NFL Tells Indiana Churches to Screw Themselves!! Copyright Laws Cited.

Published on February 2nd, 2007

NFL Commissioner on Phone

The (Super Bowl) party’s over | IndyStar.com — Can you believe how out-of-control the copyright situation has become? And can you believe these greedy NFL jerkoffs? This is one of the most disgusting stories I’ve ever heard. Instead of letting the Super Bowl be a social event people have to, by law, watch it alone according to Aiello and the NFL bosses. Write your Congressman have the copyright laws changed and break up the NFL while they are at it.

Churches in Indiana and across the country are scrapping traditional Super Bowl viewing parties in wake of the NFL’s stance that mass viewings of the game on big screen TV’s would violate copyright law.

The issue came to light Thursday when the Star reported that the NFL had told Fall Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis that its plans for a Super Bowl watch party in front a big screen TV would be illegal.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Thursday the league stands by its interpretation of copyright law and would look into any violators that comes to the league’s attention. The main concern for the league, Aiello said, is groups that charge admission to watch games and those that use a TV screen larger than 55 inches to show the game.

A story about Fall Creek’s plan to cancel its game viewing plans prompted dozens of calls and more than 500 email comments to the Star’s website Thursday. Aiello said media from around the country have been inquiring with the league as well.

In Indianapolis, home of the AFC Champion Colts, Indian Creek Christian Church and Castleton United Methodist Church are among those who have cancelled plans to watch the game in their churches.

Greg Aiello to little girls: “If your parents have a screen larger than 55 inches and friends come over to watch the game, let me know and we’ll put them in jail.”

found by Mr. Justin

49 users responded in " NFL Tells Indiana Churches to Screw Themselves!! Copyright Laws Cited. "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Floyd said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 am

Well, the churches and bars need to change the name of their get-togethers to “The Big Game” like they do in Las Vegas, and make contributions voluntary.

# 2 John C Dvorak said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 am

Why should they have to do anything? How is the NFL losing any money if a Church has a Super Bowl Party and charges five bucks for someone to watch and eat hot dogs? How is that lost revenue for the NFL? What is the point of this except to throw your weight around and act tough? This is part of the control freak mentality ruining the country.

# 3 moss said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am

The greedy bastards in charge of corporate America act more like a state religion than the Catholic Church at the height of the Inquisition. And the state, our pimp politicians, genuflect and comply.

# 4 god said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 am

The greedy bastards in charge of corporate America act more like a state religion than the Catholic Church at the height of the Inquisition. And the state, our pimp politicians, genuflect and comply.

# 5 Named said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am

Ah, this harkens me back to the days of blacked out NFL games… Oh, wait. That still happens.

# 6 Kronkite L. Brodwicker said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 am

There was a hilarious bit on “The Simpsons” years ago where Homer sails out into lawless international waters and discovers someone rebroadcasting Major League Baseball “with implied oral consent, not express written consent.”

The IndyStat article doesn’t make it clear: is the church in question charging for admission (other than leaving a collection plate out)? Seems like a key point, though for a church event one would still have to wonder why the NFL would bother. They must have too many lawyers on staff…

# 7 GregA said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 am

Actually, I totally agree with the NFL on this one. Churches are not the innocent players anymore. Nowdays they have high tech multimedia displays and sound systems of movie theater quality. Then they charge a cover fee to get in and watch.

If this wasn’t a church, if this was a private individual, who had set up a private movie theater, then charged people to watch Superman Returns, without paying the royalties for such a performance, you guys would begrudgingly accept this.

The only reason this is different from the blatant pirate scenario I presented is the church and the superbowl. Given the churches role in Bush’s rise to power, and their silence as he butchered half a million people (if not yet, then soon) I think it is time we take the kid gloves off when dealing with churches.

They are not the innocent players they present themselves as. The churches should have to live by the same standard I do. No exception because they claim they are an important part of the community.

# 8 Named said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 am

6,
The churches should have to live by the same standard I do.

If they did that, they wouldn’t be churches, now would they?

# 9 John C Dvorak said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 am

#6 Nice try with the specious argument. Setting up shop and showing a movie hurts the local theater owner who does it by the book. Who are you kidding?

