Superbowling

An assortment of Super Bowl tidbits: Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story. Infinitus writes "The NFL's legal firm has a PDF up that outlines the NFL's intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'. Including a neat little chart that tells you what you can and can't say..." VeggiePossum23 writes "Panthers Upset Patriots, 29 to 21... at least in the Sony Sponsored '989 Sports Game Before the Game' played on NFL Gameday 2004 on the PS2 Console. This annual event, held Wednesday night in Houston, has a perfect 8-year track record of picking the winner of the Super Bowl. Carolina Panthers Wide Receiver Steve Smith controlled the Panthers, winning an upset victory against New England Patriots' Wide Out Troy Brown, also controlling his own team." lordbyron writes "CBS is doing a SuperBowl of commercials that will include a vote for the best commercial in history. You can watch the top 10 now and make sure that you vote at 9pm on Sunday 1/31. It includes some classics like the Apple commercial and the exploding mosquitos from Tabasco."Wing Bowl.--->

Comments

Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[OS24Ever]

Pretty potent/A. non-sex non-beer ad with only one statement in it.

Pretty effective ad no matter what you US Political viewpoint is.

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[kermyt]

Quoted from moveon.org

The CBS networks still refuses to run our winning ad in the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest during the Super Bowl. The
MoveOn.org non-partisan campaign to get CBS to air issue ads continues, but we're not going to let CBS's censorship stop us
in the mean time. That's why we're spending over $1 million to air the ad in our swing states and nation-wide on other
channels -- starting with two spots on CNN that will air during the Super Bowl half time.

This Sunday, during the Super Bowl half time show, join us in changing channels on CBS. At 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST, switch
over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads. We'd like to keep a tally of the number of
people who participate -- you can sign up here:
http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/boycott/?id= 2293-33 48214-6QjmVnR6_TwkZW4t8xOELQ

The number of groups, individuals, and newspapers that have called on CBS to run our ad is remarkable. The National
Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union have asked their own members to call CBS. Senator Dick Durbin
(D-IL) gave a powerful speech about CBS on the floor of the Senate, saying, "Maybe network executives at CBS are so afraid
of political pressure from the right wing and their business advertisers who are in league with the right wing politics of
America that they are afraid to put anything on the air that might in fact make things uncomfortable. If that is the case,
it is time for CBS to announce the name of their network is the 'Conservative Broadcasting System' and come clean with
American viewers."

28 members of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to CBS which stated, "The choice not to run this paid
advertisement appears to be part of a disturbing pattern on CBS's part to bow to the wishes of the Republican National
Committee. We remember well CBS's remarkable decision this fall to self-censor at the direction of GOP pressure. The network
shamefully cancelled a broadcast about former President Ronald Reagan which Republican partisans considered insufficiently
flattering." Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote a separate letter to CBS urging them to reconsider their decision.

Today, the L.A. Times printed an Op-Ed piece of ours which lays out the case against CBS's censorship. That's attached
below. But the editorial pages of the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, and many other papers came out in our favor as
well. As the Globe wrote, "MoveOn.org's 30-second ad, which has aired on CNN, is a gentle yet powerful depiction of how hard
today's children will have to work to pay off the country's mounting deficit. That's a vital message that might get lost in
a year of campaign rhetoric, and it deserves a response from the White House in its own 30 seconds of imagery. America,
sitting on the couch, junk food in hand, just might sit up and want to know more."

Luckily, there are still some networks that do allow the free exchange of ideas. Please join the one-minute boycott: at
Super Bowl halftime, switch to CNN and watch "Child's Pay," and let us know at:
http://www.moveonvoterfund.org/boycott/?id=22 93-33 48214-6QjmVnR6_TwkZW4t8xOELQ

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[kermyt]

For the record, CBS's reason for not accepting that ad is because they don't accept any debatable political issue issue ads. They would have accepted ads from candidates because they have to, but none came forward with the money to do so.

If that was true then CBS certainly would not run the white house ad that connects marijuana users to terrorism. but that is exactly that they are doing.

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[finkployd]

It is amazing how many people do not understand what censorship actually means.

Sad really

I guess it is now censorship when a corporation decided not to play an ad that would piss off the majority of the country

Just like it is censorship when the public decides to not boycott a movie/tv show because the ignorant actor/actress made some boneheaded statements about their assinine political views.

Oh, and we cannot forget book publishers not publishing books that contain views they don't like. Obviously this is censorship, and not a business decision.

