NFL Wants To Remind You That Having People Over To Watch The Super Bowl On A Big Screen Is Copyright Infringement
from the laws-written-by-lobbyists dept
What is it with sports leagues and their desire to limit how their fans can enjoy the game? There's Major League Baseball, who keeps trying to insist that they own the facts related to a game, and no one can use them without paying MLB first. Then, there's the NFL, who freaked out about TiVo and also tried to ban any broadcasters from using "unauthorized" video feeds to show what happens in the stadium (i.e., no sideline cameras any more). They've been particularly fussy about the Super Bowl, however, forcing advertisers to call it "the Big Game" or whatever, claiming excessive control over the trademark (remember, trademarks are really designed to prevent consumer confusion, not to give holders full control over the mark).
The latest situation is perhaps even more bizarre -- but tragically, seems to fall closer to a correct legal reading of a really poorly written law. The NFL apparently nastygrammed a church for planning to host a Super Bowl party. The original complaint was first that the church was charging people, but also that they used the term "Super Bowl" (as if people would somehow believe that the church was associated with the NFL?). After the church agreed to let people in for free and not use the term, the NFL continued to complain, saying that showing the Super Bowl on a screen larger than 55 inches represents copyright infringement. While we, at first, doubted the reality of this, Ben Austro sent in the fact that it is, indeed, spelled out in copyright law that once you get above 55", you may be talking about a "public performance," though, as Ben notes, the wording sounds like it was clearly written by a lobbyist. No matter what the law states, this seems ridiculously short-sighted by the NFL. It's hard to see how they lose out in any meaningful way by not allowing groups to watch the Super Bowl together. Of course, now that this particular quirk of copyright law is getting some attention, how long will it be until the MPAA starts cracking down on those of you with really big screen TVs from showing movies in your home theaters. What was a joke just a few months ago, may become real.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
sad :( by MadJo on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 2:41am
Next thing you know, even talking about "The Big Game" could result in a lawsuit, because that's copyright infringement.
Or just watching it with some friends/family is a copyright infringement, because you only have a license to watch it by one person.
I understand that companies and individuals want to get paid for their copyright, but this is getting ridiculous. Don't try to assert control over something you simply can't control.
A church that tries to create a community feeling by offering this service should not be illegal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
of course a church by Spartacus on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 2:54am
Is it just me is do these kinds of things tend to be targeted at conservative Christians? I will not get into a debate about "Conservative Right ruining the world and causing children in Cambodia to have potatoes growing out of their heads while giving lots of money to the CEO of Enron" but it does seem like this is not uncommon when a conservative Christian group is involved.
From TFA "It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."
Am I the only one who is frustrated by the fact that the NFL is ok with Sports Bars showing the Big Game on the wall using a projector but forbidding a Church from doing the same thing?
The money they make is in advertising and letting people watch it at the church IS NOT going to decrease people who see the advertisements.
This strikes me as not a business decision but rather a decision based on prejudice against Christians. Kind of ironic that the group of people most often assumed to be prejudiced against the world are being prejudiced against.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by la bête on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 3:16am
The sports bar would have been paying a fee to show it commercially, the church wasn't. A church is a commercial organisation just like a bar and should pay the same way. Just because it is peddling a particular meme rather than booze shouldn't make it immune.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Makes me want by The Original Just Me on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 3:23am
To set up a lawn chair outside and project the damn game on the side of my house. An unfortunate consequence of this is that anyone driving by will be able to see it, so sorry NFL. The only thing stopping me is that it is expected to be -2 (with wind chill) on Sunday.
Maybe I just won't watch the game at all, then I won't be counted by Nielson either.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: of course a church by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 3:30am
Yes! It is just you.. Oooh, us poor christians are being persecuted again. Not that you christians don't deliberately try to impose your own medieval dogma and beliefs upon millions of Americans. And you call it religious freedom. Go ahead, believe in an invisible man in the sky. Why don't you just blame Satan instead of the NFL?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pathetic by Yo ho ho... on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 3:35am
It is bad enough that it is two wholly unappealing / mediocre teams playing this Sunday...
... but for the NFL to go out of its way to single out a community gathering spot where most of those who would go there to watch the game were probably going to watch Simpsons at home instead....
This is really pathetic!
I only wish that this was a bigger story so that the NFL could be nationally embarassed for this action.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Give it up, Spartacus by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:00am
While the NFL's actions are ridiculous, your trying to turn it into some martrydom case against conservative Christians is even more ridiculous. Take it to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, where they're likely to lend credence to such groundless speculation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Great way to treat the fans! by Scott on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:04am
They've also shut a church SuperBowl Party down here in Indianapolis because it was copyright infringment.
It is very sad how they treat the fans. I, for one, won't be watching the game now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Adam on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:17am
Don't watch their stuff, don't buy their stuff, this goes for NFL, **AA and all other greedy bastards. If more and more people embrace this simple logic it may yield results in long term. People need to break their addiction from media or it will lead to total corporate slavery.
A.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by RedMatrix on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:18am
Superwhat?
Aren't they already making boat loads of money for the advertising spots? Wouldn't they want more people to watch them? Aren't the short changing the advertisers?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Progressive by The Bear on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:20am
Okay, next it will be adding up the inches on all of your TV screens, then they will sue your block, next the city, next the state, iiiiiieeeeeeee, here comes the NFL!! run for your lives they want your women!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow by Dodger on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:21am
Another reason to hate this already overblown sport.
It's sad to see how many people try to 'live' football in America. The sport isn't really entertaining to watch and it's not fun to play (nowhere near as fun as rugby for example). And I'm sure that last statement will bring out at least one typical football fan that seems to hate everything from every other country when they are talking football, even though I'm sure the TV they watch it on was made in China...
But hey, it's "tradition", and that's all this country seems to have to be proud of. Now it's just come down to this corporation (That is what it is, there is no sport anymore) that would rather force people to... what? Buy smaller TVs? Does a projector count since it's not really a TV, but just a means for displaying an image? What is a TV, the receiver or the display or both?
