When sports leagues attack
Remember the joke that went around a few months back - the one where home theaters were going to be called illegal infringements? Well, it seems that reality has gone and clubbed satire upside the head again, because the NFL is claiming that any Superbowl party with a screen bigger than 55" crosses the line. They complained about a Church having a party (where the church was going to charge a small fee for entry). After the Church decided to allow free entry, this came up:
the NFL continued to complain, saying that showing the Super Bowl on a screen larger than 55 inches represents copyright infringement. While we, at first, doubted the reality of this, Ben Austro sent in the fact that it is, indeed, spelled out in copyright law that once you get above 55, you may be talking about a "public performance," though, as Ben notes, the wording sounds like it was clearly written by a lobbyist.
So... let me get this straight. Say I buy one of the TV's on this page (that are 55" or larger). Then I have a few friends over to watch a game (any game, it seems) - I'm violating the law. Heck, if I have a summer party, and toss more than 2 speakers out to my patio while a baseball game is on, I've violated the law. This is just stupid - it's clear to me that some industry lobbyist (and a short sighted one at that) inserted this language into one of the last updates of copyright law.
I wonder how many SuperBowl parties will be breaking the law this weekend?
Comments
[Tom Sattler] February 2, 2007 9:47:41.847
The one I'm going to, will certainly be breaking the law. I wonder if the local police will visit, and tell us we have to turn off Bill's 61-inch monster and go upstairs to the 42 inch plasma instead? Will they help us carry all the food with us? How about if the beer is from a company that's not an official sponsor? Is that a violation of something?
only if you're an 'establishment'
[Luis Villa] February 2, 2007 10:03:15.817
I'm pretty sure this only applies if you're an 'establishment'- typically defined as "an institution or place of business." So a church with a 60" screen is in trouble; a private house is probably not. But I haven't looked at rulings on this (I'd guess there aren't really any) so this is not legal advice, yadda, yadda.
www.gopunditgo.com
[Terrence] February 2, 2007 10:37:42.711
There's a big double standard here, though: sports bars are exempt, even though they face the same legal restriction. The NFL has a double standard.
It depends...
[ James Robertson] February 2, 2007 11:13:01.483
Comment by James Robertson
If you look at the copyright law itself, it's not entirely clear - and it depends on how a judge would rule on it. IMHO, "how a judge would rule" in the face of an ambiguous law becomes an essentially random event.
good idea for redesign of copyright
[Lex Spoon] February 2, 2007 11:13:54.150
I don't know about this particular law and case, but I actually like the general idea. Instead of controlling one-off copies -- which with today's technology is practically impossible -- control presentations to sizable groups of people.
More here: Copyright in the digital age
Only God Knows
[Donald] February 2, 2007 11:41:21.892
Who is right and who is wrong? Not for us to decide.
Gonna violate and have fun doing it!
[The BIT] February 2, 2007 12:44:49.427
94" of projection screen with lots of family and friends. Sounds like lawsuit material to me. And speakers in the game room and four more on the deck. Heck, I may let the whole neighborhood hear it!
establishments
[Luis Villa] February 2, 2007 13:54:22.246
James: I did look at the law; you'll see that 5(B) specifies that it regulates "communication by an establishment...if--" and then goes on to discuss specific characteristics of the establishment.
Typically, drafters of laws choose words like 'establishment' fairly carefully; and judges tend to understand that- you'd likely have to get a judge who was pretty far off the reservation to interpret establishment as a private home, particularly since the intent here is clearly to regulate rebroadcast in a commercial context.
The congressional history of the law makes this fairly explicit- the purpose of clause (5) is "to exempt from copyright liability anyone who merely turns on, in a public place, an ordinary radio or television receiving apparatus of a kind commonly sold to members of the public for private use." Note focus on *public place*. The 55" inch requirement was added (again according to the congressional history) in order to draw a line around what the owner of a small establishment can claim is 'just something I brought from home.'Judicially, the most specific explanation of the section actually comes from the Supreme Court- which describes that section of the act as "exempt[ing] small businesses, restaurants, and like entities from having to pay performance royalties on music played from licensed radio, television, and similar facilities."
So, yeah, this isn't about homes/private parties. False alarm, everyone go home and crack open a beer.
(The church does appear to be on the hook, legally speaking, though of course I agree that this is stupid.)
(IANAL yet, take with big grain of salt, consult with your own lawyer before throwing a super bowl party, yadda, yadda.)
Respect the law
[Dethe Elza] February 2, 2007 16:57:13.953
I refuse to break the law just to watch a sporting event, so to be on the safe side, I avoid all sporting events. I don't go to sports bars, friends homes with the television on, or of course sports arenas (you never know).
Now, technically I don't do this because I think the law is right, I do it because I hate sports in general (and television). But apparently I am their target market, since I'm willing to not infringe on their silly laws.
Sports fans take note: Only by not giving a damn about sports will you make the franchise owners happy. Who's with me?