Finkployd

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[Heisenbug]

A few notes on this ... if you haven't seen the MoveOn Child's Pay ad, it's not exactly incendiary rhetoric. Even Bill O'Reilly said he was surprised they refused to play it.

CBS defends the policy by saying that if they allowed issue ads, large corporations could buy time to push their favorite issues and it would disenfranchise us folks with smaller ad budgets. Eli Pariser of MoveOn responded by pointing out that this creates an awfully friendly environment for the status quo, and those same corporations. We have oil company ads but no anti-oil ads, shoe company ads but no sweatshop ads, drug war ads but no decriminalization ads.

What we're really getting here is a one-sided agenda, and, yes, censorship, in the guise of fairness.

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[iminplaya]

"...connects marijuana users to terrorism."

Replace "users" with "prohibition" and that statement would be true.

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[damiam]

A corporation not playing an ad because of its political viewpoints is censorship. It's their right, and it's perfectly legal (unless you want to get into some argument about the "public" airwaves), but it's still censorship. Besides nothing in that ad is at all controversial - the deficit estimate is even a bit low, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If they're gonna air ads from the White House (containing some very shaky statements about drugs and terrorism), they should air this ad (which doesn't even promote a candidate).

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[Coryoth]

It is amazing how many people do not understand what censorship actually means.

Yes, apparently even you. I was under the impression that censoring simply meant to screen and edit out any material found to be objectionable.

This ad, was, apparently, objectionable as far as CBS was concerned in terms of their goals: To keep and maintain as many viewers as possible to maximise their advertising revenue.

A book publisher not publishing a book that he finds objectionable is censorship too.

Of course, most people these days presume that censorship is only evil government dictates, but that is not at all true. If a parent decides they don't want their child to watch a TV program, they are censoring the child's TV watching habits. For some reason people seem to think censorship==evil, which is just not true (certainly not by the definition of the word). By all means, be wary of state mandated censorship, but don't go misusing a perfectly good word.

Jedidiah

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[dbc001]

The right decision would have been not to allow policital ads at all. By airing an ad from the whitehouse, which I paid for (and I would much prefer that the money be used for education instead of fucking superbowl ads), they have basically dumped politics into the superbowl. They should either remove all the politics (arguably the wise choice) or allow everyone to advertise. Again, I agree that the superbowl should be an all-fun event. Politics and fun don't mix well. But they have clearly chosen sides, and that has already taken some of the fun out of it.

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[op00to]

Yeah, thank god the ads about terrorism and drugs will still air. I was deathly afraid I wouldn't recieve my share of unbalanced propaganda!

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[LostCluster]

they should air this ad (which doesn't even promote a candidate).

Actually, if any of the democratic candidates were willing to pay for the ad from campaign funds (and as required, appear in the ad and indicate their approval) then CBS would be required to either accept the ad or reject all campaign ads for that election cycle. The lack of a candidate or ballot issue actually does this ad in...

Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.

[WGR]

One of the conditions that allows CBS to have a monopoly of its particular broadcast frequencies in a city(no one else can use them in that city) is that they are non-discrimatory in accepting advertising as long as the ads do not violate any laws.

Would it be alright if CBS accepted ads from the Ku Kux Klan but not the NAACP (or vice versa)? Since they have accepted advertising from partisan organizations in the past (such as election advertising this year), they are being hypocrites by refusing this one.

No, it does matter

[Misinformed]

Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story..

It wasn't mentined (in the articles) that these threats demanded they buy a /. subscription, or else they would be posted to the front page!

Radio Contests

[LordArathres]

Here in Los Angeles, KROQ is doing a "Super Bowl" contest where they send someone to the "Super Bowl" game, but they cannot call it the "Super Bowl" becuase of the NFL restriction. So they are referring to it as the "Big Game". It would cost them an insane amount of money to call it the "Super Bowl Contests" and its ridiculous. This whole trademark BS is so stupid sometimes. How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?

Mario

Re:Radio Contests

[LostCluster]

What's even further ironic is that KROQ is owned by Infinity Radio, the radio arm of Viacom whose CBS network will be airing the Super Bowl this year...

Football IP?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

intellectual property rights to words like 'Super Bowl' and 'NFL'.

Funny, I never thought I'd see "intellectual", "SuperBowl" and "NFL" in the same sentence ...

Re:Football IP?

