Posted on 02/02/2010 6:18:17 AM PST by Ebenezer
After a packed screening of the Saints' NFC Championship victory at Uptown's Prytania Theatre [in New Orleans], co-owner Robert Brunet has had hundreds of requests for tickets to view the Super Bowl at the historic theater this Sunday.
But instead of preparing for the game, Brunet has been haggling with NFL lawyers for more than a week after he received a cease-and-desist letter telling him that the free screening had violated copyright laws.
A similar story played out at the Sheraton New Orleans hotel, whose managers had planned a massive projection of the game on the side of the Canal Street hotel but eventually ruled it out because of legal concerns.
"It's a control issue," Brunet said. "From a purely technical and legal standpoint, the NFL has a right to do this. But at the end of the day, why does this even matter to them?"
In a city exhilarated by the Saints' Super Bowl run, bars, hotels and even movie theaters are looking for ways to bring fans together for mass viewings of the Super Bowl this Sunday. But many large screenings in New Orleans -- at restaurants, clubs, even on large projection screens at neighborhood block parties -- may run afoul of long-standing copyright laws that the NFL is keen to enforce during what is typically the biggest television event of the year.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Great marketing strategy, Pi$$ off your fans to the point they tell you to go to hell............................
I guess the way they track viewers is not necessarily by the number of viewers but by the number of tv sets tuned in. I’m not sure how that stuff works, but I’m pretty sure it comes down to revenue determined by the number of tvs tuned in.
Yup happens every year. NFL very protective of its trademark and product. Even radio & TV stations can be forbidden from saying Super Bowl in promotions, etc.; a few yrs ago BEFORE the ban came about these mass gatherings, WRKO Boston had to call it “the big game bash”. Stores have to say “get a great new TV to enjoy the big game” or something like that
A chip dip manufacturer poked fun at this policy in a radio ad from several years ago. “We can’t tell you the name of this event, but watching it would be SUPER...like a BOWL of Dean’s dip” As long as you don’t say the two words together in an ad...?
(that is, WRKO had an event somewhere where people could gather to watch the game, poss. for free)
It’s because of the limitations of the TV rating system. People are only counted if they are at home watching. At least that was what they said last year when they went after churches who held Super Bowl gatherings.
Think of the NFL paraphrasing Jesus: "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them....demanding royalties."
Amen to that. These welfare queens should have no rights to demand anything of anyone since WE are forced to pay THEIR bills.
Any taxpayer that helped finance a stadium should be given tickets to that venue at no extra cost. Why should we have to pay twice to enjoy the entertainment for which we already paid once?
The NFL is intent on getting everyone up to speed with Browns fans. I used to bleed Brown and Orange. It was MY team, or so I thought.
Art Modell and the NFL taught us it’s a business, and the fact that the team plays in your city has absolutely nothing to do with you. Fans are in no way part of the team. Fans are merely revenue streams.
I haven’t bought any Browns gear in about 7 years. The only game I’ve been to since they started again in Cleveland, I was given free tickets.
The Browns have made me a Buckeye fan.
Sports bars pay royalties for the right to show NFL games to their audiences. The NFL is protecting its property rights.
You’d think FReepers would be in favor of property rights.
Or did you think that message about the telecast being intended for private home viewing was meaningless?
Rightly or wrongly, governments subsidize all types of economic developments. Whether that is helping a supermarket locate in a minority area or turning a former industrial site into a shopping mecca.
Does that give you the right to walk into one of those stores and walk out with free merchandise?
We had the same problem in Pittsburgh for the Stanley Cup Final. The Penguins put a huge screen outside the arena for fans who could not get tickets to watch. But NBC would not allow them to show any of the games that they were broadcasting. Strangely the other games that were on Versus were okay for some reason. And this was on a public lawn with no admission charged.
I got no problem with such except that its on TV for free. One can have TV on in a place of business any other time as long as you either get the signal off an antenna or pay for Cable or Sat TV. Why does the NFL get to suddenly change the deal because of a single show?
So they can pound sand as far as I am concerned! If they want to put restrictions on viewing then they should encode the transmission and charge for decoders! Then they have an argument! Other wise they can should shut the hell up!
While your point is correct, the broader point that the Super Bowl is many ways a party event which centers around a football game is correct as well. So, the NFL is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Many people who would not watch the game at home will view it in conjunction with a Super Bowl party. Going after Super Bowl parties is a counterintuitive marketing strategy.
There's a huge difference between lowering taxes to encourage development and the outright paying of taxpayer money to private entities to build something. Taxes should not be used for the latter, and if they are, it just shows that taxes are too high anyway. It isn't like the NFL doesn't generate enough money to build its own playgrounds either.
Does that give you the right to walk into one of those stores and walk out with free merchandise?
If my taxes went to build it, then it is not free merchandise, as I helped to pay for it, so yes I am entitled to use something for which I helped pay. I know it doesn't work like this in real life, but it should, as it is not right to simply take money from people and not give those people access to the product or service bought with that money. And if it did work like this, you'd have far fewer private entities asking for welfare.
That wasn’t really a “problem,” but an inconvenience.
Versus didn’t care about its signal being used like that. NBC did. NBC owned the rights.
NFL = Nasty Freaking Leeches
Listen to the legal warning again. Almost all sports on TV are broadcast for the use of the private home audience.
If you use sporting events to draw people into your business, you are not within the law.
Whether it makes sense for the copyright holders to enforce every trivial infraction is a different question. But don't believe that just because something is on TV for "free" that you have a right to commercial use of it.
Actually, you have fewer "viewers" when you have a whole bunch watching in one place. The NFL wants "ratings" which would increase if each person(party) in the group watched it at home. Higher ratings = more money for the NFL.
It may be unwise, but think of it this way.
You own a sports bar and pay thousands of dollars for the Sunday Ticket (licensing based on number of TVs, seats, etc.).
And now some hotel wants to display for free on an outdoor screen what you have paid good money for?
The NFL has to protect its property, or else all of the people who pay for it would be right to sue and demand redress.
Going after churches and neighborhoods maybe going too far, but the NFL must protect its property.
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.