What is Digg?173 Comments
- Patranus, on 10/12/2007, -15/+109Well the NFL does not have a problem with me watching it on my 72 DLP with a bunch of friends who i might charge for food/drinks do they?
Yet another blatant example of copyright law gone afowel. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+58Super Bowl Super Bowl Super Bowl Promotion!!!! Come watch the Super Bowl at my place woooooooo Super Bowl!
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -17/+48Actually, its trade mark law, and any time someone uses SUper Bowl for a promotion without permission, they have to go after it or they can't keep the trademark. Had the shurch simply down "Superbowl" or "Super Sunday" there would be no issue. There are hundreds of bars here in Chicago throwing parties on Sunday, but not a single one has "Super Bowl" in its advertisement.
I am sure the NFL wants nothing to do with stopping a churches fun, but it has to protect itself by the law. - steepdecline, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33In response the Church is now forbidding either team from using a "Hail Mary" -- courtesy of bigbignews.net
- wordfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27In other news, God sends letter to NFL barring its players from invoking his name in regards to the outcome of the game.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26"Can't get drunk at church anyways, so what's the point of watching the superbowl there?"
You're just going to the wrong church. - 70ny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21It's bad PR for the NFL, but we have heard the disclaimer over and over again.
This copyrighted telecast is property of the NFL, any rebroadcast, retransmission or any other use of this telecast without the express written permission of the NFL is strictly prohibited.
Now we all know what that means. - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Can't get drunk at church anyways, so what's the point of watching the superbowl there?
- mweflen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Best Buy should instruct their salespeople to start pushing 55" and under sets by claiming that they are Super Bowl Compatible (tm)...
- jdog1016, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Actually, this doesn't apply anywhere, being that:
a) its a public broadcast
b) last time I checked, the NFL does not make or interpret copyright laws--the government does.
This is essentially the same thing as the RIAA saying that ripping songs from cds that I *own* is copyright infringement. Thankfully, it doesn't matter what the RIAA thinks, because the RIAA doesn't make or interpret copyright law. - superjerms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@ DryvBy
"... it's much like a bar showing the game."
Actually, there's a rather large difference between a bar and a church showing the big game.
Bars:
1) Regularly show games on +55" screens, without a blessing from the NFL.
2) Bars often do so explicitly because it means that they will have a captive audience for making drink and food sales to. That is, they are not only profiting from the copyrighted material, they have actually *built* their business plan around it.
3) Many bars promote themselves as a central party spot for the games, which was the original issue that the NFL had beef with. In the bar's case, the aim is to get more patrons to visit (and spend money).
4) Bars are, by definition, not tax-exempt, non-profit organizations. They have more limited fair use rights.
Churches:
1) On the whole, rarely have events like these.
2) Although there may be an ulterior motive of gaining a captive audience, many churches are simply doing the exact same thing that hundreds of millions of other people are doing worldwide: finding an adequate facility for participating in a very widespread cultural phenomenon.
3) Many churches promote their parties, but it's not because they are following a business model to gain money, it's because parties that don't have invitations also don't have participants. When money is exchanged, it is either to recuperate expenses or for fundraising purposes (the key distinction being a non-profit aim versus the bars' for-profit aim).
4) Churches are, by definition, tax exempt, non-profit entities. As such, they have expanded fair use rights.
(As an aside @ dude187 – TM has not come up at all yet from the NFL, only copyright. Unlike TM, there is no need to pursue offenders in order to maintain ones copyright)
The problem here is that it strikes against fair use rights. According to the US Government's fair use website, http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html there are four criteria that govern the idea of fair use (I'll let you look them up there if interested). The ones that apply here are:
1) Is the use of a commercial or non-commercial nature,
2) The nature of the copyrighted work, and
4) What effect is there on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
For the church, answers are:
1) non-commercial,
2) OTA broadcast coming from FCC-regulated sources (FCC gives benefits to those broadcasters in exchange for free, public transmission of the signal)
4) Absolutely no dissolution of the owner's market share, little or no impact on value (though you might make a very tenuous case that value would be lost because of the Nielson rating impact and association with religion).
For the bar, answers are:
1) commercial,
2) same as for churches,
4) same as for churches, unless the bar is selling bootleg NFL paraphernalia.
The NFL doesn't have a leg to stand on against the churchs' fair use rights. It has only slightly more on bars. What the NFL *does* have is money and lawyers, so anybody they come after will stand down.
