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.
sports and religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:2007 (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? Squirting out kids or belonging to a church doesn't earn you special rights, special treatment, special sympathy or special consideration.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to be clear (Score:3, Insightful)
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:You heretics (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the only way to get some of those people to go to Church on Super Bowl Sunday.
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:2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (Score:1, Insightful)
There are pretty much fixed rules for what and how the game should be filmed. Sure it takes some effort and skill to learn the rules, but there is very little room for "artistic freedom" - a cameraman doing his own thing is likely to be fired.
Just because something requires skill to perform doesn't automatically make it creative. A plumber requires skill to do plumbing repairs. In fact plumbing repair may even more involve "creativity" than the cameraman situation, since cleverness may be required to work around unexpected problems and unforeseen situations.
NFL -- copyright abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If that's the case... (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright allows you to control copying, nothing more.
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.
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:If that's the case... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? (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
Re:Yeah, screw those churches! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heard it before (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, I read a different article where they were... (Score:2, Insightful)
None the less, I am not supporting the NFL's ban on showing the game on big screens. If people want to gripe that the NFL has some stupid rule about how big your TV can be, fine.
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ah, I read a different article where they were. (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Insightful)
-uso.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:3, 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 should change to cable pay-per-view, and stop milking a public resource for profit.
It's time for a not-so-gentle reminder that contrary to the pontifications of "real" lawyers, growing your own crops is not Interstate Commerce, forcefully transferring land from one private party to another is not "public use," and preventing people from watching the Superbowl together at their church does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Re:The end result? (Score:3, Insightful)
And got crucified for it.
I have a feeling Roger Goodell is no Pontius Pilot.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (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.
Actually, the Superbowl is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ah, I read a different article where they were. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (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, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that? Silence?
Re:Why does nobody else play American Football? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is played in 101 countries [wikipedia.org]. At least, that is the number of countries that play by the ICC rules. There may be more who play their own variations.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I say: throw the book at them (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 PRESIDENT DOESN'T MAKE THE LAWS?!
CONGRESS decides if a bill will become law. The president can ONLY prevent them by veto, in which case congress can STILL get them passed/changed if its important/profitable enough.
Stop being so retarded and looking at the president as the guy who matters and start paying attention to your congress men/women. THEY are the ones who make the laws. THEY can control the president more so than he can control them. Congress has the power to stop the war in Iraq for instance, but they don't REALLY want to, they just want to LOOK like they do so you don't replace them with somebody who will.
They are the ones who CAN put them into effect.
You want to bitch about a republican congress, fine. You should probably go back over the last 8 years and take a close look at how many democrats voted right along the same direction as the republicans as well. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm simply saying you act like one politician is different from another. Most of the ones that voted against the majority only do it because they know its a safe pass/fail anyway and it makes them look better to their voters.
And learn how your goverment works for fucks sake, also stop being such a twit that you think politicians are different because of the political party they claim.
</flame>
Re:If that's the case... (Score:3, Insightful)
Camera people are picking who to cover, how wide or tight to make a shot, whether they're going to pan with somebody or let them walk off the edge of the screen. Audio engineers are listening to everybody's microphone and determining the pitch of a person, how loudly you hear laughter or applause, and more. One of the most overlooked jobs in television is the engineer, who is constantly adjusting a camera's brightness and color to properly convey the tone of the moment while staying within broadcast standards.
Meanwhile, the director is watching a large number of cameras simultaneously. In my case, I've directed as many as five cameras, which is a rather large number and more than most local news broadcasts. In contrast, tomorrow's Super Bowl game is going to use around 30 cameras [broadcastingcable.com], and the director is watching all of them and deciding which one you'll see with split-second accuracy. Add to that graphics, the choice of which angle to use for instant replays, and more, and it's impossible to contend that sports broadcasts are not a creative medium.
I'll be the first to admit that copyright law is broken as it stands now - and the NFL is notorious for stretching things beyond what copyright law gives them license to do - but it needs to be fixed, not eliminated. However, I think the NFL is in the right legally in this instance (though they're probably not doing any favors to how fans perceive them). If there was no protections for public performance, nothing could stop another network from taking Fox's feed and simulcasting it with their own commercials.
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie you were showing was going to come off of a DVD though. If you got a group together in a room and turned on the TV to Channel 10's Sunday afternoon showing of Sister Act with Ultramatic commercials every 10 minutes, why should that matter? It's being broadcast over the public airwaves and intended for viewing by the public. As far as I can see, the only people who lose out on anything are the TV manufacturers. And they only lose out on sales to the small subset of people who would have bought a large TV to watch the Super Bowl on, but decided not to because the church had one to watch it on. And I suspect that that is a very small group of people.
Re:Why does nobody else play American Football? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, screw those churches! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:2, Insightful)
God doesn't give a fuck about your petty sports. He's far too busy starving little children to death in Africa to notice you throwing a ball around.
Re:NFL is deliberately obfuscating the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Also in clause 1, you highlight the phrase, but while the churches are "nonprofit" it doesn't seem like this would qualify as "educational purpose" (at least that's not what the football is for - it's just to get people in the door). It seems more like a nonprofit advertising or a not-for-profit commercial-style use, since it is essentially being used to promote the value of and awareness of the services rendered by the nonprofit organization.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the law here is
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.
Re:Good luck with that, NFL (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that only works if it is a catholic church....
more popular for its commercials (Score:2, Insightful)
For a very rarified group. My sister was "in The Business" (as she pronounces it)(film/ad business, that is), yet never notes the commercials. Neither does anyone else that I have met in person. All of them view it as either (1) a potentially interesting game (2) a good excuse for a party, like Cinco De Mayo is an excuse for tequilla, or (3) MUST SEE TV, as OUR TEAM is playing. Having grown up in the Pittsburgh, PA area during the Steelers Dynasty of the 1970s, I can understand this, even if I might not feel it (except two years ago, when WE WON!!!!! :-).
I would point out that broadcast TV is payed for by ad agencies bying airtime for their clients, so NOT making a big deal about the commercials on the Today Show, or the like, would be biting the hand that feeds them, and thus not done.