Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Scott, Reno, Nevada on February 10, 2007:

I was going to start with an admission that I was ignorant of the copyright law mentioned in the article. Thanks to Carl's link, that is no longer true.

My comment is: If the (federal) law states the conditions under which the display is not an infringement, then how can the NFL grant exemptions? Are they a "higher court"? I suppose they could refuse to prosecute, but that doesn't mean they exempt anybody from the law.

Oh, and in response to Gress's comment, Paragraphs 3 and 4 don't apply to a sporting event, because it is not a literary or musical work.

---

The NFL can grant exemptions because it's the owner of the copyright. It's their property, and they can do what they want with it -- including granting exceptions to the law, since the law is there to protect the owners. Remember the word: copyright -- it's literally the right to copy. You can sell or give away that right, but only if you own it. -rc

Posted by Eric in Upstate New York on February 10, 2007:

Personally, I feel that churches are businesses the same as bars – though Churches have been granted tax exempt status (for archaic reasons), but they are businesses.

Loosen up NFL; the christians will still be watching your games. You won’t be losing any fans, although I imagine betting could drop off a bit. Now, for the bookies out there, that might become a problem because the churches will be taking in what should have been their bucks!

Posted by Pastor Ron, Texas on February 10, 2007:

Actually, I was against the whole concept of showing it in Church anyway. The Church was not set up to entertain and when you get off mission you get into trouble. That is why Church isn't as meaningful to people as it once was because we branched off into way too many venues instead of majoring on the subject we were called to be teach and distribute.

The NFL may have been wrong in some ways but it is their product and they can allow it to be used or not used any way they desire. The renegade Churches were wrong. I felt a bit differently at first, thinking it was just an uneven attack on Churches but since have decided that it was a lose-lose situation that the Churches should have never gotten into at all. If football is more important than God then let folks stay home as the purpose of the Church is diminished by this type of activity. Have a Church fellowship, supper or whatever on any day you want but if the people will only come to your Church for an off-topic function then you do a disservice to God by marketing His "house" as a place of entertainment rather then worship. I think you handled the subject fairly and I appreciate that.

Posted by jpatrick, bartlesville, ok on February 10, 2007:

First off I agree with Pastor Ron, what are churches thinking by broadcasting football games, and on Sunday no less?

I can understand the NFL's position regarding churches vs bars. Most church community halls are much larger than most bars and are more easily set up for an audience. Particularly the "mega churches" that have a congregation in the tens of thousands. Those places would surely skewer the Nielsons.

And as far as giving bars an exemption, the largest Super Bowl advertiser is Anheuser-Busch.

However, whoever at the NFL decided to go after churches should be looking for another job. The NFL lost a helluva lot more than they gained.

The game gets far too much free publicity and promotion as it is, so they've got nothing to whine about.

And I'm tired of the game getting jammed down out throats every year, like it's actually important.

It's a brutal, venal, meaningless exercise, just the sort of thing that the imagination poor media love.

Posted by Scott, in Killeen, Texas on February 10, 2007:

Given that the game is "free" to watch on TV (paid for by the advertising which appears during the game, or paid for by premium channel fees), I think it's *slightly* unrealistic to expect people in general (especially considering the apparent general attitude towards copying music and movies) to automatically know that it can't be watched in groups -- even if it's the law. People are not born knowing the fine points of the law; they need to be told.

When you rent a movie, it typically has a message at the beginning which tells you that you can't copy it and can't use it for commercial purposes (or words to similar effect). As you mentioned, Randy, every copyright owner can grant whatever free or for-pay rights and permissions they want, over and above any allowed by copyright law.

Considering what Rev. Tom Rives said, there's little excuse, in today's Internet world, not to have the legal/copyright page on the NFL site (or any other publisher) list what is and is not acceptable use of the "free" TV broadcast (such as by quoting §110, although I would list some examples for the benefit of non-lawyers), and, if appropriate, a "Buy now" link by which someone can make it acceptable immediately, upon providing the circumstances and the maximum number of expected viewers, and, of course, a credit card number; I'm sure the NFL has a price, even if it's $1000 a head.

Randy: The 55" limit appears to be only for radio and TV broadcasts, but indeed appears to apply to residences with 2000 gross sq ft or more space.

Justin: I've never seen a TV/monitor display measured other than diagonally. This takes into account both the horizontal and vertical size, no matter the proportions.

Mark: My reading indicates that a screen must be no more than 55", among other restrictions, in order to show for free in a food/drink establishment of 3750 gross sq ft or larger. This is granted by the law, not by the NFL.

Bob: I saw no mention of "satellite" in the article.

Gress: The church exemption says that it applies to NON-dramatic works. I would guess that "dramatic" is legalese for "entertainment", in which case football doesn't meet this requirement (unless football is your religion, which I don't think a court would accept). Nor would I refer to a social event as a "service". Also, (4) doesn't seem to apply (in addition to the non-dramatic restriction), since this is a transmission to the public.

I may be incorrect; the legalese is hard to wade through. :(

Eric: I tend to agree about certain churches and some other alleged non-profits being businesses; if employees of so-called non-profits were restricted to no more than middle-class income and even indirect political lobbying forbidden ("call your Senator!"), I bet you'd see a lot fewer of them claiming non-profit status.

Posted by ron on February 10, 2007:

the comedian emo phillips once told a story about how he prayed and prayed for a bicycle but one never came. then one day he went out and stole a bicycle, then prayed for forgiveness. seems like some of the churches may have done just about the same thing.

Posted by Rev. C., Florida on February 10, 2007:

Bravo! I am a minister, and cringe when I see errant hypocrisy on the part of ANY church. I have argued loud and long with church board members about the theft of intellectual property being THEFT. Unfortunately, some people believe that since churches are exempt from paying taxes, they are exempt from many other laws as well.

Playing movies for kids outside of your own home, having Super Bowl parties, and printing copyrighted material without permission or the proper licensing is all THEFT. Whether or not you get caught is not the point. Doing what is right IS the point.

Posted by Ray, Colorado on February 11, 2007:

For years I've turned Karl Marx's famous quotation and asserted that professional sport is the new opiate of the people. You must admit that the NFL certainly has all the trappings of organized religion: the fancy colored robes, the altars, the priesthood with its lesser priests and high priests, the temples and the altars, the rituals and ceremonies, and even the vestal virgins (well, maybe not virginal virgins).

It's funny to see the new "opiate of the people" getting upset that perhaps the old "opiate of the people" is infringing on their (Astro) turf.

Posted by Bob, Texas on February 12, 2007:

After reviewing the current copyright law that states that media broadcasts must be limited to 55" and only at one location, I guess it is time to sue every HDTV manufacturer of sets 56" and above and every cable and satellite service that offers multiple hookups per residence.

And now, anyone with a fancy home theater system may now be subject to copyright violations.

This looks like something for the True Stella awards (or soon to be.)

Posted by Richard from Columbia, MO on February 12, 2007:

Regardless of whether you agree with Falls Creek church on whether they should have been showing it or not, I gotta say that I respect them for their stance: if it's not allowed, they'll respect the copyright. Everyone has been torching the NFL (no one likes a Goliath), and the other churches who were going to disregard the copyright (no one likes a hypocrite); still, Falls Creek should get some recognition for keeping their own stance honorable: They wanted to do something for their folks, something that their church family could enjoy together, along with some visitors. OK.

They took the high road. Props to them.

---

I agree, and indeed did recognize them: "No one gets off clean here -- except the churches which follow their own dictates." Perhaps that was too subtle, and you're right to emphasize it more. -rc