Screw it, think I'll Tivo THE BIG GAME and put it on torrent immediately after it's over. As for now, I'm gunna go stick my finger down my throat while I think about what this country is becoming.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Big Game by junglejim0745 on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:26am
Well, this is yet another example of The New Way Forward in our country, we soon will be only haves and have nots, all the inbetweeners will be gone.
Personally I have never watched a SuperBowl game and never will. I care nothing about sports of anykind on TV, nor will I go to a stadium and spend exorbinate amounts of money to watch big business in action. I am 61 and have no idea how long there has been a Superbowl, but I have missed them all and do not consider myself hurt in anyway for having done so.
Our country is getting just like the Roman Empire right before its collapse, as long as people can watch sports on tv on the weekend and swill beer or other beverage, no one cares what is happening around them. There really are ways to have a well rounded life without ignoring ones family and spending every waking offtime minute watching sports, hunting or fishing. Nothing is done in moderation any more, it is either wholehog or nothing. I know many will call me names for this post, but I enjoy life to the fullest and it does not include contributing to the decay and decline of this country by idolizing sports and sports so called (celebrities), many of whom are drug ridden addicts and should not be looked up to by anyone, especially our children.
This is just another tactic to control the population and generate more and more money for big business.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Big Lame by Uncle Deercamp on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:30am
Screw the NFL. I'm watching Puppy Bowl III.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Big Game by JohnTuscon on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:32am
I'll sencond that entire comment, except I'm not that age (yet).
Sports are great if you actually play them, you know, for FUN and EXERCISE, but once people start dropping everything for WATCHING sports, such as showing up to work late and ignoring your kids while you try to watch the ever-important pass attempt, it's at that point that the society that participates in such activities has hit a new low.
Lets not even start talking about the riots of citizens that happen after their own team has won the game...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A fan and still disgusted. by Kidding Me! on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:53am
Unlike a lot here I'm a BIG fan of Football. But come on, this is just pure greed and stupidity by the NFL. I guess they will start alienating their fans like others sports and start to watch their viewer base drop! Would serve them right, looks like they've gotten to the point they feel they don't need fans! I mean they DID create football, right? (Sarcasm there)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
2 questoins and 3 comments by MEoip on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:56am
q1) If as a the pastor of church I'm not but let's pretend) I start showing football and other sports games on Sunday afternoon/evening then I would seemly fall into the portion of the law which exempts bars and other establishments that regularly show games. So if I hook my projector up each Sunday and show the game in my churches multi purpose room then I can show the super bowl (it is 2 words) on Super bowl Sunday, right?
q2) Can I use the word Superbowl as one word (much of the media does) or is it also copyrighted?
c1) You must have
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: The Big Game by Stinky Jones on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:58am
Haha... well, you people realize that you don't have to be a family-neglecting, alcoholic, sports fanatic to enjoy watching "the big game", right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Justifying their jobs? by BHD on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 4:59am
Could this be an instance of some employees having to justify their jobs, like politicians, by taking some sort of action(s) to prevent copyright infringement, or at least appear to be battling it? That way those employees and their leadership can show that they're working hard for the company.
The reason I bring up this possibility is that it seems like this happens a lot in business, politics, and elsewhere. People seem to focus on the benefits of one thing, in this case "proving their worth" to the company, and they lose focus of any ramifications it may have.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 2 questoins and 3 comments by Stinky Jones on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:00am
And you are just drunk.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where is by Richard Ahlquist on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:01am
Where is one of them LED Finger dudes in boston when you need one to send the NFL....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:11am
Fuck them all. I'd like to see someone try to stop me from showing anything I like to all my friends on my projector. My screen is over 10ft. and I have no plans to stop the parties!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stupor Bowl by Nasty Old Geezer on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:22am
I do enjoy watching sports, but only casually. Anyone who doesn't enjoy that activity, well, I wish you health and wealth to enjoy other things.
The NFL takes itself far too seriously, and this year I may well forget the whole thing. (The really GOOD footbal games are in the playoffs anyway.)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: off topic reply to Spartcacus by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:24am
Christians complain of being persecuted although they make up 80% of the population, control the Presidency, (until recently) had both branches of Congress and the Supreme Court - and they have the unmitigated gall to complain about being persecuted.
When leaders make their followers believe they are being treated badly, they are employing one of the oldest tricks in history to keep the sheep in line.
As Hitler's propaganda minister Goebbels said - and proved, people swallow big lies more readily than small ones.
Sorry for going off topic but Spartcacus asked for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What is really the truth by artist on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:33am
Ok.
the Super Bowl is the property of the NFL.
The NFL has copyright to it.
Copyright law says that they do have the right to control public viewing.
Where this is getting blown out of proportion is with home viewers.
You can have a Super Bowl party at your house and use a project to view it at any size you want, and as long as you do not charge people, you are fine.
Your house is not considered Public viewing.
A church is considered Public, as are bars and clubs, sports houses etc.
In order for a public place to broadcast the Super Bowl, they have to pay a licensing fee to the NFL.
In the grand scheme of things (despite what fans thinks) it is good business for the NFL to enforce this policy across the board.
They are being paid by advertisers not for viewers, but for viewings.
150 people viewing one broadcast counts as one viewer for advertising purposes (since there is no way to determine how many people are actually watching the screen)
If they did not enforce this, then everyone with any place of business and half a brain would have the game on. The NFL would lose a ton of money because viewership would be down (even though the number of viewers would probably be the same)
As an artist, I love copyright law because it protects my work.
I have chosen to enforce my copyright on big companies, but not on little people because my art work does not constitute my livelihood.
If I lived solely off my artwork, I would enforce my copyright to the fullest extend possible.
As for using the term Super Bowl.
Super Bowl is a trade mark of the NFL.
for a long time, everyone and their uncle was using the term in advertising.
There were Super Bowl sales at electronics stores. (now it is "Watch the Big Game on the Big Screen")
Why should anyone get a freebie from the NFL to promote their business?
