That depends. Is your home open to the general public?
I have no idea where the outrage is coming from. It’s not like the NFL attaches any DRM technology to their broadcast. Why the hate for copyrighted material being protected by copyright laws?
If you owned a theater and decided to buy the DVDs for a tv show – let’s say 24 – and then had a weekly screening of a couple episodes where you charged $5 a head, that would be the same copyright violation as in the OP. Is it only the NFL who are the bad guys, or are you just against copyrights in principle?
It seems odd to me that the NFL gets singled out for this. Once you get x number of viewers, copyrights no longer apply?
But let’s be clear here. If me and a friend watch the Super Bowl at my house on my 60" TV, no problem. If I take my projector down to our local church, and the two of us watch the Super Bowl on my 60" TV, we are in violation of copyright law.
Makes no sense to me.
If it were limits on commercial presentations, I would understand that. But it is more than that.
The law appears antiquated, and assumes anything over 55" isn’t “normal” in private homes. Even funnier, is the limit of no more than four loudspeakers, which would rule out every 5.1 surround sound system.
Can you explain the rationale of the law without relying on the commercial presentation aspect?
No. Point taken. Though the thread was pitting the NFL, it is clear to me that they have the law on their side. The problem here is the special interest carve-outs in our copyright laws.
While I understand the NFL’s concern over the Soldier Field plan (which included a commercial element), I think the NFL goes overboard in worrying about Super Bowl parties at a church, and that could be worthy of a good pitting in and of itself.
And I sincerely doubt anyone would enforce this law in a non-commercial presentation. Apparently, Second Baptist Church in Indianapolis is planning to test just that. Good for them.
Oh, the law is definitely on the NFL’s side, and I don’t have any problem with copyright laws. In the case of the Soldier Field live broadcast, though, is that it was something that would be really special for fans who haven’t had a Superbowl in 20 years, and the money was going to go to charity…turning down the request makes them seem kind of petty, especially when it really wouldn’t hurt them monetarily, and would give them an opportunity to show that they care about the fans.
With the reputation they have for not caring about fans, it would probably help their image a lot if the loosened their grip a little bit just for this one occasion each year…allow the local stadiums to have the mass viewing, with the proceeds going to charity.
What needs to happen is for the people offended by the NFL’s tactics to petition Congress to change those stupid statutes the NFL relies on. That’ll get the league pooh-bahs attention.