Thou Shalt Not View The Super Bowl on a 56" Screen 680
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."
Good luck with that, NFL (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because Bill Belichick is God,... :-) Go Patriots! :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since most people are apparently too stupid to notice how the greedy bastards are taking away their freedoms
My taste for American football has been seriously dampened by the TV broadcasting rules. For awhile I was able to listen to Miami Dolphins football on the radio via internet (when the TV market for southern California was ruined by the Oakland Raiders and the Rams), but then I moved overseas and although I've missed it, I haven't missed it enough to jump through whatever hoops they want you jump through to see the teams you really want to see.
Geographic based broadcasting sucks, big time. Borders and geo
Re:Yeah, screw those churches! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the church wants to use the NFL's football games to attract more members to the church, and charge the people coming to the party to pay for that outreach program...
Read the article; it specifically states that the church was *not* charging admission.
Re:Ah, I read a different article where they were. (Score:3, Insightful)
What I object to is that the issue is that CHURCHES can't do it. This attitude that churches should not have to play by the same rules as everyone else drives me up the wall. The suggestion that the legislature should amend federal law to create ANOTHER carve-out for churches is ridiculous.
All this church wants is the same rights and privileges as a bar. So, let's take your statement and replace "church" with "bar" and you'll have what is really going on.
The sad part is that if this church served anything stronger than Communion wine (to people who will be driving home after the game) and charged for it, the NFL would have no problem with them showing the game!
Re:Ah, I read a different article where they were. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah, I read a different article where they were. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, screw those churches! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who said anything about charging admission? I fail to see how a large group sitting together to watch the Super Bowl is taking money away from the NFL -- they're no less likely to sit through the commercials in a group of 200 than by themselves in their home. The only problem would be if one of them's
Re:Yeah, screw those churches! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Yeah, screw those churches! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:4, Informative)
A performance is public if it's open to the public (i.e. anybody can come in) or if it's made to "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." For example, a small church (~50 people), all of who know each other, could watch the SuperBowl projected on a 20 foot screen, as long as it doesn't invite the public.
The 55" screen thing is just the NFL saying "but, even if you do have a public performance, we won't bother you as long as you use a small screen." If the performance isn't public to begin with, the screen size doesn't matter.
I do agree, though, that the NFL takes an aggressive stand on its rights. That's why you see so many advertisements about "the Big Game" instead of mentioning the SuperBowl itself -- the NFL claims that any commercial use of the "Super Bowl" mark has to be licensed. (The NFL tried to trademark "the Big Game" as well, but was denied.)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:4, Informative)
However, section 5 of 110 of the copyright law is where the 55 inch screen limit comes from. It supposes that screens larger then that would only be used for public/commercial uses. It was written in 1975 so a 55 inch screen back then probably would be along the lines of a purposeful public performance by a commercial venture.
I guess the point I was wanting to stress which I probably failed in making was that other ventures or copyright holders aren't so pedantic enough to make it known their copyright would stop a bunch of people not wanting to drink and smoke from getting together to view the game on a large screen. Personally, I think that if 20 groups of five people want to watch it on a 55 inch screen, they should be able to collectively assemble and watch it on a 1100 inch screen and this shouldn't matter much. But the reasons the general public is finding out that after 30 some years of a law's existance, with at least the last 10 of those years being where private groups could readily obtain screens larger then 55 inches and probable have been in violations to some extent, that a copyright holder has the ability to stop large groups of people from viewing the game on a screen larger then 55 inches that for all intended purposes would be a private viewing as described by section 5 of 110 of the copyright law, is because an excessively greedy organization put forth their copyright claims in a manor most people object to.
Greedy might be a poor choice of words too. Maybe I don't know how to communicate the idea of what most people object to or disapprove in how copyright law is being used to go after people in these days. With RIAA style john doe lawsuits and fishing expedition's designed to trap someone who might be innocent and claims that you can't copy a CD to a portable media player and alll, this bit with the NFL going after a church seems to be at the top of things.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Insightful)
-uso.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The is the only reason I can think of for the NFL to try this kind of maneuver, since Super Ball is all about advertising.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is is the NFL has any legal basis for the ban, or if they're just intimidating folks.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Informative)
They bought themselves a law! (Score:5, Informative)
(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
Re:They bought themselves a law! (Score:5, Interesting)
So, 5.1 is out then too?
Re:They bought themselves a law! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Funny)
As for the event itself
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Law is THAT much saner here in Europe. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that? Silence?
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:4, Insightful)
All of this is moot, as there is no license involved but rather laws. There's no EULA with my kitchen knife set that forbids me from using it to carve up school children, or my wife, but I can get into a lot of trouble if I do so.
The difference is profit (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason for not allowing more than x-amount of people is that it is assumed that the only reason you get that many people together to watch something, you are making money on it and they can't have anyone making profit on their product without getting some of the action! In the case of sports bars that profit would be from selling food and drink. In the case of a church it must be th
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Interesting)
To make things clear, an old meme: copyright infringement isn't theft.
its like the writers strike is causing repeats (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
Re:its like the writers strike is causing repeats (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this now a yearly tradition for churches to whine about their Superbowl parties...
Yes. This follows the new yearly tradition of the NFL to abuse its copyright in a manner that can only suggest RIAA envy.
