"After the 48 hours the video cannot be rebroadcast at all without the written permission of Augusta National."

I intentionally chose not to link the New York Daily News story from a couple of days ago on Martha Burk because she asserted that Tiger and Augusta National were colluding as part of some chauvinist cabal. But after reading Alex Miceli's item on the club establishing restrictions on the use of video from Monday's Woods conference,  Burk's comments unfortunately will carry a whiff of credibility with some if the club actually enforces this restriction. Furthermore, I can even see a new era of ANGC media scrutiny more hostile than the 2003 Hootie-Martha showdown.

First, here are Burk's comments if you didn't see them:

"I think this is a safe haven for him," Burk says. "They're all chauvinists themselves. It's a perfect fit. He'll be welcomed. These people have a fundamental disregard for women. What produced Tiger Woods as we now know him goes back a long way. He played a lot of golf at a Houston club, Lochinvar, that didn't let women in.

"Inside the grounds at the Masters, I don't think there will be any heckling or protests," she says. "The people who go there are such golf devotees, they feel like kissing the ground when they get inside the gate. And if the media pursues the issue ... it's such a dictatorship, officials are completely capable of barring any reporter from the tournament who brings it up at the pre-tournament interview."

Here's what Miceli writes at Golfweek.com:

In an agreement drafted by Augusta National, the club said it will provide a feed of the April 5 press conference free of charge, but limits its use after the live broadcast to 48 hours after the press conference. During those 48 hours the press conference cannot be rebroadcast in its entirety, the use is limited to regularly scheduled sports or news programs and cannot be in excess of three minutes.

After the 48 hours the video cannot be rebroadcast at all without the written permission of Augusta National.

In the agreement, the club never mentions Tiger Woods by name, but instead references the Press Conference of April 5.

So not only are they only instituting these restrictions for only the Woods press conference, they're establishing a fairly unprecedented clause. (Again, assuming it's enforced. After all, how many folks really get Major League Baseball's "express written consent" when posting something on YouTube or running highlights on the weekend edition of Action News 7?)

However, if the club is serious about enforcing this restriction on the video and essentially sending it into some sort of black hole that only they control, it speaks to a certain obtusity about 21st century life. After all, do they really think they'll be able to take down every 3-minute-or-longer-clip on YouTube?

Furthermore, do they really love Tiger so much that they'd have their lawyers trying to track down every rogue who displays the video after April 7th?