Slashdot Mirror
Thou Shalt Not View The Super Bowl on a 56" Screen
theodp writes "For 200 members of the Immanuel Bible Church and their friends, the annual Super Bowl party is over thanks to the NFL, which explained that airing NFL games at churches on large-screen TV sets violates the NFL copyright. Federal copyright law includes an exemption for sports bars, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, but churches are out of luck. Churchgoers who aren't averse to a little drinking-and-driving still have the opportunity to see the game together in public on a screen bigger than 55 inches."
I hope the NFL enforces this across America. Since most people are apparently too stupid to notice how the greedy bastards are taking away their freedoms, maybe this will wake more than a few of them up.
John
Sure, I can see the NFL doing this, but are cops really going to go to churches and bust people for it?
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
on my slashdot? it may be more likely than i think. seriously though, here's a story about 2 very non-geek things apparently in conflict with each other. weird.
Is this now a yearly tradition for churches to whine about their Superbowl parties...
Here is last years article same story, different church:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/category/miami-football/2007/02/01/nfl-orders-church-to-cancel-super-bowl-party/
They are in no way creative works. What "original authorship" exists? "Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression," which a football game isn't.
Furthermore, to be copyrighted, a work must be fixed into a "tangible medium." That is not the case for a live broadcast (although it might be for an after-the-fact replay).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
If I have a 60" TV, and no one is around to watch it, does it violate copyright?
Didnt we just go thru this in 2007 ? I know at least in the local cases they backed down and apologized.
This IP nonsence is really getting out of hand. ( and i hate sports, so it doesn't effect me directly )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Caught those conniving broadcast-pirates!
We've just prevented a very serious crime, people.
If the TV was purchased with church funds or the TV is being used in the church facilities, then it sounds to me like it's an abuse of the church's tax exempt status. Obviously that has nothing to do with whether or not they get picked on by the NFL, but whole idea of using the church as an entertainment facility is so inappropriate that I don't mind them getting picked on.
The NFL is a large corporation. Corporations prefer to use lawyers and scary sounding letters rather than the coppers. It's a lot harder to put a scary sounding letter on television than a bunch of cops busting up a church.
AccountKiller
Well, the bible says that Christians are to obey the laws of whatever land they live in. What kind of pathetically hypocritical Christians are going to break the law and doom themselves to
This can't possibly enforced.
Religion and football...two things that I couldn't possibly care less about. I hope they obliterate each other in a spectacular orgy of litigation.
I read Usenet for the articles.
Huh? What's a Superbowl? Is that the one I put popcorn in?
I haven't watched ANY sports game in years, these pricks make Enron execs look like Mother Theresa with all their greed.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
After all, it's really hard to make a profit on the Super Bowl.
:-(
After all, the advertisements were set at an as low rate as $90,000 per second.
Seriously, let's think of the NFL for once.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
All the churches need are liquor licenses. They can sell communion wine and hot wings. Insta-church-sports bar. Eat that NFL. No one fucks with the Jesus.
Someone hates these cans.
I'm glad I've never had an interest in organized sports. Such naked greed needs to be recognized by the medical profession as the mental illness that it is, and treated as such.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The real WTF is, people in the USA watch football in churches? How the fuck is that not somehow blasphemous?
You just got troll'd!
You fool! Although you posted Anon. Coward CmdrTaco has access to the apache logs and now has your IP. Prepare for the clone army attack!
.
Sounds like the NFL is adopting the attitude of the RIAA." Let's declare war on our customers and rake in the cash!"
Greedy Bastards should be subjected to death by black hole.(Drop them in,forever gone from our universe)
Geek Hillbilly
A person I know works for a church, and that church had investigated this before, and received the same answer. This is not news. It also does not surprise me that there is an exemption for sports bars. Don't get me wrong, me and the booze, we get along great. But if there's a ban on public performance there's a ban on it. Besides, using the NFL's logic, the ban should be the other way around. The sports bar make money showing the football game. Churches are tax exempt, and therefore do not officially make money.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
If I was the church I would say fuck'em and do it anyway. What the hell they going to do sue a church? Wow, that would do wonders for public relations.
Besides that's not public viewing. This is. I'm going to roll my 60 big ass tv up against the window so the whole fucking neighborhood can watch it. I'm also going to scare up a mini radio transmitter so eveyone can hear it too.
fuck'em.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
I'm not supposed to watch the Super Bowl if I have a 56" TV? Got it. Anything else they don't want me to watch? Not sure how my not watching helps their ratings but I'm happy to help in this case.
This is to keep church members from seeing 56 inch nipples.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
..."Thou shalt not watch 'the big game'"?
Remember, you can't use the name unless you cough up money to the NFL! It's trademarked!
God obviously endorses the NFL. Look how many players are praying to him before, during, and after every game. It's a poor move on the NFL's part to slight Jesus in this manner.
RTFA
...but it doesn't mean you get to take someone else's show or movie and charge admission to watch it...
If the church wants to use the NFL's football games to attract more members to the church, and charge the people coming to the party to pay for that outreach program...
Read the article; it specifically states that the church was *not* charging admission.
The SB is on Free Over The Air TV if it was on PPV / cable / sat tv then they may have a point but free tv was stopping the Church from just flipping a tv to the game and calling it a night time church event with entertainment and food?
So wait, your saying that even though the super bowl will be traveling through the airwaves and you can get it if you have a TV, so your saying that now the NFL==TV manufacturers? Because in the end that's all that would be harmed from watching the game. I don't get how this is a big deal, its like saying because you have to buy some chips to come over to your friends house to play *insert video game here* the *insert game's maker here* it is suddenly making them lose money because some guy got chips in return! Really, with that logic I can only hope you were trying to get moderated +5 funny.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
the commercials are fun to watch and you will miss a big part of the game.
how can they claim a church, receiving/viewing the broadcast, is "copying," and therefore in violation of copyright?
Since the only practical use of a broadcast is to view it, isn't such viewing (at least non-commercially) "fair use?" Why is it a copyright violation for a group of parishiners to watch together, but not for a family to do the same? Is a license required to view content carried over the public airwaves? (this isn't Great Britain!)
BTW, you totally missed/ignored the original point - a sports broadcast is functional, not creative.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Federal copyright law includes an exemption for sports bars, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, but churches are out of luck.
Simple fix: make the church a sports-bar. "The Church of the Sacred Wine, Beer, and Vodka Trinity."
Table-ized A.I.
If the size of the screen is the problem then just show the game on a multi element video wall. Problem solved. Certainly the mega-churches can spare a dime for this.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I am not sure what the Superbowl is, but the supermarket had great sales on munchies today for the "big game". It must involve football because they had graphics of footballs and football playing fields on most of the displays.
This statement:
"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."
is standard boilerplate and attached to every professional sports broadcast.
Now, fair use applies to the broadcasts as much as it does to anything else. What constitutes fair use of a live boadcast? I don't know. But, copying an entire work and redistributing it is typically not considered fair use.
But, that's not what the churches are doing.
That said, if the NFL is going to go after churches who let a couple hundred of the faithful watch the game, then why don't they go after sports bars who let a couple hundred of the unfaithful watch the game over beer and wings?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
....then use a HD projector on a WALL.
Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I personally am wondering what business is it of a church to host a Superbowl party? If you want to play host to a congregation and discuss your religion, or provide a place to worship, that's fine. If you want to get a bunch of people together for the Superbowl then with respect to that particular event you are no different than anyone else hosting a Superbowl party and you should not be treated any differently either.
In practice, who is really going to take a church to court? It is bad PR. There are already ad viewers in the process, so its not like there's no profit from large audiences. It's just a paranoid thug move on behalf of the NFL.
Table-ized A.I.
They did not get called out because of their large screen -- rather it was because they had :
- A large screen
- Invited the 'public' to view the event
- Charged for admission to the event
The NFL has no problem with home-viewings (even if it is on a 100' television!). It is when people make it a public showing. Charging admission makes it even less 'legal'. You must purchase a license for the public showing to make it legal.
The NFL's absolutist position on copyright (*no* use without permission) is contrary to both the copyright law itselfand in fact to the Constitution. In particular, "fair use" is a Constituional concept: in its original decision that established the doctrine of Fair Use, the Supreme Court said that Congress may not pass a copyright act so restrictive that it destroys freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Inasmuch as that is within the purview of the NFL's business, their statements about this are under law assumed to be deliberate and in full knowledge of that relevant law. Therefore, one must assume that the NFL's fraudulent claims of absolute control under the copyright act are a deliberate and knowing attempt to defraud the public. For that fraud, the NFL should be prosecuted.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Is it still a 56" TV if there is a 1/2 inch strip of tape or something around the edge of the screen?
God invented duct tape for a reason.
"extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation..."
Is not playing a game with well defined rules a "procedure" or "process?"
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
What's with all this anger against the Church for showing the free over the air transmission for free to Church members and members of the community? They are not even charging admission! Where is the outrage against the sports bars who are profiting from the display of the Superbowl?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
So, If they're a bar open to anyone who might stagger in, it doesn't count as public, but if they're a church and some of their members watch it's a pub;lic performance?
That could get complicated FAST. If they roll the TV into the minister's house and he invites all his friends to a superbowl party is that OK? How about if they watch it in the church, but instead of the big TV, they each watch on a personal portable TV is that OK? If they all hop on one foot with a potato(e) strapped onto their heads while they watch, will that be OK?
If indeed greed is a mortal sin, I guess the NFL's leadership better get used to the smell of brimstone.
One poster commented that the NFL has a hard time making money. Well, from the picture of the church property, it does not appear that the church has that problem. It would be nice if the NFL could scam as well as the average christian churches in America. Selective reading lets then demand a tithe, but forget that Jesus destroyed the temple due to money changers in the church. Have American flags and patriotic paraphernalia in the church, but do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, even on clearly profit making activities. Agree to certain political limitations in exchange for the tax exempt status, and then, like the hypocrite, ignore those limitations as they please.
This is nothing more than a whiny church complaining that once they are being held to rules of civilized society. I know it is a new experience for most churches, having to comply with the rule of law, but it happens. They can buy a smaller screen. They can choose not to have such a secular event in a sacred space, and forgo the tithe that members who are mostly interested in secular events might bring. They can, like most churches, have such secular events outside of the sacred space.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Sorry for the pun, but this whole thing is a sad and glaring example of what's wrong with America (and yes, I'm sorry to admit I'm an American.) People spend thousands of dollars to buy a seat at the game, many thousands on travel and lodging, etc. Just think if we, as a unified, committed, dedicated, determined, and ethical society- put that much time, effort, and MONEY into something TRULY worthwhile, like curing cancer, or energy independence, or even just rebuilding our railroads, bridges, and putting power lines UNDERground...
Sorry rest of the world. The US is now a grown up spoiled brat. Please do NOT consider our example as one to be followed. Yes, there's still much good, but you won't hear of it as much as utter crap like this. The crazies now truly have control of the asylum.
Thats what I'm suggesting to my Pastor
The underlying problem for the NFL is that these churches display their own messages during advertising breaks and in place of the halftime show. This upsets the advertisers who are paying vast sums to get their messages across. Sports bars don't do that, parties people throw for friends don't do that - the halftime show and the super-expensive one-time-only adverts are typically shown without change.
Besides that, I think it's rather unreasonable that the religious nuts think that somehow they can hijack someone else's media content in order to push their own insidious messages. Yeah - ban them from using any copyrighted material...whatever it takes.
www.sjbaker.org
IP law is, frankly, a mess. Either unify all the concepts into one single notion, OR sub-divide the existing categories into wholly uniform concepts. Force-fitting one idea into a mechanism never designed or intended to be used in such an abstract manner creates a great deal of confusion over what actually is permissible and makes rational discourse on what should be permissible difficult to impossible. I would argue for unification, partly because you are dealing with underlying principles but also because if the unification is valid and correct, it will remain valid and correct for any future technologies within the bounds for which it is defined. Splitting the categories up into much finer-grain notions would make each rule much easier to understand, much easier to follow and much easier to enforce rationally and fairly, but makes IP as a whole harder to conceptualize and doesn't scale well as new methods of delivering information emerge.
This church fiasco might - possibly - turn out quite useful if the level of resentment generated is sufficient to persuade the politicians that genuine reform (ie: not in the pockets of corporations) is in the interest of voters and therefore their own jobs. Narking a few churches off, though, probably isn't going to generate enough sustained ill-will to do anything beyond getting a few more people seriously drunk and lower that week's collection takings by a few dollars. Anyone who feels wronged on Sunday will have forgotten by Tuesday at the latest. No, the NFL would need to do something far more serious to do any good for the country.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They probably would not claim the church is "copying", because Copyright includes a distribution right and a public performance right. (Both are violated in this case, since the church is effectively redistributing their signal to a large number of people.)
I'm sure that there will be more than a few people out there complaining about the pre-determined "art" that is the refereeing of the NFL a few beers after the kick-off (what, end of the first quarter?).
There are graphics, there is commentary, it's a private stadium, and we have our legal system.
Take your pick of the reasons for this.
It seems to me that if they broadcast it over television and the viewing takes place where no admission is collected that the NFL does not have a leg to stand on. However, that won't stop a law suit and many dollars might have to be spent to prove they have no case. So, who wants to spend money to do that. ACLU?
Both of Britain's main sports (Football and Cricket) are played quite widely internationally, yet American football does not seem to have taken the world by storm. I suppose one consolation of this is that the US always wins, but wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate all those resources on games that are more popular internationally?
:)
Come to think of it, the other main US sport, Baseball, is not hugely popular around the world either. According to Wikipedia it is less popular than volleyball and table tennis. Maybe the US is onto something here. Perhaps we can copy this idea in Britain. We need to ditch the sports we keep losing at, like soccer, and invent a new one that nobody is interested in. Then we will finally be world champions
FTA:
"It's ridiculous," Whitehead said. "You can go into these stores now and buy 100-inch screens. The law is just outdated."
They want the game watched from multiple TVs, so their ratings are higher - so they can get more money from the advertising affiliates. If the law wasn't for it, the law would be updated *for* it.
