Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Thou Shalt Not View The Super Bowl on a 56" Screen

Posted by Zonk on Sat Feb 02, 2008 06:40 PM
from the that's-like-the-fourteenth-commandment-right dept.
theodp writes "For 200 members of the Immanuel Bible Church and their friends, the annual Super Bowl party is over thanks to the NFL, which explained that airing NFL games at churches on large-screen TV sets violates the NFL copyright. Federal copyright law includes an exemption for sports bars, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, but churches are out of luck. Churchgoers who aren't averse to a little drinking-and-driving still have the opportunity to see the game together in public on a screen bigger than 55 inches."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Games: The Physics of Football 163 comments
Ponca City, We Love You writes "There will be a program on applied physics and real time strategy that you might want to watch on television today. Conservation of momentum during elastic and inelastic collisions is one aspect on which to focus as players tackle their opponents. It is of critical importance that the Patriots bring down New York's huge and powerful running back, 6-foot-4, 265-pound Brandon Jacobs. An average-size NFL defensive back's mass combined with his speed — on average, 4.56 seconds for the 40-yard dash — can produce up to 1600 pounds of tackling force. A tackle with half a ton of force may sound like a crippling blow, but the body can handle twice that amount because the player's equipment spreads out the incoming energy, lessening its severity." Nanotech specialists from Cornell have developed their own take on the "physics" of the Super Bowl by creating the world's smallest trophy, which will be awarded today to a contestant who best explains an aspect of football physics. Just some food for thought while you watch the game on your brand new HD television, though you'd better not be watching it in a church.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by plover (150551) * on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:41PM (#22277220) Homepage Journal
    Good.

    I hope the NFL enforces this across America. Since most people are apparently too stupid to notice how the greedy bastards are taking away their freedoms, maybe this will wake more than a few of them up.

    • by Goldberg's Pants (139800) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:09PM (#22277556) Journal
      HAHAHA! Where is their God NOW?!
      • by tompaulco (629533) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:46PM (#22277858) Homepage Journal
        What's with all this anger against the Church for showing the free over the air transmission for free to Church members and members of the community? They are not even charging admission! Where is the outrage against the sports bars who are profiting from the display of the Superbowl?
        • by zerocool^ (112121) on Saturday February 02 2008, @09:21PM (#22278604) Homepage Journal

          Actually, and I kid you not, the fundamentalist southern baptist church that I went to when I was younger and still under the thumb of my parents did exactly what you're saying.

          Seriously, they figured that people would be watching the superbowl, and that's UNACCEPTABLE! Why? BECAUSE THE ADS ARE FOR BEER. Can't have good christians watching advertisements with frogs saying "Bud", now can we? So they showed the superbowl up on the wall of the gathering area at the church with a projector, and during the commercials, they'd instead air mini-commercials about jesus that the youth group had put together.

          Yeah. No joke. Wild.

          ~Wx
        • by bri2000 (931484) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:53PM (#22277900)
          Is the Super Bowl pay per view (I'm in Europe and don't know what the TV arrangements are? If not what's being "stolen" from the NFL? Assuming no admission is being charged, how is having 100 people watch on one big screen any different from having 10 people watch on 10 smaller screen? They all see the ads and the sponsors.
          • by insignificant_wrangl (1060444) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:58PM (#22277928) Journal
            The Super Bowl is straight-up ole regular network TV. As the article mentions, all that this really affects is TV ratings (since fewer sets are showing the game). You must be European if you expect American TV ratings or copyright to make any kind of sense!
            • by dgatwood (11270) on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:07PM (#22278002) Journal

              Except that it doesn't affect ratings. Even if you are using one of the automated boxes, AFAIK, they still provide diaries for when you view something on another set. All you have to do is fill in that you watched it elsewhere.

              This is just the NFL being dumbasses, period.

              • by dosius (230542) <lyricalnanoha@dosius.ath.cx> on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:39PM (#22278292) Journal
                It's on free-to-air TV. It shouldn't matter who's watching. Got a TV? Got an aerial? That's all you really need. It's not copying, no copy's being made, so what the hell does copyright have to do with anything? It would be a breach of copyright if someone was mastering videos during the game to hand out to the people in attendance...otherwise, they're just thumping their chests like the 900 lb. gorillas they are.

