Apparently I'm a criminal and didn't even know it...

Captain Pierce

Captain Pierce

Veteran
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/specials/playoffs/2006/02/01/bc.fbn.superbowl.church.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

Short version: the NFL threatened legal action against an Indianapolis church that wanted to show the Super Bowl on an LCD projector. Turns out that not only are they extremely touchy about people using the word "Super Bowl" to promote anything other than the actual game, but that their interpretation of their copyright is that showing it on anything larger than a 55" diagonal screen is illegal (unless you're a sports bar or other business that shows sports every day anyway).

Over the past 9+ years that I've been in A/V rental, I couldn't tell you how many LCD projectors and screens I've rented to churches and other businesses for the "big game," with the biggest being a couple of years that I had four 10.5x14' screens in one room. Those are 210" diagonal each.

Breakin' the law, breakin' the law... :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
Copyright laws get ridicilous and greedy IMO. I think there CAN be a big difference between something being morally wrong and something legally wrong. I find that comes up a lot regarding copyright laws. I always burn a copy of any CD that I buy to put in my car, and keep the original safely on the shelf. They always get stolen or scratched up. Any copyright law that says I have to buy 2 CDs to do that is greedy IMO, and frankly, I couldn't care less. I bought their CD when I could have downloaded it off the internet for free in less time (and less gas money) then it took me to go to the store.
 
filmguy123 said:
Copyright laws get ridicilous and greedy IMO. I think there CAN be a big difference between something being morally wrong and something legally wrong. I find that comes up a lot regarding copyright laws. I always burn a copy of any CD that I buy to put in my car, and keep the original safely on the shelf. They always get stolen or scratched up. Any copyright law that says I have to buy 2 CDs to do that is greedy IMO, and frankly, I couldn't care less. I bought their CD when I could have downloaded it off the internet for free in less time (and less gas money) then it took me to go to the store.
Click to expand...
My car's stock unit automatically rips CD's to it's internal HD when I insert them. Who knows anymore.
 
Ming said:
My car's stock unit automatically rips CD's to it's internal HD when I insert them. Who knows anymore.
Click to expand...

That's bitchin'! I'd love to get a car stereo like that . . .
 
How is publically broadcasting a public broadcast considered criminal? It's not like the church group is charging money, right? Or are they?
 
Hairy Lime said:
How is publically broadcasting a public broadcast considered criminal? It's not like the church group is charging money, right? Or are they?
Click to expand...

I don't know, from the way I read that, it sounds as if it infringes copyright whether or not they are charging money.
 
Hairy Lime said:
How is publically broadcasting a public broadcast considered criminal? It's not like the church group is charging money, right? Or are they?
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't think anyone said it was "criminal" -- there's a difference between civil infringement and criminal infringement.

What it does, though, is violate the copyright holder's right to control the means by which something is delivered.

Also, a copyright must be actively defended, or the holder risks letting the property pass into public domain.

In general. I'm not casting any opinion on this specific instance.

But according to the story, the church WAS, at first, planning to charge admission. That's a clear violation.
 
Ah, gotcha. Yes, charging admission would seem to be a problem. Allowing a church to show it for free to their members only means more eyes will see the advertising, increasing exposure for the NFL, network, and sponsors.
 
David Jimerson said:
Also, a copyright must be actively defended, or the holder risks letting the property pass into public domain.
Click to expand...

No.

Trade Marks must be defended. Copyrighted works, not.
 
Ah -- Dan gets me on a stickler legal point! Sloppy me.

They were also going after the church for using the NFL trademark.
 
Last night/this morning on the way home a radio talk show threw out a thought which might factor into this. Nielsen. The thought being if there are a bunch of people watching in one location rather than scattered at many locations, it would affect the Nielsen numbers which should they go down would possibly lower advertising revenue for future games. Of course this would be based on the idea that more than one person in that crowd is actually a Nielsen participator.
 
In Vegas, just about every bar and hotel used to host a big Super Bowl party; hotels would dedicate their massive screens and such. The NFL put a stop to that. They can't advertise it as the "Super Bowl", but they can let people in for free and they now call it a "Big Game" party.
 
IIRC, it's mentioned at least once a game that "This broadcasted is a copyrighted production of the National Football League," or words to that effect. And the Nielsen ratings thing was brought up by an NFL spokesman in the article I linked to. I can't quite say that I buy that, but then I don't know how many Nielsen people there are...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top