Anyway, as the article says, they're a bunch of rich bastards anyways, so for the hippie that I am - I never watch commercials at home. How? My brother's an electrical engineer, he built me a box that recognizes the commercials when they are on, and then swivels into an "educating mode" - cycles through images filled with fun things, mostly pictures with mnemonic devices (e.g., one that came up a few seconds ago: "Black Baby Roy got Blues, violent gray wine"), he tells me that he'll soon be able to implement new fancy things - like movies and games with a little bit more effort. If someone is interested in knowing how it's done on the technical end, reply, and I'll find and post a link that explains how it's all done.
I'll be watching the game tonight with EXTRA satisfaction tonight (screw the half-times shows and whatnot).
The difference, I guess, is that the bars have a specific legal exemption for public performances. Apparently churches don't.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
All the sports bars have multiple smaller TVs scattered throughout their premises. The churches should just borrow/rent/buy a few dozen 50" TVs and scatter them strategically throughout their halls. Maybe clergy can suggest that parishoners tithe their forthcoming Gommint "Save the Economy and Buy Stuff Now" checks to the task. In your face, NFL! Anyone know of a good dip recipe that goes with communion wafers?
All the really great sigs are already taken.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4229536&page=1
None the less, I am not supporting the NFL's ban on showing the game on big screens. If people want to gripe that the NFL has some stupid rule about how big your TV can be, fine.
What I object to is that the issue is that CHURCHES can't do it. This attitude that churches should not have to play by the same rules as everyone else drives me up the wall. The suggestion that the legislature should amend federal law to create ANOTHER carve-out for churches is ridiculous.
paintball
Would they prosecute, though? What are their damages? Would it be worth the negative PR?
It's easy for me to say this, but if I were one of the elders of that Church I would encourage the congregation to watch together anyway. I'd call the NFL's bluff. Jesus was a pretty rebellious and rock the boat sort of guy. He didn't back down from the Roman's or Pharisees, he told people how it was, associated with unwed women and whores, and scared those in power. It's hard to imagine that a guy who was so brazen to cost him his life would balk at the threat of a lawsuit. He'd watch the game with his brethren, dammit!
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
This attitude that churches should not have to play by the same rules as everyone else drives me up the wall.
:)
Agreed.
No they don't. They can't charge for superbowl parties, and they have to pay ASCAP fees if they have music.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Copyright is after all, a man made law. Watching superbowl on a Sunday violates, the Sabbath, God's law. Doesn't it?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In practice, who is really going to take a church to court?
Not the NFL. That's why they start with the scary sounding letters. They know mere threats will stop 95% of the churches.
There are already ad viewers in the process, so its not like there's no profit from large audiences.
This is the part I don't understand. The only thing I can figure out is the Guys In Charge tell the lawyers "Go enforce our copyright", and give them a long leash. The lawyers don't understand business, but do understand law, so they just happily send out C&D letters. Every now and again one of the Guys In Charge here about the dumb C&D letters, briefly think, "huh, I wonder if that's good business?", then forget about it as they drive over that homeless guy in their giant SUV.
AccountKiller
The churches are just seeking the same exemption that bars already have. (not that I see why anyone needs one.)
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
The sad part is that if this church served anything stronger than Communion wine (to people who will be driving home after the game) and charged for it, the NFL would have no problem with them showing the game!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Can anyone point out where the law specifically allows sports bars to show NFL games, but not other commercial or noncommercial establishments? Thanks.
They can't charge a fee for the party, but they can still show the video during normal operation ... that's what I mean by exemption. Music is another story.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
... This is not the sort of thing they tell you at Best Buy, eh?
Guess I'm boned, just have to find something else to do...
it is the TV broadcaster which is doing the "performing"/distributing (after all, providing a public performance is exactly what broadcasting is, and they presumably have a legitimate license). In the case at hand, the church is simply providing the resource upon which that performance is perceived. A TV is a passive display device, and is not the source of the "performance." It is logically no different than inviting some friends to your apartment's rooftop to watch a baseball game at Wrigley Field/Fenway Park. The TV might be considered the logical equivalent of a pair of binoculars.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
We really don't want our children staring at life-sized men in tight knickers prancing about and grasping after each other in public, now do we?
Remember, class:
http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/pages/homosexuals-are-gay.html
I don't think I am the only one on /. to be offended by an article with subjects on both sport (a pathetic one like American football) and religion! Get off the interweb jocks and churchgoers!
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
And got crucified for it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I wonder what would happen if everyone from the Church turned up on the day (night?) with their own TV. They each took them into the church hall, stacked them up in a grid and plugged them into one of those devices that splits the picture. That way, each person is watching the game on their own TV, AND the church gets to hold a great superbowl event ... on an even BIGGER screen.
Once you start doing stupid stuff like this, it's going to get stupidly messy at some point.
If the church isn't charging for entry (and unlike the bar, probably isn't charging for drinks either!) then how on EARTH can you justify forcing them to turn it off?
If a large TV set is blaring the Superbowl in a forest, with no-one around to watch it - is it violating copyright?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
CmdrTaco is too busy buttfucking little boys to read slashdot.
are "advertising revenues affected?"
Multiple parishiners watch the game together at the church, when an ad occurs, anyone can watch or not watch the ads, as they desire.
The same set of people watch the game individually at home, when an ad appears, anyone can watch or not watch the ads, as they desire.
The game is being broadcast on the public airwaves. The NFL loses nothing when a group of people watch it together, regardless of where they are. If they don't want the general public to see the game, they should change to cable pay-per-view, and stop milking a public resource for profit.
It's time for a not-so-gentle reminder that contrary to the pontifications of "real" lawyers, growing your own crops is not Interstate Commerce, forcefully transferring land from one private party to another is not "public use," and preventing people from watching the Superbowl together at their church does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Actually, and I kid you not, the fundamentalist southern baptist church that I went to when I was younger and still under the thumb of my parents did exactly what you're saying.
Seriously, they figured that people would be watching the superbowl, and that's UNACCEPTABLE! Why? BECAUSE THE ADS ARE FOR BEER. Can't have good christians watching advertisements with frogs saying "Bud", now can we? So they showed the superbowl up on the wall of the gathering area at the church with a projector, and during the commercials, they'd instead air mini-commercials about jesus that the youth group had put together.
Yeah. No joke. Wild.
~Wx
sig?
Also, it says "for the private use of our audience". What constitutes the audience of a free broadcast?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I went to this church for a while as a kid.
They are far right religious right wing assholes who believe in nearly everything most slashdotters are against. While I am happy to see them get shafted for numerous reasons, I still think the NFL are a bunch of assholes for doing this, because obviously they aren't the only people getting hit by this.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
The best thing this church could do is call the NFL's bluff and play the game anyway!
Let's consider the worst scenario, the NFL does sue. So what?!?! Odds are that the NFL will lose and then there is a good chance the church could counter-sue and reclaim any costs incurred.
But, let's be realistic, it would be a PR suicide attempt for the NFL to sue a church. The only thing the church could do better then simply showing the game would be to bus in a load of poor, handicapped, cancer-inflicted children from broken homes. I'd like to see the NFL sue that!!
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life
End over end neither left nor to right
Straight through the heart of them righteous uprights
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life.
Make me, oh make me, Lord more than I am
Make me a piece in your master game plan
Free from the earthly tempestion below
I've got the will, Lord if you've got the toe.
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life
End over end neither left nor to right
Straight through the heart of them righteous uprights
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life.