What are they giving to the NFL?
Newspapers use "Super Bowl" in their prints, but NOT in ads.
My morning paper had a section called "Super Bowl Weekend" but the front page that pointed to it said "Everything you need to know about the Big Game inside"
That is the difference between Trade Mark violation and Trade Mark usage
You can use the term Q-tips to describe cotton swabs, But you can not use the term Q-tips to advertise a product (and you must mention the trade mark owner in you use them in a comparison of items, or when used to described cotton swabs in something like an article.
i.e. "Use a Q-tip to clean your keyboard" - Q-tip is a registered trademark of Johnson and Johnson.....
Just because people view this Church as a little person, does not give them the right to infring on the NFLs copyright.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bad call on this play by MDAG on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:34am
I read about this church's situation yesterday and felt the NFL was wrong in there decision. From what I understand the church only wanted to provide a place for families to get together and watch the game without the bar atmosphere. However the NFL feels that this would cause them to lose money or something, so screw it! I don't live in Indianapolis or Chicago so I don't really care much about this game. I really would only be watching for the commercial and possible the half-time show. So I won't watch the "big game" this year because of the NLF lame take on this situation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
??? by John on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:35am
You gotta be kidding. So in other words all large screens should not be displaying the Super Bowl. I wonder how advertisers are going to react next year when they realize that less people will be watching because they're not allowed to view it in public.
This is just plain stupid, I think I'm not even going to watch the game this time, I could care less about either teams...I'm going to spend quality time with my family and play with the free software I jsut got off of Giveawayoftheday.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh really... by Sanguine Dream on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:36am
Sounds like the NFL is jealous that most people watch the game for the ads and half time show now. For the most part only fans of the two teams care about the game itself.
And frankly unless the NFL is going to subpeona the cable/satellite/tv bills of everyone in world I really don't see how they can tell who is "infringing". And even if they do manage to get that info how can they tell who is using a tv of 55".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by hoeppner on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:38am
after showing it so a family member, they suggested ratings.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Big Game by thinlizzy151 on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:43am
RE: junglejimo745 - Could not agree with you more. It's sad that sports have been taken over by big business, just like the arts. Both are something that really add to life - something the ancient Greeks understood fully. I guess it is up to people to take it back. Support amateur sports, the level a play might be as great, but it's a lot more pure. People playing for the sheer love of the game. That is what it should be about. You might even think about playing yourself. Just a thought
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Big Lame by haywood on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:52am
I'm delighted at their stupidly. Perhaps this will be the start of football taking its rightful place, right behind root canals.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Super Dooper Bowl by Screw Football on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:53am
Happy to say I won't be watching the superbowl this year.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by la bête on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 3:16am by Shemnon on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:58am
Having worked as a installer and as a tech support rep for cable and sattalite companies i can tell you that actually bars would not be paying any royalty to the NFL.
At most they pay a cable bill. And if its a sports game its going to be on a local network channel anyhow (which they could get for free off the air, although the picture may not be as good.)
The local networks do not get royalty fees from end users. they gain their profits from advertising dollars.
For specialty events such as PPV fights or boxing on HBO a bar simply pays a fee for the service. again no royalty directly paid. It is the network that shows the content that pays the licencing franchise for the privilege to air the shows.
Specialty stations recoup this cost by a subscription based service such as premium movie channels and PPV events.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bob 3000 on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 5:59am
I'll make it a point to use "The Big Game" for playoff NHL games, I'll use it all over the web. I'll wait for the C&D letter then post it online.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wake UP NFL !!! by MCP3521 on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:02am
So according to this article, every sports bar in the country is violating this 55" rule then right? All the NFL is getting ready to do is shoot themselves in the foot.
The LCD/Plasma makers should be telling the NFL to shut it's pie hole. Hard core football fans only buy the bigger TV's JUST to watch the "Big Game". If they continue to get stupid over this rule, people will just stop buying the larger boxes which will hurt everyone involved.
It's bad enough that when I was younger you could go see a NFL game for $10 per seat.(back in the 80's) Now it's $50 for the noise bleed sections, and now they pull stuff like this? insane.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmmm... by Vincent Clement on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:05am
I'm not sure how the church could be infringing on copyright when nothing has been shown on the their big screen TV yet. Does the NFL employ precogs that see the future?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Maybe legal by Nasty Old Geezer on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:09am
THe NFL may be on solid legal grounds, but that does not mean they are doing a wise thing. For many years churches wil Sunday evening services had tried to set up competing events. THere has been a recent wave of acquiesence that many people want to watch the game so the churches were using their media equipment to host "Big Game" parties.
The NFL should have done a demographic/economic analysis first -- I believe they would have found a real benefit from the church events. Rather than sending threats, they should allow any church to receive a no-cost license to show NFL games (but not to record, rebroadcast, etc.)
It would be easy enough to verify, just request the organization's tax-exemption number and address, with information about the number of screens, screen size, number of attendees, etc. Pure gold and good will for the NFL.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Super Blow by Wolfger on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:13am
The subject says it all...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: of course a church by YouKnowNothing on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:16am
Man, this has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read here on Techdirt. This even surpasses dorpus-speak.
Who the fuck cares what religion these people are. I'm certain that when it comes to "protecting their content and trademarks", the NFL thinks we're all heathens and deserve to be burned at the steak until dead for the mere unauthorized utterance of the words "Super" and "Bowl" used together, and the nanosecond glimpse of "the Big Game" on anyone's (larger than 55-inch) TV screen without paying for it first.
Conservative Christians are the *LAST* group in the world that should be complaining about prejudice, seeing as how *anyone*, *anywhere* who doesn't believe exactly what you do is going to be damned to a firey death in Hell for all Eternity.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Laws gone wild. by Bah, football on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:18am
Artist, although your comments about protecting your revenue are correct, I don't see how it applies. Yes they get revenue from ads, but you can't tell me that "Big Brother" can tell if 30 families are sitting at home watching versus 30 families at the church watching one feed. If they were Nielson families maybe, but all those numbers you hear about viewerships are made up guesstimates... besides, what difference would a handfull of churches make versuses the entire viewership of the world? It's .000000001% - maybe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is why I do not watch sports. by ScaredtowatchTV on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:19am
I am afraid that the big bad NFL and other companies will come and arrest me because I have a 136" projector screen. Why does everyone let them get by with this crap. I thought this was labled as a free country. Our country needs a revolution BADLY!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who cares by Jon on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:22am
They make enough money, both Church and NFL. They deserve eachother.
