NFL hits new low -- shuts down church party

[jujuhound]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

Makes more sense to me now. The difference is, most of those people will be watching TV at home, or in a place that has normal business with TV's that large. You can watch it at home, at bars, and so on, but you can't watch in a public place that doesn't do it as a part of normal business. Like a Church for example.

Why does it matter where they are watching it? What is the functional difference between 100 people gathering in someone's house to watch a game and the same people gathering in the church? This is copyright law we're talking about here, not criminal law. There isn't going to be some police raid for a church Super Bowl party. The remedy is to sue the church for copyright infringement. Sure, the NFL is entirely within their rights to keep the church from doing this, but they do have discretion whether or not to enforce their rights. As one person mentioned, the NFL does need to protect its intellectual property rights and it has. They initially demanded that the church not charge money and not use the words "Super Bowl" and the church complied. Why use the 55-inch rule to ban an innocent party?

[jujuhound]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

Honestly, if I had any clue on how to go about something like that, I would, just to be an ***.

And they would laugh at you and hang up. It's not a criminal matter.

EDIT: I should have left the church part out of it, because that is really irrelevant. People are too focused on that and why a church should be allowed to violated the law. The point is that the NFL is being ridiculously overzealous in defending their intellectual property rights.

[Chaos81]

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

Why does it matter where they are watching it? What is the functional difference between 100 people gathering in someone's house to watch a game and the same people gathering in the church?

You can't tell the difference between a church and a private residence?

If you want to go that route, what's the "functional" difference between watching the game at the RCA dome, or watching it at home? Same thing applies there. There isn't going to be a showing at the RCA Dome, or even Conseco fieldhouse for that matter.

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

Why use the 55-inch rule to ban an innocent party?

How are they innocent?

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

And they would laugh at you and hang up. It's not a criminal matter.

You don't know the meaning of the word joke do you?

[dkgojackets]

I completely understand the NFL coming down at first when the church planned to charge a fee to come. However, since they are now not doing it for any profit, the rule makes no sense.

[jujuhound]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

You can't tell the difference between a church and a private residence?

That was why I used the phrase "functional difference" meaning that they both serve as a place where the game will be viewed in mass and neither place is presumably charging anything or using the Super Bowl name. I was trying to get you to think a little bit deeper, rather than black and white. Just because the NFL has the right to prevent the party doesn't mean they have to or need to do so. What are they really accomplishing by squashing this party? What would be the harm to the NFL if it went on?

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

If you want to go that route, what's the "functional" difference between watching the game at the RCA dome, or watching it at home? Same thing applies there. There isn't going to be a showing at the RCA Dome, or even Conseco fieldhouse for that matter.?

If they are not charging anything for it (or concessions or other similar things) and not using the Super Bowl name, then nothing. The NBA allows this, I believe. I'm sure it technically violates the NBA's rights under copyright laws. However, they use a little discretion and allow it when it isn't being used for someone's financial gain.

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

How are they innocent?

Because they are just a group of people that want to watch a game together, maybe?

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

You don't know the meaning of the word joke do you?

Let me hit up dictionary.com and I'll be right back

[Chaos81]

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

I was trying to get you to think a little bit deeper, rather than black and white. Just because the NFL has the right to prevent the party doesn't mean they have to or need to do so. What are they really accomplishing by squashing this party? What would be the harm to the NFL if it went on?

You do realize I don't agree with what the NFL did? Wait, obviously not or you wouldn't have posted this. Reread post #16 again.

Let me say it straight out, instead of just throwing it on with someone else's post. I don't agree with what the NFL did and I think it's stupid.

Better now?

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

Because they are just a group of people that want to watch a game together, maybe?

So if a group of people commits cable theft to watch a game, they are innocent? Because after all, "they are just a group of people that want to watch a game together".

[jujuhound]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

You do realize I don't agree with what the NFL did? Wait, obviously not or you wouldn't have posted this. Reread post #16 again. Let me say it straight out, instead of just throwing it on with someone else's post. I don't agree with what the NFL did and I think it's stupid. Better now?

Not really. You're missing the entire point of my posts. Reread them all. I knew that you didn't like what they did, but justified because the church was "breaking the law". I tried to talk about the distinction between breaking a criminal law and copyright law and you ignored it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Chaos81

So if a group of people commits cable theft to watch a game, they are innocent? Because after all, "they are just a group of people that want to watch a game together".

No, because they are breaking the law, not violating the NFL's intellectual property rights. If you can't make that distinction, I don't know what else to say. The church people aren't going to jail for violating the copyright law, they may be liable to the NFL in a civil suit or slapped with an injunction.

[Chaos81]

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

You're missing the entire point of my posts.

I'll just go ahead and ask, what is the point of your posts?

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

but justified because the church was "breaking the law". I tried to talk about the distinction between breaking a criminal law and copyright law and you ignored it.

No, I didn't ignore it, just don't see the point you are trying to make with it, with regards to what I said. Regardless of what kind of law it is, they are still breaking one. We can agree on that correct? That's all I'm saying, they were going to break a law, the NFL found about it before hand, and asked them to stop. They did and I'm not seeing where the issue is.

Quote: Originally Posted by jujuhound

No, because they are breaking the law, not violating the NFL's intellectual property rights. If you can't make that distinction, I don't know what else to say. The church people aren't going to jail for violating the copyright law, they may be liable to the NFL in a civil suit or slapped with an injunction.

My point had nothing to do with them going to jail. It has to do with them breaking a law.

Let me say it again for you. They are breaking a law. Forget for a second what kind of law it is. In both the real life case, and the example I used, a law is being broken. You justified it by saying, "they are just a group of people that want to watch a game together". Same thing applies in my cable example, regardless of what kind of law it is.

I'm heading to a friends house, if you want, PM me and continue this, I'll be home in about 8 hours.