Take all the brothers who've gone on before
And all of the sisters who've knocked on your door
All the departed dear loved ones of mine
Stick'em up front in the offensive line.
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life
End over end neither left nor to right
Straight through the heart of them righteous uprights
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life.
Yeah, Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life
End over end neither left nor to right
Straight through the heart of them righteous uprights
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
the championship of the sport we crazy Americans call football. You can tell it from the football of the rest of the world because in the US, the big hits, bloody noses, and violence is on the field, not in the stands...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The word you want in that context is "averse", not "adverse". This has not been a flame, just a helpful comment. I make no promise for what follows this post. :-)
...that may apply.
Some of you guys may help me remember the details, but this was years ago and it had to do with receiving HBO and "ON-TV" (remember them?) via home made antenna or big sat dish. HBO and ON were both originally available in many areas using a special antenna. This was pre-cable tv, but not by much. The signal was scrambled by not by much. I recall a little 9 volt dc block adapter powered unit that went in-line on the coax from the antenna that could decode it. By todays standards, it wasn't encryption at all, more obscurity than security. I think the picture was shifted half way over, and the end that went off screen was prepended to the other side or something.
Anyway, you could get it that way or your could catch the feed as it went across the big sats as that was completely open. Ah, the days before DRM.
As I recall, the supreme court ruled then that if you could receive it out of the air and not have to descramble it, then you were within your rights to watch it. If I'm remembering it accurately, and if it hasn't been reversed, then the NFL's only actionable complaint would by with the networks for not protecting the copyrighted material. This is even more true if you're watching it by using an antenna and HD tuner rather than cable tv.
Ok, flame the crap out of me for being wrong or outdated now. I'm putting my gnomex hood on and donning SCBA...
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Support SETI@home
Am I going to get sued now?
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
Why can't these churches just stand up and tell the NFL to go fuck themselves? The church is private property and if they're not charging admission I can't possibly see how it's not considered a "private performance" just like the NFL text says. What about people with big screen HDTV sets, are they going to start going after people hosting parties at home?
One of those kids is doing his own thing. One of this vids is fake.
Would they prosecute, though? What are their damages? Would it be worth the negative PR?
Is it worth the fight? You'd probably win.. but what? The right to have big televisions at superbowl gatherings? Not exactly the kind of thing most churches really care about. Choose your battles. While I believe the NFL is in the wrong here, and no one should be able to dictate TV size to anyone else for broadcast TV, it's such a small issue that it's not much worth the fight.
It's probably better to just tell the people that no, the NFL says we can't have large TVs here. Tell them to tell their friends, and so on. This kind of thing builds, though slowly.
AccountKiller
Now to really blow your mind: whether you watch it or whether you don't watch it, does it make a difference? Is it not, in essence, the same thing?
All NFL games on TV start with a notice saying descriptions of the game are not authorized without the express consent of the NFL. Is this enforcible?
I am pretty sure Bestbuy has at least SOME >55" TV on display. Better yet, they have multiple of them running at almost all times. Everyone weekend, you can go to Bestbuy or any big electronic stores, be it chain store or not, you will see some sort of live sports on TV. Unless every one of these stores has "agreements" in place with the NFL and all the other major sports, which I highly doubt, this is ridiculous to go after churches, who are non-profit. Maybe that's the problem there, NFL doesn't like non-profit because they are all greedy bastards. Yet they have no problem when other for-profit organizations violate their "rights". Screw this, I am not going to watching the super bowl this year.
Church-going folks overwhelmingly voted for the corrupt Republicans that allowed copyright to take on these excessive forms in the first place. I say: throw the book at them. Sue them for criminal copyright infringement. Maybe once they get a taste of their own medicine, they'll think twice before voting another Bush into office.
If I recall, there's an "idol" in South Bend Indiana, at this small little college called...what is it now, Notre Dame, I think it is...and this "idol", has this name ... Touchdown Jesus ....How do Football and Church NOT go together?
The NFL needs to go to Hell....literally...
I can understand the banning the playing of a purchased or rented DVD on a large screen, but non-time shifted broadcast television? All this could possibly do is decrease the size of the audience who were going to see the advertisements at the event just like someone at home
Now, if they were TIVOing the Superbowl and playing it an hour or 2 later so they could skip commercials, I can see how 400 people in an auditorium might be a problem, but live broadcast? Really? Are they retarded?
Yes, Jesus DID say to pay your taxes like a good little prole.
But the Bible says a lot of other stuff too, like to obey any and all forms of government and authority.
1 Peter 2:13.
Thankfully we live in a society where stone is cheap and abundant. I'm sure you can find a landscaping store that will sell you an entire truckload of appropriately-sized rocks, and then deliver them to wherever you and your church feel would be most appropriate for the event.
You can put anything you like up as boilerplate. Doesn't mean it's true.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Obviously, the NFL wants fewer people watching their game and the advertisements. I will help them out by not watching the game or the ads.
It's bad enough when you accidentally inflict a short burst football on yourself while channel surfing on a normal sized tv. Imagine the horror of seeing an entire game of same on a 56" screen!
qz
"The churches are just seeking the same exemption that bars already have. (not that I see why anyone needs one.)"
Brewers subsidize the game with big ad buys. That's why they don't mind them showing the game in bars.
When churches start taking out big ad spots *that aren't offensive to viewers*, they'll get the same "consideration".
Churches have no right to a "free ride". Trading on the coat-tails of the popularity of someone else's product when you don't have an agreement or license is not right, and this is exactly what the church is doing - they admit they're trying to attract people by showing the game.
get a projector, most churches have them anyways. If you see the NFL drive up, just whip out the 55" screen and your good to go. Honestly, church is the best place to watch the game, they've got those little cupholders in front of every seat, a flat book to hold your plate of grub on, as soon as they move that guy pinned to the tree out of the view then it'll be perfect!
"Jesus was a pretty rebellious and rock the boat sort of guy"
Guess that's why he banned slavery ... oh, wait, he didn't.
Gays and lesbians, and premarital / extramarital sex (never mind that his mother got preggo outside of marriage) he'd condemn, but slavery? "Don't rock the boat!" Really, which is worse?
And now a word from our sponsors:
So seriously, am I the only one that thinks the NFL sucks more than any other entity, including the RIAA? These tactics are heavy handed, but not unprecedented for them. In fact, this TV thing is minor compared to what they might start doing next. They might actually start coming after people just for uttering the word "Super Bowl" and sue them! I'm not kidding, they've actually trademarked the word, and unless you pay the NFL, you may not use the word superbowl. I work for General Mills (the makers of Chex Mix), and they've opted not to pay the NFL when running advertising on/around the superbowl. Therefore, their ads can do nothing more than refer to "The Big Game." They may not, under any circumstances, utter the words "Super Bowl" without paying for it (and of course that goes for everybody).
So if the NFL is starting to tell people they can't watch the superbowl in groups around a 56 inch TV, when nothing would be lost (this is broadcast on one of the major networks for free, not pay per view, and everyone would just watch it individually regardless), then I honestly wouldn't be suprised if they started suing, say, news anchors for using the word Super Bowl in newscasts covering the weekend.
