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."
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:4, Informative)
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!
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Informative)
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.
PSA (Score:3, Informative)
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:3, Informative)
That's because Bill Belichick is God,... :-) Go Patriots! :-)
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):
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:Cops? No. Lawyers, yes. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Heard it before (Score:2, Informative)
Sports bars that have satellite TV or cable TV (most do) pay extra for public viewing service, so they've indirectly already chipped in to the NFL AND are counted in the ratings. (As accurately as the ratings count anything anyway.)
DirectTV's commercial use rates start out at just around double the home rates (for 1-50 people in your bar) and scale up. http://www.directv.com/images/Directv%20For%20Business/Bars_And_Restaurants/Bars_and_Restaurants_Public_Viewing_Packages.pdf [directv.com] Getting local channels (like your local FOX affiliate) costs extra.
Churches, as a non-profit, can subscribe to cheaper home services.
You also can't underestimate how much more effective advertising is on drunk people.
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)
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:1, Informative)
(If you hadn't figured, I used to work for Nielsen.)