posted
Comment: My church cancelled a Super Bowl party viewing of the Super Bowl game because someone claimed that 5,000 churches around the US were sued by NFL for violating copyright laws, as the Super Bowl is meant for "home viewing only." Please substantiate.
Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surely it would be the responsibility of the cable/satellite company to enforce viewing restrictions. I know in the U.K. we have a strange situation with sky T.V. The satellite broadcasts over most of Europe but is only legally available in the U.K. most Spanish and french bars have sky T.V. illegally but it is just overlooked.
-------------------- All the world's a face, And all the men and women merely acne. Posts: 673 | From: Glasgow, Scotland | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the language contains the phrase "personal use of our audience," and I can't imagine that ABC would interpret that to mean large audiences cannot gather together and watch it.
Where it would cause problems is if a fee were charged for the viewing of it, like if a bar were showing it and charged a cover.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the deal - you can't charge money just to watch the game. A bar could have sell tickets to limit entry, but if the ticket gets you something else (i.e. food or drink - even a token amount) then that would cover it.
In other words, you can't charge admission from your deadbeat brother-in-law, when he comes over to watch the Super on your big screen tv, drink your beer, etc.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: I think the language contains the phrase "personal use of our audience," and I can't imagine that ABC would interpret that to mean large audiences cannot gather together and watch it.
Where it would cause problems is if a fee were charged for the viewing of it, like if a bar were showing it and charged a cover.
I'm not sure how this works but if ASCAP has any thing to do with it they're looking for money. Actually bars(in the US) do pay a fee it is charged by their content provider(cable/sat company).
Posts: 19 | From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't have anything to do with ASCAP. It has to do with broadcasters providing their products for free and not allowing others to make money off of that.
ETA: And the Super Bowl is televised by a broadcast network, so there is no "user fee" that bars would be paying to receive it. (Yes, they may have cable or satellite, and that costs, but if they wanted to receive the broadcast for free, they could.)
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently the NFL has cracked down on Las Vegas Super Bowl (tm) parties in the last couple of years:
quote:The lack of marketing is an echo of cease-and-desist letters the NFL sent to several Las Vegas casinos last year, warning them that upcoming parties charging admission or airing the game on big screens would violate the league's copyright on the Super Bowl.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hero_Mike: In other words, you can't charge admission from your deadbeat brother-in-law, when he comes over to watch the Super on your big screen tv, drink your beer, etc.
You can charge him for drinking your beer, etc.
As long as you don't charge him for looking at the TV.
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pob14: Apparently the NFL has cracked down on Las Vegas Super Bowl (tm) parties in the last couple of years:
quote:The lack of marketing is an echo of cease-and-desist letters the NFL sent to several Las Vegas casinos last year, warning them that upcoming parties charging admission or airing the game on big screens would violate the league's copyright on the Super Bowl.
I've just recently heard of this but it has nothing to do with them showing the SuperBowl it's how they advertise it. If you notice, none of the ads say SuperBowl, they just call it something different. Usually it's called the "Big Game" Or it's advertised as Super Party
Posts: 143 | From: Cleveland, OH | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pob14: Apparently the NFL has cracked down on Las Vegas Super Bowl (tm) parties in the last couple of years:
quote:The lack of marketing is an echo of cease-and-desist letters the NFL sent to several Las Vegas casinos last year, warning them that upcoming parties charging admission or airing the game on big screens would violate the league's copyright on the Super Bowl.
I've just recently heard of this but it has nothing to do with them showing the SuperBowl it's how they advertise it. If you notice, none of the ads say SuperBowl, they just call it something different. Usually it's called the "Big Game" Or it's advertised as Super Party
Did you read the linked article? It mentions the marketing, yes, but it's mostly about broadcast rights and how and where the game can be shown.
quote: NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said casinos won't be able to bend the rules by hosting smaller, private parties out of view of the public. Those gatherings must still show the game on normal-sized television sets that usually show sports, which applies to sports books and bars, he said.
Casinos "would not be able to charge admission, nor would they be able to bring in mass amounts of people and view the game on large-screen TVs other than what already exists for daily use in those properties."
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hero_Mike: In other words, you can't charge admission from your deadbeat brother-in-law, when he comes over to watch the Super on your big screen tv, drink your beer, etc.
You can charge him for drinking your beer, etc.
As long as you don't charge him for looking at the TV.
What about wear and tear (if you will) on your property? Carpets, furniture, etc.
And would that go for pubs as well?
-------------------- "The fact that "uvula" and "vulva" look and sound similar was just a happy coincidence." - Lainie Posts: 548 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