Side Note: Advertisers should sue the NFL for breach of contract in limiting their advertising exposure. They pay 2.5 million for ad spots, expecting that massive amounts of people will be gathering to watch in groups, and here goes the NFL breaking up groups of viewers. How is that even good for the NFL, let alone the advertisers funding the game?
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
The league bans public exhibitions of its games on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches because smaller sets limit the audience size.
Solution: borrow a few 42" sets! I'm sure some of the dozes of parishioners they were expecting have got some good sets.
PS: No one fucks with the Jesus.
You're right. Jesus is f'in metal.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
In other words, this law carves out explicit permission for restaurants to have a television, which otherwise would be a copyright violation. It does not rescind fair use. Recall fair use as described by U.S. Code Title 17 Section 107 (emphasis added):
Let's piss of the most vocal and angry mob in the universe.
1) NFL sells TV rights for millions of dollars.
2) TV makes money back by selling ads.
3) The price for ads is dependent on number of eyeballs watching the station during game time. So what does it matter if you watch the game at home, or at a church with 100 other people. Seems like everything is square.
(emphasis added)
They're correctly reading the law, as sad as it might be. Now, the law here is ridiculous, there's NO question in my mind about that. There are plenty of other ridiculous provisions in there just like this one. Alas, we have the best laws money can buy
actually the only people he condemned were the scribes and pharisees, who were the religious leaders of the day. He associated with the sinners, and drank with them!
no big sig
"Jesus was a pretty rebellious and rock the boat sort of guy"
Guess that's why he banned slavery ... oh, wait, he didn't.
Whatever else you have to say about religion and Christianity and Jesus in general or in the specific, while the man walked this earth he was never exactly in a position of political power where he could start handing down Bans On Slavery or things like that. So it's a very bad way to start an argument with mentioning this.You never banned slavery either.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
WOW! I guess soccer is really taking off over there then. :-)
thx e
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Do you go to the bathroom during commercials? Thief!
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
What post are you replying to? I looked at the parent of your post, and it was empty. Could you please remove it from your harddrive and re-post it so others can read it? It's quite inconsiderate of you to just take that post and keep it so that others can't read it.
The summary is misleading; it says sports bars are exempt. In fact, they are not, they have a special commercial agreement.
The reason for not allowing more than x-amount of people is that it is assumed that the only reason you get that many people together to watch something, you are making money on it and they can't have anyone making profit on their product without getting some of the action! In the case of sports bars that profit would be from selling food and drink. In the case of a church it must be the collection tray. The reason is the same as just buying a CD doesn't mean you can play it in a venue without paying further royalties.
The moral of the story is that if you get that many people in one room, you *should* be making profit and you not doing so is not the NFLs problem. Pay up or send all the folks to other venues that do make a profit on it and pay the NFL what is rightfully theirs.
What a blood suckers.
I thought Sunday was for prayer and worship. I couldn't tell you why the NFL would impose a sanction like this (are they hoping to collect royalties from mega-churches?). However the greater concern is that churches are moving aside from their purpose of glorifying God to a football game. I'm sure many churches would try to screen the content, but the myriad of beer commercials and scantily clad cheerleaders is certainly not in line with many churches ethos (and certainly not the Bibles).
This may be the best thing for churches. Maybe they will stop watching football and actually have church.
He railed against the money-changers, but not the slave owners.
He said that the meek would inherit the kingdom, but he didn't exclude slave owners
He said that those who kept his commandments would be okay, not anyone else. Of course, slave-owners, as long as they did what he said, got a free pass ... what an asshole.
He said "love thy neighbor as thyself" - but slaves, well, I guess technically, they're not your neighbour ...
He ranted against premarital and extra-marital sex, but not against slavery.
He said "keep my commandments" - why couldn't one of them have been to not own people? Simple - he was a coward and a con artist. Same as Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Mike Warnke, and the rest of them ... jesus was the original "Matchstick Man."
Remember - he said "I and my father are one." And we all know that god had no problem with "his people" enslaving others, raping them, committing genocide, etc. About King David - "a man after my own heart" - was also a murdering swine. Just like god himself, or so the so-called "good book" says.
How to become a "good" Christian in 20 easy steps.
Ever been to a church? Most churches have a projector to display the lyrics to the hymns/songs you sing.
Some churches use TVs to display seminar or sermon content (live feeds, DVDs, sermon illustrations, etc.) Another use is for displaying song lyrics (instead of hymnals) though I expect projectors are more common for that.
There's two fairly normal examples, I'm sure there's others.
One more reason for me to ignore the NFL (and baseball, basketball, soccer, etc.)... I'll add them to the same list that contains: Movie Theaters, CD & DVD stores, and commercial radio stations. These guys are the terrorists trying to destroy the true "American Way of Life"
Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
I don't understand why the NFL insists on controlling how people view live TV broadcasts of their games. Their way of making money on these broadcasts is obviously through advertising. And to make advertising more valuable, you need as many viewers as possible. Therefore, logic suggests that they should want as many people watching the advertisements (and game) as possible, regardless of the means or venue.
Granted, the networks probably keep the profits from advertising, and the NFL is probably paid a predetermined flat rate for broadcast rights. But if advertising dollars increase, can't the NFL demand a higher rate for broadcast rights for the next season? It still would seem to be in their favor.
If nothing else, couldn't they save money on their legal expenses?
You're quoting from 1 Corinthians, which is a letter from Paul to the members of the church of Corinth. Remember, the Bible is simply a collection of books and letters that a bunch of religious leaders - a few hundred years after all this was written - decided was useful to have together in one volume. It is NOT a unified work. Both Fundamentalist wackos and bible-bashers seem to always make the same mistake. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus had a lot of great things to say, and Paul was, as often as not, a certifiable nutjob. Feel free to ignore that guy. Read further on in 1 Corinthians, and you'll find:
"Let your women be keeping silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted to them to be speaking, _but_ to be subjecting themselves, just as also the Law says. But if they desire to learn anything, let them be questioning their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful [or, shameful] [for] women to be speaking in an assembly."
I've been to churches that play the superbowl on a projector. The first time they thought it to be a bright idea to switch off the projector during the commercials and have mini sermons during the breaks and during half time.
The next year the youth pastor wanted to focus on the commercials and had some sermon about the commercials themselves. The following years they didnt even bother with anything but the half time show was switched off for a sermon.
Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
I guess you might need a video screen if you had one of those "praise bands" playing. But on the other hand, their lyrics are so predictable you don't really need to look. Pure veg-out music. At least some of the songs in the hymnals actually bother to discuss the ideas of the faith. But that's getting off topic.
Hymnals are better, anyway, they can convey more information (not just the lyrics, but four-part harmony). And if you're a musician (or even just marginally intelligent) you can do
instead of so you can do other stuff while you sing.That all said, I strongly prefer to
instead.Please. You are quoting Paul, not Jesus. Jesus was a hippie rebel. He had some very revolutionary ideas. If a man wrongs you, shame him for his transgressions. Give your money to the poor. Live a righteous life and don't be a prick. Don't be greedy. And for God's sake, let my followers watch the f'ing Superbowl in fellowship, biatches.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Would they prosecute, though? What are their damages? Would it be worth the negative PR?
Is it worth the fight? You'd probably win.. but what? The right to have big televisions at superbowl gatherings? Not exactly the kind of thing most churches really care about.