Why do we care? Anytime anyone loses fair use, we all lose it. Christians, Atheists, Scientologists...it's bad for all of us. - sloof70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Ok you Godless Diggfolk, you have a conundrum. Do you side with:
A) the church, of which you have complete disdain for because they believe in God, or
B) the NFL's abusive copyright restrictions, of which you have complete disdain for because you hate over-bearing copyright restrictions.
Watch out Diggers! You're about to have a stroke! - spalVl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Good publicity move on the part of the Church.
- Aard88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Here's the church and here's the steeple open it up and where are the people? Around the corner into the bar open it up and there they are, Watching the Super Bowl!
- mainfr4me, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I know why they wanted to do this type of event. No one really wants to take their kids to bar to join their friends to watch the game, and if it were my church, it makes even more sense since a large majority of the people hang out with each other. Plus, having something for the kids as well during that time makes it all even better.
If it took having someone donate a bunch of 55 inch TV's to do this kind of thing, I'd donate just for that to make a point. I know others would too. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Because no one watched the Falcons vs. Broncos Super Bowl.
- SnuKs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Hmmm. I guess the NFL never caught on when the local Marine Base near my town had a Super Bowl party [Falcon vs. Broncos] and showed the game inside the movie threater on base in front of a couple of hundred marines and civilians.
Guess the NFL only had the balls to pick on a church rather than the Marines =P - zavex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'd like to know exactly where it is specified the limit is 55 inches.
- gregm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I know I'm going to get dugg down, but really, who has a 55" projector? If you have a projector, its likely at least 90". If you wanted under 60", you better off with anything but a projector (plasma, rear-projection, LCD).
- 70ny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think it only applies to large public venues and not a private home.
- yasth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow 5.1 sound is illegal.
- evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Oh crap, my TV is 56". I cant watch the Super Bowl, whoops, I mean Superbowl now!
D*MN YOU SCREWED UP COPYRIGHT LAWS! - tateswayz91, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This makes no sense-how is the NFL losing money? They still have the eyeballs watching their commercials right? So what difference does it make if people are in a large gathering watching the Superbowl than if they stayed in their individual houses?
- DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15I don't think they're promoting church. Most people would go just for the game... it's much like a bar showing the game.
- cmw72, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Well the NFL does not have a problem with me watching it on my 72 DLP with a bunch of friends who i might charge for food/drinks do they?"
Yeah it does ... FTA:
"But the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches."
That is ridiculous. I'm planning on watching it on my 65" RPTV ... should I just plan on calling the FBI now? Maybe all of us law-breakers should call the FBI, and turn ourselves in at halftime. While we're at it, let's call the TV stations and newspapers too.
I don't know who to blame more ... the greedy-ass NFL or the stupid-ass lawmakers. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I am not THAT low.
- eosp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My church holds fun events all the time. Its purpose is to draw people in comfortably, to show that we're not stuffy.
- sinurgy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No the RIAA doesn't but they have enough money to make sure you can't afford to stand up to them.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Backing down is actually the more Biblical attitude, although with the way a lot of people tend to act in the name of Christ, I'm sure that sounds completely shocking.
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." (Matt. 5:39-40, TNIV)
/American Christian who's less than thrilled with the trends in American Christianity - ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@70,
Did you read the article?? The church stopped calling it the "Super Bowl" and stopped charging yet the NFL continued to attack them...for the ridiculous 55" rule. There comes a point when too much is too much - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Damn, the church people will miss Prince, at halftime.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5there are 2 paragraphs in this story that pretty much sums up the NFL's argument:
1) Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions.
2) "We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen." It is also the reason no mass viewings are planned in large arenas like the RCA Dome or Conseco Fieldhouse.
I suspect it's all about the name and the ratings. If they changed the name to the Sunday Night Football Bash or something, and had multiple TV's there, all showing the superbowl it would probably be less of an issue as the networks could calculate the ratings better and no trademarked names would be used. For example, several clubs in my city are advirtising for Super Bowl parties on sunday night. They will all be charging people for admission and will also have multiple screens showing it as opposed to one huge screen. - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6we'll punt
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The trademark issue was just the first part. Here's an important bit:
"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."
So, basically if there's large out of home viewing of the event, it will depress the ratings and how much the TV stations paying for the show get paid for commercials. I think it would make more sense to just fix the rating system to cover all viewers. I think they'd even prefer out of home viewers because fast forwarding past commercials is less likely. - jeffness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hi jdog. Just stopping in here to let you know you couldn't be more wrong about the situation. A broadcast being public does not convey any ownership or legal rights.
