10 ms·

The NFL wants you to think these things are illegal

251 points by suprgeek 12y ago

pluma 12y ago
Amazing that is legal for the NFL to say that these things are illegal.
- _nullandnull_ 12y ago
  What is more amazing is the NFL is a non-profit organization and is exempt from paying taxes.
  - mason55 12y ago
    That's a bit misleading. Each of the teams are a for-profit enterprise and pay taxes on the huge amount of money they bring in.
    - _nullandnull_ 12y ago
      No, it's not misleading. "The National Football League takes in more than $9.5 billion per year and is exempt from Federal taxes." source http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/01/30/the-real-super-bowl-question-should-the-nfl-be-a-nonprofit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/01/30/the-real-su... Update: Keep down-voting all you want. The Forbes article is weak in classifying all of the NFL as one entity. The below link gives a good overview of the structure of the NFL and it's tax exceptions. I'm glad I read it. That said the NFL still shouldn't be a non-profit organization. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exempt/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
      - eropple 12y ago
        The NFL is an industry association; it exists to further the health and welfare of its industry (American football). Furthermore, the NFL doesn't take in revenue at all; it runs at an operating loss. Instead, NFL Ventures (which is a for-profit corporation) collects all monies related to the league and passes that money along--less a (taxed) retained cushion--to the teams and the teams' ownership, which are likewise taxed as per normal for-profit entities. So, yes, your claim is misleading and your defense of it worse.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Who owns and licenses the IP and broadcasts?
        eropple 12y ago
        I don't know the core of it, but I also don't think it matters a lot given that all NFL entities are pass-throughs.
        sandworm 12y ago
        Almost. They exist to promote their part of the industry. They don't exist to support football generally and take many steps to put down possibly competitive leagues, such as using tricks to forbid players from moving to other leagues, even after their NFL careers are over. (Most commonly via delayed salary benefits that end should the player start with a non-approved league or if they speak out against the NFL.)
    - discardorama 12y ago
      I did some web searching and found this recent article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/us/nfl-nonprofit-taxes/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/us/nfl-nonprofit-taxes/ So there is a little bit of shadiness going.
  - jccooper 12y ago
    The Leauge Office is; the teams aren't. The teams make all the money, so it doesn't matter too much. But it still doesn't make much sense for even the League Office to be tax-exempt. It doesn't meet any of the general criteria of operation for the public good. It would be hard for the government to address, since that status has a lot of history and the league has a lot of money and goodwill behind it. And there's some complication with player pensions or something. The best scenario would be for the NFL to give it up voluntarily; it wouldn't be a high price to pay to remove a common criticism.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      The "public good" criterion is for charitable organizations. The NFL League Office is a trade association that is tax exempt under a different set of criteria. (Of course you may disagree with trade association exemption criteria but they're pretty common--including within the software industry--as well as things like chambers of commerce. Or you may object to the specific exemption for sports leagues that's in the law.) http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exempt/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
- diminoten 12y ago
  Freedom of speech can be a strange thing.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    I'd think that lying about the law or people's rights ought to be slightly worse than slander/libel.
  - baddox 12y ago
    It doesn't seem so strange to me, although it does seem rare at times.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I feel like lying about legal obligations falls into the "yelling fire in a theater" exception. Especially because it's a commercial broadcast. I'd go so far as to say that it's no different than other contexts in which lying is illegal (insurance fraud, etc).
    - larrys 12y ago
      You are the expert and not me but isn't this really like a scorched earth technique? Essentially regardless of whether or how much of a leg that they have to stand on they come at this full force with all of their resources in order to make an example and to make potential adversaries quiver in their presence by their legal might. Even if they would lose and even if they know they are wrong. [1] And even if it costs them money to do so. It scares lesser adversaries and even greater adversaries are not going to advise clients "it's ok" because what do they stand to gain by doing so? Your thoughts? [1]Separately I remember as a kid seeing a sign at the horseback riding place that said "ride at our own risk". My dad said "oh they just do that to that you won't call a lawyer and start trouble I mean if they leave a trashcan in the way of the horse and you get hurt of course that means nothing....(was a long time ago but that was the gist). Seems similar to that in a much larger way.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        I'm just talking about the general philosophical point of making it illegal to lie about peoples' legal rights (e.g. how it's illegal in many states to include unenforceable provisions in rental agreements). I don't think such a law would be an infringement on free speech.
