ACC. The GOR would be most effective in strengthening the extended-GOR conference if the network contract is written in those terms.

As far as what the details of the contract are, if you have a copy, post it.

Your theory is that a conference can snatch back rights they've sold away, without paying either the school or the TV network? That they get the rights for nothing? That's a creative theory. I await your support for it.

(08-03-2013 06:38 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  I did ask this question on another thread some time ago. Hypothetically, let's say UVA and UNC decide to join the B1G. ESPN/ACC still have their media rights for their home games. Would UVA and UNC still get paid even though ESPN is televising a tOSU @ UNC game for example?

Yes, but only what that single game is worth, less expenses. ESPN pays the ACC, the ACC pays UNC. BTW, who owns the rebroadcast rights? Rights to the coach's shows about the game? How about the post game interviews? Sounds like a lot of B1G fans would also need/want to subscribe to the ACCN? It is a big circle!