4 ms·

The NFL consistently demonstrates such a high level of greed it's astounding. I get it that you don't get rich writing checks, but what happened to doing right

The NFL consistently demonstrates such a high level of greed it's astounding. I get it that you don't get rich writing checks, but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. Maybe I'm just wishy washy.

jedberg 11y ago
> but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. That's not really up to the NFL, it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free. The NFL is basically being extorted here. Sure they have the money, but why should they pay? The value of the tapes is zero, because the only possible buyer isn't interested.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free No... that would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. 'The value of the tapes is zero'; what a weird statement to make. Are the value of illegal drugs zero because 'the only possible buyers' (i.e., no one) can't show interest? There is inherent value in a recording of the first event of a series of events that attracts hundreds of millions of viewers.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. If he uploaded a copy to youtube as part of a historical article or other non-commercial use, then the fair use analysis would likely go his way. Particularly for something of such cultural and historical relevance. That said, trying to get money for it is certainly going to count against that analysis.
    - TillE 11y ago
      That's really not how copyright works at all. If the NFL owns the copyright, then distributing it in any way is a blatant violation. There are no relevant fair use exemptions.
      - wyldfire 11y ago
        No, you're mistaken. Fair Use is for precisely this kind of purpose and protects those who share copyrighted content for educational purposes. Refer to USC, Title 17, chap 1, § 107 [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Note that "educational purposes" are described, but not "cultural/historical relevance". Up for debate as to whether those intersect here.
oldmanjay 11y ago
In cases like this it's not clear to me which side has the most compelling greed, so I'm always interested in hearing some reasoning about what makes your preferred side in the conflict the right one.
- carlisle_ 11y ago
  They've offered a sum and refused to negotiate. I think I'd be indifferent otherwise if the NFL had shown they were willing to negotiate and not dictate the value of something that would have immense value if there were an open market.
randyrand 11y ago
I agree. Nonprofit status is such a scam. The same way with other non-profits like the college I attended.| Charge different tuition rates based on income. Pretend to 'subzidize' those who make less, in reality just charging you based on your income so they can maximize their endowment (corporate profit). $6.5B endowment and still pestered the shit out of me for $20.15 upon graduating with debt. I paid it too, cuz otherwise I wasn't allowed to attend one of bigger graduation ceremonies.

jedberg 11y ago

> but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. That's not really up to the NFL, it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free. The NFL is basically being extorted here. Sure they have the money, but why should they pay? The value of the tapes is zero, because the only possible buyer isn't interested.

mmanfrin 11y ago
it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free No... that would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. 'The value of the tapes is zero'; what a weird statement to make. Are the value of illegal drugs zero because 'the only possible buyers' (i.e., no one) can't show interest? There is inherent value in a recording of the first event of a series of events that attracts hundreds of millions of viewers.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. If he uploaded a copy to youtube as part of a historical article or other non-commercial use, then the fair use analysis would likely go his way. Particularly for something of such cultural and historical relevance. That said, trying to get money for it is certainly going to count against that analysis.
  - TillE 11y ago
    That's really not how copyright works at all. If the NFL owns the copyright, then distributing it in any way is a blatant violation. There are no relevant fair use exemptions.
    - wyldfire 11y ago
      No, you're mistaken. Fair Use is for precisely this kind of purpose and protects those who share copyrighted content for educational purposes. Refer to USC, Title 17, chap 1, § 107 [1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Note that "educational purposes" are described, but not "cultural/historical relevance". Up for debate as to whether those intersect here.

oldmanjay 11y ago

In cases like this it's not clear to me which side has the most compelling greed, so I'm always interested in hearing some reasoning about what makes your preferred side in the conflict the right one.

carlisle_ 11y ago
They've offered a sum and refused to negotiate. I think I'd be indifferent otherwise if the NFL had shown they were willing to negotiate and not dictate the value of something that would have immense value if there were an open market.

randyrand 11y ago

I agree. Nonprofit status is such a scam. The same way with other non-profits like the college I attended.| Charge different tuition rates based on income. Pretend to 'subzidize' those who make less, in reality just charging you based on your income so they can maximize their endowment (corporate profit). $6.5B endowment and still pestered the shit out of me for $20.15 upon graduating with debt. I paid it too, cuz otherwise I wasn't allowed to attend one of bigger graduation ceremonies.