Slashdot Mirror
Will Your Super Bowl Party Anger the Copyright Gods?
garg0yle writes "According to some folks, watching the Super Bowl on a television bigger than 55 inches is illegal. Is this true? Yes and no — long story short, if you're in a private residence you're probably okay, but if you're running a sports bar you may technically have to negotiate a license with the NFL. Just don't charge for food, or call it a 'Super Bowl' party, since the term itself is copyright."
A better choice, for a myriad of reasons, is to not vote for an incumbent this November.
I can dream.
This is news for nerds, remember?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We won't be watching. On any TV.
I do know that a couple of years ago, media organizations stopped referring to events they were sponsoring as "Super Bowl Random Event" but instead started to refer to them as "Big Game Random Event". Frequently they would make a point about not being able to use Super Bowl to refer to the event because of licensing issues with the NFL. At the time I thought that the NFL was shooting themselves in the foot. What makes the Super Bowl such a big money maker for them is its cultural ubiquity in the U.S.. If there are not a lot of events planned around the game, people will pay less attention to the game. If too many of the events planned around the game are "Big Game" events rather than "Super Bowl" events, it will diminish the value of the words "Super Bowl".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Face it, the NFL are brilliant. They are not about football. They are about revenue. They had two goals in mind when setting out on their broadcasting endeavor:
a) Sell high-cost adspace
b) Get people to care about the adspace
Now you hear people always saying "I watch the superbowl for the commercials!" Mission A-Ccomplished NFL. Was that enough? It's never enough. So the last 10 years have been their attempt to make more money by becoming some of the biggest douchebags in the IP industry.
"That's the thing about greed, Arch, it's blind. And it doesn't know when to stop" -- Lenny Cole
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
To be fair, it does make sense for NFL. The summary is little bit bad worded, but you are perfectly fine to watch it at home with friends, on any size TV, as long as isn't considered public place like a sports bar, church or workplace and you do not explicitly charge for viewing the game. You can however ask for compensation on foods and drinks.
I don't think it's that hard to see what is considered a home and a public gathering place. It's not that stupid for NFL (or any other sports league or movie studio) to ask for compensation if their content is being shown on a public place to many people and they're profiting from it.
I'll let him call me wife if his son gets to soup my bowl at the party
I hope so.
The HDMI handshaking makes the audio drop intermittently on my new TV when combined with my new HD PVR from my cable company. Pirated content plays flawlessly over the same HDMI connections.
On the upside, it is going to save me a ton of cash, since all I'll have to buy is a bigger HDD for my Linux box and a media player.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
You've got to be kidding me!
You pay your cable bill and you watch the advertisements, don't you?
If I want to have people over and charge them to watch my TV, its not the NFL's business. Now, if the NFL wants to buy me a TV and a house to watch the Superbowl©, then I'll let them restrict who may enter my home, and at what price.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
As for sports bars, they're a business encouraging a large number of willing viewers to watch someone else's advertising revenue supported content. Of course they should be compensated.
There. Fixed that for ya.
No. Really. Obama wasted a god damn year, trying to appease the republicans to get one republican vote on anything. He failed. The last thing you can accuse him of is being partisan. An unrealistic optimist? sure. A liar? sure, he is a politician after all. A failure? Absolutely.
His greatest failure was in trying to be bi-partisan.
Not the point. The Superbowl is free, but PPV fights are not, and can run a lot of money. If I were to host a fight, Splitting $100 fight over 5 people is better than paying it myself.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
[rant]
Instead of passively witnessing multimillionaire drug addicts chase a ball to sell ad space... do something. Take the people who were going to show up for "da big game" outside to play tag football. Have a foosball championship. Play card games. Have a LAN party. Play DnD. Do something.
The outcome of the game will be the same whether you watch it or not.
Whatever teams are playing this year are branches of a company. Do you care which 7-11 sold the most hotdogs? Or if the Pepsi bottling plant on the east coast produced more soda than the west coast plant? Even if it is your home team, the players aren't from your town. They're employees shuffled around or chasing contracts. At least the local high school games have some attachment to you.