[aiken_d]

Sure, laugh at how not intellectual football is. Heck, it's as simple as:

Your fast OT slams him inside (This is why he's FAST) and your FB still runs "B" gap. Your QB reads the DE - the first defender outside "B"(Almost 100% guaranteed you'll get a handoff read). If QB gets a "keep" read, he options "W". The "slow" left guard takes "M" unless the NG is in playside "A". In that case both the center and the slow guard drive the NG back and the slow guard looks for a chance to zone block to "M". SE blocks F (deepest, nearest safety) and slot has corner. On backside, "slow" guard picks off anyone upfield trying to follow wing's motion while fast tackle shoeshines the DT.

From Youth Football knowledge base

Simple, right?

Cheers
-b

Re:Football IP?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Just because it has its own jargon doesn't make it intellectual. Car salesmen and McDonald's burger-flippers too have their own jargon you'd be hard-pressed to understand if you're not in the know.

Re:Football IP?

[aiken_d]

So you didn't see any need for the (remember, youth) players to make relatively complex split-second decisions in that? Nevermind the jargon, look at the decision making and then tell me it's just a bunch of dumb guys knocking each other down.

You can think what you want, you're just wrong in this case. There *are* dumb football players, but they're in the minority and are never the stars. It's an amazingly complex game, though it certainly is easy to miss that, especially if you base opinions on stereotypes rather than an actual understanding of the game. Might as well say that chess is just a couple of morons pushing plastic things around a board.

Cheers
-b

Re:Football IP?

[aiken_d]

I partly agree. Football is unique in the sports world, though, because of it's play-by-play dynamic (you could argue the point for baseball, but the "plays" in baseball are much, much simpler). Coaches have an amazingly complex job of deciding, for each play, which players to put on the field and what play to call. Players, too, need to read the opposition and adjust not just athletically but also who to cover and whatnot.

There's certainly a run-time (har!) atheltic component, but there is also a very cerebral component that many players have to participate in (seeing, for instance, that the pre-snap motion on offense has overloaded one side of zone coverage and will leave a receiver uncovered... and then calling a timeout to prevent the play from starting).

I'm not saying it's chess-level, at least for the players, just that people who characterize it as devoid of intellectual participation are 1) wrong, and 2) engaging in stereotyping. It's like someone saying that top-notch programming doesn't involve intelligence because "you just tell the computer what to do and it does it." Only someone with a complete lack of understanding of the process would make such an assertion, and the same goes for football.

Show me someone who actually understands the game and who says that players are generally not smart and the game isn't intellectual, and I'll concede the point. You won't find someone like that, though. (No fair going back to the 1930's when that was closer to being true).

So it's a pet peeve. Deal with it.

Cheers
-b

Re:Being English, I have to ask...

[eln]

Surprisingly enough, some of us actually enjoy the game. And please don't go on about how it's just big men hitting each other in pads. If you put any sport into similar words you can make it look silly, especially Cricket.

Beyond those who watch it because they love the game, like me, there are the people that watch it because it's an EVENT. It's an excuse to throw a party. Every culture on Earth has numerous holidays that are fairly meaningless except for as excuses to throw parties. This is one of those days for the US.

2 teams of 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Kick a ball around for 2* 45 minute sessions. That ball is called a football (the ball has a structure similar to C-64 in terms of pentagons and hexagons). The game of 'football' is played all around the world.

Re:2 teams of 11

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

For those who don't know, American football is a sissy version of rugby (rugby players don't wear helmets and armored plates). European football, on the other hand, is played mostly with the feet, and sometime the head, but in most player's case, there isn't any difference, which is why it's called "foot"ball.

There are 2*11 players in a football game. It's called "team spirit" : 11 players, only one spirit, so they learn to share.

Internet Access at the Superbowl

[Ro0tSiEgE]

The company I work for, CityNet, is providing free internet access during the superbowl, and it has been going on for the past week. Hopefully this will provide us with some (plug)exposure to the public(/plug), since we need all the publicity that we can get :)

protection money...

[Cedric C. Girouard]

Does it just strike me as very stupid from the extorter ?

I will not say that most gambling site are operated by/for criminals, but say that a good percentage of it are the operations of some legitimate business mans ?

My experience in this domain is that they will be able to get their hands on some money, but that said money will be delivered by Vito and Guido, and they'll be made an offer that they cannot refuse.

Maybe spammers should start spamming the mob too. Kill two birds with the same stone ?

Re:protection money...