P.S - Ill be watching the game on a 55" HD TV - SUCK MY A$$ NFL - Isnt this America?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by You never Know on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:25am
It boils down to “Protect the industry” if there is money in suing the fan and limiting the enjoyment in order to make a few more bucks, then you can bet some one is going to do it. The biggest problem is they know even is they loose a few fans there are more than enough to make up for it. And with such a fan base there is lots of opportunity for money making law suits. Now if any one wants to pick up the ball and try to defend the “cause” lets review the subject. The term “Super Bowl” was and is an advertising medium to act as an invitation to watch the game. It was intended to be used to signify the last game of the best teams of the year. So the industry can afford to present his game to the “Public” it features advertisements for products and services who pay for the privilege of presenting their wears, if you will, to the most people they can. To try to reek more profit by limiting the amount of viewers and control the usage of their advertising seems awfully counterproductive to me, but there is short term high profits to be made by doing so. This is their only reason for trying to bottle up the advertisement and terminology used by the NFL , MLB, and any other entity who are willing to prosecute their supporters. Their attitude is the same as that of the RIAA and the MPAA, the “Fan” is nothing more than a peace of trash to be exploited and tossed aside. If you can prove me wrong, please do so!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The big game by Robert Lawrence on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:35am
If the NFL gets upset about that, what will they think about this? Recording your own audio? Is that legal?
www.buttercast.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Makes me want by BinaryWorld on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:39am
That's exactly what I want to do. But we're expected to reach that -2 mark also so it will be too cold. My TV (or projection), my house. If anyone happens to catch a glimpse while I'm enjoying a game that I'm paying my cable company for, then that's not my problem.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Let's all advertise that we are having large Super by John on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:41am
Hey, let all advertise that we are having a Super Bowl Party and inviting all of our friends and we have 70 inch TVs. Let's see how many lawyers the NFL can hire to come after us all. Once we all show up in court then this country will realize how stupid the NFL and other are for forcing us to fit into their stupid little single tv, single viewer Nielsen Ratings counts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why it happened by Mark on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:42am
The real reason this NFL copyright thing happened? Stores were the biggest problem. They used the SuperBowl and NFL logos to advertise products and sales to make a profit. The NFL did not recieve any of that profit. Bars were the same way, they all threw big Superbowl parties. Advertised the party using NFL and SuperBowl logos to make a profit without paying the NFL. That is where the ruling came from. The problem is, Lawyers got involved and took it to the extreme. Non-profit organizations that want to hold something can get around those lawyers by advertising it as a gathering to watch the event for. They can ask for donations to defay the costs for holding the event, but cannot charge admission. Believe it or not, if a church were to charge members to watch a movie (DVD) on the bigscreen, it would be the same copyright infringement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Exceptions by Pandlcg on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:45am
Didnt read all the comments so i'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but exceptions are made by the NFL for businesses that rely on showing sporting events on tv year round for revenue. So bars are not targeted.
SI had an article on it yesterday.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Progressive by Sidney on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:47am
THey don't want your women- they want your daughters and first born as a sacrifice to the NFL GOD.
Down through the years I have watched very few Super Bowls.
I have never watched one with New England in it and never will. That my friend is what you call NFL fixing team.
In fact the last Super Bowl I watched was with Paul McCartney at halftime- and it was the only thing entertaining in the whole game anyway.
Solock up the kiddies they are coming.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
55 inch by safusa on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 6:56am
If the copyright law has a limit of 55 inches, then anybody that owns a tv large than that is breaking the law. So how they the TV companies sell the TV's knowing they are breaking the law.
They seem to want to have it both ways, push the HD TV, big screen, but also limit the number of people that want to view it.
Once the church decided not to charge, and to take the "super bowl" out, they should be able to allow people to watch it, if they allow people at home to watch it on tv's bigger than 55 inches.
Just another way for them to promote the game, more hype.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I know! by Sanguine Dream on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:00am
The NFL figures it can make more out of a person on a single lawuit than they will from the loyalty that person had to their favorite team (and league). So in short the NFL thinks:
$$$ of one lawsuit > $$$ from X years of team loyalty
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by JN on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:01am
A church is not a commercial orgainization like a bar. Churches are non-profit organizations that typically provides alternatives to bars for events like the Superbowl that famiies can attend.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: 55 inch by pandlcg on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:03am
The Law is for "out of home" viewing, and like i mentioned has cut out an exception for bars. So 55 inches or bigger is not illegal in either of those two circumstances. Even a church can own as long as it isnt showing the superbowl to a massive audience.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What is really the truth by Vincent Clement on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:04am
A church is considered Public, as are bars and clubs, sports houses etc.
Says who? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 110 does not define a church, bar or club as public. In fact, there is no mention that because a place is publicly accessible that you are required to obtain approval of the copyright holder?
What are they giving to the NFL?
Um, I don't know, free advertising? Making the event much bigger than it is? Making it the so-called 'premier' sporting event of the year? Spreading buzz about the big game? Creating interest in the big game? Creating goodwill? I could go on and on.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Why it happened by Vincent Clement on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:10am
Don't confuse copyright with trademark. Mike, perhaps it is time for refresher on Patents, Copyrights and Trademark?
The NFL did receive plenty of free advertising when stores used the Super Bowl and NFL logos. This advertising made the game even bigger and more important that it was 10 or so years ago. But like every business that is based on an outdated model, they just want to squeeze every last penny, regardless of the negative impact.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Big Brother - NWO by George from NY on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:13am
The NFL just needs more viewers - more TV's = more ratings. Politicians looking for extra money is also part of this. All those home electronic shops will benefit from folks buying more TV's due to this law. One of many laws that are Stupid, but can be used against you.