Go ahead and mod me troll or flambait if i've hurt your feelings and doing something to me will make you feel better about how you've spent your Sundays. Just take a moment to consider *doing* something instead of watching others. And if the team you cheered for won... don't say "we won". If you didn't leave a drop of blood or sweat on the field... you were not a part of that victory. You're a witness, that's it. Watching something someone else did is not an accomplishment and no reason to be proud. The team won. You watched.
[/rant]
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
These things end the same every time and rarely have any kind of interesting twist.
In fact, they're composed of smaller units which are similar to the larger. This Menger Sponge of entertainment can claim an average of only 17 minutes of actual action in an event that ostensibly takes one hour yet occupies an entire afternoon to stage.
It's the ultimate in mass-produced manufactured entertainment. I can't understand why it's still so popular.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I don't think it's nearly as absurd as RIAA shenanigans. It really boils down to the argument over whether or not a game of football can be copyrighted. Certainly, the commentary should be, but that's the network's, not the NFLs. The game itself? I don't think so, but I'm not an expert. If you allow that the game footage is the copyright of the NFL, then their behavior (in this instance) is reasonable, or at least, follows a reasonable interpretation of existing laws (even if you might view said laws themselves as unreasonable). Copyright has a concept of "public performances", which are the exclusive right of the copyright holder. Historically, this has been quite important. Say you're a playwright. You mail out your play to producers, hoping one of them picks it up. Now, without the exclusive right to public performances, that producer could take the four copies you mailed him, and the dozen you slipped under his door and into his mail box and under his windshield wipers, hand them out to actors, and put the play on without paying the author a dime. In terms of encouraging playwrights to write, this is quite the undesirable outcome!
On the other hand, perhaps interpreting showing a TV program or movie as a "public performance" in the same sense that putting on a play is, is taking it too far. I suppose just putting a DVD in a machine is easier than putting together a play from a script, so it may make sense to treat it as at least as bad. But alternately, the purpose of the manuscript is to be put on, and earn the writer money from that performance. The purpose of a DVD is to be sold and watched, and it was sold and now you and some other people are watching it, so perhaps it's not really the same thing at all. After all, if it's legal to buy a DVD, then rent it to 10 people for $1 each, it should be equally legal to show it to 10 people in your living room for $1 each. And yes, though the studios want it changed very badly, rental is explicitly allowed under the doctrine of first sale, being a temporary change of possession, not a public performance.
The only way to fix this perceived imbalance, without breaking other things, would be to do away with public performance rights as a special case. I think writers would still be just as protected, as long as you establish concretely that any movie/play/whatever based on a script is categorically a derivative work, and therefore a copyright violation if not properly licensed. But on the other hand, if you own a DVD, you can play it, period. This, however, requires new laws. Without new laws, the NFL's policy is in line with the law. They're even somewhat fair about it, in the sense that sports bars do not have to pay to have TVs in them, unless they are so large as to be considered the primary attraction of the bar, rather than simply a bonus.
Either way, TFA is just FUD. If you aren't a public performance, you can't run afoul of copyright law. No matter how many buddies you invite over, and no matter that you charge them for your beer, it's not a public performance, because it's a private showing still. The nonsense about "you can't call it a Super Bowl party because that's trademarked" is quite stupid, but no more stupid than any other corporation going overboard defending their trademarks. Intel suing prison programs because they use "inside" to refer to those in prison, and Intel owns "Noun Inside"? I'd say the Super Bowl BS is demonstrably less retarded, as at least these parties are actually using the trademarked term, even if using a trademark to refer to the actual trademarked item is supposed to be allowed!
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
A year of Pelosi and Reid blocking any Republican bill from the floor is "nonpartisan"? Including blocking THREE Republican health-care bills from discussion while lying their asses off claiming the Republicans were "not offering alternatives"???