[interiot]

The gambling sites are in a legal grey area, in that often what they're doing would be illegal in the countries of the participants, but the organization is outside the jurisdiction of the united states/europe/whatever. So in that sense, the extorters may also be working in a legal grey area where they won't see much investigation or pressure from the western world to stop their extortion.

pregame

[Wiggin]

i remember when the pregame show was just an hour before the game started. then it grew to two. and soon it had reached six. that was starting to seem a little excessive. but this year, i think the pregame show started on wednesday. when is enough, enough?

1024 of your closest friends

[bstadil]

Sure there is events that "predicts" superbowl with amazing accuracy. If you don't believe me just send a message to your 1024 closest friends and tell half that the A team will win and other B team.

Do this for 8 years and four of your friends thinks you are a genius and the remaining 1020 have forgotten the whole thing.

This works with stock tips and is a scam that has been used for ages.

CBS Censors MoveOn.org Ad

[MaximumBob]

I'm a little surprised the story didn't mention CBS's censorship of an ad by MoveOn.org. The ad reflects a negative view of the Bush administration. CBS, which has donated massive amounts of money to Bush, as well as received favors from the administration and Congress, has decided they won't show "controversial" ads. Which is to say, political speech is apparently unacceptable. Odd, given that they're showing an ad from the White House.

Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS...

[Ryan Amos]

That had nothing to do with the ad, it has to do with the fact that TV networks don't air "issue ads," or political ads not endorsing a certain political candidate. Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel. Yup, sucks, but that's the way things work. And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government. It would only be illegal if the FCC or Congress passed a law prohibiting issue ads on TV.

la times op ed piece from moveon.org

[stmintz]

One Thing That Won't Be Tackled on Sunday: Issues
By Eli Pariser
Campaigns Director, MoveOn.org Voter Fund
http://www.moveon.org/r?484

When the Super Bowl is beamed into living rooms around the world Sunday, you can expect to see TV spots hyping cars, beer, razor blades, three different erectile dysfunction cures, toilet paper and snack foods.

The ads will be slick and clever, lavishly produced, brilliant in their marketing. Some, no doubt, will be sexually suggestive or violent. Most will cost $2 million to $3 million to produce and broadcast.

But here's what you won't see: a single ad about the big issues that face our country today.

Outrageous as it may sound, CBS has decided that ads selling erectile dysfunction medicines and toilet paper are appropriate for Americans, but serious discussion should be banned. An ad about our country, our war, our president, the state of our schools or the size of our budget deficit? That, in the eyes of CBS officialdom, would be too controversial.

We know, because we tried. We thought that the Super Bowl, with 130 million viewers, would be a great place to get our message out. So we held a contest on the Internet to select the best ad we could possibly run. The ad we selected -- from 1,500 submissions -- shows children cleaning offices, washing dishes and hauling trash. It ends with the question: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1-trillion deficit?" (It's viewable at http://www.MoveOn.org ).

But even though we were willing to pony up the $1.6 million to pay for it, CBS refused to sell us the time, citing what it says is a 50-year-old policy prohibiting ads that take stands on controversial public policy issues.

CBS claims its policy is designed to keep the Citibanks and Microsofts of the world from buying time to tell Americans how to think. "It is designed to prevent those with means to produce and purchase network advertising from having undue influence on 'controversial issues of public importance,' " the network said this week.

Sounds fair, doesn't it? But what it really means is that if McDonald's buys an ad promoting its tasty Big Mac, no one can run an ad that says Big Macs are full of fat and unhealthful. Pfizer can run a spot saying it's "helping people in need" get medicine, but we can't air an ad saying that Pfizer lobbied to weaken the new Medicare bill to prop up drug prices. Halliburton has slick ads that stress its role supporting the troops in Iraq. But CBS would reject an ad that pointed to Halliburton's profiteering.

The fewer issue ads run, the more time there is for ads with mud-wrestling women selling beer and leggy models peddling fast cars. CBS execs think Americans love mindless consumerism more than anything else and that it's their duty to pander to this.

But with "fairness" doctrines no longer governing the airwaves and the media more concentrated each day, it's getting harder and harder to engage regular people in political discourse. Even the town square has been replaced, in most communities, by private malls, where politics is not encouraged.

Instead of taking every opportunity to promote civic discussion, commercial broadcasters like CBS shrink away. The airwaves are, more than ever, private enterprises. And for that we pay a price: As public political speech becomes more difficult and infrequent, the public becomes less engaged in the policies, processes and laws that govern us.