Re:Superbowl is not a religous event (Score:4, Insightful)
FWIW, a church tends to be more than just a place of worship. It's also a community center. (A tradition that long predates modern community centers.) While no one is going to watch the game in the service area, churches often have a basement or some other meeting area set aside for community events. Watching the SuperBowl together qualifies as a community event, and gives families a place to watch the game together without having to visit a sports bar. (A rather rowdy place during a game like the Superbowl.)
Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:4, Informative)
If that's the case... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright allows you to control copying,
Re:If that's the case... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly how... (Score:3, Insightful)
Multiple parishiners watch the game together at the church, when an ad occurs, anyone can watch or not watch the ads, as they desire.
The same set of people watch the game individually at home, when an ad appears, anyone can watch or not watch the ads, as they desire.
The game is being broadcast on the public airwaves. The NFL loses nothing when a group of people watch it together, regardless of where they are. If they don't want the general public to see the game, they
Debatable. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The latest wii soccer game gives very good screenshots of the games. I'd say the way of handling the camera isn't actually creative, but algorithmic.
Unfortunately, that takes it from copyrightable to patentable
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yay (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh yay (Score:4, Funny)
And then I giggled. And laughed. And almost fell out of my chair.
I think you only got modded flamebait because there's no "+1 OMG That's Hilariously Ironic" tag
I can truly understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife and I were just talking about this, and agree that it's not because the sports bars have paid for it; after all, there's no "Huge National Association of Sports Bars" for Fox to collect a fee from.
They haven't paid a fee. They've paid legislators. It's cheaper to buy new laws or threaten to buy new laws when necessary. Ever heard of the "National Restaurant Association", "American Beverage Institute," "American Beverage Licensees," and their international equivalents? The NFL has nowhere near the political clout of these organizations. When football's impact on the economy hits a trillion dollars annually, then congress might talk to them.
Pffft. This is easy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pffft. This is easy. (Score:5, Funny)
Just another reason that ... (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heard it before (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to be clear (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank god... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you mean... (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, you can't use the name unless you cough up money to the NFL! It's trademarked!
NFL -- copyright abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple solution? (Score:4, Funny)
God invented duct tape for a reason.
A bit silly (Score:3, Interesting)
So, If they're a bar open to anyone who might stagger in, it doesn't count as public, but if they're a church and some of their members watch it's a pub;lic performance?
That could get complicated FAST. If they roll the TV into the minister's house and he invites all his friends to a superbowl party is that OK? How about if they watch it in the church, but instead of the big TV, they each watch on a personal portable TV is that OK? If they all hop on one foot with a potato(e) strapped onto their heads while they watch, will that be OK?
If indeed greed is a mortal sin, I guess the NFL's leadership better get used to the smell of brimstone.
Why does nobody else play American Football? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Best Defense: "So Sue Me!" (Score:5, Interesting)
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!!
PSA (Score:3, Informative)
I seem to recall an old Supreme Court ruling...... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of you guys may help me remember the details, but this was years ago and it had to do with receiving HBO and "ON-TV" (remember them?) via home made antenna or big sat dish. HBO and ON were both originally available in many areas using a special antenna. This was pre-cable tv, but not by much. The signal was scrambled by not by much. I recall a little 9 volt dc block adapter powered unit that went in-line on the coax from the antenna that could decode it. By todays standards, it wasn't encryption at all, more obscurity than security. I think the picture was shifted half way over, and the end that went off screen was prepended to the other side or something.
Anyway, you could get it that way or your could catch the feed as it went across the big sats as that was completely open. Ah, the days before DRM.
As I recall, the supreme court ruled then that if you could receive it out of the air and not have to descramble it, then you were within your rights to watch it. If I'm remembering it accurately, and if it hasn't been reversed, then the NFL's only actionable complaint would by with the networks for not protecting the copyrighted material. This is even more true if you're watching it by using an antenna and HD tuner rather than cable tv.
Ok, flame the crap out of me for being wrong or outdated now. I'm putting my gnomex hood on and donning SCBA...
I say: throw the book at them (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me first say this as clearly as possible. I do not support Bush in any way shape or form.
Corrupt Republicans? You must be about 17, maybe 18? The proper statement would be corrupt politicians. There is no political party that isnt corrupt, just ones in power and ones that aren't. The ones in power get called corrupt by the ones who aren't
That said,
WHAT THE FUCK IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR YOU PEOPLE TO REALIZE THE PRE
NFL wants fewer people watching ads (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't notice a 56" TV mentioned in this (Score:3, Interesting)
qz
NFL is deliberately obfuscating the law (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, this law carves out explicit permission for restaurants to have a television, which otherwise would be a copyright violation. It does not rescind fair use. Recall fair use as described by U.S. Code Title 17 Section 107 [cornell.edu] (emphasis added):
I see a loophole (Score:4, Funny)
Re:CAUGHT! (Score:5, Funny)
Cops? No. Lawyers, yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would they prosecute, though? What are their damages? Would it be worth the negative PR?
It's easy for me to say this, but if I were one of the elders of that Church I would encourage the congregation to watch together anyway. 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. It's hard to imagine that a guy who was so brazen to
The end result? (Score:5, Funny)
And got crucified for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And got crucified for it.
I have a feeling Roger Goodell is no Pontius Pilot.
Re:The end result? (Score:4, Funny)
That's why Jesus never went to college. Got nailed on the boards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? Squirting out kids or belonging to a church doesn't earn you spe
Re:2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Superbowl (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, the Superbowl is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You heretics (Score:5, Funny)
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:You heretics (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the only way to get some of those people to go to Church on Super Bowl Sunday.
Re:I'm Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.