Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Karl on February 12, 2007:

I'm the chairman of the board at a nonprofit literary organization (Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society). We have a number of groups which meet on weekends to show videotapes and DVDs. The problem is, when you buy a videotape or a DVD of a movie from just about any source, you only have the right to show it in your own home, for personal viewing, or in the company of friends and family.

In particular, you can't, say, put up a wide-screen TV in the garage and open up the show to the neighborhood, even if you don't charge admission. That's copyright infringement, and an "egregious violation" where you know it's a violation and do it anyway, can result in up to $150,000 in fines.

The MPAA and other industry groups have become rather protective of their copyrights of late, and are looking for test cases. We certainly don't have the resources to withstand being made an example of.

At our meeting of the Board of Directors yesterday, one of the items we voted on was the purchase of an umbrella license to cover the showing of videos. At $230 per year, we figure it's better than putting the assets of the club at risk.

This license probably doesn't cover sporting events, but we really don't expect that to be a major concern.

Posted by Mike, Illinois on February 12, 2007:

When I read what one of your commenters wrote, "[I]f you cannot trust a church, who can you trust?", I couldn't stop laughing! With years and years of corruption in our churches stretching throughout recorded history, and scandal after scandal popping up in today's churches (covered up child abuse, theft, sex scandals), it's pretty clear that churches are no more worthy of blind trust than any other bureaucracy (or any individual, for that matter).

Blind trust of any organization or person is just asking for trouble. President Reagan's farewell address contains a pertinent statement: "It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see."

That last part seems to be the most important part to me.

Thanks for an always through-provoking read.

Posted by Ray in Luxembourg on February 12, 2007:

The relevant section of copyright law is section 110, paragraphs 5A and 5B. (see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110)

This is a section which lists limitations to exclusive rights, i.e. when copying is not copyright infringement.

I'm not an expert, but I interpreted 5A as covering private homeowners inviting friends over for general viewing of any broadcast. There is no 55" restriction for private homeowners, but a restriction on charging admission.

5B covers what "establishments" can do, giving one set of conditions for restaurants and bars, and another set of conditions for other establishments (e.g. churches). Churches which measure less than 2000 gross square feet (excluding parking), can broadcast the Super Bowl with (it seems) no restriction on TV size. Larger churches are restricted to screens up to 55", measured diagaonally, with up to 6 speakers (4 in the same room) without infringing the NFL's copyrights.

This is not NFL rules or policies but copyright law, and its limitations on exclusive rights.

Churches can still take the high moral ground here, but only small churches, or large churches with a 55" TV.

(Maybe. 5B (v) indicates the transmission or retransmission must be licensed by the copyright owner. I don't know what that means. I don't know if that means the church must obtain a license from the copyright owner anyway - that wouldn't seem to make much sense, i.e. then it wouldn't be a limitation of exclusivity).

Posted by Johnnie, Alabama on February 12, 2007:

Up to now, I enjoyed your emailings. But your ridiculous and unfounded attack on churches was totally uncalled for and unrelated to the subject, and clearly conveyed your anti-church attitude, of which I had seen hints before. Wherever you got your information, it wasn't from any real Christian church I've ever encountered. Perhaps you've been attending some mosques instead? Or maybe one of those live-in cults in which the leader-dictator thinks he's God, Jr.? I'm cancelling.

---

Johnnie was a reader for three years, and indeed unsubscribed after this rant. Just as well: I really only want readers who have the ability to think. -rc

Posted by Sandy, Illinois on February 12, 2007:

Very insightful! Sounds like a no one wins situation. There is, however, another tiny bit of information on this you might enjoy. Fellowship of Christian Athletes puts out a halftime show for church youth groups who want to invite kids in for the Super Bowl. The film is timed to fit the space allotted for the on air show. It features NFL players and coaches giving their beliefs and testimonies. The main speaker tells the kids what it takes to become a Christian. Last year's main man was Tony Dungy. And I'm pretty sure, Kurt Warner and some of the Rams did one several years back. I'm not sure who did the newest one. It is my understanding that if football, baseball,... players & coaches appear in uniform for these or any appearances, they have to have the OK of the league or at least their team. My source for that piece of info is an old St. Louis Cardinal outfielder, Rex Hudler. He appeared at our church for Baptist Men's Day. We always take up an appreciation offering for guest speakers. When the check was given to him, he signed it over to our youth director saying it was all part of his contract and the Cardinals let their players speak of their personal convictions in uniform, but would not let him accept even the modest gratuity we offered. He also said he liked to come to churches where it was offered and give the money to the youth director to help kids.

Why would these guys be allowed to make halftime videos for an "illegal" party? Something to think about, huh??

By the way, I agree with you 100% and so did our 18 & 19 year old daughters - the churches who said we don't care about your stupid rule were way out of line. Thoes 10 little rules were not called the 10 suggestions!

Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 12, 2007:

Sounds suspiciously like the overbearing examples in 1996 when ASCAP took the Campfire Girls to court over singing songs around the campfire. Songs like "This Land Is Your Land" etc. Bascially ASCAP and BMI believe they own the copyrights to every piece of music ever created in America. Including YOUR original compositions.

