Super Bowl at Church? Not so fast, bucko...
I made reference yesterday to our church's plans to broadcast the Super Bowl as a part of a fellowship that will substitute for the regular Sunday evening worship service.
Not everyone agrees that this is a good idea, and apparently the NFL is one of them. The league is warning churches not to violate its rules concerning broadcasts of the game to which it owns the copyright.
From the above-linked article:
Many churches are canceling their "Super Bowl Fellowship" plans, but not every congregation is rolling over:
[Sidenote: There's something amusing about hearing the pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in America use the term "wack."]
For its part, the NFL isn't sending goon squads to comb the neighborhoods in search of offenders. NFL spokesman McCarthy said the NFL won't be patrolling churches for violations. But from a strict legal perspective, that could prove problematic for the NFL down the road in terms of copyright protection. Letting things like this slide is not a good precedent for claiming later on that the value of your copyright has been damaged.
I'm not inclined to take sides on this argument, but I will make a couple of observations. It would seem to me that churches should be beyond reproach in all areas of their actions, and if the owner of a copyright (or any other asset) protests about the use of that asset by a third party, it seems inappropriate to push back.
And with respect to our own church's plans, I fully understand why the NFL -- and its sponsors -- might be less than happy with the thought that the game will be broadcast minus commercials, very expensive commercials that the NFL's clients paid for with the express understanding that those commercials would be broadcast as a part of the game. There's nothing that says the viewers have to watch those commercials, but editing them out of a live broadcast so that they can't be seen is pushing the envelope.
Issues like this are probably why we're implored to be in the world without being of the world.
Not just 'wack', but totally wack. That jumped right out at me, too.
I'm with you on the point of a church needing to be beyond reproach - giving unto Caesar and all. That said, the cynical side of me wonders why it is that it's okay for sport bars to broadcast the game, but not a church. If a congregation elected to show the game with the commercials in and the religious extras out - just for fellowship - would that be okay? Or is it only okay to show the game in a bar, where the major advertisers get the benefit of impulse purchases?
"Hmm. That commercial with the frogs was pretty hilarious. I think I'll have me a Bud Light."
Posted by: Foo at February 3, 2007 12:33 PMFoo, surely you're not suggesting that there's anything whatsoever about the Super Bowl that not all about the money? 'Cause, man, that would be just totally, you know, wack.
Gwynne, I don't think our church will change its plans. In any event, I hope you're not disappointed by the alternative. All I ask is that you not tune out the commercials for Fire Ant merchandise. I've paid a lot for their placement, you know. ;-)
Posted by: Eric at February 3, 2007 12:53 PMThe NFL also does not allow for games to be broadcast at events that promote a message...
I may be wrong, but I'm going to guess that your church (any church) isn't broadcasting anything. You probably have an antenna or something hooked up to a receiver.
If the NFL doesn't want just anyone with a TV tuner to have access to what they send out onto the public airwaves, they should follow boxing's lead and go pay-per-view.
Wack, indeed.
The pastor affirmed his non-hipness by putting "totally" in front of "wack." Big no-no.
And here's the thing. If you're going to make people watch the stuperbowl, then you've gotta leave the commercials in. Otherwise it's just a football game. And who cares about that?
Posted by: Jim at February 3, 2007 02:54 PMEric,
Thanks for visiting my blog! I wasn't aware that I was supposed to add a space following my sentence-ending he punctuation.
I asked my dear wife about this(She writes excellently)and she said that she noticed the same thing but thought maybe it is a blogger thing. So I stand corrected. Thank you.
I am always trying to be a better writer and this is good for me. I look forward to any further critiquing from you and anyone else.
Posted by: jacob at February 3, 2007 06:55 PMBrian, I'm guessing that was a case of overly loose terminology. Anyway, I'm sort of curious about the sports bar issue. I wonder if those folks pay some sort of fee, similar to ASCAP royalties for music, in order to televise sports programming to their customers? If not, there does seem to be an odd double standard at work.
Otherwise it's just a football game. And who cares about that?
Spoken like someone from a state whose Bengals and Browns are sitting at home tomorrow. ;-)
I predict this Super Bowl will be near the bottom of the list in terms of viewing audience. Even in Midland, home of Chicago running back Cedric Benson, I haven't detected much enthusiasm for the game.
Posted by: Eric at February 3, 2007 09:09 PMAbout the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
Neighborhood Killdeer
My Wife is a Squirrel Mule
Local Company Celebrates Centennial
Random Thursday
Apple's 2nd Quarter Financial Conference Call
Oh, look...
New Catfish "Place" in Town
Homage to Ol' Blue Eyes
Fun with Bulgarian Euphemisms
Imagine This: Fire Ant Sightings in Austin
Fish Drill Team Performances
How windy is it? Lemme tell you...
We're not in Kansas anymore...
Wallbot
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
The thought of watching football in the house of worship rubs me the wrong way. I hope your church opts out of that. Personally, I'd rather watch a live blog-cast of the commercials anyway. ;-)
Posted by: gwynne at February 3, 2007 11:25 AM