That's my whole point. That it isn't worth fighting, so the NFL would never sue the Church. Sure, it's cheap and easy to send a letter saying, "Don't do this," but it is worth the attorney's fees and negative PR for the NFL to actually sue a Church?
I sincerely doubt it. So the Church has nothing to lose by going ahead with their plans. If they NFL doesn't take legal action - which they most likely won't - then no harm to either side. If the NFL sues, then the Church will engender a lot of sympathy and support, while the NFL will be viewed as bullying Plutocrats.
This Church should grow a pair. That was my earlier sentiment: Jesus Fucking Christ had the balls to stand up to the Romans and Pharisees. Yes, it cost him His life, but His testicular fortitude solidified his place in history.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
.. from the N(o) F(un) L(eague)...
a pox on them.
Trade in the TV over 55" in for a 54" one.
-Kinsey
Inmate: What you in for? Preacher: I showed the Super Bowl on a 56" screen to my congregation! Inmates: Oh man, he went up against the NFL, better not mess with him... So this is so ridiculous, I would say churches should just go ahead and show the Super Bowl on their big screen. I'd like to see the public's outrage if this ever really went to court...
WikiCreole - a common wiki markup language
When you know the commercials are going to be promoting vices, why not replace them with messages promoting virtues? To substitute the Slashdot religion, so that everyone here will understand, if there was an annual event on TV that millions of people watched and where all the ads were for M$ products, wouldn't you want to assemble groups to show the program to but substitute what was according to your religion more positive choices?
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Satan, is that you?
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
The same issues came up during the soccer world championchips. (FIFA tried to sell licenses for public viewing) Here is how they were resolved in Europe. 1. A soccer game is not an original work in the sense of copyright law. As the landlord of the stadion they can control who puts up cameras there, but there is no copyright on the games themselves as they are lacking the creative process. (When I thing about it, wrestling matches might fall under copyright) 2. The TV shows produced by the people owning the cameras in the stadion falls under copyright law. They license this for broadcasting to TV stations. 3. The copyright law in germany protects an explicit list of actions that needs to be licensed like "public performace", "distribution", "broadcasting", "copying". The assumption is that any act can be classified as one and only one of these categories. Live TV viewing requires a "broadcasting" license paid for by the TV company. Turning on the TV in a public place does not make it an additional "public performce" as the broadcasting is public anyway. If record it onto tape. (copying) and replay it later in public you are doing a "public performce". But watching while the show is aired requires only the "broadcasting" license. This was tested in court and it makes perfectly sense to me.
Well, they're using it for a far more insidious thing that profit.... they're using it to further their campaign of brainwashing.
Videaowall build up of 55" screens. e.g. 4x3, like here
It might be that you need 12 different recievers to make it legal. That should however not be an issue.
What I would also love to see is this going to court God against the copyright law. Who will win? And if copyright wins, doesn't that mean that there is no God?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's isogesis. You are pulling your own meaning from that piece of scripture. And by the way, that's apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians. I'm not going to give you my full exogesis (finding the true meaning of scripture) of this passage in a comment to a /. article, but I will tell you that the original Greek text, in my opinion, had nothing to do with homosexuality.
In other words, [citation needed]
-Tuna www.supertunaman.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't see any evidence of an intimate expression of copyright law there.
No qualified attorney dealing in copyright, regardless of persuasion as to the current status of copyright law, would so poorly execute a comment and try to assert First Amendment rights to the work of others.
As I point out elsewhere, jesus claimed equivalence to god - "I and the father are one" - and also claimed that what we know as the old testament was totally god's will. Kind of makes jeebus a wack-pack too, no? - That the church claims that the whole bible is god's word, complete with all its contradictions, also gives a LOT of material to bible-bash.
I'm still waiting for someone to to try to collect the $1,000,000 reward:
The bible is as ridiculous as the flying spaghetti monster - but at least the FSM never told people to go forth and wage any sort of holy war.
Will they object to my tv being shown at my church, it's over 56 inches in length (the console) with a 4 inch Black and White screen.
the language ("To perform means...to transmit ... a performance or display of the work ... to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.") describes exactly what the broadcaster is doing (not the church), both in the situation where the parishiners are watching at home ("in separate places") or together ("in the same place").
... display of the work to a place..." Again, that would be the broadcaster, not the church.
Furthermore, the definition given of "perform" makes it clear that the act occurs at the origination (the actor, dancer, football player, broadcaster).
Where's the definition for "display?" From context, it appears that "perform" applies to live action and "display" applies to recorded audio-visual works. Note that the text refers to "transmit[ting a]
...and how does prohibiting a group of people from watching together, when each can readily watch individually, "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," the basic requirement for any US copyright law to be Constitutional.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
And jesus said that he and god were one, and paul claimed to be speaking for god, so its all supposedly the same. Or is the bible full of errors and mistakes? Well, lets look at some other "biblical teachings" Premarital sex is supposed to be evil - except jesus was an illegitimate bastard and god cuckolded joseph. And gays and lesbians are supposed to be going to hell. And so are people who don't worship god. Also those who work on the "holy day". And anyone who doesn't "give their life to jeebus."
Nice how religions prey upon people when they are at their weakest (kids, adults going through crisis, etc) and promise to solve their problems if they only believe.
Watching the super bowl on an oversized tv should be the least of your worries.
Like I said, wtf couldn't jeebus say "Hey, you can't own people. Slavery is wrong!"? Simple - that would have been an unpopular message, and reduced the number of potential followers. Money and power before principle - same as any other cult leader or politician.
Wasn't there something in that book about not coveting other people's shit? Why does the church covet the NFL's broadcast, which is theirs (the NFL) to do as they please?
"Come to church and watch the super bowl on our big-screen tee-vee!" What next - "Come to church as we "study" all that sinful porn on our big screen tee-vee! Free kleenex. Free trench coat! Free beer!"
Rugby
Why not? Because it screws up your world view, that's why. Here at Slashdot, we KNOW that there is a Microsoft. We see the ads, we use the products. This is not a problem, because we have made an informed choice: we want to use Apache, not IIS. Or Firefox, not IE. Or, heavens forbid, Windows, not Linux. See where I'm going? There are (at least!) two sides to the story, the one with the corporate MS values and products, and the one with the hippies with the long hair.
As a church, if you replace the ads with ones that you think are better, you're keeping people ignorant. An empowered person is one who chooses to believe, in this case, in the Jeebus. There should be no force, there needs to be no obscuring of other world views.
Incidentally, this is exactly what sucks about MS: if the products are so great, there needs to be no vendor lock in or anything like that. Very disappointing.
If you're a "food service or drinking establishment", you are exempt if the establishment is less than 3750 square feet, you have no more than 4 TVs, no more than one per room, and none of them are 56" or larger.
The only difference if you're not a "food service or drinking establishment"? The limit drops to 2000 square feet.
I grew up in a pretty small church, but we were licensed as a food service establishment, because there was a wedding rehearsal dinner, a wedding reception, a funeral dinner, a father-son banquet, or something else almost every week. It's my understanding that potluck dinners don't count, but surely every church has people getting married and people getting buried, don't they?
Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html
Everyone just turns on their TV to the game before they leave the house. Problem solved?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Most churches are corporations, interested only in money, and they should be using that money they spent on a TV to help poor people.