"Controversy" isn't the real problem. Network front offices love it when one group or another protests sexy babes in bikinis peddling beer brands, or violent video games in which the highest body count wins. That builds buzz.

The CBS policy represents the triumph of corporate self-interest over the public interest. This is the same CBS, after all, that yanked the Ronald Reagan miniseries recently when Republican bigwigs complained. As Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) noted this week, "These are the same executives at CBS who successfully lobbied this Cong

Re:Incorrect date

[Cutriss]

Argh...I love it. I post a corrective post, and end up screwing up what I was correcting in it...

The CBS special airs tonight, Saturday, 1/31, at 9 PM EST.

Copyright and Trademark Laws

[sabNetwork]

I'd love to see this stuff hold up in court. Has it before? I doubt it.

It is perfectly legal (and EXPLICITLY legal) to use trademarks in news and mention as long as they don't cause brand confusion.

Also, the use of copyrights to protect news is not legal. No one is allowed to rebroadcast the the coverage of the game verbatim, but nothing prevents someone from relaying the general events from the game. This is in the First Amendment, and there are no exceptions.

--

Re:Copyright and Trademark Laws

[LostCluster]

Trademarks can be used in news coverage, but it cannot be used to market news coverage, or anything else for that matter. That's why newspapers can write about the events of the Super Bowl, but they can't publish a "Super Bowl section" unless they buy the rights to the name.

Re:Being English, I have to ask...

[The I Shing]

American Football is big, big business in the USA. It represents what Americans love best, which is war. It has nearly all the elements of a war, fought during a time frame of about four hours, with sixty minutes of actual game time. It has offense, defense, gaining ground, losing ground, battle after battle, strategies, tactics, hierarchical command structures, casualties, statistics, a winner, and a loser.

The Superbowl represents the pinnacle of all this, the wheat having been separated from the chaff throughout the regular season and post-season.

It's a chance for American Football aficianados to gather over pizza, chicken wings, potato chips, shrimp cocktail, and copious beer, and cheer on one team or the other.

For the fans in the home city of a Superbowl contender, there is a level of excitement that would probably embarrass a British person to death. Scottish people, on the other hand, would quite understand.

That's nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Back home, only infants and coma patients play rugby. Everyone else straps on crotchless chain-mail covered with huge (6 -> 12 inches) spikes to play. The 'ball' is a sack of dynamite that explodes every 5 minutes. When that happens, they toss in more players and a new sack. It is actually legal to pick up expired body parts and either A) use them as weapons or B) impale them upon your spikes for reasons of intimidation. The ref is a three-eyed black-masked executioner with an uzi. Instead of buying soda at the concession stands, you buy acid.

At least...

[Bagels]

At least their legal team seems to realize how ridiculous some of this IP stuff is. From the chart of dos and don'ts mentioned in the post:

- You *can* make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase "Super Bowl" (e.g. by beeping it out).

They won't run PETA's ad either

[Schlemphfer]

The real hypocrisy is in how the network is handling an ad PETA wanted to run. They won't accept anti-meat ads, even though they will accept ads from fast food companies. So much for their excuse of not wanting to air only one side of a controversial issue. Here's a great article on the subject.

Now watch this post get marked down as a troll because somebody with mod points eats meat, and thinks information like this shouldn't receive attention.

Don't forget CBS is helping MoveOn

[toupsie]

Actually having CBS not air the commercial has allowed more people to see the ad. MoveOn should be jumping for joy that CBS denied the ad buy. It has brought more attention to their message and allowed them to air the ad for free on various news shows. You are even helping out MoveOn by publicizing the ad here on Slashdot.

CBS is making a smart business decision not to air this ad. Why should CBS want to bring in unneeded controversy into the Super Bowl that would distract from the game? Since it has a product that is in high demand for advertisers, CBS can pick and choose which advertisers it wants to fill in those 30 second gaps between plays. Also, if you are spending $2 million an ad as advertiser would you want your commercial message to be drowned out by adjacent partisan political message? Heck no! This would make it hard for CBS to sell the ad space next to the MoveOn ad.

This isn't political censorship, its smart business on the part of CBS.

Re:Being English, I have to ask...

[levell]

Scottish people are British! (The word you were looking for was English - I think). Although I'm not quite sure why you think English people would be embarrased by excitement.

That's not all...