                -uso.
                • by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday February 02 2008, @11:26PM (#22279458) Homepage Journal
                  IANAL, but this came up last year, too. They have a law written to forbid this, as stupid as it might be. If I could direct your attention to USC 17 110 (5) (B) (i) (II) [cornell.edu] or however you cite something buried that deeply in copyright law:

                  (II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

                  (emphasis added)

                  They're correctly reading the law, as sad as it might be. Now, the law here is ridiculous, there's NO question in my mind about that. There are plenty of other ridiculous provisions in there just like this one. Alas, we have the best laws money can buy :-(
                  • by Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) on Sunday February 03 2008, @12:04AM (#22279674) Journal
                    and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space

                    So, 5.1 is out then too?
                  • by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday February 03 2008, @01:22AM (#22280038) Journal
                    This law isn't the result of money buying legislation. It is an artifact of a time when TV's with a screen size of 55inches are larger were so costly that it could only be assumed that they were being used in commercial establishments. Section 5 of 110 was created in 1975 and was designed so that if you turned on a TV or radio in a public place for what would be considered home use, you wouldn't be in a violation if people gathered around or could somehow see or hear the broadcast. You can find more about it here. [cornell.edu] Your probably going to find it easier to search for 5 and it will take you to the parts dealing with section 4 and give a little case history on it.

                    The law probably needs an updating but it would be highly unusual if it didn't get updated with the best laws money can buy. This law, seeing how it was from 1975 seems to actually have the interest of the people in mind.
                    • by Danse (1026) on Sunday February 03 2008, @03:31AM (#22280566)

                      It's all about those Neilsen boxes. If one person with a box goes to watch the game at church rather than at home, that shows up in the statistics as thousands of people not watching.
                      Nielson people have journals too. They have accounted for the possibility of them watching TV somewhere besides their home.
                • by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday February 03 2008, @12:51AM (#22279914) Journal
                  It has always been this way. It is considered commercial access and not residential if you have more then so many potential viewers. Homes have an exception because they are always residential but you could be walking a fine line if you had a home based business in the same home.

                  I think they do this not because you are going to charge admission but because it adds value that wasn't there before or without it. Interestingly, your supposed to pay for the use of over the air broadcasts in these commercial situations too. Even if your a noncommercial establishment but have the require seating capacity to be considered commercial for this purpose. I have seen royalty checks go out to radio stations because they played the radio on hold for the phone systems at a certain company.

                  You probably haven't noticed this stuff because rarely is there an organization like the NFL who is greedy enough to think they need to demand the fees in public from everyone rather accept that some viewers won't be counted and they will make an ass load of money anyways. Remember last year when they sent take down notices and sued a couple people for trademark infringement when advertising Super bowl parties?

                  Maybe it is time to start an unofficial boycott of the super bowl where people start writing advertisers claiming they won't buy any of their products because of the greed the super bowl has become and maybe plan a pledge drive or something that advertisers can show the super bowl people to get lower rates next year. Maybe when their 5 million dollar spot only brings 2 million they would get the idea that actions like banning churches and nonprofits and so on, and regulating screen sizes isn't in the best interest of their bottom line. I seriously doubt you could get a complete boycott of the game, so working to get something together to give advertisers the ability to pay less would probably work better. I would be willing to write all the advertisers claiming I wouldn't buy their product (even though I probably would) because of the NFLs policies and the way their payment of large fees enables their behavior that we find negetive. The NFL would get the hint.
          • by The Analog Kid (565327) on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:04PM (#22277974)
            Is the Super Bowl pay per view

            Nope. It's on Fox. In fact, Fox is free over the air. The problem they have with it, is that instead of lets say 4 people per 1 TV, they might have 40 people per 1 TV, where there would have been 40 people split using 10 different TVs. I think ratings are only affected if Neilsen homes aren't watching it though. So it all really comes down to ratings. They'd rather see 10 homes watching the SB rather than 1 church.
            • by Original Replica (908688) on Saturday February 02 2008, @10:12PM (#22278944) Journal
              So can they be sued for false advertising if they have a commercial that shows more than four people watching football together? If it is illegal to "use their product" in that way, are beer commercials that show large numbers of people over at a person's house enjoying the game together promoting copyright violation?
              • by OptimusPaul (940627) on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:29PM (#22278178)
                What!? As an american it is our duty to watch the super bowl. And as good god fearing men we are obligated to, that's why it's on Sunday. Now come on people let's follow the rules, there is nothing better than a day of bowling, especially super bowling... now when is it on?
                • by dpilot (134227) on Saturday February 02 2008, @10:34PM (#22279114) Homepage Journal
                  Heck, we've got MythTV set to record the Super Bowl tomorrow, complete with commercial flagging.