Who EXACTLY gets hurt by a large church showing the game for a fee? Are there unsold seats at the game? Is the NFL doing pay-per-view down the street? I mean EXACTLY who is financially or otherwise harmed by this? Or is this just another example of the “rules are rules” mentality promoted by lawyers and people who think the public should be treated like a herd of sheep.

And note, this isn’t just about the fee. What about the 55-inch edict where you can’t have your pals over to watch a crummy game.

# 10 danno said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 am

6,
The difference here (in my view) is that the game is being broadcast on “free” commercial TV at the exact same time. When movie theatres are paying royalties, it is for the rights to broadcast the movie (or event) – the TV network has already paid for that right (and the church is showing the network’s broadcast) in exchange for advertising dollars which they will still get. I think what people are paying for here is the location – the TV, the comfortable seats, the group, etc. Not the game itself, which they can already stay at home and watch for free.

# 11 ralph said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 am

The last paragraph of the article is very telling.

“Aiello said the league has a longstanding policy against “mass out-of-home viewings” of the Super Bowl, even if the hosts don’t charge admission. The NFL makes an exception to that, however, for sports bars that show televised sports on a regular basis. And that point has been a point of considerable anger among people who have contacted the newspaper in response to the story.”

1. I doesn’t matter if churches, civic groups, or whatever are charging admission. They are still in violation.

2. Sports bars are okay. Why? Who are the big sponsors of the broadcast? Beer companies!!

# 12 Joey said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am

I agree with the NFL. It’s their copyrighted content. It’s not fair use to profit from a massive viewing of copyrighted material.

# 13 justme said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am

#6 The game is paid for by paid advertisements as we all know. How is this the same as the movie theater down the street.

The church is just one example. It can’t not be shown in a community or senior center or school auditorium.

And can you make just one post without Bush or Apple being at the root of it.

# 14 GregA said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 am

#10

The sports bars are paying a public performance fee.

Any business that is paying the fee, that has to compete with a business not paying the fee is hurt.

# 15 spsffan said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 am

Geez what a mess!

First of all, the Super Bowl is benig broadcast on over the air commercial television. Anyone with a television set and a set of rabbit ears can watch for free. They can’t restrict who watches where. If the NFL claims a copywrite, they shouldn’t give their broadcast away for free!

Second the chruch (all churches) should be required to pay taxes like any other business.

Third, anyone who would pay to watch football (or damned near anything else on the tube) needs a shrink, big time. Yes, I know this is a large portion of the population….so it goes.

DAve

# 16 GG said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 am

This doesn’t make much sense. And there’s not enough information to understand why it’s against “policy” for a church to show the Superbowl but not for a bar. At first I thought the issue was that they were charging admission, which would have been easy to work around (you charge for the food/drink/whatever, not for the game), but the article says it’s against policy “even if the hosts don’t charge admission.”

I think a church should go ahead and do it and get sued by the NFL. What great publicity that would make!

# 17 GregA said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 am

Confirmed.

I just spoke with the Applebees manager down the street. They do pay a fee to show sports on their TV’s.

# 18 John C Dvorak said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 am

#11 — Churches are not profit-making entities. Thus they cannot make a profit from showing the game.

# 19 andrewj said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:22 am

If the church strips out the commercials using a TIVO/other system, then it is a problem.
Besides, who in a church wants to see guys running around in tight clothes grabbing each outhers asses?

# 20 Eric Phillips said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 am

#8: I disagree. As a creator of copyrighted video and audio material I would not allow a group to charge admission for the showing of a film or music video I made. You are making money with what I own.

However, a free get together showing an over-the-air broadcast? The NFL is definitely wrong here. It should be ENCOURAGED! I know some people (gasp) who don’t like football but will come over to a social get together to watch the game. We even give copies of our CDs to DJs and bars to get it played, without renumeration, to expose a bigger audience. That’s good business.

I believe the NFL is thinking of its GREEDY future. With the installation of HD projectors in movie theaters a new revenue stream is available. Already there are events being shown live in movie theaters in HD on huge screens: boxing, concerts, even performances by the Metropolitan Opera. I bet they are looking to create the rule so next year they can offer the event to movie theaters for a cut of the ticket.