- wyager 12y ago
  They never said it was illegal. They just implied it. "Prohibited" doesn't necessarily mean "illegal".
  - thanksgiving 12y ago
    I guess I can say that by reading this statement you are hereby prohibited from ever suing me for any reason in any court of law. That doesn't mean you can't still sue me though...
sologoub 12y ago
We need more posts like this and some education to the public. Until people are educated about their rights, crap like the NFL disclaimer will pass for facts.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  the public? Hell how about educating google/youtube who do take downs against videos that don't even infringe. I can imagine the fun they will have Monday with people uploading content
  - geofft 12y ago
    Google is legally obligated to do so by the DMCA's safe-harbor provision (otherwise they lose their safe-harbor status). The problem is with the people who request the takedowns. In particular, the DMCA (17 USC 512) requires that, in the takedown notice, the sender must state that they have a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law", and anyone who "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section that material or activity is infringing" is liable for damages, both to the person who posted the not-actually-infringing content, and to the service provider in their act of taking down and reinstating the content. This should be a safeguard, and a sufficiently enthusiastic legal team ought to be able to make the argument that there is a lot of knowing material misrepresentation going on. (It's hard for robots to have good-faith beliefs!) But I think very few people have been trying this argument in court. The EFF has been involved in a few, relatively tiny cases, which seem to have been successful, but nobody's been fighting this at scale. https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp. 17 USC 512 is pretty readable: I'd recommend reading through it so you understand what the law is and how best to use it to our ends. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
    - foobarqux 12y ago
      Google does it because otherwise it would harm their business relationship with the NFL, not because of the DMCA.
ctyrider 12y ago
Who cares about Super Bowl anyway. Stopped watching this pointless commercialized spectacle years ago.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  It's OK to think that. saying it makes you a snob. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8972179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8972179
- psychometry 12y ago
  Lots of people care about the Super Bowl. It'll be the most watched TV program of the year. Does that answer your question, or was it intended to be rhetorical?
- evincarofautumn 12y ago
  Yep. I enjoy watching football well enough, but the rampant consumerism around the Super Bowl leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ll go to a game day party mainly to hang out with my friends and eat snacks.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I don't care about it in the least but I still thought the article was interesting. It's OK if you don't like sports, but don't think it somehow makes you superior.
- jpindar 12y ago
  I'm sure there are many things mentioned on HN that you do not watch or otherwise participate in. This is the only one you have chosen to comment on, so it would appear that you care about it.
- EpicEng 12y ago
  Millions upon millions of people. Tens of millions actually. Highest ever was ~111 million people. So, sorry, but you don't represent the majority here, and we don't care what your opinions on football are.
gnoway 12y ago
This article links to an older Ars article, which links to Wendy Seltzer's blog, which appears to be offline. Here's the referenced blog post: https://web.archive.org/web/20140331144544/http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/03/18/nfl_clip_down_again.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140331144544/http://wendy.selt.... And here's an archive of the entire series of events: https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110042/http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/dmca-nfl https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110042/http://wendy.selt...
- dhekir 12y ago
  I tried clicking on the Youtube link inside the Internet Archive to see the clip, but all I get is a message "Sorry for the interruption. We have been receiving a large volume of requests from your network. To continue with your YouTube experience, please enter the verification code below." and an archived sequence of re-captchas that take me nowhere. Is there a way to actually see the clip?
  - personlurking 12y ago
    I copied the link location then removed the unneeded part https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uC2H10uIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uC2H10uIo
Orangeair 12y ago