[MisanthropicProggram]

Outside of Atlanta, in Gwinett County, the Falcons have a proactice camp. This is an important detail - with no fence around their compound. Nearby, there's a hill with a McDonald's on top wih a view of the Falcon's practice field. There's big sign on the border of their properties border with the Falcon's field that says, "No Looking!"
The Falcon's compound is also used for coporate meeting and classes. I was their for one. During my lunch break I went outside to get some fresh air and eat. I happend to be looking at the Falcons standing around talking - it was about fifty yards away, no fences or anything else to obstruct my view - when a police cruiser pulls up. The cop then told me that there's no looking. I responded with something along the lines of, if it's that important to be secret, why don't they put a fence up? The cop told me that it's "NFL RULES." and I have to move along. He says he has to tell people who are on McDonald's property the same thing.

So, I guess NFL's rules supercede our civil rights.

Re:That's not all...

[EastCoastSurfer]

If you had politely said "I don't think you can control where I'm looking from a public parking lot." what could the cop actually do? Write you a ticket for "looking?"

direct links and synopses

[Teach]

Any of you folks running linux may not have the best RealPlayer integration in your browsers, so here are the direct links to each of the RealMedia files, with a brief synopsis of each commercial (but no "spoilers").

Slashcode will probably embed spaces in these URLs, so you may have to manually remove them.

• 1984 Apple Computer ad about Big Brother
• 2003 Budweiser spot with the zebra
• 1980 Coke ad with "Mean" Joe Green and a little kid
• 2002 Levi's Jeans commercial with the guy who walks funny
• 1993 McDonald's spot with Larry Bird and Michael Jordan playing HORSE
• 2000 Mountain Dew ad with the cyclist chasing the cheetah
• 1973 Noxzema ad with Joe Namath and Farrah Fawcett
• 1992 Pepsi spot with a kid trying to drink every last drop of his beverage (note that the screenshot shown isn't from the linked commercial)
• 1998 Tabasco sauce ad with the mosquito
• 1977 Xerox spot with monastic scribes

I quit watching television about seven or eight years ago. However, I try to catch the Super Bowl every year, if only for the commercials. In fact, I've always told folks that if there was a channel that just played commercials all day, I'd probably tune in to it.

I imagine it could be like VH-1 Classic, with an hour for commercials from the 50s, another from the 60s, etc. Maybe a "groundbreaking" commercials hour. Maybe one with ads from various countries.

I'd tune in, anyway.

Re:Hey, if we're talking about CBS...

[corebreech]

That had nothing to do with the ad, it has to do with the fact that TV networks don't air "issue ads," or political ads not endorsing a certain political candidate.

Not true, they air such ads all the time when they come from the Democrats and/or the Republicans.

Basically, they're too controversial and the networks don't want to show anything that might make people want to change the channel.

And ads for three different drugs that induce erections aren't?

Yup, sucks...

Yes, it does. Hence my pointing it out.

but that's the way things work.

Or to put it another way, we live in a totalitarian state.

And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government.

A very simplistic reading of the situation. Those our are airwaves. The very fact that the networks can be given exclusive access to those airwaves on the one hand and then be allowed to suppress speech is de facto government censorship.

Script Kiddie Hitmen

[farnerup]

Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money

I visualize Joe Pesci sitting in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant, hacking in VBScript.

Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl?

[Scoria]

Many Houstonians are already becoming adverse to the Super Bowl. The advertisements are extremely ubiquitous, littering even the communities that possess no affiliation with the municipality of Houston. Enormous billboards and banners attached to streetlamps emphasize the "importance" of the incipient Super Bowl.

As you're probably aware, the local government has also installed a multi-million dollar light rail system that many speculate is intended specifically to transport passengers from downtown to Reliant Stadium. Metro has removed one lane from streets traversed by the light rail system; commuters are "warned" of oncoming traffic by a single light encouraging them not to cross the track. Ten serious traffic accidents have already been attributed to this implementation, which is reportedly being scrutinized by citizens and Metro engineers alike.

This event is an exhibition of corporately funded "sports," pop stars endorsed by the RIAA, and the "best" television commercials. It astonishes me that the Slashdot community is so ravenously infatuated. With the possible exception of SCO, this encompasses everything that you are supposedly adverse to.

Heres a summary

[t_allardyce]

from the PDF:

The first rule of Super Bowl: You do not talk about 'Super Bowl'

The second rule of Super Bowl: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SUPER BOWL

The third rule of Super Bowl: The words: Super Bowl, Super Sunday, NFL, AFC and NFC are all trade marks of the National Football League. If you utter or taint them we WILL kick your fucking head in! OK?

