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 ...
I have seen these rightsholders at work for many a year and seen how destructive their claims are to both business innovation and private practices, even within the home, where man's castle used to be.
I don't believe copyright law is being violated in all these places claimed.
The position that we're running athwart in their ever-more-money-for-their-pockets mentality is that because their product is in play in some mix (e.g., church groups watching the big game at one fan's home) to them means they should have rights to control how it's viewed. Who gave them that right? I don't think they have such a right, but that's what's been happening with all kinds of video in the last decade. Our complacency and delay in champing for our rights, laches may lock into place the rightholders' position via "our" lawmakers.
In the marketplace there's been a mostly-under-the-radar transition of concept from "buying" to "licensing." There's been a palming off of the concept that you pays yer money and you get some product or a non-unique copy of that product, over which then you have control (at least inside your own home and for non-commercial purposes).
While gleefully cashiering the revenues for transactions of sales, these greedy businessmen have done a nice, big bait-and-switch into licenses. Those these bidnessmen began giving you "certain rights" over which they continue to seek monopolistic control. They took our money within the framework of what used to be sales of a product. It's kind of like the progression people my age, 54, will associate with hollow chocolate Easter bunnies where the previous standard was solid chocolate Easter bunnies. Now, mind you, the sellers rarely bothered to tell you they were only going to give you a hollow chocolate Easter bunny, and they were right there on the shelf competing with solid chocolate Easter bunny prices and not telling you, "Look-out, I'm hollow!"
OK, so many kids didn't know about the previous standard, were happy enough--"Hey, I got a bunny twice the size as last year's!"--and as it made more money per ounce of chocolate for the sellers, those were the bunnies they wanted to keep selling.
In today's iteration, hollow chocolate Easter bunnies have figuratively become pictures of chocolate Easter bunnies.
You're no longer buying a tangible thing, you're "buying" "licensing" certain rights under certain circumstances, to look at their pictures of "hollow chocolate Easter bunnies."
You still remember the tangibles, as in DVDs that you thought you "owned". Now those DVDs are considered to be licensed, and you may only play them, even in your own home, on devices approved--by whatever criteria the rightsholders find propitious--by rightsholders.
Now, in the broadcast as well pay-per-view and on-demand video world they've taken the tangibles away, and somewhere, usually on a text screen near the beginning of play, they progressively impose their latest legal jargon for what they wish to deign to give as "rights". You'll pay as before, be the slippery slope has been working against the interests of the viewers for many viewers with scant notice.
The commercial venue for such things is what it is, and we've long had the precedent--after their acquiescence to the BMI "aggregated rightsholders' agents"--of bars, restaurants, etc. having to pay BMI for the right to play music in their establishment. It was such "great work, and they could get it", that that toe in the door just had to be used for video. Boo-hoo. Cost of doing business for restaurants and bars, via ineffective "lobbying" and constesting or lawmaking. At least it's somewhat of a level playing field in the commercial world, though it may be time for independents to nudge out BMI, but that's another story.
Currently the rightsholders feel sufficiently empowered to be able to flex their muscles as to what they will condescend to allow you to in your home. So, they're now leveraging, under the guise of copyright, doubtless their strongest suit, however weak it may be.
With regard to business innovation, you can't buy a "home media server" product that isn't under legal threat by rightsholders. Such products would aggregate all your DVDs, CDs, home movies, favorite recordings, YouTubes, etc., but because the rightsholders sense lost or yet-undiscovered revenue, even from things in your home, they believe you shouldn't be allowed to have them, nor should anyone be allowed to make or sell such products.
We'll presume the home user is watching the big game for non-commercial purposes, and letting his friends watch along. The greedy rightsholders make money from analogous commercial uses, so they're pressing their luck by making bold statements about your rights, even in your "castle." Though copyright infringement is not limited to actual damages, I'm confident they find it opportunistic to be able to draw on analogies to commercial revenues their agents are otherwise are able to extract.
Cable and satellite customers are already paying for the "pictures of hollow Easter bunnies" they're not watching--whilst we sleep. If consumers don't resist continually re-drafted, legalistic encroachments by fat-cat rightsholders, our nanny politicians will codify such demands as "de-facto standards", just as in now accepted practice and the law for restaurant music licensing.
Since for many years we've complacently paid for eviscerated, lighter-weight bunnies, we're now left merely able to dream of those solid chocolate Easter bunnies from our youth.
Let's not let fat-cat rightsholders determine what we are allowed to do in our homes, our castles! Talk to your local, state and Congressional representatives about supporting laws that would favor consumers at every turn!
HF
I sent out invites last week to my “Superb Owl Party”.
It would gain them much good will to sell “block party” licenses to non commercial venues over the internet, The count of such licenses would figure in their ad rates.
What the hell does the expiration date on a copyright have to do with a live performance?
You want stuff for free and want to do whatever you want, regaradless of the law and the moral right of a person to the ownership of his work.
I didn’t realize FR had so many anarchists.
Who cares...don’t watch it then! The “Stupid Bowl” has long since ceased to be about the athletes, the teams or even the fans. Its a monsterous, glutoenous joke.
Better football is typically played the weeks leading up to it anyway.
Who cares...don’t watch it then! The “Stupid Bowl” has long since ceased to be about the athletes, the teams or even the fans. Its a monsterous, gluttonous joke.
Better football is typically played the weeks leading up to it anyway.
Yes, it would. But they have to keep in mind their regular paying customers as well. (the sports bars)
All the FReepers here who believe they are entitled to whatever they desire do not seem to grasp that if one does not protect one’s property, one forfeits it.
That was exposed in National Review. The woman who made the claim turned out to be the source. The Red Cross did it’s own investigation and it went in a circle back to her. No women’s shelter ever reported an increase in violence.
Are you hinting at me.
The issue is selling tickets to watch.
If somebody goes to a bar to watch the game, they are buying food and atmosphere, they are not paying an admission.
This issue happened last year when CHURCHES were holding super bowl party gatherings to just WATCH the game on a screen larger than 52” and the NFL attacked and then backed down.
The initial quip says this anecdote is a man selling tickets at the theater to watch the game.
No, you haven’t said anything breathtakingly stupid.
Then why the retort?
There are too many fair weather fans. How many people ignore football until the superbowl?
If by protecting the superbowl the NFL antagonizes the PAYING customers to not buy tickets, attend games, renew subscriptions, buy licenced merchandise, and just not be bothered then what has the NFL really gained.
LEGALLY they have a point about the selling of tickets. So they should work out a reasonable financial deal and move on.
or you will see a revival of an off season football league that will succeed because trump will not be there to screw it up. (see xfl)
I will be on a cruise ship and they had planned to show it on a big screen, if they are stopped, then when I get home I will cancel my Sunday Ticket.
I have had Sunday Ticket since it started, but the last two years more and more games are blacked out. I am paying more for less, so screw them.
That's one risk. The other is to not protect their property and get sued by every business that had worked out commercial arrangements to have the rights to show the games. And to eventually forfeit any right to control their telecasts.
Good point. Their arrogance knows no boundaries.
not disagreeing with that, that is why I said the NFL should work out a REASONABLE financial deal and move on. There is a way to do this that works.
Sometimes the suits will pick an astronomical number to be able to say no via unafordability.
even a $1 contract which acknowledges their right as the NFL would accomplish the task of protecting them.
With so many IMAX theaters, why not just multicast it? (or just sit really really really really close to your tv and pretend it is IMAX)
The NFL needs to pay attention at to what their product is.
Flawed logic. First if they allowed large gatherings, they could count the number of people at these gatherings and supplement their “ratings” with those numbers. 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.
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.