And what about the 55-inch maximum. Does this mean my friend with the projector showing a 70″ picture can’t legally watch the SuperBowl unless he gets a smaller set??????

# 21 A_B said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:40 am

Dvorak,

So you admit that GregA’s point is valid? That in fact, there are plenty of people being hurt by the churches’ providing public performances of the copyrighted work? For example, the Applebee’s that GregA called and found out that they did in fact pay a fee to show the broadcast.

If you don’t agree, why should the folks like Applebees, who respect the copyright holder’s rights, be punished?

“What about the 55-inch edict where you can’t have your pals over to watch a crummy game.”

I’m quite sure either the spokesperson misspoke or the reporter misinterpreted the statement. My guess is Aiello said something like, “you have churches showing these games on big 55″ TVs and charging admission. The NFL doesn’t permit that.” The reporter interpreted the statement as these each, individually, violative of the NFL’s rights.

The attorneys at the NFL are sophisticated enough to know that there is no such limitation on the size of the TV in the law and would not try to enforce this arbitrary standard. That is, they would never sue someone solely on the basis that the TV set was larger than 55″, but would leave them alone at 50″.

In any case, this is a clear cut violation of the NFL’s copyrights. Before I even heard that the churches were charging admission, it was clear that they were breaking the law by their unauthorized public performances. Charging admission makes their behavior incredibly egregious. I’m shocked they’ve been able to do this at all and that the NFL hasn’t dropped the hammer on them.

# 22 GregA said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 am

#17,

Just because a company is ‘non-profit’ does not mean the company is not profitable.

For example, James Dobbson is quite wealthy. He is also an excellent example of a business person who has used the church tax loop hole to avoid paying his fair share of taxes.

# 23 RuralRob said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 am

I would like to see the NFL do more and more of this. Then maybe the drooling beer-bellied inbred American sheeple will wake up and realize there are better things to do then watched spoiled athletes throw balls around for $$millions$$ while thousands die in Iraq and dead bodies continue to rot in the Big Easy.

# 24 A_B said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:46 am

I want to clarify part of my comment on 55″. There is a 55″ standard, but it’s only for public performances. Not for typical home viewing. So, your safe if your buddies come over to your house.

# 25 John C Dvorak said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 am

#20 and I suppose by your logic that Applebees is hurt by the pancake breakfast too. Maybe we should just close the churches for even collecting money for anything since that is money that could be spent on NFL Jerseys online. Give me a break. I don;t think Applebees should pay anything either. At least I’m consistent here.

And EXACTLY why do you think the story was misreported? We’re arguing about the report. You cannot change the debate by dreaming up what you IMAGINE someone said. The liklihood is that the whole story was under-reported. Cripes.

I am forever stunned by the number of people who draw a line in the sand over issues like this and junp to the side of greed and avarice without a pause. How do you sleep at night?

# 26 James Nelson said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am

“longstanding POLICY against “mass out-of-home viewings” of the Super Bowl”.

So if five hundred people watched the game from there homes individually that is Okay. But if they gather together and watch the same thing that is against there “policy” with the exception of a sports bar. Why does the NFL fear the masses?

-The masses might have fun watching the Superbowl
-The masses might ignore the advertisements
-The masses might make bets on the game (without getting a cut)

This sounds too much like digital rights management and the RIAA. Next thing we know the NFL will be suing viewers for having watched the Superbowl illegally. HIEL!! the interainment industry.

# 27 Joey said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 am

#24 Who are we to decide what represents fair compensation for someone else’s copyright? A copyright’s value is the payoff for the investment and risk undertaken by the holder. If the holder asks for too much compensation, people wont pay and the price will naturally adjust. Sure the NFL is being greedy here; they’re also being stupid from a PR perspective. But a beachhead against greed and avarice this story is not.

# 28 moss said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am

Meanwhile, the brouhaha is spreading. Turns out lots of churches are accustomed to using the Super Bowl as a fundraising event.

Local news — a few minutes ago — interviewed pastors of 5 churches who mostly plan on going ahead with their events and let the NFL bust them.