How is it that they can stop you from displaying it on TV's larger than a certain size, then? I've always been confused about that.
- jedberg 12y ago
  Technically anything over 55 inches is considered a public performance. It's leftover from an old law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110
- zerocrates 12y ago
  The NFL holds copyright in its broadcasts of the games, and copyright law gives the copyright owner the exclusive right of public performance and public display. However, the Copyright Act provides an exemption allowing for "performances" of radio or broadcast/cable/satellite TV without violating copyright. There are some fairly obvious restrictions to the exemption (for example, you can't directly charge people to see the broadcast), but also some surprisingly specific ones, and there's where you start getting into TV screen sizes: > if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than one audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space (Note: the above are rules for bars/restaurants. There are different rules for other establishments, and much more permissive ones designed to cover private homes and parties)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
The first point is wrong. Retailers don't avoid saying "Super Bowl" because they think it's illegal to say the phrase, but because an advertisement is an offer to sell goods, and mentioning someone else's trademark in that context always creates some possibility of confusing people into thinking that the trademark-holder is the source of, or is authorizing or endorsing, the products being advertised. Creating that confusion about the origin of the product is a trademark violation.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  Which would make it against the law and therefore illegal. However, I think it's more accurate to say retailers don't mention the word Super Bowl because they are likely to be sued, irrespective of whether there is a credible claim, trademark or otherwise. I think in the vast majority of cases there is no such legitimate claim. The same situation occurs with the Olympics. The IOC sues entities not because they are worried that someone is going to get confused about their brand but so they can charge those entities for using it in their promotions.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    >Which would make it against the law and therefore illegal. // Worth remembering it's tort not crime. [Not that you're saying it's criminal, just that sometimes illegal is taken to mean criminal whilst torts and such are described instead as unlawful.]
    - SapphireSun 12y ago
      I believe the difference between illegal and unlawful was the difference between black and white listing. As in, illegal means a specific act is banned and unlawful means doing something outside of what was prescribed for that situation. I don't think there's a large moral component to the respective use of each word, it's more of a mathematical concept. That said, odds are "DON'T DO THAT" is usually going to have a stronger moral force behind it than "YOU CAN ONLY DO IT THIS WAY" since people can come up with creative situations that weren't thought of at the time the law was written, and of course it varies based on the situation (people will probably be more pissy if you handle nuclear material in an unlawful way than if you jaywalk for instance).
jgalt212 12y ago
The worst practitioner of these practices in my opinion is Cusip Global Services. They say you can't label column in your database "Cusip" without signing a license agreement with them. Furthermore, such license agreements make you force similar licenses upon all your business partners.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Citation/link/further information?
  - jgalt212 12y ago
    general info: https://www.cusip.com/cusip/cgs-license-fees.htm#cgs-licensing-policies-faqs https://www.cusip.com/cusip/cgs-license-fees.htm#cgs-licensi... as to forcing other business partners to assert that they also are Cusip license holders, I have seen and been asked to sign agreements with such clauses attached.
- ams6110 12y ago
  LOL never heard that. Many databases and reports I developed for an investment banking firm in the 1990s were infringing I guess....
erehweb 12y ago
Re "Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." - maybe someone should write to the NFL to ask their permission to talk about the game with their friends? Or send in a picture their kid drew and ask if they can put it on their fridge? What would they say?
- dionidium 12y ago
  Wait a minute. Aren't they really saying that you cannot use their accounts and descriptions of the game, which are protected by copyright, for unauthorized purposes? Everybody assumes they're telling you not to describe the event, but that's ludicrous. You simply can't repurpose their televised descriptions of the event.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  You didn't copy the part where they say you have the rights to private use as in conversations with anyone you choose.
jrochkind1 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
phkahler 12y ago
Most americans don't even have the ability to record the show. I do, and might if I feel like it, but to be honest it's not worth the disk space. It's a live event so it's just not exciting after the fact.
rickdale 12y ago