And it's not just the recording industry, but the government itself which showed them the way, when the IRS decided to clamp down on the vast, underground economy of kids selling lemonade out of their yards for 10¢ a glass and not paying taxes on the proceeds at daddy's 28% or 33% tax rate.

I mean, everybody's definition of 'theft' is different, especially when BMI can sue you for publicly performing your own songs without a license bought from them. Yeah, if the church was selling tickets, then it's theft. If they were just having a big gathering, what's so different than gathering in the same preacher's living room with his 102" plasma screen?

Posted by Jim, Fairview Heights, IL on February 12, 2007:

When I first started reading this article I knew that blindly pointing out the NFL's bullish approach would be too easy and that you'd have a more in depth take. Like you, I was put off by the arrogant manner with which some pastors rationalized going ahead and holding Super Bowl parties in spite of being told not to. I'm not sure if the copyright really does say no one outside the home is allowed to use a TV larger than 55", but that battle should be fought on the right battlefield...either the courtroom or by negotiating an arrangement with the NFL. After all, they are businessmen and women, and if approached the right way (like offering payment for use of intellectual property) they may be willing to lower their own high tone.

Posted by Ray in Luxembourg on February 13, 2007:

Thanks for the story. It first I didn't see the church as the bad guy, but your coverage forced me to think further.

I've taken a recent interest in the area of copyright these days, but more in the area of software, and more specifically in the free software movement, the anti-piracy efforts of proprietary companies (and how frequently companies routinely trample others' rights in an effort to protect their own), and the recent developments in the recording industry and movie industry to combat un-authorized sharing of music and movies.

I see a lot of mis-information, which is why I responded. Here's a few things I see differently than you expressed, and why I think it's important:

1) I would agree with "copyright infringement is, in essence, theft", because the statement is qualified, and the meaning is more that there exist similarities between these two, otherwise different, things. There is an element that some copyright owners, like you, are losing money when infringement occurs. But to categorically conclude "infringement is theft" doesn't follow logically, and is just incorrect, legally speaking. (And when we talk about breaking the law, we are speaking legally). Calling infringement theft assigns attributes to infringement which are not correct. For example, is infringement a crime? I believe it's covered by civil law (although I think the DMCA makes certain actions a criminal offense). As a master of words, you should know that different words have different meanings for a reason.

2) The standard retort, "but it doesn't cost the NFL any money", doesn't matter when deciding if infringement occurs, but does matter when considering if an award of damages is an appropriate remedy for infringement. Kind of like, "no harm, no foul".

3) I understood the primary purpose of copyright law was, not to protect copyright owners, but to serve public interests. Copyright law wasn't written to protect business interests, but to provide a framework to serve the people. Granting temporary exclusive rights to creators of works is just a means to the bigger purpose of enriching the public with high quality works. Plagairism is against the law, not so much because it harms copyright owners, but because it harms the public. When deciding if taping broadcasts on the VCR violated copyright law, serving the public interest was an important consideration.

4) The term "intellectual property" is a blanket term which attempts to collect otherwise very different things. The terms copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets all have well-defined meanings in the law. The term "intellectual property" does not. There is very little you can say about "intellectual property", beyond statements like "they are all products of the mind", or "they are all covered by the law" because copyrights are not patents, and patents are not trademarks, and trademarks are not trade secrets. They have very little in common with each other. They have different purposes, cover dis-joint concepts, and are covered by different laws. To combine all of these different things with the blanket term "intellectual property" is to ignore that there are differences. To ignore these differences often, in public, is to further confuse an already ignorant (about "IP") public. When proprietary companies use the term "IP", in a confusing way to the public, which they do frequently and willfully, this tends to serve the company, at the expense of the general public.

Posted by John, Anderson SC on February 13, 2007:

One thing that nobody has commented on, and this is where the NFL is coming from, is the Nielsen ratings. These ratings are how the advertisers cost for commercials is calculated. Fewer people watching translates to less money for the advertisements. If a church were to show the local over-the-air network station broadcast of the Superbowl to, say, 500 people, most of whom would have watched it over a cable or satellite connection then that is (most of) 500 people who wouldn't have been counted in the ratings. Multiply that by the number of churches that could have had superbowl parties and that could cut a percentage point or two out of the Nielsen ratings and that could cause the NFL to lose a significant amount of money.

I'm not coming out in favor of either party on this one; I just wanted to point out the money trail, which everyone else seems to have ignored.

Posted by Vera, San Jose CA on February 13, 2007:

Re: Nielsen Ratings (John from Anderson SC)

The thing you fail to mention (or realize) is that the Nielsen Ratings do not count every individual who watches a particular program. Rather, households are selected based on geographic and demographic data and are actually just a sample population. If a church or other organization got 500 people to attend a viewing event such as the super bowl, it's statistically quite likely that *none* of them would be from Nielsen households. I don't know what the actual number of Nielsen households is, but if they were to monitor the viewing habits of the entire population (currently an estimated 111.4 million television households in the USA) the data would be overwhelming. Statistical sampling cuts both ways: your sample has to be large enough to be representative of the population, but small enough to actually work with.