# 29 pedro said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 am

#22 as I was reading all the replies, I started to think the same way you did. Not that I’m not getting fat anyway. And I didn’t need to watch football to get fat.

#24 said: “How do you sleep at night?” Over a matressful of cash & floating 1 foot over it?

# 30 JulieB said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am

You can’t say, “Super Bowl.” Oops!

http://www.lsl-law.com/publications/Superbowl.pdf

# 31 Osmodious said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am

What people have to do is NOT WATCH. If the network’s ratings sucked for just one year, it would break everything. Don’t bother watching the game (does ANYone care about the Bears and Colts anyway?) and they will have the worst ratings of any super bo…sorry, Big Game…ever.

All these problems we always discuss (RIAA, rapacious businesses, etc.) are SO easily fixed…vote with your dollars (or lack thereof). But, no, people can’t manage to have the slightest little inconvenience in their lives…can’t live without that instant gratification for even an instant!

Don’t watch it, don’t buy it, don’t support them…and they will eventually come around.

# 32 pedro said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm

#30 said: “Don’t watch it, don’t buy it, don’t support them…and they will eventually come around.”

What is more befudling is that this is the solution to a lot of things. Yet, people don’t do it. How is that possible.

Oh, and I forgot to said, I laugh everytime I see that Scrooge print.

# 33 DCXColtsFan said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm

So let me get this straight, If I have lets say a projection system displaying the game on my wall in the basement and I have a few friends (12) over and they bring food I am in violation of this “STUPID” Copyright/Trademark?

This is BS, I am a season ticket holder for the Colts and couldn’t get Game tickets to Miami because the NFL has a restriction on how many people a stadium can seat and how many tickets are allocated to certain classes of citizens, so now they want to tell me what is acceptable to view it on in my home. BS this is purely BS I agree, we should all write our congressmen and ask for this to be changed.

# 34 DCXColtsFan said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm

#31 Said: “What people have to do is NOT WATCH. If the network’s ratings sucked for just one year, it would break everything. Don’t bother watching the game (does ANYone care about the Bears and Colts anyway?) and they will have the worst ratings of any super bo…sorry, Big Game…ever.”

What are you smoking? Everyone thinks this will be one of the better rated superbowls for viewing. The Colts vs New England game was one ofthe most watched championship games ever.

# 35 TheGlobalWarmer said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm

This is just one more step toward the ultimate goal. PPV Superbowl. Once the NFL gets to that point it’ll die just like boxing did.

# 36 sagrilarus said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm

The issue here isn’t the copyright. The NFL could choose to not let you watch the game at all if they wanted to, or release it unrestricted. The issue is the retarded policy they have chosen.

Personally, I think the NFL is eating their seed corn. The Super Bowl is played in the evening on a school-night — none of my kids have even seen one yet. This game belongs on in the afternoon. And if the NFL had even a one-year outlook on their profitabilty they would be encouraging every social group in the world, church or otherwise, to bring people together to watch. More eyes on the set means more future fans, and frankly, more people watching the adverts.

The lawyers are just enforcing a policy here. It’s the owners that are the idiots in this equation.

Don’t even get me started on Major League Baseball. They’ve shot themselves in the head six times and are currently reloading.

Sag.

# 37 Mr.Newton said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm

churches are non-profit? define non-profit.i may own a
thousand companies & say they are non-profit after they send me my share of the $ they make.(vatican),(sally ann) just as 2 examples.
it can all be summed up in 1 word..greed…the american way..
on the other hand,,what is the law..who besides the government is above it?,oops,,lost my head,what was i thinking,,above the law???

# 38 John said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm

#21,
If you read the various articles about this you will see that the church was willing to drop the charge, but NFL still objected to their use of a projector telling them that the law limits the viewing to 1 TV at 55 inches or less.

# 39 Gary Marks said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm

This furor with the church explains why the weather report for Miami on Sunday calls for showers throughout the day with a high around 70, and a 40% chance of brimstone. I’m not sure how to dress for the fire and brimstone of a wrathful god, but I guess a light jacket couldn’t hurt.

Game on!