This was informative! I always wondered about those statements at the beginning of the games, but never thought about them longer than the intro. I wonder though, even with everything in the article, why Stephen Colbert danced around the Super Bowl by mocking it with his Superb Owl coverage. Seems like the kinda guy/show that would have just used super bowl and exposed what this article is saying. Anyways, I find the super bowl obnoxious, but otherwise love football and most sports. http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/gzw6pe/superb-owl-xlviii---nfl-extra-point-debate http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/gzw6pe/superb-owl-xlvi...
sandworm 12y ago
Be careful when taking legal advice from websites. Ethical rules would probably bar an attorney from writing such an article. (Advice to potentially out of jurisdiction and/or unknown clients, online advice is a tricky thing for bar associations.) I'm not saying that anything is incorrect, just that this sort of advice has consequences. I would add to the article that while copyright may not limit such speech, contract law is a totally different matter. Check the fine print of you cable contract and/or your NFL package subscription. Even your superbowl tickets (tickets are contracts) will probably have limitations on how you can use NFL content and marks. Everyday citizens may perhaps use the term "super bowl", but someone in a contract with the NFL is not an everyday citizen. The NFL can always come after them for breech of contract, triggering liquidated damages clauses. This is why many broadcasters avoid using NFL marks even where they have the right to. They have signed contracts in exchange for, perhaps, highlight reals, interview opportunities or other such content from the NFL. This then binds them to whatever speech-limiting terms the NFL may include.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Be careful when taking legal advice from websites. Ethical rules would probably bar an attorney from writing such an article. Ethical rules bar giving specific legal advice online, not generally describing the law. Tons and tons of attorneys post general advice about what you should and shouldn't do. To pick a random one that's the first hit on Google: http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmdodont.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmdodont.html.
  - sandworm 12y ago
    General descriptions are fine, but saying that a particular person (ie "you" or "the public") is allowed to do something in relation to another (the NFL) boarders on specific advice. There is a difference between explaining the concept of "fair use" and saying that a particular use is fair. On second thought I do think the article made a mistake. Sure, you can VHS the superbowl, but good luck doing that on a modern TV/cable setup. Recording an HD copy will likely involve bypassing encryption or other content protections. Saying that anyone can "tape" the event is an overstatement. Some "taping" is cool, other "taping" may violate any number of rules.
smurph 12y ago
They don't say anything is illegal, they say it is 'prohibited'. They don't say who it is prohibited by, and since it's clearly not the federal government you have to assume it's just prohibited by the NFL itself. Of course nobody has to listen to a goddamn thing the NFL says, so why include the message? It's likely a CYA thing on their part, since it gives them the power to essentially disown any event or analysis that is related to their broadcast. Also worth noting is how the NFL is obsessed with law enforcement culture. Lots of the league employees are former police and FBI, so there is a good chance they actually think they have some kind of authority over what a person does or says in relation to the NFL.
Spoom 12y ago
Businesses don't say "big game" because saying Super Bowl is illegal. They say it because even if they're legally in the right, the NFL could easily bankrupt them in court, and it's not worth the risk.
qeorge 12y ago
Or its because the advertisers want to get more than one use out of the ad? The Super Bowl is not the only "big game". In fact its not usually even a particularly great game, and its never a rivalry. So saying "Big Game" instead of "Super Bowl" means they can use the ad again, and maybe even for another sport! Or its a conspiracy theory. That works too.
- macbony 12y ago
  The Super Bowl is the only "Big Game" they refer to in the ads. Sure there are other "big games", but these are Super Bowl ads pure and simple.
  - qeorge 12y ago
    You're saying there is no other event that Dorito's could possibly use an ad about "The Big Game" for? That's incorrect, and that's my point. Why make an ad you can only use once, when you could easily tweak it and be able to reuse it? Like you said, its not like anyone won't know you mean the Super Bowl, when you're talking about the big game on Super Bowl weekend.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Can you show me any ad, from any time, for any product, that refers to "the big game" meaning the superbowl and then, after tweaks, refers to some other big game?
      - qeorge 12y ago
        That's my point - no tweaks are even needed. Why can't I show this same ad, exactly like it is, before e.g., the UNC vs NCSU game? I could! Unless I did something ill-advised, like saying "Super Bowl", which in fact does only refer to one game.
        cwyers 12y ago
        But nobody does, is the point.