                  Monday night, we're going to use the commercial flagging in reverse - to skip the game and watch the commercials. Of course that's the once-a-year that the commercials are more worth watching than the event they're sponsoring. Come to think of it, most of the time both are about equally valueless.
                • by timeOday (582209) on Saturday February 02 2008, @11:09PM (#22279334)
                  Being mostly ads, the Super Bowl is an instruction manual for the "economic stimulus" handout we're all running up our credit cards in expectation of.
                • by dabraun (626287) on Saturday February 02 2008, @11:38PM (#22279536)
                  As an American it is my duty to watch the super bowl commercials. On Youtube.

                  As for the event itself ... When is that? What sport is that? I just know it's a source of funny commercials that should show up sometime in February.
            • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Saturday February 02 2008, @09:39PM (#22278720) Homepage
              The telecast is licensed for "private home viewing"

              No, it's not, actually. Copyright law doesn't give any rights to the copyright holder with regard to private performances, so the copyright holder has nothing to license. In fact, even if he claimed that you couldn't watch the show privately on the basis of copyright law, you still could.

              Only public performances fall under the ambit of copyright law.

              Hell playing the radio in a Dr's office is technically infringing!

              No, that would probably fall quite nicely into the 17 USC 110(5) "homestyle" exception.
              • "Only public performances fall under the ambit of copyright law."

                A couple of hundred people gathered in a church is a "public performance."

                Especially since they're using it as an "outreach" to people who aren't regular church-goers. That makes it not only a public performance, but performance in return of expectation of a "good or valuable consideration".

                The church is in the wrong here - like on so many other things.

            • by loraksus (171574) on Saturday February 02 2008, @10:34PM (#22279110) Homepage
              I'd like to see this license I supposedly agreed to when I turned the TV on.

              What's that? Silence?
        • by hedwards (940851) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:59PM (#22277936)

          Major sports leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, etc) have always been pretty strict about enforcing copyright and redistribution rights for their broadcasts. They even put up a big warning like the FBI warning shown at the start of movies. It is their property I suppose so that shouldn't be a big issue of contention.
          They say that, but they step far beyond what they're legally able to defend in court. The reason why they've been allowed to leave those notices up at the beginning of games is simply that they haven't been stupid enough to try and press it in court.

          It has nothing about copyright law or redistribution rights, the notice that you refer to includes as well as the copyrighted telecast/radio broadcast and any relevant images, the right to discuss the game later on or tell people what the score was without the expressed written consent of the league.

          Those aren't protections which US copyright law presently extends to anybody.

          So no, it isn't a matter of the leagues protecting their legal rights in most cases it's a matter of them inventing new rights in order to coerce people to abide by their rules. Even the MPAA doesn't typically sue or send notices to church groups to not show their films. Or at least they have the sense not to allow those sorts of notices to go public like this.
        • by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:33PM (#22278220) Homepage

          That doesn't mean that stealing from them is okay.
          I've just copied your message, pasted it into a text file, and saved it to my hard disk. I have STOLEN YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY !!! Soooo, just for the sake of keeping our respective accounting records synchronized, could you please tell me by how many dollars I've diminished your property with my T-H-E-F-T act? Because, you see, on my book it says I'm exactly $0.00 richer.

          To make things clear, an old meme: copyright infringement isn't theft.
  • Is this now a yearly tradition for churches to whine about their Superbowl parties...

    Here is last years article same story, different church:

    http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/category/miami-football/2007/02/01/nfl-orders-church-to-cancel-super-bowl-party/ [aol.com]

  • by msauve (701917) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:49PM (#22277302)
    They are in no way creative works. What "original authorship" exists? "Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression," which a football game isn't. [stanford.edu]

    Furthermore, to be copyrighted, a work must be fixed into a "tangible medium." That is not the case for a live broadcast (although it might be for an after-the-fact replay).
    • by whoever57 (658626) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:58PM (#22277428) Journal

      What "original authorship" exists?
      The editing, the commentary? It's not like there is a single camera fixed on the field. Also the teams are really entertainers and the sport can be considered an improvised performance.