Freedom continues to be taken away people -
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Laws gone wild. by Vincent Clement on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:14am
Besides, I am pretty sure that when the NFL and the TV networks sell advertising spots and space to companies, they use an estimate of total viewership that includes anyone watching the game, regardless if their viewing is an infringement or not of copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Alternative... by seti on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:27am
I wonder how much these sports agency put into the alternative of such restrictions, with that being...NOT WATCHING!
There are dedicated fans of sports (football, baseball, soccer, etc...), but at what point do fans decide that being sued for watching a game on their 60" screen is more than they are willing to tolerate. No one loses in these home get together's to watch these games. With the food, drink, NFL merchandise (jersey's or other team spirit clothing), and so on that is present...these organizations aren't losing anything...it's a win all for most.
It is truly insane the direction that sports is taking...the greed and control is amazing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What is really the truth by Tommy 2face on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:27am
The statutory enactments contained in the Copyright Act of 1976 wasn't created for such hipocracy and unjust practices. It wasn't developed to prevent consumers to envelop in the envoy of the product. It wasn't until the Record Rental Amendment of 1984 that copyright law took its real turn to help produce profit for big business. Here is the some law about distribution media: If you look I may be in violation because of the audio and video system I have. I have a 10,000 sq ft house why shouldn't I be able to enjoy the luxury of a tv larger than 55" This is outdated and needs to be changed
communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission
embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical
work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio
or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications
Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system
or satellite carrier, if—
(i) in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking
establishment, either the establishment in which the communication
occurs has less than 2,000 gross square feet of space (excluding space used
for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment
in which the communication occurs has 2,000 or more gross square feet
of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other
purpose) and—
(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance 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; or
(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;
(ii) in the case of a food service or drinking establishment, either the
establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 3,750
gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and
for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication
occurs has 3,750 gross square feet of space or more (excluding space
used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and—
(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance 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; or
(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;
(iii) no direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission or retransmission;
(iv) the transmission or retransmission is not further transmitted beyond
the establishment where it is received; and
(v) the transmission or retransmission is licensed by the copyright
owner of the work so publicly performed or displayed;
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Greedy by JohnnyZTS on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:28am
If your not making money off it nobody should care.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NFL Players and Home Theaters by Mick on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:37am
I wonder if the NFL is going to send nasty grams to any of their own players - who are watching the game in the home theater rooms with giant projector screens and hosting parties?
My question is when a church group or the ACLU will sue the league for choosing to go after this church and not players or other establishments violating this agreement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Michael on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:38am
What is this "super bowl" of which you speak?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm, Use a projector... by Tin Ear on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:41am
There once was a poor tailor in old Chinatown. Every day he would take his meager lunch of rice and sit on his front step so he could smell the scents coming from the popular restaurant next door while he ate. This went on for quite a while, until the restaurant owner found out what he was doing and sent him a bill for 'enjoying his food'. The tailor asked one of his customers, a judge, what he should do. The next day, the tailor went into the restaurant next door carrying his cash box. He went up to the restaurant owner and shook the box loudly, stating "For the scents of your food, I pay you the sound of my money. Mark me 'paid in full'."
If the NFL is going to be piddling about the size of the screen you watch the game on, use a projector! The screen is less than 2 inches square. The projection is only a reflection of the actual display. Can they charge you for standing outside the stadium and listening? No, that is incidental to the game. A reflection on the wall, of any size, should be the same. It is incidental to the actual display... Of course, this is just the sort of technicality that the lawyers drool over.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:42am
Fine, I'll skip going to my friends house to watch the game.
I won't be watching it at home either. I don't think I've ever watched the super bowl sitting at the house by myself, I always watch with friends.
Good news for 'copyright' - bad news for 'advertising'.
OMG HOW STUPID CAN THEY GET!!!! LOL
One can only pray they have lower ratings this year than any other.
Oh well, I can take it or leave it, no big deal at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Clarification by grapeshot on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:45am
The NFL is not making their money via advertising costs. The NETWORK that is broadcasting the game is making money from the advertising. The NFL has already made its money from the licensing fee that the NETWORK paid to it in order to be able to broadcast the game. (Unless, that is, if the NFL and the NETWORK have signed an agreement to share the advertising revenue.)
Unfortunately, it is nonetheless true that the content of the broadcast belongs to the NFL. And yes, showing the broadcast to a large number of people, even if nothing is charged for it, and even if it is in a private home, is technically a violation of the copyright. At a PUBLIC venue, such as a bar or a church, it's definitely copyright infringement, and isn't covered by "fair use". Fair use is limited to showing something in your home, and to a limited amount of people. (I'm not sure what that limit is. 15 or 20 people, I think.)
It is doubly unfortunate that the NFL has chosen to go after only churches, and not bars, which also routinely have Superbowl parties. It is certainly not good PR, and if the NFL goes too far in this direction, it will only decrease their goodwill in the eye of the public, and could have deeper repercussions as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by a on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:56am
This is actually a brilliant move by the NFL. Make sure that a church group can't bring in a bunch of people to watch the game. Absolutely brilliant. Why do you ask is that brilliant?
Chances are, those folks who were going to their church to watch the game got pissed off, and promised to not watch the game. Other church goers from around the country probably didn't like the publicity, and will boycott the game. Considering the commercials that will run and the halftime show, you think maybe its not a bad idea to have a bunch of bible thumpers watching the game? Hell, the church probably had some emails already drawn up protesting the ads or the halftime show, all ready for their congregation to send off to the FCC.