251 points by suprgeek 12y ago

pluma 12y ago

Amazing that is legal for the NFL to say that these things are illegal.

_nullandnull_ 12y ago
What is more amazing is the NFL is a non-profit organization and is exempt from paying taxes.
- mason55 12y ago
  That's a bit misleading. Each of the teams are a for-profit enterprise and pay taxes on the huge amount of money they bring in.
  - _nullandnull_ 12y ago
    No, it's not misleading. "The National Football League takes in more than $9.5 billion per year and is exempt from Federal taxes." source http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/01/30/the-real-super-bowl-question-should-the-nfl-be-a-nonprofit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/01/30/the-real-su... Update: Keep down-voting all you want. The Forbes article is weak in classifying all of the NFL as one entity. The below link gives a good overview of the structure of the NFL and it's tax exceptions. I'm glad I read it. That said the NFL still shouldn't be a non-profit organization. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exempt/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
    - eropple 12y ago
      The NFL is an industry association; it exists to further the health and welfare of its industry (American football). Furthermore, the NFL doesn't take in revenue at all; it runs at an operating loss. Instead, NFL Ventures (which is a for-profit corporation) collects all monies related to the league and passes that money along--less a (taxed) retained cushion--to the teams and the teams' ownership, which are likewise taxed as per normal for-profit entities. So, yes, your claim is misleading and your defense of it worse.
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        Who owns and licenses the IP and broadcasts?
        eropple 12y ago
        I don't know the core of it, but I also don't think it matters a lot given that all NFL entities are pass-throughs.
      - sandworm 12y ago
        Almost. They exist to promote their part of the industry. They don't exist to support football generally and take many steps to put down possibly competitive leagues, such as using tricks to forbid players from moving to other leagues, even after their NFL careers are over. (Most commonly via delayed salary benefits that end should the player start with a non-approved league or if they speak out against the NFL.)
  - discardorama 12y ago
    I did some web searching and found this recent article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/us/nfl-nonprofit-taxes/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/us/nfl-nonprofit-taxes/ So there is a little bit of shadiness going.
- jccooper 12y ago
  The Leauge Office is; the teams aren't. The teams make all the money, so it doesn't matter too much. But it still doesn't make much sense for even the League Office to be tax-exempt. It doesn't meet any of the general criteria of operation for the public good. It would be hard for the government to address, since that status has a lot of history and the league has a lot of money and goodwill behind it. And there's some complication with player pensions or something. The best scenario would be for the NFL to give it up voluntarily; it wouldn't be a high price to pay to remove a common criticism.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    The "public good" criterion is for charitable organizations. The NFL League Office is a trade association that is tax exempt under a different set of criteria. (Of course you may disagree with trade association exemption criteria but they're pretty common--including within the software industry--as well as things like chambers of commerce. Or you may object to the specific exemption for sports leagues that's in the law.) http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exempt/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
diminoten 12y ago
Freedom of speech can be a strange thing.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  I'd think that lying about the law or people's rights ought to be slightly worse than slander/libel.
- baddox 12y ago
  It doesn't seem so strange to me, although it does seem rare at times.
- rayiner 12y ago
  I feel like lying about legal obligations falls into the "yelling fire in a theater" exception. Especially because it's a commercial broadcast. I'd go so far as to say that it's no different than other contexts in which lying is illegal (insurance fraud, etc).
  - larrys 12y ago
    You are the expert and not me but isn't this really like a scorched earth technique? Essentially regardless of whether or how much of a leg that they have to stand on they come at this full force with all of their resources in order to make an example and to make potential adversaries quiver in their presence by their legal might. Even if they would lose and even if they know they are wrong. [1] And even if it costs them money to do so. It scares lesser adversaries and even greater adversaries are not going to advise clients "it's ok" because what do they stand to gain by doing so? Your thoughts? [1]Separately I remember as a kid seeing a sign at the horseback riding place that said "ride at our own risk". My dad said "oh they just do that to that you won't call a lawyer and start trouble I mean if they leave a trashcan in the way of the horse and you get hurt of course that means nothing....(was a long time ago but that was the gist). Seems similar to that in a much larger way.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I'm just talking about the general philosophical point of making it illegal to lie about peoples' legal rights (e.g. how it's illegal in many states to include unenforceable provisions in rental agreements). I don't think such a law would be an infringement on free speech.
wyager 12y ago
They never said it was illegal. They just implied it. "Prohibited" doesn't necessarily mean "illegal".
- thanksgiving 12y ago
  I guess I can say that by reading this statement you are hereby prohibited from ever suing me for any reason in any court of law. That doesn't mean you can't still sue me though...

