Congress Wants To Separate Church And NFL From Copyright Laws
from the keep-'em-separated dept
Following a second year of stories about the NFL stopping churches from throwing Superbowl parties if they have TV screens larger than 55", it appears that some folks in Congress are stepping up to create an exception in copyright law for "houses of worship." For everyone else, the 55" limit would prevail, but churches would now be allowed to show "The Big Game" without worrying about copyright infringement charges. It's not clear why churches deserve an exemption to this law (or why the 55" limit is in the law in the first place), but don't expect that to stop politicians from jumping on a popular bandwagon issue.Still, it's fun to watch people who clearly have no understanding of what's going on weigh in on the topic -- sometimes in well known publications. Witness a columnist for the Boston Herald who is upset about the proposed change, but for the wrong reasons. First, he appears to not understand the difference between copyright and trademark, claiming that the NFL has to enforce its copyright or it will lose it (that would actually be trademark, but who's fact checking?). He then goes on to state that "the copyrights are private property, and the league has every right within the law to profit from that property." Indeed, but banning 55" screens doesn't prevent the NFL's right to profit. In fact, this gets even more ridiculous when the guy says: "To have the government in effect confiscate that property to benefit religious institutions seems a very worrisome precedent." Wait, and having the government in effect determine the maximum size of a private TV isn't a worrisome precedent?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: big screen tvs, congress, copyright, nfl, superbowl
Companies: congress, nfl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Churches ...
But, if the government goes ahead of this I do predict that many new houses of worship will pop up in places like the homes of fans, community houses, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Churches ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Churches ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Churches ...
You think the government needs protected from us? Funny.
take the freedoms and rights away from us zealots and who do you think the government will go after next? Probably you.. the protections are meant for believers and non believers alike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Churches ...
It also gives people freedom not to participate in religious activities. It was never intended to curb religious activities, which unfortunately is happening all too much.
Anyway back to the topic of the article...
Passing such a law would not run afoul of the constitution as long as it included all houses of worship for all religions. The government is not favoring one religion over the others. Churches and houses of worship already enjoy many benifits, primairly tax benifits.
An idea that would make it a better law and would also not exclude those who do not wish to socialize in a house of worship would be to make the exemption valid for all non-profit orginazitions.
BTW... private homes are already exempt. You and I and all our many friends can sit in our living rooms and watch the superbowl on any size TV with no consequenses. The law is about "public" showings, not private homes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This quote perfectly describe the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off of the top of my head...
The original issue, I believe was when Commercial Theaters decided to start showing the game and charging admission. First consider removing the 55" restriction altogether. In the day of 200" projections, it's silly.
If the goal is to prevent commerce, maybe look at the commerce valuechain a commercial theater has, and provide incentive to remove the commercial aspects in such a way that if they occur, make it a very unattractive activity.
Outcome 1 - Non Commercial Use:
Admission and all gross reciepts (including food) must = 0. This yields you a Non Commercial License if it's less than 50 people.
Over 50 people? or want to charge admission? Great!
Outcome 2 - Commercial Use:
Require theater to charge a movie-ticket price and send the entire gross receipts to the content owner. An example would be to collect ticket revenue. Also add a "overhead" fee per screen, not to exceed $300. (Because Content Owners need to hire people to count the money)
Additionally, define "Ticket Revenue" as "Regular Matinee prices"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd rather see....
Common, Congress, MAN UP and start taking on bigger issues. Who give a doodie about the BlooperBowl. Stand up to Scientology you wimps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Establishment of religion
The First Amendment does not say, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a state religion," as so many people seem to interpret it. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." A church is an example of an establishment of religion, and so congress has no right to give special respect to churches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Establishment of religion
Where I have the problem is how the establishment clause is used to curb my religious beliefs and activities.
One example is political speach. Churches risk loosing their tax exempt status if they take a political position, yet some religions require certian positions on certian issues. No other organizations face that threat.
