[mattclarkdotnet]

Legally? As in do you have a right to? No. You accepted terms and conditions when you bought a ticket, and they will prohibit you from broadcasting. So it’s a breach of contract if you do that.

I do wonder what the intersection of that with viewing rights is. You can probably report what you saw on screen in real time because that’s happening in your home. But who really knows…

[Y_Y]

But that's just a shitty contract of adhesion. There is no "meeting of the minds", terms are not negotiated. The enforcability depends more on the relative appetites of the contracting parties.

The copyright situation is distinct, and may fall under "hot news", but isn't affected by a clickwrap on the site that sold you the ticket.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._... )

[sandworm101]

A ticket to a football game will never be considered a contract of adhesion. The terms are very much negotiated. Nobody has any need to go to a game. Nobody is being tricked or forced into anything. It is a one-time ticket to watch a show or shows, with an agreement not to rebroadcast that show.

[Y_Y]

Do we live in different realities? I've gone to lots of football games of lots of kinds of football and I've never negotiated the terms with the venue. I can't even remember bringing my lawyer!

[sandworm101]

Your negotiation occurs by you deciding to buy or not to buy a ticket. You can go to a baseball game instead. Or go skiing. There is no power imbalance. Compare government-mandated car insurance, or water/sewage service to your home, situations where one does not have great choice in providers nor can one easily walk away.

[Y_Y]

Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm using "contract of adhesion" and "negotiation" in their customary legal meanings. A negotiation here would be communication between the parties in order to decide on the terms of the contract. Since this doesn't occur (the venue has already written the contract and only offers it as-is) the contract is deemed to be one of "adhesion". (Definitions vary among jurisdictions, and I'm only familiar with some English speaking common law ones.)

[seanhunter]

Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from - I'd be really interested a reference that says that. I would have thought a lack of negotiation is the defining characteristic of an adhesion contract. You take it or leave it - there is no negotiation.

A contract of adhesion is not binding in the US if it is "Unreasonably one-sided". I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp

[josephcsible]

When was the last time a fan went to a football game under a contract other than the one preprinted onto the ticket stock? If the answer is "never", then the terms are most definitely not negotiated.

[mattclarkdotnet]

You’re missing the point that the ‘negotiation’ occurs when you buy the ticket or don’t buy the ticket. It’s up to you, the terms are clear, and you could go spend your time on something else without those damn football teams interfering with your life at all.

[josephcsible]

"My way or the highway" is not a negotiation.

[dehrmann]

There are tall buildings near some baseball fields that can see onto the field, and some even have bleachers on the roof. There was no contract with MLB if you watch the game from there.

[DidYaWipe]

That kind of situation (with Wrigley Field being a great example) was ruined when people started trying to profit by charging people to sit on the roof. That's when teams started putting up barricades to block their view.

Just another example of greed ruining what people enjoyed for decades in a sort of detente.