sologoub 12y ago

We need more posts like this and some education to the public. Until people are educated about their rights, crap like the NFL disclaimer will pass for facts.

Shivetya 12y ago
the public? Hell how about educating google/youtube who do take downs against videos that don't even infringe. I can imagine the fun they will have Monday with people uploading content
- geofft 12y ago
  Google is legally obligated to do so by the DMCA's safe-harbor provision (otherwise they lose their safe-harbor status). The problem is with the people who request the takedowns. In particular, the DMCA (17 USC 512) requires that, in the takedown notice, the sender must state that they have a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law", and anyone who "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section that material or activity is infringing" is liable for damages, both to the person who posted the not-actually-infringing content, and to the service provider in their act of taking down and reinstating the content. This should be a safeguard, and a sufficiently enthusiastic legal team ought to be able to make the argument that there is a lot of knowing material misrepresentation going on. (It's hard for robots to have good-faith beliefs!) But I think very few people have been trying this argument in court. The EFF has been involved in a few, relatively tiny cases, which seem to have been successful, but nobody's been fighting this at scale. https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp. 17 USC 512 is pretty readable: I'd recommend reading through it so you understand what the law is and how best to use it to our ends. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    Google does it because otherwise it would harm their business relationship with the NFL, not because of the DMCA.

ctyrider 12y ago

Who cares about Super Bowl anyway. Stopped watching this pointless commercialized spectacle years ago.

bryanlarsen 12y ago
It's OK to think that. saying it makes you a snob. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8972179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8972179
psychometry 12y ago
Lots of people care about the Super Bowl. It'll be the most watched TV program of the year. Does that answer your question, or was it intended to be rhetorical?
evincarofautumn 12y ago
Yep. I enjoy watching football well enough, but the rampant consumerism around the Super Bowl leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ll go to a game day party mainly to hang out with my friends and eat snacks.
mikeash 12y ago
I don't care about it in the least but I still thought the article was interesting. It's OK if you don't like sports, but don't think it somehow makes you superior.
jpindar 12y ago
I'm sure there are many things mentioned on HN that you do not watch or otherwise participate in. This is the only one you have chosen to comment on, so it would appear that you care about it.
EpicEng 12y ago
Millions upon millions of people. Tens of millions actually. Highest ever was ~111 million people. So, sorry, but you don't represent the majority here, and we don't care what your opinions on football are.

gnoway 12y ago

This article links to an older Ars article, which links to Wendy Seltzer's blog, which appears to be offline. Here's the referenced blog post: https://web.archive.org/web/20140331144544/http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2007/03/18/nfl_clip_down_again.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140331144544/http://wendy.selt.... And here's an archive of the entire series of events: https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110042/http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/dmca-nfl https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110042/http://wendy.selt...

dhekir 12y ago
I tried clicking on the Youtube link inside the Internet Archive to see the clip, but all I get is a message "Sorry for the interruption. We have been receiving a large volume of requests from your network. To continue with your YouTube experience, please enter the verification code below." and an archived sequence of re-captchas that take me nowhere. Is there a way to actually see the clip?
- personlurking 12y ago
  I copied the link location then removed the unneeded part https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uC2H10uIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uC2H10uIo

Orangeair 12y ago

How is it that they can stop you from displaying it on TV's larger than a certain size, then? I've always been confused about that.

