Live blogs and "expressed written consent"

I've never heard this discussed, so I'm not sure what precedent is for this (someone in this basement has to know).

Anyone who has watched a game on TV has heard the legal statement forbidding the "Reproduction of pictures, descriptions and accounts without expressed written consent of (insert league)..." At some point, will leagues clamp down on this strangely interpreted rule? They'd sure have plenty to go on here on the interwebs.

The recent Super Bowl showcased just how popular running diaries and live blogs of games are becoming. Some writers have been doing these for years and their successes have inspired more to give it a shot. Expect the increasing live accounts (and thorough recaps) to continue, but as they are more widely read, won't someone say, "Wait, this is exactly what we're trying to control here!"? It's no secret that the 4 major sports leagues don't always act in the best interests of their fans.

With Major League Baseball limiting television access to their games, and trying to own their stats, it will come to be that people will be share the "product" with others in some manner. If, all-around-good-guy-who's-totally-deserving-of-his-position-and-has-thrived-in-it, Bud Selig wants to see what lengths he can go to screw his fans, he could just wait until the World Series and crackdown on those doing the blogs. To be honest, it seems like something straight out of his playbook, but I could actually see it happening with the NFL first. With the success of the blogs a couple weeks ago, imagine how many could be produced next year.

So how is it that "bloggers" can legally share a live blog of a game? Do they all get the "expressed written consent" that they appear to need? Doubtful. I'd bet that some people cover their bases, but how many? For the Super Bowl, CBSportline invited Deadspin editor Will Leitch in on the fun at their site. Sites like CBSportline, ESPN, AOL Sports and Yahoo probably know how to handle this, but would Deadspin & Co.? Was CBS just protecting Leitch in case something does happen, giving him an approved place to do his thing?

Have I missed where someone has covered this or am I looking at it the wrong way? Is the league's statement actually supported in a court of law or are they just asking you as strongly as they can no to do it?