Watching the Super Bowl - illegal???

[TJG]

I came across this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249539,00.html

I noted the following line from this article and it made me wonder how many people will be breaking the law on Sunday.

"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."

Most people I know have more than one TV, and I can easily see more than one TV in a house being tuned into the Super Bowl this Sunday. Many people also have large screen TVs or projectors that display a 60 inch or larger picture. Seems to me there would be a lot of people breaking the law according to this article.

I'm curious, does anyone know if there is such a law, as the NFL states? If so, does anyone know what law it is, or where I can actually see the wording of this law. I'm no lawyer, but this certainly caught my interest.

[Thom2]

They mentioned this on our local news last night, and they made point to mention that the NFL does indeed have it written into their broadcast rules.

I don't know where to find it, but it'd be interesting to know for sure. In addition to private parties that host "illegal" super bowl parties, I'd be curious to know how many sports bars have the actual 'written consent of the NFL'

[crokett]

A couple things here...

First, the church was planning to charge admission - a definite no-no. Then the pastor said they wouldn't but the NFL still said no.

A dozen years ago I worked with a guy who moonlighted for his BIL's A/V company. The guy got one of those RGB projectors from a job and put it in his living room. He painted a wall white and presto - big screen TV. I went to a couple Super Bowl parties at his place where he charged a few bucks to cover the cost of meat (he was a great cook) and beer (he had another buddy who was a beer distributor so he got a deal on kegs). I am sure there are other people out there with big screens who do the same thing.

[radhak]

They mentioned this on our local news last night, and they made point to mention that the NFL does indeed have it written into their broadcast rules.

NFL's 'broadcast rules' may not make it a law. They can make up something, i can choose to flout it and they can sue me. But that does not make me a law-breaker.

Wonder if local ordinances ( here or anywhere ) cover this, particularly if there is no payment.

[p8ntblr]

Lol now the NFL wants to limit what size TV I can buy.

[sacherjj]

This is part of Copyright law. It is part of the mired mess of lack of restrictions for our own personal rights. I would go ahead and host the party. Make the NFL sue them. That would shoot the NFL in the foot, PR wise.

What difference is it when 200 people watch the game at home or at one TV. If they don't charge money, it should be over. Stupid.

I will be projecting the Super Bowl at about 100" "screen". No I'm thinking about inviting a bunch of people over...

[Russianwolf]

A couple things here...

First, the church was planning to charge admission - a definite no-no. Then the pastor said they wouldn't but the NFL still said no.

A dozen years ago I worked with a guy who moonlighted for his BIL's A/V company. The guy got one of those RGB projectors from a job and put it in his living room. He painted a wall white and presto - big screen TV. I went to a couple Super Bowl parties at his place where he charged a few bucks to cover the cost of meat (he was a great cook) and beer (he had another buddy who was a beer distributor so he got a deal on kegs). I am sure there are other people out there with big screens who do the same thing.

The way I understand the laws, you can charge for food and drinks as long as you don't charge admitance. Meaning if someone wanted to just watch then you can't charge. Charging for the food and drink might get you in trouble with the local laws for not having a business license, but you could negate that by tell people to bring there own meat (for you to cook) and beer.

As far as the NFL or any other entity being able to restrict how many people can watch in a home or how large a TV can be used to watch. BS, it's a public broadcast. As long as they send it out on public airwaves they have no right to restrictions. Now if it were a cable channel then you might have an issue if the contract you sign with the cable company says "Cable content not to be viewed on televisions larger than 50 inches". Otherwise, it's hogwash.

Besides, they are just worried that you might catch sight of the QB slipping a Franklin to the Ref with those big tv's.

[radhak]

Besides, they are just worried that you might catch sight of the QB slipping a Franklin to the Ref with those big tv's.

[430752]

Not sure about a Church

As I understand it, copyright and trademark laws do prevent entities from making a profit of another's mark. Thus, you can't open a used car lot and start using Ford's official logo and marks, unless authorized. Or similar.

Of course, there is a concept of "fair use" which permits regular people to use or even mock others materials, even making a profit of that mockery (Weird Al Yankovich, anyone?). But to oturight use another's copyrighted material for your own benefit and to profit off same without authorization or providing a royalty or profits to the rightful owner is illegal. (Fair use should protect the average citizen, but like most things recently we've allowed the notion of fair use to be gutted by manipulation of "the story" by large corporations which actually got us, as a nation, to support overly stringent laws, such as digital rights management (DRM) laws.)

Now, here's the rub. Profit becomes crucial. See, the damages law is that that you must disgorge the profits, plus costs and other damages. If you don't make a profit, you may not be liable. This can occur in two ways: one is you're a for profit enterprise that simply broke even on a deal. here, you'd be stupid to try to use another's IP since while not making a profit, per se, you'd still be on the hot seat to show that you earned profits in pure name rcognition or etc. Plus, they'd still sue and any monies or assets you had elsewhere could. The other notion of "no profit" is where the fun is - and I mean a not-for-profit entity. I bet that if the church didn't charge a fee, they could do this and run national ads using the words "super-bowl" without trouble. This is because someone using a mark for non-profit purposes is kinda exempt. I dunno if its exempt in the law, as a matter of exclusion, or exempt in the sense that the owner of a right could nto be able to make its case. In order to make its case, an owner has to show many things, but I think the large items being that it owned a protected mark or property, that it has not diluted that mark or property, that another used that mark or property, and that the other used it to make a profit for themselves (or perhaps tried to make a profit). Since a church is a not for profit entity, and didn't try to make a profit, I think any company would be hard pressed to prove its case.