I like the NFL's stance. You don't like nipples? Then to hell with you and damm the profits. You want to offer a nice, alcohol free place to watch our game? Screw you. Go to a bar. I bet if the church had advertised that their would be strippers at halftime, the NFL wouldn't have given them a hard time. Football isn't for wimps, and the west wasn't won on a salad.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Churches by Geoff on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:10am
I have finally figured this one out. The NFL is going after the churches because they are fearful that Prince is going to have a wardrobe malfunction at halftime (are we allowed to call it halftime or do they own that one too?) and the NFL does not want to have to deeal with the Moral Majority coming after them telling them that football is bad and that Prince's nipple (pierced or not pierced I wonder?) is an infringement on people's right to watching morally appealing properties on their televisions.
I'm pretty sure I have this thing nailed down!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:10am
Well, my belief's aside - I'm not a 'church goer'.
Actually, I'm more of a bar fly.
It's not the fact it was a Church - doesn't matter, that's completely irrelevant.
Funny how the NFL says a church can't have a showing of the Superbowl.
I IM'ed my boss with the web page - yeah, it's gonna get around now :) Big sports circle here. His comment was, "funny how they can tell a Church not to aire the superbowl, with the NFL's current 'image' of half it's players in Jail, you'd think they would be happy about that."
I like hot chicks, beer, liquor, and seedy bars as much as anyone I know. But this still pisses me off~~
But does it really matter? From an advertiser's point of view - who cares what 'religion' a buyer or potential buyer is. I'm sure many 'Church Goers' drink Budweiser, Drive Chevys, and use Visa...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:11am
Come to think of it - those Churches should go document bars that require a 'cover charge' to get in and watch the game.
and SUE the hell out of the NFL~~
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I've heard this before! by Buzz on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:13am
For the record, I am not a football fan. I don't know team names, famous athletes, etc. I think it's all a big waste of time, but so are video games, and I like video games. Anyway, the NFL is way out of line here. I used to live in a place in Washington where the local church buildings would host similar football game viewing parties. I understand drawing the line at charging an entry fee, but banning it altogether for copyright infringement?
Did anyone else read that article about how handing off a digital camera to a friend to take picture for you was violation of the software license embedded inside? I think it was a Techdirt article even. Regardless, do these company people live life at all? Do the people at the camera companies ever stop to think that more-than-likely they have handed cameras off to friends for certain shots? Heck, all we have to do is search their albums for a picture of themselves, and they're busted! Did it ever occur to the NFL that people have been gathering to watch the games on HUGE screens for YEARS now? (I know that just because something has been in practice for a while doesn't necessarily mean it's right, but in this instance, I think it's OK.) I know I'm not a football fan, but isn't that half the fun? How many out there like to watch the game alone?
By the way, I just came from working in a men's dormitory at a university. There is a 65-inch TV in the main lounge where guys would gather to watch games all the time. The NFL really should hear about it... :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:15am
Well, I know one thing - I have a LOT of friends who are sports fans.
I'm emailing this to everyone of them!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Laws gone wild. by spoilsport on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:24am
Bah, Football says: "what difference would a handfull of churches make versuses the entire viewership of the world? It's .000000001% - maybe."
Good job, captain math, .000000001% of the world's population is about 6.5% of a single person.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
being safe by Joe Smith on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:24am
My TV might be more than 55 inches. The manufacturer said it was 55 inches but who knows, maybe they rounded down by 1/16 of an inch.
I certainly don't want to do anything illegal so I guess I'll play it safe and just:
NOT WATCH THE GAME.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
OMG by Buzz on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:28am
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's long-standing policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. An exception is made for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations. "We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen." That clenches it. This shows how stupid they really are. They have contracts with networks to provide FREE over-the-air television. So, they're throwing a fit because they won't receive accurate ratings. They're trying to ban the very thing that makes the Super Bowl so wonderful.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ridiculous by Stickin It To The Man on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:32am
I will now be using my projector to host a Super Bowl Party for everyone on my street. I'm also going to record the game and play it again right after it's over. I know some people that have to work and would love to watch it later. I will project it at the max size which for my projector is about 6' by 12'. I hope the NFl comes knockingand I really hope they sue I own nothing not even a car. If they go after my paycheck I will just quit I don't really have to work anyway. It just keeps me busy, thank my grandfather for a large trust fund that is not in this country. He is/was Venezulean and all the money remains there. Let's see how they like that, ass hats the lot of them
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Your home theater is safe, no matter how big by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:35am
From the "definitions" section of 17 USC:
An “establishment” is a store, shop, or any similar place of business open to the general public for the primary purpose of selling goods or services in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed publicly.
A “food service or drinking establishment” is a restaurant, inn, bar, tavern, or any other similar place of business in which the public or patrons assemble for the primary purpose of being served food or drink, in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed publicly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
55" by benji on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:38am
i say we all go out a buy 56 inch plasma tvs just for the super bowl.....then bring 'em back when were done.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pathetic by Merc on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:39am
How much more pathetic do you have to be? Players already make a ridiculous amount of money, the leagues make the same and the sprt itself is out of control!! When will they realize that it is the FANS that make them who they are? What would they do if the fans said "to hell with the SUPER BOWL" and found someting else to do that day? Of course the thought is obsurd and it would never happen. However, just because of the article I know I won't watch it. If even for the fact it is two teams I care anothing about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Slaughter the Corporate Pigs by NFLosers on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:45am
Football isn't for wimps...
Maybe playing football isn't for wimps, but what the hell does that have to do with people watching it on TV screens - of any size??
Is it time for your next joint yet?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
super bowl by fred on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:55am
is there a surplus of IP attorneys today or what? citing a specific dimension of a TV rather than other aspects of a venue...i.e., charging people etc., is the most absurd control I can remember hearing...so I should be penalized because my thing is too big?...how un-American is that?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
TVs in Cars and Wait till RIAA reads this by Ambo on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:57am
Last Week while I was waiting for my daughter to get through with dance, I watched a small part of a movie on the drop down TV in the SUV parked in front of me. I couldn't hear the sound, but now that I think about it, they were probably breaking the law by letting me see the screen. It was a public viewing of a movie.
I love how Dr. offices still showed Disney movies in their waiting rooms even after Disney tried to put a stop to it. I wonder if they still do that. Thankfully, haven't had anyone young enough for the pediatrician for several years.