But the TV makes for better propaganda/recruitment tool. You can have kids come over and play violent video games on it (just no naughty words, or even worse people "begotten-ing" each other), and then brain wash kids how great THEIR god is and how all the non-believers should be destroyed and sent to hell of ever and ever for not kissing the right god's ass the right way...
The true mark of a god is how he uses his power. Any god that would smite me for not worshiping him, or for not doing it correctly is not worthy of worship...
I guess they feel copyright doesn't apply to them at all....
I stopped watching professional sports years ago. The players are overpaid. The whole sport is overpaid. They are not role models, but people constantly hold them up as role models and idolize them - because they can play a sport well, not because they are good people in other ways.
Want to slap the NFL awake? Don't watch the game. Get a lot of people to not watch the game, because you disagree with what they do. I mean on a huge scale, something that would have to be organized and talked up online to reach lots and lots of people. After the suits realize "We lost 80% of our audience due to a boycott, because we are jerks." you might see a change. It doesn't have to be for the Super Bowl, just a game, and people have to know why nobody watched it.
Obviously, there are exceptions to what I am saying about players, but I haven't noticed too many in recent years.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
I do not have an antenna, cable, or dish. I do not want to go to a smokey bar with a bunch of loud drunks. I guess I am not able to watch the game. So much for the ratings.
On a side note one year a church had a Stoopid Bowl Party and needed some help with a hook up.
I laid cable and splitters for about 20 TVs. This way they could all be seen at the same time. There were several hundred people there and was a lot of fun. Never went back.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
I cannot believe that the NFL's copyright on the broadcast can actually legally prevent people from gathering to watch the game... doesn't that seem a little unconstitutional?
Raehl, you need to read the article before running off at this mouth, my man. The church didn't charge admission. Bars charge admission, but not the church. The only issue that the NFL had was that their projecting it on a 56" TV, which is an asinine aspect of this to get pissy about. This is just a matter of the NFL being a dick.
There is no theft here, only usage. That makes this distasteful, to say the least.
So RTFA and then you may spout non-sense, same as the rest of us.
Oh, for the days when sig's didn't have to be cute...hey, wait a sec.
Seriously, they figured that people would be watching the superbowl, and that's UNACCEPTABLE! Why? BECAUSE THE ADS ARE FOR BEER. Can't have good christians watching advertisements with frogs saying "Bud", now can we? So they showed the superbowl up on the wall of the gathering area at the church with a projector, and during the commercials, they'd instead air mini-commercials about jesus that the youth group had put together.
Yeah. No joke. Wild.
That's why the guys generally try to get together without the little old ladies or that one woman that is offended by anything "male." Guys generally don't have much against women except when women try to corner into our niches and say that's now a woman's turf and you should be doing it this way. This basic logic works for a surprising amount of social groups. We exclude that one guy/girl/bitch/jerk/bastard that is offended by things most of us enjoy or atleast can enjoy while we invite others that actually like said event.
Do you honestly believe they aren't already doing exactly that?
http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=159
Can someone direct me to the federal copyright which includes language that grants sports bars the right to show NFL games on a big screen but not churches (or other establishments)?
Leviticus says you can't touch a dead pig!
Lev. 11:6-8 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Oh wait, I've never watched it before in the first place.
My bad.
You can go back to being ignorant, greedy, moronic mother-fuckers now.
"So, what you in for?"
"I went to church and watched the Superbowl."
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Who would want to watch it anyway? Americans need to get over their fixation of glaring at sweaty, over paid, steroid pumped guys playing grab-ass with each other.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Well, I guess my problem is why that could ever be a violation to begin with. You see, if it's coming over the air, I don't think it should be a "violation" no matter what. I could *barely* see it if it were Pay-Per View or something, but for freely accessible things, I don't think it should be *possible* to violate copyright law merely by tuning in. And I really don't give a damn if someone manages to make a buck or two off of that by providing folks with a nice, big TV to watch it on. It's the TV they're paying for, after all, NOT the TV show.
Just more expectation setting, I guess. They won't rake us over the coals, just one coal, and it will only be red hot, not white hot. As if that's some kind of consolation, when they shouldn't be raking people over the coal(s) at all...
I am not a Church goer, let alone a Christian, so I don't know why you felt the need to use the word "your" in your final sentence. Moreover, I never claimed that the Bible should be interpreted literally. Nor do I believe that the Bible is the word of God. Any document written my man (especially one written by many different men over many centuries) is sure to have errors and inaccuracies and contradictions and express viewpoints of the time it was written, which might be less enlightened than our views today. (Case in point: the US Constitution, which many libertarians view as a near-holy text, was initially penned to count black people as 3/5th of a human being. Not a very moral view by today's standards.)
However, I do think that the Bible has served a great purpose over the eons as a rudimentary rule of law and guideline for societal harmony. Yes, there are conflicting passages. Yes, there are laws and rules laid out that run contradictory to today's social mores. Following the Bible literally and taking it's teachings literally and trying to live by them today is folly, but that does not discount a number of things, which you seem loathe to accept:
Everyone should read the Bible and appreciate it for what it was and still means today.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
The first amendment doesn't give you rights to the work of others. It gives you the right to publish whatever you want. It's expressly there to prevent the government from limiting the rights of people to publish anything. The court all agree that copyright law limited first amendment rights. They call it a balancing act. You give extra rights to one group and take them from others. If you don't understand this basic aspect of copyright law, you are not informed enough to discuss it intelligently.
Dear NFL,
I will be viewing the Superbowl in a public setting on a screen with a 6ft diameter. Go eat a dick NFL.
Sincerely, Anonymous Coward.
I, for one, have never sat through an entire Super Bowl, with the exception of watching at a church event. I would imagine that it would be in the better interest of the sponsors to have more viewers. Though, I suspect that most churches tune out on the commercials and do their own thing during that time. However, I don't see that as being any different than my flipping the channel or leaving the room during commercials. Anyway, the point of it is that the only thing that the NFL is going to get out of this is bad publicity. Luke
Second, I understand the church as a group who wants to share a common interest activity in a good way.
So, the leaders could hand out these glasses with a wired or wireless hookup:
ezVision Video Glasses
... Experience a 50" widescreen...Anywhere...Anytime
http://www.audio-outfitters.com/ezVisionFeatures.html
However, I wonder if these glasses would get the church in trouble all over again:
ezVision X4
... Four Times The Resolution of Standard ezVision G1 . ..
and now simulates a 64" virtual screen as viewed from 8.5 feet... and they fit like a pair of glasses.
http://www.audio-outfitters.com/ezvision_X4.html
or these low tech ones
Max TV Glasses Description
Don't miss your favorite show or sporting event. Make your TV screen appear twice as big with these special TV-glasses. Has individual focusing for each eye with a focusing wheel.
http://www.youcantoocan.com/Max_TV_Glasses_P338.cfm
Now they should be safe with this older technology:
HMV Eyeglass TV
This company has built a curious apparatus called"the television eyeglass". It weighs less than 800g, and can be easily held in the hand, like a telephone receiver. The sound is perceived by the earphone which is applied against the ear and the 4 cm x 3 cm picture is visible via a 45 degree mirror.
http://www.earlytelevision.org/hmv.html
And for the people that need to see what is around them while watching, a Japan company has made these for the train commuter:
'Eyeglass' TV For Train Commuters Unveiled
Glasses Ensure Normal Visual Field While Watching Video
http://www.local6.com/technology/13360129/detail.html
made by:
http://www.teleglasses.net/about_teleglass.html
http://www.scalar.co.jp/english/products/teleglass.html
"McCarthy said. "We have no objection to churches and others hosting Super Bowl parties as long as they . . . show the game on a television of the type commonly used at home," he said. "It is a matter of copyright law."