      Furthermore, to be copyrighted, a work must be fixed into a "tangible medium." That is not the case for a live broadcast (although it might be for an after-the-fact replay).
      If IP addresses held in RAM can be considered "fixed", then a live broadcast can certainly also be considered fixed.
    • by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:03PM (#22277492)
      Easy: they copyright the broadcast of the football game, not the game itself. Then they prohibit anybody else from broadcasting the game (an agreement on admission to the stadium).
      • by msauve (701917) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:31PM (#22277736)
        how can they claim a church, receiving/viewing the broadcast, is "copying," and therefore in violation of copyright?

        Since the only practical use of a broadcast is to view it, isn't such viewing (at least non-commercially) "fair use?" Why is it a copyright violation for a group of parishiners to watch together, but not for a family to do the same? Is a license required to view content carried over the public airwaves? (this isn't Great Britain!)

        BTW, you totally missed/ignored the original point - a sports broadcast is functional, not creative.
    • Debatable. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jd (1658) <imipak@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:00PM (#22277948) Homepage Journal
      Technically, a truly live, unrecorded broadcast could be considered transitory and therefore not copyrightable. However, the five second delay means that it is indeed being recorded and therefore is an after-the-fact replay. I'm not sure copyright is the correct instrument to use, though. Copyright is intended for a work, an assembly that is well-defined prior to the copying of whatever is copyright, whereas this is essentially an improvised collection of improvisations, where the assemblage is taking place essentially simultaneously to the copying. Copyright was also never intended for a broadcast medium, where the copy technically exists whether the TV is displaying it or not. (It exists as a radio signal or a cable signal and it exists in the receiver up to the point of discrimination, even if the TV is switched off.)

      IP law is, frankly, a mess. Either unify all the concepts into one single notion, OR sub-divide the existing categories into wholly uniform concepts. Force-fitting one idea into a mechanism never designed or intended to be used in such an abstract manner creates a great deal of confusion over what actually is permissible and makes rational discourse on what should be permissible difficult to impossible. I would argue for unification, partly because you are dealing with underlying principles but also because if the unification is valid and correct, it will remain valid and correct for any future technologies within the bounds for which it is defined. Splitting the categories up into much finer-grain notions would make each rule much easier to understand, much easier to follow and much easier to enforce rationally and fairly, but makes IP as a whole harder to conceptualize and doesn't scale well as new methods of delivering information emerge.

      This church fiasco might - possibly - turn out quite useful if the level of resentment generated is sufficient to persuade the politicians that genuine reform (ie: not in the pockets of corporations) is in the interest of voters and therefore their own jobs. Narking a few churches off, though, probably isn't going to generate enough sustained ill-will to do anything beyond getting a few more people seriously drunk and lower that week's collection takings by a few dollars. Anyone who feels wronged on Sunday will have forgotten by Tuesday at the latest. No, the NFL would need to do something far more serious to do any good for the country.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rakuen (1230808) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:49PM (#22277304) Homepage
    If I have a 60" TV, and no one is around to watch it, does it violate copyright?
  • Oh yay (Score:5, Funny)

    by ObjetDart (700355) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:57PM (#22277400)
    Religion and football...two things that I couldn't possibly care less about. I hope they obliterate each other in a spectacular orgy of litigation.
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:58PM (#22277424) Journal
    After all, it's really hard to make a profit on the Super Bowl.

    After all, the advertisements were set at an as low rate as $90,000 per second [nytimes.com].

    Seriously, let's think of the NFL for once. :-(
  • by Associate (317603) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:58PM (#22277432) Homepage
    All the churches need are liquor licenses. They can sell communion wine and hot wings. Insta-church-sports bar. Eat that NFL. No one fucks with the Jesus.
  • by jadin (65295) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:13PM (#22277586) Homepage
    This is to keep church members from seeing 56 inch nipples.
  • by MrSteveSD (801820) on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:14PM (#22278064)
    Both of Britain's main sports (Football and Cricket) are played quite widely internationally, yet American football does not seem to have taken the world by storm. I suppose one consolation of this is that the US always wins, but wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate all those resources on games that are more popular internationally?