# 40 Wilstar said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm

According to the NFL, right or wrong, the problem with having 500 people over to watch a public showing of the Super Bowl instead of each one watching the same thing in their own homes is that when you watch it in public, you’re not counted in the Nielson TV ratings. The ratings determine how much they can charge for commercials. So the more TVs tuned to the game, the better, not necessarily the more people.

# 41 John C Dvorak said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm

#35 I agree with this. This is just a set up to gouge the public more than they do already. By setting up this enforcement early and setting a precedent they can stave off these churches from putting the PPV up on the big screen when it comes to that. This is all about precedent so nobody can complain later. This also makes sense with the 55-inch limitation. With PPV they will not want a huge group even gathering at your house to watch since it will hurt PPV revenues.

#40 — this is a statistical analysis by Nielsen.. not absolute and it seems unlikely that out of any 500 churchgoers even one person would be a Nielsen person and that person would probably keeps a Nielsen diary that accounts for such viewing. I can assure you that this is not the reason.

# 42 Lewy said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm

The more interesting question to me is, “What does the NFL expect to GAIN by their action?”

Force everyone to watch the game at the stadium? Nope, can’t get in. It’s sold out.

Force everyone to pay them a royalty? Maybe, but I didn’t see any demand for payment made to presenters.

Keep non-beer drinkers from watching together? Could be, but what about the Catholics, who are not known as teetotalers?

In the old spirit of “follow the money”, where EXACTLY is the money that drives this issue?

# 43 John C Dvorak said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm

#42 see #35 — it’s just thinking ahead…

# 44 Thomas said, on February 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Arguing that you can’t get a ticket is specious. You can *always* get a ticket…if you have enough money. Personally, I couldn’t justify even list price of a Super Bowl ticket and frankly, having been to a few stadiums that have hosted Super Bowls, I’d be damn upset if I blew four to five (or more) figures on one of those crappy seats with swill beer where I can’t TIVO replays at my hearts content.

I would bet that while the Nielsen argument is at the root of this policy, enforcement is geared towards PPV. To me, it seems ridiculous that you can force copyright restrictions on something that you are giving away for free. I’m having a Life-of-Brian flashback.

“Four for this gourd? Four!!!! Look at it, that’s worth ten if it’s worth a shekel.”
“But you just gave it to me for nothing.”
“Yes, but it’s worth ten.”

# 45 Joel Price said, on February 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 am

My first reaction is if a church is a sacred place to worship God why are they watching football in Church. Now to my point, the reason the NFL doesn’t want Church or Movie theater showings is because the NFL’s biggest sponsors don’t want it. You can’t drink beer in these venues! The NFL does what its sponsors want. Trust me on this one.

# 46 pedro said, on February 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 am

#45 asked: “…if a church is a sacred place to worship God why are they watching football in Church.”

To look how to get their comunity closer? To see if they can win back those that say church is boring?

# 47 GregA said, on February 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 am

Actually this story has been updated. I was exactly right. Everyone who disagreed with me was nearly totally wrong.

Further more, I was correct about the nefarious goals of the churches. It seems the churches use this as an important ‘fund raising’ effort, and the half time show is a proselytizing effort.

This whole news cycle was about the war mongering christian fundamentals efforts to influence and takeover the NFL. It is eerily similar to the way these same groups have taken over high school football, and made them church proselytizing efforts.

If you guys want to continue to be free, it is time to take the kid gloves off when dealing with these talibanesque groups.

# 48 Mr. Fusion said, on February 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm

#47, Greg, thank you for the update.

I don’t think the NFL would be able to sue any church for showing the game. If the broadcast is “over the air” then it is free. It may not be copied or rebroadcast but you can’t stop anyone from catching your signal. That is the price of using the public’s airwaves to show your broadcast.

Cable broadcasts are different though. They can, and do, put limitations on viewers. That would include Applebee’s which use ESPN.

As others have alluded, this is just a bully boy tactic.

# 49 stephen said, on February 4th, 2007 at 7:23 am

I would agree that a big part of the NFL’s problem with many people watching the game in one place is that the ratings would go down because less people would be at home even though the same number people are really watching the game in groups.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!