Another example is prayer. I can not pray aloud in government buildings. My beliefs are restricted. I understand I should not be allowed to make others pray if they choose not to, but where in this establishment clause does it say that i, a private citizen, should endure the government restricting my religious beliefs?
As I agree congress has no right to give special respect to churches, they also have no right to have special restrictions placed on churches and individuals practicing their religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maximum size?
This has got to be one of the stupidest rules I have ever heard of. Especially considering the prices of larger screen sizes keep falling rapidly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maximum size?
It's post #67 Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maximum size?
> as being viewed on a television size of 55
> inches or larger.
Yes, but how does the law define "television"? My 60" plasma is not a television in the traditional sense. It's essentially a huge computer monitor. For example, it has no ability to produce sound of its own, like a standard television does.
And what about projectors? If I have a projector suspended from my ceiling, projecting an image onto a blank wall, well, that's hardly a "television" as the term was understood in 1975, now is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the "free" argument
The superbowl is not a pay per view event. The superbowl is not broadcast over a paid premium channel such as ESPN. It's broadcast over the "free" airwaves.
The only revenue model the NFL has for the superbowl is advertising and sponsorship sales. One would assume that a church would guarantee having a set of dedicated viewers for the event which would only help improve viewership, and thus help drive ad revenue.
The real argument here isn't about the NFL's copyright of the broadcast, or even the argument of the separation of church and state, the real argument is what right does the Federal Government have in restricting the means of display or the physical venues used for free over the air broadcast television on the behalf of a content creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fully understand that if churches are charging admission for it that could cause an issue but seriously why the heckstick is there a problem with bringing more people to the ads?
I heard in 2006 that a church was sued for using Superbowl in their church bulletin. I don't know if there is any truth to that but it's just silly if it was true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All about ratings...
That sounds like bullshit to me, but assuming that it's true I still don't get why this is even a copyright issue.
Copyright doesn't mean you get the right to manipulate viewership numbers in your favor. Copyright doesn't even mean you have some automatic right to any audience! That should be the real issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All about ratings...
Again, unless something dramatically changed, it's still driven by statistical averages, and the Ratings piece is a non-issue unless you, knowlingly as a Nielsen Family, don't report your viewership when you do view it.
When I did the Arbitron ratings, they had a triage process, While not totally sure, I imagine Nielsen has something similar in place...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little Whine with that NFL brand cheese......
I have to believe there are more people like me than not. If your team is not in the game who cares, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I make a point here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lobby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
55 inches is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Genius
Yeah it is funny when you see people who have no understanding of copyright talk about it. Maybe you could do one of your SWOT analyses of churches and TV for the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrighting the NFL and game parties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This and That
Separation of Church and State - Actually both are correct. The separation was meant to ensure that Church leadership never superseded the establish government, AND it was meant to ensure that the government could never impeded the religious freedoms of its people. Most of this stemmed from the blurring of the lines with the Church of England and the Monarchy based goverment that England embraced at the time.
Rules - I guess I'm still at a loss about how "free" over the air broadcasts can carry different viewing rules based on the originator of the content. It should be a one size fits all rule for "free" broadcasting. Now if I'm paying for the rights to a broadcast like I do with Cable, then I can totally recognize that I'm entering into a level of contractual obligation by paying for a product.
Using the NFL logic it seems like I could purchase prime time air time to run my own show. I could then leverage the 55" federal law, and file suit on every single American home with a TV larger then 55 inches who watched my show. Seems like quite the money maker for a litigious lawyer with a little ambition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Form your own religion
Just put a bible on a table in the back of the room, call yourself the "First Church of The Big Game" and you're all set. If the government tries to harass you, just claim "freedom of religion"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re: Establishment of religion
I have to clarify your point about political speach. Churches can talk about political issues all they want. The restriction is limited to specifically backing a candidate. You can talk about the issues that are important to your church from the pulpit, and you can even encourage people to vote based on those issues. You just can't say "candidate X, who holds our values, is who we should vote for."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally ‘WOW’ed by Nelson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]