Replies

The NFL has a right to protect their product - this isn't an example of anti-Christian bias or anything else you want to imagine into it.

If they want to control their product in this way then they need to stick to pay-per-view only or some other private distribution method. As someone said earlier, don't broadcast it over my property on public airwaves.

Their copyright prevents taping it, redistributing it, etc.....but to say that it prohibits who I can have in my own house watching my own television and limiting what we can talk about at the viewing is UNREASONABLE. If I want to have 50 people over to talk about politics and watch a publicly broadcast program on a 60" television.....all on private property.....I will.

Can the Democratic National Committee prohibit us watching their convention and talking about certain things during it just because they are "copyrighted" images? Give me a break.

Can the DNC get mad at a certain manufacturer who gave money to the other party and prohibit viewing on "Hitachi" televisions?

I think not. These are unreasonable extensions of the copyright.

Part of hte problem is that the courts have ruled that lack of commitment to protecting a trademark is the path to giving up the trademark (that's how Bill Watterson lost control of Calvin and Hobbes merch). So if the NFL turns too many blind eyes to church groups they could lose their ability to keep movie theaters from charging to watch the game on the super large screen (which is really the kind of thing they want to prevent).

And all their enforcement is based on combining factors, the primary two to avoid are charging (for admission or additional services) and a large screen. You can invite friends over to watch it on your giant TV but don't charge them. They give a special exemption for "normal" sports venues (bars), but that's because they pre-established tradition and it's doubtful anybody would use sports bars as leverage against the NFLs control of their trademark.

Their copyright prevents taping it, redistributing it, etc.....but to say that it prohibits who I can have in my own house watching my own television and limiting what we can talk about at the viewing is UNREASONABLE. If I want to have 50 people over to talk about politics and watch a publicly broadcast program on a 60" television.....all on private property.....I will.

Arkinsaw - But you aren't charging for that, are you? And you aren't having a SB party, you are having a political discussion group where the TV happens to be on. AND you are in your own home - not a GROUP gathering place. Let's keep it apples to apples, shall we?

I wasn't aware that the league held intellectual ownership of Tony and Lovie's religious views.

HEY4QDEMS - They don't, but they have the right to not allow their broadcast to be "attached" to a particular view. Did you actually read the article?

Those are 'NFL rules' (not 'copyright law' as previously stated)? How are those enforceable? What licensing agreement...blahblahblahblah

atomicpossum - Great name by the way. The article states they were using copyrighted materials to advertise the party - the NFL is pretty picky about that. As far as the other stuff you're straying from the premise pretty far so there isn't any point in arguing the point with you.

The only point I was trying make was that the original poster did the same thing we accuse the MSM of doing all the time - taking a scenario out of context to promote an agenda. I don't care either way whether the church broadcasts the game or not - but if we're going to discuss topics, let's discuss the WHOLE topic; intelligently and considering all the facts. Otherwise we aren't any better than the people we rail against.