Then maybe he misunderstood you. Someone misunderstood someone. If he said something about an “unauthorized copy” when there was no copy of any kind, he just misread your post. Looking back, I don’t see anything about recording the thing in your post. Just ask him for clarification. He’ll clear up what he meant.
Can we get a link to the assertion that the NFL could go after parties in private homes? I’m not aware that they have ever claimed the legal right to do so.
From a practical standpoint, one difference between private home parties and public church parties is that Nielsen ratings are capable of recognizing viewership from the former. Their “people meters” allow guests to log in, although I have no idea what percentage of Super Bowl party guests do so.
Another difference, again from a practical (not legal) standpoint, is that home Super Bowl parties typically involve maybe 5 to 50 people, whereas a modern megachurch might show the game to thousands.
I don’t have the cite re restricting home viewing, and I’m not going to go to the mat claiming it’s true. I originally said I heard this wacky thing, then some others seemed to confirm that it’s true. Maybe the reason none of this is making sense is that it’s not true.
I’ll still say, however, that I don’t understand why an event that makes money by getting millions of eyes to watch the commercials would complain that 500 people are in a church watchign those commercials. It would make sense if we were talking about pay-per-view, where access to the program is the money maker.
One possible line of reasoning is that the church makes money on it, particularly if it takes up a collection (or even leaves a collection box in the vestibule) or sells ancillary services like concessions or books.
Pretty good explanation here..
The applicable law is here.
It’s confusing. I’ve been trying to read it for several minutes now, and I’m still not quite sure which subclause is controlling by sub-sub-paragraph II, and whether the sub-listing is of things that make something a copyright violation, or things that make something not be a copyright violation, and so on.
It does look like an establishment smaller than 2000 sq. ft. is safe, regardless of other provisions, so depending on how big your house is, you may be able to ignore the rest of it.
That was pretty funny about the 55-inch rule being in violation of international treaty. 
<sigh> SO much misinformation perpetuated in so small a space.
I’ll get back to this tonight. However, until then, let me repeat something from my prior post:
-
Trademark protection involves commercial use of the words Super Bowl. Using those words to make money is a violation of the NFL’s trademark. To the extent that the churches were advertising the ability to watch the “Super Bowl” to obtain any money (even the money needed to cover the cost of the food they were serving), they were arguably misusing the NFL’s trademark.
-
Copyright protection involves, in this case, the showing of the broadcast in a fashion not allowed by the license provided by the copyright holder. The holder of the copyright is the NFL. The extent to which they can prohibit showings is at least partially explained in this article on Slate.com.
You can find the text of US copyright law at this site. You will note that deciphering such stuff is not easy.
When I get home tonight, I’ll start trying to apply all this to the various scenarios which have been offered. But please note that just because a game is broadcast over the airwaves, you are not inherently entitled to show it on your receiver without violation of copyright law. You have to meet one of the exemptions, because your showing is a “copy” of the original performance being transmitted.
Annie, as far the networks are legally concerned, the sole purpose of their broadcasting is for you and your family to watch it as it’s being broadcast. They consider it to be the equivalent of a concert or a streaming video - just because you can watch it as it happens, doesn’t give you the legal right to copy it. In theory, that would diminish the future value of the broadcast - why would you buy a DVD box set of Friends if you taped all the episodes?
In point of legal fact, the Supreme Court has recognized that viewers have a legal right to tape shows. But the legal principle that was invoked was that they were creating an alternative broadcasting time not being given a right to record (although the two acts are identical).
As for the number of people who can watch a show, there’s legal restrictions there as well. The idea again is that if you invite a hundred people over to watch the “big game” on your 1000 inch jumbotron, you’re denying the poor broadcasters the revenue they would have received from seventy or eighty of those viewers deciding they were going to get their own cable service if they had been forced to watch the game on your 12 inch portable. You may not be aware of this, but places that actually do have large audiences like this (like sports bars) have to pay a higher cable rate because they are giving public viewings. (So in addition to screwing your cable company you’re also taking customers away from your local Hooters.)
As always, IANAL.