How do I know this? Well, not 100% sure so don't rely on this to try anything dumb, but I do know that from time to time unions use the corporate logos and slogans (all copyrighted or trademarked materials) in strike posters and handbills and other propoganda. Usually, this drives the company insane and they bring an injunctive action in federal court. The Union walks in and sees an angry judge, since copyright cases are usually one sided in favor of the owner. but the Union explains it is a not for profit, unincorporated entity that derived no monetary benefit from the use of another's mark. The Judge at some point recognizes the validity of this position and asks the company to withdraw its case. The company usually incensed over the strike and use of its symbols (usually used in a degarding or insulting manner) refuses to withdraw and presses its case. The Union often wins, and since it won on a case of this nature, is entitled to costs and fees and damages for a wrongful prosecution and interference with Union strike. The company then has to pay big bucks, which allows the strike to be subsidized by the very company being struck!

Now I haven't seen this in a while, presumably because companies have learned, or it may the law has changed, but I think that a honest to goodness not-for-profit can use copyrighted materials with impunity. Why? (and many will think that unions are evil and how dare they, but think of schools, churchs and veterans groups also) why should this be allowed? Because think of what the nation grants with a copyright: super bowl. two words that are common and meaningless. Yet, when a for profit group (the NFL) hypes these, somehow these words take special meaning. Now, no one else can use these words together without paying a fee or some sort of kickback. But this is a bit odd since its just two common words. Well, you gotta agree that the NFL has invested considerable time and money in hyping these words, giving them weight and significance, and thus is entitled to profit off them. And profit off them to the exclusion of you profiting off them. They got 'em, they got a right to earn 'em. Sure. But when you're not using these words for profit, either directly or indirectly, then these words revert back to being two plain ole words put together. To me, at least, it is kinda silly that no one can ever use these words again without paying a royalty to the NFL, even if not engaged in business. Sure, we protect these things from competitors and would be competitors, even remote competitiors, but from your girl scout troop using them? from the local church using them? from a disabled veterans group using them? Come on, just cause the NFL sends a cease and desist letter don't make it so. I say they should challenge it.

okay, way too long, but you asked!

curt j.

[Tom Slick]

I read an article awhile back that the MPAA (I believe) wanted to make home theatres illegal. The "rules" they cited were exactly what is claimed in the articles.

[JR]

To me, at least, it is kinda silly that no one can ever use these words again without paying a royalty to the NFL

It may be splitting hairs, but I'd assume the copyright would be limited to the use of those words in relation to a sporting event.

IIRC, the copyright must be shown to have been defended, or else it lapses into disuse. These poor folks may have just been caught in the crossfire of the NFL needing to show a defense of the right.

JR

[thestinker]

Well....I guess if they wanted to make home theaters illegal, then the CEO of best buy and circut city and any place like this should start running now, because they are traffiicing illegal merchandise.

[Wood_workur]

reason #147 to buy a big screen tv...

[sacherjj]

While I detest this, it is Copyright law that is controlling this. The law states that you do not have the right to broadcast on more than one screen or a screen larger than 55", if your establishment is public and over 2000 sq. ft. That is the law. An analogy is reading a book. It is illegal to get a copyrighted book and gather hundreds of people to read it to them. The copyright holder of this book must grant license for you to reproduce the work in that form.

The exemption in this case is sports bars. That is just great (sarcasm). If you have kids and want to go somewhere to watch the Super game*, you have nowhere to go. (*I didn't use both words in a sentence, because I'm not allowed to by the NFL trademarks.)

But then we also have the legal right to have fair use of the video off of DVDs, but it is illegal to actually extract it. Thanks Congress for being purchased by the Media companies and giving us DMCA. We appreciate it.

[scorrpio]

From my understanding of the article, the screen size limit is only for public places. For private home viewing, you can have a full-wall projector if you want.

Far as MPAA against home theaters - losing battle, but I understand the motives. People wanting to see a movie on big screen and with high-end sound no longer need to go to a theater - they can get a movie on Netflix or BB once the DVD is out. This hurts box office sales. Movie theaters charge per person. Any form of at home viewing - no way to control the number. If you got a family of 4, plus a friend's family of three invited over, 7 people seeing the movie on the same charge.

I hightly doubt MPAA has a chance vs private big-screens. And not releasing a movie on DVD is also idiocy as a huge chunk of the profit comes from that. Personally, I think that releasing the movie on Pay-per-view but before DVD at slightly higher rate once the box office sales tapered off would be an excellent profit move. Say, movie launches, in about a month and a half the theater sales slow to a trickle, then movie is available in hi-def on PPV for say, $15. The DVD should still sell well due to all the special features/commentary etc.