Posted on 02/02/2010 6:18:17 AM PST by Ebenezer
First one must define property rights. You asserting that property rights means I am not allowed to show FREE TV ON MY PROPERTY because the NFL has decided to show their program on it is somehow kosher. In truth THEY are violationg My property rights by placing restrictions on who I can invite or what size screen I can watch the game on.
You sound like the owners of the drive-in who sued a guy that lived next to it because he would invite people over to his house and they would watch the drive-in movie AND listen to the sound they broadcast of the movie on his FM radio, while they lounged around his pool. Some nights he would have more people at his house than they had paying customers. The case never even made it to trial.
I got no problem with them setting up their broadcast to control it with technology. But this crap where they get to tell me what size screen I can use and how many guests I can invite is over the line no matter what criteria you use. They tried this same crap with season ticket sales a good many years back and they lost that one as well. They will eventually lose this one as well when enough people tell them and the sheeple who swallow their line that enough is enough!
HF
Really? There is a company devoted to head counts at bars and bingo halls which advertisers recognize? lol, you're silly.
Second, many people who would attend and watch at a super bowl party aren't even going to bother to watch the game if forced to do so at home.
Some perhaps. That's why I put "parties" in there. The wife might not watch, but the hubby would have watched the game at home. If people only watch for the commercials, they are still watching.
Yup. The NFL might be legally correct. They might even have a decent moral position w/r/t protecting and profiting from their intellectual property (although many would disagree).
However, as a business move it is just plain idiotic.
Face it, half the people at the super bowl parties don't even watch the game (They're too busy gabbing with other party goers). So it woul dbe a huge coup for the NFL as they could now count these non-watchers as watchers since they are in the party.
I didn't say that you had said anything. I asked you a question based on the fact that you seemed to be slamming the institution of copyright in your previous post - copyright being something that I think is a necessary means of protecting intellectual property.
I don't slam the principle of copyright from its historic roots. I would slam those who suggest copyright gives them protection for any and every fragment of legal jargon with which they would dress their user licenses.
HF
I know that these idiots think that letting people view the game together hurts their ratings, but that view of things is short-sighted. Ultimately, letting people view together means that more people see the game. More importantly for the advertisers, more people see the commercials. In fact, at a public venue, only so many people can fit into the restrooms during the commercials. When people view at home, they can escape commercials to hit the restroom. The public screenings help the advertisers rather than hurt them. This situation is yet another case of corporate America hurting itself with its own stupidity. As a small-government advocate, I think they should generally have the freedom to shoot themselves in the foot, but the other side is often right about how stupid some corporations/organizations are. In this case, I’m not even sure that the law should be on the side of the NFL.
This broadcast is authorized under broadcast rights granted by the Southeastern Conference solely for the entertainment of our viewing audience. Any publication or re-broadcast of the descriptions and accounts of this game without the expressed written consent of the Southeastern Conference is prohibited.
Yeah, it's SEC but I think it is standard language. Radio broadcasts will substitute the word "listening" for the word "viewing."
Surely if the church/theatre/whatever is getting the signal from the local TV channel, they are not rebroadcasting the program. Neither are they publishing it.
It appears to me that the only requirement that might be violated is whether the viewers are entertained. Has the church/theatre/whatever taken adequate steps to ensure the audience is entertained? I would say yes -- I attended a church Super Bowl party years ago -- they asked parishioners to bring snacks and soft drinks but the church provided a good many on their own.
If you set up a giant screen on the outside of your hotel, you are “re-broadcasting.”
Also “solely for the entertainment” does not mean you invite a bunch of people over and charge them admission. Or sell them beer and hot wings.
Your example is not broadcasting, it is displaying or projecting. Networks broadcast a signal and other stations may gather that signal and re-broadcast it, but this is entirely separate from the end-user displaying the signal.
er...What if they just asked the bars and bingo halls how many people attended? No need to get complicated. They could just ask everyone holding a super bowl party to register and then multiply by the average if they want a simple method. Advertisers could believe the numbers or not, but certainly they are not in a position to claim that super bowl parties do not exist or that no one at parties sees their ads.
The NFL doesn’t want them in bars, they want them at home, to make Nielson numbers, and make more money for CBS, so the next wave of contracts can be sold for even more. That’s what these things are about every year, Nielson’s numbers are built around home viewers, SB parties damage those numbers. They really can’t do anything about the normal home party, but as soon as you start charging, or advertising, it becomes a completely different situation.
It’s not just pro sports. Try selling t-shirts with anything on them that looks like a playoff tree in any city that will be hosting any part of March Madness next month without giving the NCAA a cut.
No ad agency is going to recognize that. Besides, no one is going to register for fear of the NFL denying them the right to show the game. Registering = being told you can’t show the game. Not registering = slipping under the radar and making money for your business.
Besides, giving numbers on how many attended would require spot checks to assure the number is accurate. Who is going to do that? Didn’t the NFL offices fire a bunch of people less than a year ago?
Nielson ratings are nothing more than a statistical projection. They do not count every actual TV viewer. They select a small group of “representative” viewers who they monitor, and then base their nation wide projections on them. The same technique could be used to count party “viewers”, and yes, ad agencies do recognize that.
“Besides, no one is going to register for fear of the NFL denying them the right to show the game.”
If the NFL said that all anyone had to do was register in order to legally show the game then virtually everyone would register. The reason? There is no downside to registering, and there would be a downside to not registering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.