I soiled my browser and went to that link.
I only recently became aware of this when the NFL aired its reconstructed footage, and I went out of my way to watch it because that really interested me. They paint the guy like a victim, which is standard fare for the NYT.
When I read it, it seems to be a straightforward standard copyright thing. The guy’s father was able to record it for his own personal enjoyment, but due to law, cannot sell it for money without the consent of the NFL.
The guy sounds like a complete petulant, whining, dummy. He asked for a million dollars, and the league came back with $30K. If he had said how about $100K, they might have purchased it. The guy should have known the NFL had him over a barrel, and there is not a single whit of a thing he can do about it. Absolutely nothing. The dumbass NYT thinks there might be a hue and cry from the fans to make it available, but there really isn’t.
I really hate to side with the NFL on anything these days, but in this, I do. Granted, a million is small potatoes to the NFL, and they spent far, FAR more than that on the stupid deflated-football faux controversy, but...my guess is the guy was probably treating them like they had no options, and the NFL decided to play hardball, which they could do because the law is on their side. Even the stupid liberal law professor in the article said as much, lamenting the NFL should do it anyway simply because people want to see it. Typical liberal.
As it is, it sounds like it is missing part of the game. All the issues about color fading and all that, they could digitally fix without a problem.
True, but it is really bad optics for the NFL to step on him like this.
They are legally correct, but the type of organization they are; they should be looking for any opportunity to be seen as the great benefactor and lover of the sport.