Yup...

[Cyno01]

The super bowl is definitly a national holiday, no mail, banks are closed...

canada sucks

[sewagemaster]

and once again, like every year, canadian viewers will be blocked out of the the american ads and will be force-fed canadian ads. it'll most probably be the same ad talking about canadian heros and canadian stars making it down in the US.. the same ads they've been brainwashing people with daily.

with ad critic charging for money, hopefully there'll be a place to download (or bittorrent) the ads after the game - like we did last year!

NFL = No Fun League

[doormat]

First the NFL says NO to ads for Las Vegas during the superbowl. Then CBS says NO to ads against Bush during the game. The NFL says NO WAY to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size. Its just the NFL's arbitrary size. The Palms was planning to show it on their huge movie theater screens. Oh well, I guess the NFL doesnt like its superbowl party being upstaged by Vegas. Now they're just taking their ball and going back to Houston. Paul Tagliabue caused lots of casinos to lose lots of money because of the NFL's childlike behavior. Hello, only so many people can go to the game! What are the rest supposed to do, wait outside and be happy they're near the game?? Paul also threatened the players with fines or possibly suspensions for "excessive celebration" during the Superbowl.

The NFL is definately the No Fun League.

Re:NFL = No Fun League

[ktakki]

The NFL says NO WAY to Casinos in las vegas showing the game on anything bigger than a 55" TV. They say its copyright law, but last I checked copyright law didnt say anything about TV Size.

Perhaps you should check again. From 17 USC 110:

(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;

I've been involved with copyright issues for over 25 years and I've seen the Copyright Act go from a fairly straightforward document to one that's filled with exemptions and intentional loopholes, some that actually benefit the consumer at the expense of corporate interests. Those are the minority, to be sure, but they're in there.

k.

Re:NFL = No Fun League

[jackbird]

Oh well, I guess the NFL doesnt like its superbowl party being upstaged by Vegas. Now they're just taking their ball and going back to Houston. Paul Tagliabue caused lots of casinos to lose lots of money because of the NFL's childlike behavior. Hello, only so many people can go to the game! What are the rest supposed to do, wait outside and be happy they're near the game?? Paul also threatened the players with fines or possibly suspensions for "excessive celebration" during the Superbowl.

The really interesting part of this is going to be when they flex their muscles enough that news outlets notice and get annoyed. The whole "accounts of the game" thing in their copyright notice ignores the fact that the sports industry currently gets a giant advertising section in every newspaper and TV news show in the country called "The Sports Section."

If that goes away due to legal squabbling, they're in a world of hurt. Of course, a single paper cancelling the sports section is going to lose out, but a world where the Tribune has Football and Hockey and the Gazette has Basketball and Baseball is going to have to deal with enraged fans the likes of which you haven't begun to see.

Equal Time Rule

[triclipse]

And this has nothing to do with the first amendment, CBS is a corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government.

This is an overly simplistic statement. The electromagnetic spectrum is a public resource. It is thus subject to less First Amendment protection than other mediums and subject to more government regulation.

There are First Amendment considerations at issue, such as the Equal Time Rule, which in essence, "a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office."

Thus, if CBS runs an ad for one candidate, they must offer the same time to other candidates. I don't know how this would affect running a purely "anti-candidate" ad which positively endorses no specific candidate. But it might give rise to the right of the "anti-candidate" to give a rebuttal.

threatened with denial of service attacks

[stephanruby]

Supposedly sports gambling sites are being threatened with denial of service attacks if they don't pay protection money - also a Reuters story.

Finally, a viable business model for Slashdot.

Re:Being English, I have to ask...

[zulux]

It represents what Americans love best, which is war.

Oh come on...

As an American, I demand you get it right.

War is way down on the list:

10) Replacing small towns with Wal*Mart's
9) Killing Babies
8) War
7) Traveling to Europe while wearing sneakers.
6) Starving little children.
5) Pissing off liberals
4) Driving SUV's
3) Eating MEAT MEAT MEAT
2) Living in huge, but cheap, houses.
1) Being right.

Trademarks!

[payndz]

Super Bowl! Super Sunday! NFL! AFC! NFC! Buccaneers! Bucs!

Well, I said all these things without permission from the National Football League (oops, there's another one). Come on then, lawyers! Come after me for using these trademarked words without permission!

This is legal bullshit taken to the extreme. So if there's a Black Sunday scenario tomorrow, the news networks aren't allowed to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl" but have to say "There was a terrorist attack at the Big Game in Houston"? Madness.

Super Bowl! Super Bowl! Super Bowl!

No, you are "Wrong. Wrong wrong."

[stewby18]

It may be censorship in the exact definition of the word, but not in the big brother way you're all thinking of it.

Come again? It's not censorship except in the sense of fulfilling the definition of censorship? What makes you think that no-one but you understands the distinction between censorship and government censorship? Where do you get off saying that the parent poster is "Wrong. Wrong wrong." based solely on the fact that you don't think others are capable of understanding the words they use?

censoring: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Thus, this is censorship exactly as the parent said. It seems perfectly reasonable that many people find it distasteful that a large corporation is choosing to censor ads based on their own political views (rather than on the basis of public mores, which is a much more common way ads are censored).

The fact that they have the legal right to do it doesn't mean we can't object, nor does that fact that it is (in your opinion, at least) a good business model. Take a quick slashdot survey of the number of people who like Microsoft's business tactics... yet it's hard to argue that they do not form (in most cases) a good business model for Microsoft.

what words?

[fermion]

The Super Bowl is happening on Super Sunday. The National Football League(NFL), American Football Conference(AFC) and National Football Conference (NFC) will hold this contrived event to determine who is the best Football team in the world. Of course the rest of the world in not invited.

In this contest, between Carolina Panthers and New England Patriots, extremely wealthy men will forgo their normal environment and put on many pounds of gear to play whimped down version of Rugby. The winner of the game will be the champion.

Of course, this is entertainment so the true relevance is the demographic that it delivers to the advertisers. In this sense, the Super Bowl will once again fulfill it's primary mission.

One also suspects that many Americans, for the first time, will know the existence and location of Carolina.

Questionable Industries welcomes all Super Bowl guests to Houston. We will be scalping tickets on the corner of Fannin and Holly Hall. We will also be offering certified disease free hookers along Holly Hall and Murworth, conveniently grouped by age. The 18 year olds will be in the Excalades, the 19-21 year olds will be in the Explorers, and 21-25 will be in the Durangos. Hookers over this age will be conveniently located in their normal environment of the Holly Hall apartments. The males will be in the blue cars and females in the pink cars. Please do not be racist and expect certain ethnic types. We are a class operation!

A limited number of 12-18 year olds will be available in the customized vans. Younger hookers are available with 24 hours request, as they must be brought in from Mexico.

Re:Being English, I have to ask...

[karit]

A cricket test (the 5 day version of the sport) is one of the greatest sporting events there is. There are great amounts of stratergy etc involved. And with what other sports can you sit on a grassy embankment drinking beer wacthing the best sport in the world in the middle of summer?

What the heck

[Heem]

What the heck is this Superb Owl I keep hearing about. Whats so great about it? Does it know how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

Re:budget != deficit

[IVotedIn2000]

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes /fed-debt.html

What's very telling is that from 1992 to 1996 the national debt rose 1.3 TRILLION dollars. From 1996 to 2004 is rose that same amount.

So Clinton raises the debt 1.3 trillion in 4 years and another 500 billion in his second term. From 2000 to present the debt was raised another 500 billion dollars.

So where is the 1 Trillion that Bush is responsible for?

That site shows estimates, not facts, for years after 1999. That's considerably out of date and doesn't include sweeping changes in tax lawas since then.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#y ears shows that the total public debt increased from 5,674,178,209,886.86 on 09/29/2000 to 6,783,231,062,743.62 on 09/30/2003.

Re:If you can call 1.3 Trillion

[damiam]

Your numbers are rather strange. According to the US Treasury, the debt has gone up 1.3 trillion in the three years since Bush took office. That's a bunch more than 100 billion a year (in fact, it's $433 billion). In his entire 8 years, Clinton raised it 2 trillion - $250 billion a year.

Obviously, Clinton wasn't a perfect president (such a thing has never existed). I disagree with him on plenty of issues (blowjobs, for one). But against a president to whom "getting things done" means giving away money to the wealthy, when we're already spending it faster than we're making it, I'd take Clinton any day.

Re:Being English, I have to ask...

[The I Shing]

Oceana is our ally and always has been.

Go back to watching your TV, citizens.