PM is kinda like the Australian version of Radio New Zealand's Checkpoint programme. On last night's show this story was aired detailing a push by AFL and Cricket Australia to change the Copyright Act to protect pictures taken by media at their events.

I can see their point. They provide the spectacle. They [or the ground] take the photos. Then the media go off and sell their shots.

But hold on. Isn't that a good thing? The number one thing sport needs is exposure. If it doesn't get that it dies, because they need viewers to gain sponsors, to get revenue. So if an organisation is taking your photos and selling them on doesn't that just tell you they're doing a better job of exposing your sport than you are?

I'm not sure how the Australian Copyright Act is currently structured, but surely a resolution can be reached without it needing to be changed? Such as 'hey we'll start charging you guys a subscription fee' or 'how about for every sale you give us 12%'? Or in the easiest and most obvious solution, why not just say 'stuff it, you lot take your own shots'?

And you may not even know­ it.

A fortnight ago, a workmate based in our NSW office revealed via the company S14 email group the price he was expected to pay to see his beloved [Yeah, I know, WTF?] Waratahs in the flesh. I was amazed. [You can see the full list at the bottom of this post]

 Read on...