This is a rather too often repeated bit of misinformation. The reality is that the fundamental difference between Republican "alternatives" and the health care bills proposed by democrats is that these alternatives were simply bills related to health care (not comprehensive health care alternatives), covered entirely or by one or more of the existing democratic bills. Thus, the functional proposal Republicans were making was: don't do that or, at best, don't do all of that.
There's nothing wrong with thinking we don't need to overhaul the health care system in the U.S. (I think it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the math involved, since there's no way that the current levels of spending are maintainable, but it's a valid opinion). What's not valid is claiming that there's anything disingenuous in pointing out that these aren't actually alternatives so much as an oft-reiterated "no."
But that's not what happened. They put in strong bills. Then the Republicans balk. So the Dems soften them, and again and again, then put them up for a vote that doesn't get a Republican vote. They should have put up a strong bill, made it stronger, and told the Republicans to fuck themselves.
Again, the Dems get power, and waste it. At least that's better than the Republicans, who get power and use it...
Learn to love Alaska
I honestly will gladly allow them to copyright the hell out of it IF they play in arenas that were not built by any public funds. Otherwise everything NFL must be Public domain.
You want to be careful with that sort of restriction. In the interest of fairness, everything that you produce should be in the public domain as well -- unless you've never used electricity from a utility company which received public grants or subsidies for construction, you've never used public roads, public transportation, or public sidewalks to get to work, and you've never used the United States Postal Service.
Your work is subsidized in many ways by government funds, some subtle, some conspicuous. Principled stands can have some very surprising consequences.
~Idarubicin
The event is broadcast over the air (almost) everywhere in the US. Anyone can watch it if they have a TV and an antenna. The NFL gets paid from advertisers, not viewers. It's really not clear why someone should be punished for making a public broadcast publicly viewable. One could even argue that superbowl parties increase the number of viewers (it's more fun in a crowd), and in fact each person who watches makes the advertising that much more valuable. You really can't put you "content" out there publicly (over the air) and then bitch about who sees it where.
I thought this was fairly obvious, but "need" meaning that if we want these art forms to survive in the modern high-quality, high-production values state, somehow the expensive equipment, labor, and training need to be paid for.
Yes, I think it's a bad thing if this goes away. I think we benefit not only from having art and entertainment, available, but from having high quality art and entertainment available. Independent of whether this means we need homogenous, national or world-scale products, it's in everyone's interest if it's feasible to support oneself through the production of art in its various forms. Further, in the case of TV and movies, this can go beyond art, to include news, philosophy, educational materials, etc. There is a real problem that revenue sources that have traditionally supported, e.g., news-gatherers and aggregators are drying up, and it's not at all obvious who is going to replace those and how they'll be funded.
It's completely fair, and I encourage everyone, to question whether copyright (and patent) laws are sensible and lead to sensible outcomes. However, you need to do a real educated analysis, and go beyond knee-jerk handwaving and really understand the economy that is built on the current laws and how our society depends on the products. Revolutions can be good and necessary, but a lot of them leave things worse off than they found them, so it behooves us all to be careful, thoughtful, and well-informed as we try to change the world.
Good lord, it's depressing how completely corporations have people brainwashed.
you're using other peoples entertainment content to create a nicer place, which in turn creates you income.
No, you're using entertainment you *paid for* in a way that suits you.
....
* And don't start talking about how "it's licensed, not bought" either. Try to tell someone the carpet they bought is "licensed, not bought" and see if you can finish talking before they start laughing and throw you off of their "purchased, not licensed" property.
No but I can give you another example. If you're living on rent, you're not allowed to do just anything you want to the apartment. You need to ask your landlord if its acceptable, and he will probably make sure it's done correctly, or if he doesn't like it, he will deny you from doing it.
Now try to still do your "I'm gonna open this wall and break windows" thing and then tell in court that "but I was just using what I *paid for* in a way that suited me".
Now if you actually bought the apartment, things are different and you can decide yourself. Otherwise you're getting it at certain rules and you have to follow them.
welcome to fake capitalism. nothing new to see here, run along and do as you're told, not as we do.