Duh! No copywrite law exists about this, its up to the owner of the broadcase, and the NFL is being bizarre about it. 55vs 60? I guess they are jealous of the size. They should just call it 'Sports bar for a day'
It is a matter of freedom of religion. Dont worship God and Madden together!
Unless I am missing some other section of law, the only special treatment of the exemption is:
in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking establishment [] less than 2,000 gross square feet of space...
no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches
vs
in the case of a food service or drinking establishment [] less than 3,750 gross square feet of space...
no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches
For a "food service or drinking establishment" the free exemption limit was raised from 2,000 gross square feet to 3,750 gross square feet. In neither case does it cover screens larger than 55 inch diagonal.
Unless I am missing some other section of law, "sports bars" or other establishments with larger screens pay a fee to some standard copyright licensing organization.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"Can we get rid of their tax exemption while we're at it?"
No, thanks for playing.
"Or does this 52" TV have some demonstrable charitable purpose?"
That large tv has legitimate uses, like displaying, oh, I don't know....religious content?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What's with all this anger against the Church
Oh christ, enough with the Delusional American Christian Persecution Complex.
There is only relevant one exemption in the law I am aware of (TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 SECTION 110 PARAGRAPH 5) and in no case does it apply to screens larger than 55 inch diagonal.
Unless someone can actually cite some other exemption in law, I say that sports bars need to (and do) pay a copyright licensing fee when show the Superbowl on giant screen TVs.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> When you know the commercials are going to be promoting vices, why not replace them with messages promoting virtues?
>> they'd instead air mini-commercials about jesus.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The only important part of the superbowl is the halftime commercials, right? And they'll all be on youtube anyway...
The sad part is that if this church served anything stronger than Communion wine (to people who will be driving home after the game) and charged for it, the NFL would have no problem with them showing the game!
I'd be really surprised if they didn't - believe me I've been in enough churches (and that's a lot, over the years) to know that they probably drink at least as much if not more than the average population (especially the clergy).
Hell, in this country we have a number of churches based *inside* pubs. Those that aren't usually have a favourite local just around the corner, who are glad of the business every sunday afternoon.
It's been 100 years since 'a cup of tea' was all you got after a service. OTOH maybe in the US there are still churches like that..
Typically it's a projector and a blank wall/screen, not a 6 foot LCD - used for displaying notes for the teaching (much the same as many college professors do) or words to songs. It just happens to be a great way to watch a football game or play video games.
When I was just recently at the Detroit Airport, they were showing a NFL football game on a huge set that had to be bigger than 55". It was not in a sports bar but out in the concourse on a wall. How do they get away it?
So, the NFL is targeting Christian Churches...kinda like Al-Quaeda?
Before I begin, let me just say that I'll be far more disappointed if I find my son grows up to start going to church than I would be if he told me he was smoking the occassional joint. In fact, I'd be willing to buy him the joint to keep him from going to church. But, I do have a solution to their problems, and I guess I'd prefer the church going cattle to stay locked up in their churches than out where I might have to interact with them at some point.
Here's the deal, there is nothing which specifically prohibits displaying the game on 4 TVs. More importantly, there's nothing mentioned that suggests that you have to display the whole picture on the screen. For example, if you happened to have 4 largescreen plasma TVs which each showed a quarter of the picture, there isn't anything expressly prohibiting this activity.
Not that I'd want to suggest any "illegitimate" dealings, but a single PC computer with a a Matrox QID graphics card and a standard TV card such as a Hauppauge branded device can easily display a picture cleanly across 4 screens.
I figure this should get them one more year before they get that lookhole closed, but it would work.
So, go ahead churchy people, send around that collection dish and gather up the money for 4 plasma displays and a PC with a TV card to run them. If you tell the people it'll help feed starving children in Manhatten, you should have the money in no time.
Actually, we'd just DVR it on our MythTV boxes and then replay it later while skipping the commercials altogether. And you call yourself a geek...
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Isn't a church just the house of God? And aren't we all just God's children? Is the NFL saying that God can't hang out at his house and watch football with his children?
For a very rarified group. My sister was "in The Business" (as she pronounces it)(film/ad business, that is), yet never notes the commercials. Neither does anyone else that I have met in person. All of them view it as either (1) a potentially interesting game (2) a good excuse for a party, like Cinco De Mayo is an excuse for tequilla, or (3) MUST SEE TV, as OUR TEAM is playing. Having grown up in the Pittsburgh, PA area during the Steelers Dynasty of the 1970s, I can understand this, even if I might not feel it (except two years ago, when WE WON!!!!! :-).
I would point out that broadcast TV is payed for by ad agencies bying airtime for their clients, so NOT making a big deal about the commercials on the Today Show, or the like, would be biting the hand that feeds them, and thus not done.
Support SETI@home
But, that aside, if I were to claim I needed one for my home office, I would be expected to log business and non-business use of it and reduce my deduction accordingly. Yet a church gets it entirely tax free regardless of how it is used.
Support SETI@home
You must be new here... ;) No, we'd post links to them and make fun of how stupid the ads were.
Holy bloody fuck.
It's a travesty that something as basic as copyright law, goes into such excruciating detail. Words like "food service or drinking establishment" maybe belong to legislation establishing the FDA, but sure as hell not copyright. And "not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space"? What the fuck principle is this Law of the Land based on?
I hope the church decided to openly violate the law.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Large Super Bowl gatherings around big-screen sets outside of homes shrink TV ratings and can affect advertising revenue, McCarthy said.
So, would the NFL be willing to allow churches to have the party, provided they tell their congregation to be SURE to turn their TVs on Fox before leaving for the party? And just HOW stupid is that! (And not very 'green', either, btw)
Also, can anyone imagine why there's a loophole for bars? Gee, it wouldn't happen to be because of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of beer advertisements during the Superbowl, would it? And the fact that if people stayed at home to watch the game, they're not as likely to drink as much beer, than if they were in a bar. Is the NFL really more inclined to promote drunk driving than non-alcoholic superbowl parties?
So, one way churches could fight this would be to have that Superbowl party at the local pub. With enough churches doing this, and enough pub owners getting mad about those non-beer drinking patrons taking up valuable space in their taverns - the NFL would get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I like beer as much as the next guy, but this is crazy insane and unfair.
That's Golf right?
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
...as would any other nonprofit.
If your business had a legitimate use for such a big TV it could easily be a 100% deduction. I'm sure sports bars don't worry about it, they just deduct the entire expense (or depreciate it, but that's another conversation altogether). Churches are in the business of entertainment, of a sort. Call it "community outreach" if you want. Unless the church-bought TV is in the pastor's house I doubt that any IRS agent would question the deduction.