The title of this posting is misleading though. There's no specific statute being violated. Like, I can't go to the US Code and say "this act violates this statute". What's really happening is that by acting as a venue, the person displaying the super bowl would be violating the *LICENSE* that NFL provides for the broadcast of the super bowl.
although having to do with copyright (because it is a copyrighted broadcast) licensing issues are governed by contract law. The NFL has a license with the networks, and has only licensed those rights pertaining to private in-home use to the networks. The NFL reserves the rights to charge a license fee to bars and other public venues for their display of the super bowl broadcast.
It's all perfectly legitimate under existing laws. - gert2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The church shouldn't be showing football"
What?!?!? I really hope you're not implying that you think the Bible says football is wrong. - QueenMary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Common sense, or at least a small understanding of how rating systems work, would tell you that Nielsen collects data based on boxes that they have put in peoples' houses (per request). These parties are not detracting from ratings.
The NFL just doesn't want anyone profiting off of their event, and perhaps worries about trademark devaluation. However, I think it would be pretty amazing if they lost the trademark to common verbiage, as there is no Super Bowl competitor. It's mainly just idiocy and a vast over-extension of copyright laws. - ratz2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not like they were announcing it on TV. It was on THEIR website which is like handing out flyer's at church. Do you unusually throw a party for a couple of hundred people or more and just hope they somehow find out about it. DUH
- sky_blue_eyes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Has anyone yet said they didn't like football at all? Because that would be funny. I read about half of the comments, and got tired of hearing about football. I rather play it than watch it. I rather do many things before doing either of those things.
- Calamier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is so ridiculous...I'm so sick of money grubbing industries... All I see is little kids who will climb over anyone to get what they want and then damage others to keep them down.
- 70ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's bad PR for the NFL, but I think it was the use of the trademark "Super Bowl" in their promotion. Fox Sports Radio has a promotion, but they refer to it as the "Big Game", because they don't have permission to use "Super Bowl". This whole thing could have been avoided if they had promoted it as "The Big Game Bash". The NFL has cracked down on ALL illegal uses of the copyright. The church made news, because it's a church.
- roberto_deneero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What ironic about the NFL is that they wont let coaches wear suits while the thug-infested NBA only dreams of the day where their hoodlums ask to wear suits again. Now the NFL is turning down its product to a very good cause - a community viewing environment that booz will not be a part of. Their response is that the Neilson ratings don't capture large groups of viewers. THAT'S their response? They will not ever be able to accurately measure actual viewership. That is just plain ridiculous. At the very least grant permission and just ask the organizers to report how many people watched....but already you get into issues...what does "watch" mean? The whole game? At least one quarter? What if they get a call in the middle of the game and miss part of it? Did they "watch" the game according to the definition or not? This is nuts.
If I were the church, I'd respond to their response by stating that, "God gave us permission, now go away before he unleashes his fury upon your silly bottoms!" - ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do you normally take the time to comment on things you have no interest in?
- ratz2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ditto what BigSlacker said.
It's MOSTLY about Ratings.
Good way to get a good name and better ratings. - Braddock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+217 USC 109(5)(B)(i)(II)
if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More than one TV would also be unacceptable. The NFL claims the Fairness in Music Licensing Act is what sets the limit at 55 inches. If your screen is greater than 55 inches, you have more than one screen, or you have more than 6 speakers you are not exempt. Without the exemption you'd would have to pay royalties.
- lowerlogic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Typical example of Capitalism:
Church members: We would like to have a nice party where our friends and family have a good time together while watching your fantastic Super Bowl game.
NFL: What the *****? You cannot have a party or a good time while watching our game! Any public viewing of our ***** is illegal you pirates!
Church members: Ohhh kay :(. We will just go home now and watch it quietly by ourselves in our cold lonely houses :(.
NFL: Good! We want you to be depressed and lonely while watching the game! Remember now, all fun and fellowship experienced while viewing the game is completely strictly illegal. Now go be sad depressed souls.
And thus Capitalism destroys yet another fragment of the American spirit. - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder when that was passed. Not that long ago 55+ was pretty much professional gear. Now you can pick one up at Circuit City for well under $1500.
- palegreenstarz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What the NFL is saying is they'd rather people chillin down at the bars while their kids are off by themselves somewhere instead of hanging out as a family.
Ratings are a joke anyway. Like they don't know a couple hundred million people will be watching it. Who cares where they are at anyways. - jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its an extremely bad PR move by the No Fun League.
Its interesting, because its a religous organization they don't want to break the law, but the best solution for some other group (ie. community center or some such thing) would be to change the name, allow for optional admission donations to a charity and if the NFL sues them publicize that the NFL is anti-charity.
If anything, the NFL should have worked with the church to turn it into an officially sanctioned event somehow. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is