jedberg 12y ago
Technically anything over 55 inches is considered a public performance. It's leftover from an old law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110
zerocrates 12y ago
The NFL holds copyright in its broadcasts of the games, and copyright law gives the copyright owner the exclusive right of public performance and public display. However, the Copyright Act provides an exemption allowing for "performances" of radio or broadcast/cable/satellite TV without violating copyright. There are some fairly obvious restrictions to the exemption (for example, you can't directly charge people to see the broadcast), but also some surprisingly specific ones, and there's where you start getting into TV screen sizes: > if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than one audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space (Note: the above are rules for bars/restaurants. There are different rules for other establishments, and much more permissive ones designed to cover private homes and parties)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

The first point is wrong. Retailers don't avoid saying "Super Bowl" because they think it's illegal to say the phrase, but because an advertisement is an offer to sell goods, and mentioning someone else's trademark in that context always creates some possibility of confusing people into thinking that the trademark-holder is the source of, or is authorizing or endorsing, the products being advertised. Creating that confusion about the origin of the product is a trademark violation.

foobarqux 12y ago
Which would make it against the law and therefore illegal. However, I think it's more accurate to say retailers don't mention the word Super Bowl because they are likely to be sued, irrespective of whether there is a credible claim, trademark or otherwise. I think in the vast majority of cases there is no such legitimate claim. The same situation occurs with the Olympics. The IOC sues entities not because they are worried that someone is going to get confused about their brand but so they can charge those entities for using it in their promotions.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >Which would make it against the law and therefore illegal. // Worth remembering it's tort not crime. [Not that you're saying it's criminal, just that sometimes illegal is taken to mean criminal whilst torts and such are described instead as unlawful.]
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    I believe the difference between illegal and unlawful was the difference between black and white listing. As in, illegal means a specific act is banned and unlawful means doing something outside of what was prescribed for that situation. I don't think there's a large moral component to the respective use of each word, it's more of a mathematical concept. That said, odds are "DON'T DO THAT" is usually going to have a stronger moral force behind it than "YOU CAN ONLY DO IT THIS WAY" since people can come up with creative situations that weren't thought of at the time the law was written, and of course it varies based on the situation (people will probably be more pissy if you handle nuclear material in an unlawful way than if you jaywalk for instance).

jgalt212 12y ago

The worst practitioner of these practices in my opinion is Cusip Global Services. They say you can't label column in your database "Cusip" without signing a license agreement with them. Furthermore, such license agreements make you force similar licenses upon all your business partners.

MichaelGG 12y ago
Citation/link/further information?
- jgalt212 12y ago
  general info: https://www.cusip.com/cusip/cgs-license-fees.htm#cgs-licensing-policies-faqs https://www.cusip.com/cusip/cgs-license-fees.htm#cgs-licensi... as to forcing other business partners to assert that they also are Cusip license holders, I have seen and been asked to sign agreements with such clauses attached.
ams6110 12y ago
LOL never heard that. Many databases and reports I developed for an investment banking firm in the 1990s were infringing I guess....

erehweb 12y ago

Re "Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." - maybe someone should write to the NFL to ask their permission to talk about the game with their friends? Or send in a picture their kid drew and ask if they can put it on their fridge? What would they say?

dionidium 12y ago
Wait a minute. Aren't they really saying that you cannot use their accounts and descriptions of the game, which are protected by copyright, for unauthorized purposes? Everybody assumes they're telling you not to describe the event, but that's ludicrous. You simply can't repurpose their televised descriptions of the event.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
You didn't copy the part where they say you have the rights to private use as in conversations with anyone you choose.

jrochkind1 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

phkahler 12y ago

Most americans don't even have the ability to record the show. I do, and might if I feel like it, but to be honest it's not worth the disk space. It's a live event so it's just not exciting after the fact.

rickdale 12y ago

This was informative! I always wondered about those statements at the beginning of the games, but never thought about them longer than the intro. I wonder though, even with everything in the article, why Stephen Colbert danced around the Super Bowl by mocking it with his Superb Owl coverage. Seems like the kinda guy/show that would have just used super bowl and exposed what this article is saying. Anyways, I find the super bowl obnoxious, but otherwise love football and most sports. http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/gzw6pe/superb-owl-xlviii---nfl-extra-point-debate http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/gzw6pe/superb-owl-xlvi...

