Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Arkinsaw; atomicpossum; HEY4QDEMS
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.

95 posted on 02/01/2007 9:31:04 AM PST by Cable225 (I almost never post, and rarely reply - but I donate to FR. How about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Cable225
they have the right to not allow their broadcast to be "attached" to a particular view.
That's not true at all. That's like telling me that I can't watch porn during the commercials.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Did you actually read the article?
Yes, I did.

there isn't any point in arguing the point with you.
Understatement of the day award goes to you.
102 posted on 02/01/2007 9:46:09 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson