Replies

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.

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).

How, exactly, does that harm the NFL? If anything, it'd raise the value of the advertising time (since you'd have more of a captive audience in cinemas, with less ability to avoid the commercials).

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.

Some of that is understandable....but part of the issue involves use of public airwaves. If this were distributed in private channels...encrypted signals....DVD.....pay-per-view....cable then that is one thing. Broadcast over the open broadcast frequencies and trying to restrict at the point of consumption is bothersome to me. It sets precedent in regard to other "image ownership". Networks also own their news images....the DNC owns its convention images....etc.

There still needs to be ability to control your own product....but I think that you should have considerably less ability to restrict when broadcast in the open over publicly owned airwaves receivable by anybody's private property.

I wont even begin to get into restricting tail-gating a mile from the stadium.