When my neighbor is working on his 18 wheeler, he blast his 80 rock. The sound is not contained in his yard. I can just see the RIAA people riding around towns looking for people "sharing" their music with their neighbors. I'm surprised they haven't tried to put limits on how loud our radios will play to prevent this from happening.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yikes by Petréa Mitchell on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 8:59am
The limit on speakers that comes right after the screen size limit deserves mention-- not many people have 55" TVs, but I bet there are lots of audiophiles out there who have systems with more than 4 speakers in one room.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by ConceptJunkie on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:02am
I think I need to become a football fan just so I can boycott the Superbowl, but it's just not worth the effort.
I'll have to stick with not watching it because I just don't care.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ARE YOU SERIOUS NFL by Russ on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:05am
NFL (Near F****ING LUNACY!!!
They have got to be kidding! What about the people "over there" who will be watching "the big game" in MWR centers in variousl "hot spots" around the globe? On proxima projectors? Will the NFL get their panties in a wad over that? Me personally, I could care less about football, the Super Bowl, big game or what have you...but them telling a church no. Pardon est moi, but F*** you NFL! You make too much money while the guys in the uniforms (Not military) make WAY too much money playing a GAME! So, on Sunday (Which we, may I assume can no longer call Superbowl Sunday) I will watch my 6 week old drool on herself instead. It will be way more enjoyable than the "Big Game" Besides, one team will win one will lose, regardless if I watch or not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
church by poff on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:06am
church people think they can do anything because they are better than everyone, but screw the nfl anyway
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by This is INSANE on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:11am
Church or no Church I think the NFL is taking this way too far. They are abusing their power. The best way to teach them a lesson is to hit them where it hurts - their revenu. Stop buying the products that are advertised during the 'Super Bowl' and stop buying their merchandise. I can't say don't watch the game, there are people out there who love the game of football and could care less who is going to be the half time show. Next thing you know, we are goign to have to pay $100 dollars to watch the game on pay per view. It is very sad to see what this world is coming to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And I'd like to remind the NFL... by me (damnit) on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:14am
that they can kiss my pigskin balls. The very fact that screen size has anything at all to do with this is simply assinine.
Maybe the NFL should ask their advertisers and sponsors their opinion (yes I know they are actually the network's advertisers, but the money still ends up in the NFL's pocket).
See how many chip, beer, TV, etc. companies would support the end of Super Bowl parties. You know, where I invite 50-60 people over, we watch it on SEVERAL large screens, and they all cram lots of grub down their throats. You know, where I DON'T charge admission and in the end up spending several hundred dollars on stuff the advertisers sell to entertain all these people.
Yeah, lets see how much money the advertisers and sponsors wouldn't make if the SB parties ended.
I'll give you a hint, NFL. There's a very good reason the chip & beer folks want to promote themselves with the SB: revenue. People don't buy all that crap if they're sitting home alone watching.
The NFL. Maybe that means "Not For Long". Dillholes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Church should PAY by Steve on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:14am
The church should pay just like any other commercial establishment charging people to view the game. BUT, it will be a cold day in hell before the football fans of America pay the NFL for showing the Super Bowl or any other game to a home full of family and friends.
I'd drop football completely if the NFL pursued a single private party for hosting a Super Bowl get together.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Church bashing not necessary... by a guy on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:19am
I don't even go to church, but there's no need to bash these church people. It's not like they're inviting the general public in by the hundreds or thousands, charging $50 a head and building a new gym from the proceeds. They're just providing a place for their members (and sure, maybe a few non-members) to come enjoy the game together. It's just a bit of outreach to people, and they're asking for a few bucks to cover their costs. They're non-profit for pete's sake.
What's the NFL thinking? If these people don't watch it at church, they'll fly in for the game? Give me a break. Even if they did, they'd have to get their tickets from scalpers! There's the only place they're losing any real revenue. They should just auction the tickets off an hour before the game!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: What is really the truth by Artist on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:24am
"Says who? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 110 does not define a church, bar or club as public. "
The courts said who.
Numerous cases have been decided on what is and is not a public display.
In the most basic application. Anyplace you do not have an expectation of privacy, i.e. you house, a restroom, a locker room etc... IS a public place.
And public display of copyright material applies.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
6x8 by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:40am
So am I going to hell for my 120" projection screen?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Collections? by DM/Diddy on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:41am
"A church is not a commercial orgainization like a bar".
Well, kinda. What do you bet that they were planning on asking for "contributions" to defray the cost of opening the church for the game? Or do you naively suppose they will hide all of the collection boxes?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NFL copyright by Andy on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:41am
Seems to me that the paymaster should have something to say agout who watches and how. The paymaster in this case is the people who put up the big bucks for TV adds. I would think they would want every person possible to be watching in what ever manner possible so they can get their moneys worth. When they see what these picky rules are doing to their advertising dollers, maybe they won't want to pay so much for the adds.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The NFL LIED to the church. by kurttrail on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:50am
"in the case of a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 3,750 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 3,750 gross square feet of space or more (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and—
(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance 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; or
(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 one 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;"
In other words, since the church is NOT a "food service or drinking establishment," then they aren't bound by the 55" limit, and neither are you in your own home.
Corporate Lawyers suck, and will lie about the law, to get you to believe in total nonsense.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yikes by Nasty Old Geezer on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:52am
The real irony about the 4 speaker limit: the HD broadcast is in 5.1 surround. ROTFLMAO
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: What is really the truth by Brad Eleven on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:01am
1. The truth is subjective, i.e., does not exist independently of human consciousness. Thanks for sharing yours.
2. The NFL is pulling the old MPAA/RIAA tactic, e.g., going after small entities who can't afford to defend themselves legally.
Ridiculous. Unenforceable. Evidence of more corporate leaders detached from reality.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by - on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:06am
What the hell is the world coming to. Everybody is so anal about every possible cent they have the potential to gain from anything it's ruining freedoms and liberties nobody ever thought would be put into question. What I've gained from this article is that if I were to invite a few friends over to watch the Super Bowl (gasp!) on my beautiful 60 inch high definition plasma, and made it public, the NFL would come after me for legal purposes. Does anybody realize how f*cking ridiculous that is??? In sheer protest to all this, I will have all my friends over on Super Bowl Sunday, hang up signs broadcasting the name Super Bowl in everypossible space in my house, display the game on every screen on the premises, including 2 55", 1 60", and one 80". I will then proceed to charge everyone $1 to come, therefore completely and totally defying the crybaby NFL execs, and in my own words, telling them and everyone else adhering to this insane trend of fighting to your last breath for every penny within your line of sight, to f*ck off. All this coming from a man who is, himself, obsessed with business and making money, but would never stoop to such an whining immature level.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NOTHING BUT LAME!!! by Devon on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:10am
WTF?!?!? Since when is it cool to slap lawsuits on your customers? Or even threaten it for that matter?
What difference does it make if out of the millions of people watching the game, 20 or 30 people get together and watch it. It's a social thing. If I had a big enough TV, I'd ADVERTISE a SUPER BOWL (oh no!!! copyright infringement!!!) party just to spite them. This is so lame. I don't even like football all that much, but to do something like this... It's like Bill Gates complaining that he's a penny short in change. It's stupid.
You know what? I'll do it anyway!
Everyone come to my place for a PUBLIC showing of the SUPER BOWL the ENTRANCE FEE is $5.00 A PIECE.
HAHA!! I'm making money off the SUPER BOWL!
SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL SUPER BOWL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
::shaking head:: by American on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:14am
Have we forgotten that this IS the people's game? Christmas never asked for anything back, Why would The Super Bowl?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Ridiculous by Devon on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:14am
Rock on bro, rock on.
I'd come, but I'm hosting my own party. Just to piss them off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Supper Bowl by Bob on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:19am
I will be doing as I have every other year - put my projector outside - and watch the "Big Game" on my nice white garage door.
No street lights - 16' x 9' door - makes you feel right at the game.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NFL by Bryan John Boswell on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:23am
I'd like to remind the NFL that their version of football is a copyright infrindgement of the real game.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Super Bowl by Aircraft Guy on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:24am
That is crazy... How much did they get from the network for ad revenues? The only people making good on this is the NFL's lawyers
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by eriks on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:29am
They don't have a choice. The law does not allow for selective enforcement of trademark. If the NFL can be shown to not be enforcing their trademark they may forfeit it.
Blame congress, they wrote the stupid law, the NFL is just obeying it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Best Buy, Circuit City, You're NEXT by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:47am
So is it a copyright infringement for a department store or home electronics retailer to show an NFL game to the public on the showroom floor? What next royalties charged because 200 people walked past the big screen at Sears?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The only way to win... by Sammy on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 10:56am
...Is not to play.
or
"There is a shark in our swimming pool. If we choose not swim there, it will starve to death."
Both seem to apply in this case.
Boycott the NFL.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Boycott the NFL. by Indy Sux so does BEARS on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:15am
Boycott the NFL. Both teams suck. Woohoo African American coach.. who cares.... blah blah blah blah blah
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Big Game by liam_668 on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:15am
And people wonder why I root for 'Heidi,' every year.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Big Game by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:17am
Cause she's HOT!!! ??
ps.
post some pics!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Big Game by Indy Sux so does BEARS on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:18am
Cause she's HOT!!! ??
ps.
post some pics!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Churches, Persecution, and Money by Frnak on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:38am
Why do churches do this? They are trying to draw in people who would otherwise stay away from church on Super Bowl night. Then they have a mini-sermon during halftime.
But what Christians (I am one) ought to be doing is going to a regular church service on Sunday night and worshiping God, not worshiping football. For those who think the NFL is persecuting them: maybe this is a wake-up call from God. Put your attention on Him, not football.
And if you really think the NFL (or the nefarious "they") are out to get Christians, wake up. They want money, nothing else. If fact, they are doing this for the very same reason the churches are: they think this will cause people to go to church on Super Bowl night rather than somewhere else. And if that somewhere else is a restaurant or bar that pays a license fee, the NFL has lost money.
Besides this isn't persecution. If you possess a Bible in Saudi Arabia, you go to jail. Having an unregistered church service in your home in China lands you in jail. THAT's persecution, not this. Stop whining and turn your eyes toward Jesus. The NFL is irrelevant.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ridiculous by Jose@lxpages.com on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:38am
What's next? You have to pay to watch the super bowl? This is ridiculous in every way possible. No argument could convince me ever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
NFL and the mattress police by NFL_and_the_mattress_police on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 11:57am
roflmao - what's next? The mattress police doing house searches to see if the tag that says "do not remove under penalty of the law" has been removed from your mattresses/pillows? Watch out - the FBI may stake out your house over something like this.
This political correctness is getting out of hand. People have lost the power to the almighty dollar. Being a huge NFL fan I'm embarrased that they'd even make a huge deal out of a church doing this.
If anything they should promote this good will in such places to gain bigger audiences but apparrently the NFL has gotten fat and content on it's gains from the fans over the last few years. I lost interest in baseball during the last strike and haven't missed it for years. At this rate I'm sure I can find something to pass the time away so I don't have to worry about infringing on NFL rights... this world has gone mad...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 12:25pm
Guess I can't watch the game...my TV is 56"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Wow by webmasterx on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 12:56pm
Yeah cause you haven't played a man's game until you've stuck your fingers up someone elses ass and leaned on them really hard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Big Lame by Animal Planet nut on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 1:20pm
Puppy Bowl FTW!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Honestly on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 1:36pm
They don't want 'groups', because the more separate homes/places the games are watched in, the more subscription demand/TV revenue. The greed and idiocy from the top of one industry after another never ceases.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Honestly on Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 1:37pm
They don't want 'groups', because the more separate homes/places the games are watched in, the more subscription demand/TV revenue. The greed and idiocy from the top of one industry after another never ceases.
(