sandworm 12y ago

Be careful when taking legal advice from websites. Ethical rules would probably bar an attorney from writing such an article. (Advice to potentially out of jurisdiction and/or unknown clients, online advice is a tricky thing for bar associations.) I'm not saying that anything is incorrect, just that this sort of advice has consequences. I would add to the article that while copyright may not limit such speech, contract law is a totally different matter. Check the fine print of you cable contract and/or your NFL package subscription. Even your superbowl tickets (tickets are contracts) will probably have limitations on how you can use NFL content and marks. Everyday citizens may perhaps use the term "super bowl", but someone in a contract with the NFL is not an everyday citizen. The NFL can always come after them for breech of contract, triggering liquidated damages clauses. This is why many broadcasters avoid using NFL marks even where they have the right to. They have signed contracts in exchange for, perhaps, highlight reals, interview opportunities or other such content from the NFL. This then binds them to whatever speech-limiting terms the NFL may include.

rayiner 12y ago
> Be careful when taking legal advice from websites. Ethical rules would probably bar an attorney from writing such an article. Ethical rules bar giving specific legal advice online, not generally describing the law. Tons and tons of attorneys post general advice about what you should and shouldn't do. To pick a random one that's the first hit on Google: http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmdodont.html http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmdodont.html.
- sandworm 12y ago
  General descriptions are fine, but saying that a particular person (ie "you" or "the public") is allowed to do something in relation to another (the NFL) boarders on specific advice. There is a difference between explaining the concept of "fair use" and saying that a particular use is fair. On second thought I do think the article made a mistake. Sure, you can VHS the superbowl, but good luck doing that on a modern TV/cable setup. Recording an HD copy will likely involve bypassing encryption or other content protections. Saying that anyone can "tape" the event is an overstatement. Some "taping" is cool, other "taping" may violate any number of rules.

smurph 12y ago

They don't say anything is illegal, they say it is 'prohibited'. They don't say who it is prohibited by, and since it's clearly not the federal government you have to assume it's just prohibited by the NFL itself. Of course nobody has to listen to a goddamn thing the NFL says, so why include the message? It's likely a CYA thing on their part, since it gives them the power to essentially disown any event or analysis that is related to their broadcast. Also worth noting is how the NFL is obsessed with law enforcement culture. Lots of the league employees are former police and FBI, so there is a good chance they actually think they have some kind of authority over what a person does or says in relation to the NFL.

Spoom 12y ago

Businesses don't say "big game" because saying Super Bowl is illegal. They say it because even if they're legally in the right, the NFL could easily bankrupt them in court, and it's not worth the risk.

qeorge 12y ago

Or its because the advertisers want to get more than one use out of the ad? The Super Bowl is not the only "big game". In fact its not usually even a particularly great game, and its never a rivalry. So saying "Big Game" instead of "Super Bowl" means they can use the ad again, and maybe even for another sport! Or its a conspiracy theory. That works too.

macbony 12y ago
The Super Bowl is the only "Big Game" they refer to in the ads. Sure there are other "big games", but these are Super Bowl ads pure and simple.
- qeorge 12y ago
  You're saying there is no other event that Dorito's could possibly use an ad about "The Big Game" for? That's incorrect, and that's my point. Why make an ad you can only use once, when you could easily tweak it and be able to reuse it? Like you said, its not like anyone won't know you mean the Super Bowl, when you're talking about the big game on Super Bowl weekend.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Can you show me any ad, from any time, for any product, that refers to "the big game" meaning the superbowl and then, after tweaks, refers to some other big game?
    - qeorge 12y ago
      That's my point - no tweaks are even needed. Why can't I show this same ad, exactly like it is, before e.g., the UNC vs NCSU game? I could! Unless I did something ill-advised, like saying "Super Bowl", which in fact does only refer to one game.
      - cwyers 12y ago
        But nobody does, is the point.