A bunch of baseball-related podcasts were removed from iTunes. Why?

44 Comments

When we woke up yesterday morning we lived in a world where any baseball fans who so loved their team that it inspired them to tell everyone about that love could do so in the form of a podcast on iTunes. When we woke up this morning multiple baseball podcasts had been removed from iTunes, at the request of Major League Baseball and/or Major League Baseball Advanced Media on intellectual property grounds.

Multiple podcasts, including Twins podcast “Gleeman and the Geek” (hosted by HardballTalk’s own Aaron Gleeman), another Twins podcast “Talk to Contact,” Pirates podcast “Pirates Prospects,” Mets podcast “Mets Musings,” Cubs podcast “Bleacher Nation,” Yankees podcast “It’s About the Yankees, Stupid,” Rangers Podcast “Rangers Podcast in Arlington” and several others were removed from iTunes.

A few moments ago an MLBAM spokesman released the letter it sent to iTunes regarding the podcast takedown:

 As we have done in the past, yesterday we notified Apple about certain podcasts on the iTunes Store whose titles and/or thumbnails include infringing uses of trademarks of Major League Baseball and certain Clubs.  And, as we have done in the past, we asked Apple to have these trademarks removed from the podcast titles and thumbnails. Although we did not ask for or seek to have any podcast removed from the Store, it has come to our attention that Apple removed them.   Given our many years of experience in notifying Apple about trademark issues on the Store, we trust that removing the podcasts was an oversight, and ask that you please look into this matter as soon as possible.

Thank you for your cooperation.

A couple of things on that:

1) Apple is not dumb, so I don’t know that I buy such “an oversight.” Earlier today Apple was referring inquiries to MLB/MLBAM, so this all sounds like buck-passing and butt-covering in the wake of what has turned into an uproar among baseball fans online;

2) If it was an oversight, wonderful. When is it going to be rectified? As of now the podcasts have not been restored, and that’s the big issue if you happen to be in the business of getting people to listen to your podcast.

Either way, the initial action by MLB/MLBAM is questionable as is. Use of team names may have offended MLB/MLBAM’s sensibilities, but as of now there are multiple team-named podcasts still on iTunes and many of the podcasts removed do not contain team names in the title. They may, however, note in the podcast description that they are “A [Team]-related podcast” or the like. What’s more, if it’s merely the name that offends, send a cease and desist letter about name usage, don’t have the product — which is nothing more than a couple of people talking about baseball, just like talk radio or this blog — totally removed from existence. Or don’t ask Apple to do it. They don’t control these podcasts, they merely host them. Which, by the way, makes MLBAM’s statement all the more dubious. If you want marks removed, ask the people who put them there to remove them. You contact iTunes If you want the podcast obliterated.

However this started and however it shakes out, count this as an other instance of the creation of ill will between MLB and the people who, by definition, are its biggest and most dedicated fans. Which, along with its silly, antiquated blackout rules for television broadcasts and web streaming, is the sort of thing it can’t seem to prevent itself from doing, apparently.

Donald Trump wants Curt Schilling in the Hall of Fame

Getty Images
33 Comments

We’ve talked a lot about Curt Schilling’s Hall of Fame candidacy over the years.

Bill has argued that, if voters are going to use the character clause to keep certain players out, they should keep Curt Schilling out. I’ve differed on that, not because I think Schilling is a good person — he’s loathsome, actually — but because I find the character clause to be illegitimate and would never, if I had a vote, use it to impact my vote. So, yes, I’d put Schilling on my ballot if I had one.

I’m not alone in this, of course. At the moment Schilling has support on about 72% of ballots which have been made public. My guess is that he’ll fall a tad short when results are announced tomorrow — non-public ballots tend to include fewer players on them — but we’ll see.

I am not the only non-BBWAA member who would vote for Schilling. He’s got some top level support too. From the President of the United States:

Ballots had to be submitted by December 31, so it’s not like this is gonna have any impact on the vote totals. If it came earlier, though, one wonders if it would. And one wonders if that’d help Schilling or hurt him.