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."

12 of 680 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck with that, NFL by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Good.

    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
    1. Re:Good luck with that, NFL by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Major sports leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, etc) have always been pretty strict about enforcing copyright and redistribution rights for their broadcasts. They even put up a big warning like the FBI warning shown at the start of movies. It is their property I suppose so that shouldn't be a big issue of contention. They say that, but they step far beyond what they're legally able to defend in court. The reason why they've been allowed to leave those notices up at the beginning of games is simply that they haven't been stupid enough to try and press it in court.

      It has nothing about copyright law or redistribution rights, the notice that you refer to includes as well as the copyrighted telecast/radio broadcast and any relevant images, the right to discuss the game later on or tell people what the score was without the expressed written consent of the league.

      Those aren't protections which US copyright law presently extends to anybody.

      So no, it isn't a matter of the leagues protecting their legal rights in most cases it's a matter of them inventing new rights in order to coerce people to abide by their rules. Even the MPAA doesn't typically sue or send notices to church groups to not show their films. Or at least they have the sense not to allow those sorts of notices to go public like this.
    2. Re:Good luck with that, NFL by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's on free-to-air TV. It shouldn't matter who's watching. Got a TV? Got an aerial? That's all you really need. It's not copying, no copy's being made, so what the hell does copyright have to do with anything? It would be a breach of copyright if someone was mastering videos during the game to hand out to the people in attendance...otherwise, they're just thumping their chests like the 900 lb. gorillas they are.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    3. Re:Good luck with that, NFL by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So can they be sued for false advertising if they have a commercial that shows more than four people watching football together? If it is illegal to "use their product" in that way, are beer commercials that show large numbers of people over at a person's house enjoying the game together promoting copyright violation?

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Good luck with that, NFL by loraksus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to see this license I supposedly agreed to when I turned the TV on.

      What's that? Silence?

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  2. I can truly understand this by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  3. Re:Why can live sports events be copyrighted? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What "original authorship" exists?
    The editing, the commentary? It's not like there is a single camera fixed on the field. Also the teams are really entertainers and the sport can be considered an improvised performance.

    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).
    If IP addresses held in RAM can be considered "fixed", then a live broadcast can certainly also be considered fixed.
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. If that's the case... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:2007 by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares? Squirting out kids or belonging to a church doesn't earn you special rights, special treatment, special sympathy or special consideration. What's your point? The fact that they're in a church doesn't mean that we should be any less outraged, either. The NFL is abusing copyright law, and it happens to be a church who's getting hurt. The story is the abuse, not the fact that it's happening to a church.
    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  6. Debatable. by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Technically, a truly live, unrecorded broadcast could be considered transitory and therefore not copyrightable. However, the five second delay means that it is indeed being recorded and therefore is an after-the-fact replay. I'm not sure copyright is the correct instrument to use, though. Copyright is intended for a work, an assembly that is well-defined prior to the copying of whatever is copyright, whereas this is essentially an improvised collection of improvisations, where the assemblage is taking place essentially simultaneously to the copying. Copyright was also never intended for a broadcast medium, where the copy technically exists whether the TV is displaying it or not. (It exists as a radio signal or a cable signal and it exists in the receiver up to the point of discrimination, even if the TV is switched off.)

    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)
  7. Re:I'm Confused by bdjacobson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which does the more damage. A greedy bunch of people that extort huge portions of one's personal income to attend events, or sports people who are so full of themselves that they would turn away a viewing audience just because some one might be profiting on their coattails.


    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.

    Your perspective is just a little bit skewed. Giving to the church is entirely up to the person. So is going to that particular church. The Bible commands us to give 10% of our produce to the church so the leaders don't have to have a 40 hour job + 30 hour job coming up with a 30 minute speech every week. Now whether or not the people give to the church is entirely up to them and their conscience and God. It's close minded to think "because Scientology extorts money from its members, then all religions do". If you looked at the average salary of a youth pastor, pastor, etc; you'll find it's simply nowhere near enough to attract those in it for the money. There's a few pastors here and there that make a larger portion of money (such as Presbyterian pasters :), and there are the televangelists who say "give ME [specifically ME] money and God will give you more money", but they are nowhere near the majority.

    Believe it or not, there are people in the world who have motives other than making the most money possible--such as making money by helping others in the best way they know how. I don't know why people have to ascribe negative motives to people who say they just want to help others. Not everyone else is like you. Just because you don't want to help people doesn't mean there aren't other people who do want to help people in the same way they have found help.
  8. Re:Yeah, screw those churches! by Bill+Dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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