    Come to think of it, the other main US sport, Baseball, is not hugely popular around the world either. According to Wikipedia it is less popular than volleyball and table tennis. Maybe the US is onto something here. Perhaps we can copy this idea in Britain. We need to ditch the sports we keep losing at, like soccer, and invent a new one that nobody is interested in. Then we will finally be world champions :)
  • by Redbaran (918344) on Saturday February 02 2008, @09:25PM (#22278642)
    The best thing this church could do is call the NFL's bluff and play the game anyway!

    Let's consider the worst scenario, the NFL does sue. So what?!?! Odds are that the NFL will lose and then there is a good chance the church could counter-sue and reclaim any costs incurred.

    But, let's be realistic, it would be a PR suicide attempt for the NFL to sue a church. The only thing the church could do better then simply showing the game would be to bus in a load of poor, handicapped, cancer-inflicted children from broken homes. I'd like to see the NFL sue that!!
    • by Vellmont (569020) on Saturday February 02 2008, @06:54PM (#22277364)
      The NFL is a large corporation. Corporations prefer to use lawyers and scary sounding letters rather than the coppers. It's a lot harder to put a scary sounding letter on television than a bunch of cops busting up a church.
        • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:58PM (#22278440)

          I'd call the NFL's bluff. Jesus was a pretty rebellious and rock the boat sort of guy. He didn't back down from the Roman's or Pharisees, he told people how it was, associated with unwed women and whores, and scared those in power.

          And got crucified for it.

    • by Stanislav_J (947290) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:06PM (#22277528)

      The real WTF is, people in the USA watch football in churches? How the fuck is that not somehow blasphemous?

      In some parts of the U.S., football is the dominant religion.

      • Re:2007 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bigstrat2003 (1058574) on Saturday February 02 2008, @07:32PM (#22277740)

        Who cares? Squirting out kids or belonging to a church doesn't earn you special rights, special treatment, special sympathy or special consideration.
        What's your point? The fact that they're in a church doesn't mean that we should be any less outraged, either. The NFL is abusing copyright law, and it happens to be a church who's getting hurt. The story is the abuse, not the fact that it's happening to a church.
    • Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bdjacobson (1094909) on Saturday February 02 2008, @08:39PM (#22278278)

      Which does the more damage. A greedy bunch of people that extort huge portions of one's personal income to attend events, or sports people who are so full of themselves that they would turn away a viewing audience just because some one might be profiting on their coattails.


      One poster commented that the NFL has a hard time making money. Well, from the picture of the church property, it does not appear that the church has that problem. It would be nice if the NFL could scam as well as the average christian churches in America. Selective reading lets then demand a tithe, but forget that Jesus destroyed the temple due to money changers in the church. Have American flags and patriotic paraphernalia in the church, but do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, even on clearly profit making activities. Agree to certain political limitations in exchange for the tax exempt status, and then, like the hypocrite, ignore those limitations as they please.


      This is nothing more than a whiny church complaining that once they are being held to rules of civilized society. I know it is a new experience for most churches, having to comply with the rule of law, but it happens. They can buy a smaller screen. They can choose not to have such a secular event in a sacred space, and forgo the tithe that members who are mostly interested in secular events might bring. They can, like most churches, have such secular events outside of the sacred space.

      Your perspective is just a little bit skewed. Giving to the church is entirely up to the person. So is going to that particular church. The Bible commands us to give 10% of our produce to the church so the leaders don't have to have a 40 hour job + 30 hour job coming up with a 30 minute speech every week. Now whether or not the people give to the church is entirely up to them and their conscience and God. It's close minded to think "because Scientology extorts money from its members, then all religions do". If you looked at the average salary of a youth pastor, pastor, etc; you'll find it's simply nowhere near enough to attract those in it for the money. There's a few pastors here and there that make a larger portion of money (such as Presbyterian pasters :), and there are the televangelists who say "give ME [specifically ME] money and God will give you more money", but they are nowhere near the majority.

      Believe it or not, there are people in the world who have motives other than making the most money possible--such as making money by helping others in the best way they know how. I don't know why people have to ascribe negative motives to people who say they just want to help others. Not everyone else is like you. Just because you don't want to help people doesn't mean there aren't other people who do want to help people in the same way they have found help.