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."
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
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.
Is the Super Bowl pay per view (I'm in Europe and don't know what the TV arrangements are? If not what's being "stolen" from the NFL? Assuming no admission is being charged, how is having 100 people watch on one big screen any different from having 10 people watch on 10 smaller screen? They all see the ads and the sponsors.
Except that it doesn't affect ratings. Even if you are using one of the automated boxes, AFAIK, they still provide diaries for when you view something on another set. All you have to do is fill in that you watched it elsewhere.
This is just the NFL being dumbasses, period.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
To make things clear, an old meme: copyright infringement isn't theft.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
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?
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!!
"Only public performances fall under the ambit of copyright law."
A couple of hundred people gathered in a church is a "public performance."
Especially since they're using it as an "outreach" to people who aren't regular church-goers. That makes it not only a public performance, but performance in return of expectation of a "good or valuable consideration".
The church is in the wrong here - like on so many other things.
Heck, we've got MythTV set to record the Super Bowl tomorrow, complete with commercial flagging.
Monday night, we're going to use the commercial flagging in reverse - to skip the game and watch the commercials. Of course that's the once-a-year that the commercials are more worth watching than the event they're sponsoring. Come to think of it, most of the time both are about equally valueless.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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
So, 5.1 is out then too?
I am not stubborn. I am right!
It has always been this way. It is considered commercial access and not residential if you have more then so many potential viewers. Homes have an exception because they are always residential but you could be walking a fine line if you had a home based business in the same home.
I think they do this not because you are going to charge admission but because it adds value that wasn't there before or without it. Interestingly, your supposed to pay for the use of over the air broadcasts in these commercial situations too. Even if your a noncommercial establishment but have the require seating capacity to be considered commercial for this purpose. I have seen royalty checks go out to radio stations because they played the radio on hold for the phone systems at a certain company.
You probably haven't noticed this stuff because rarely is there an organization like the NFL who is greedy enough to think they need to demand the fees in public from everyone rather accept that some viewers won't be counted and they will make an ass load of money anyways. Remember last year when they sent take down notices and sued a couple people for trademark infringement when advertising Super bowl parties?
Maybe it is time to start an unofficial boycott of the super bowl where people start writing advertisers claiming they won't buy any of their products because of the greed the super bowl has become and maybe plan a pledge drive or something that advertisers can show the super bowl people to get lower rates next year. Maybe when their 5 million dollar spot only brings 2 million they would get the idea that actions like banning churches and nonprofits and so on, and regulating screen sizes isn't in the best interest of their bottom line. I seriously doubt you could get a complete boycott of the game, so working to get something together to give advertisers the ability to pay less would probably work better. I would be willing to write all the advertisers claiming I wouldn't buy their product (even though I probably would) because of the NFLs policies and the way their payment of large fees enables their behavior that we find negetive. The NFL would get the hint.
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.