OT: NFL acting like the NFL

[TheChamps990411]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...pay-man-who-has-most-of-super-bowl-i-on-tape/

A million dollars is absolute chump change and 30,000 is an insult. If i were him id put it up for auction or sell it to a collector.

 

[Fishy]

The NFL's response was a reasonable response to an unreasonable request. The articles about the "NFL being the NFL" are just cheap, dumb theater.

He's asking a million dollars for something that he can't actually sell - there's no putting up for auction or selling to a collector. (The NFL owns the content on the tape. I'm guessing you missed that part.) He thinks the tape should make him rich. The NFL doesn't think they should make him rich, so his next tact is to try to shame the NFL into making him rich by proposing in the NYT that they jointly sell the tape to "help some great charities." (While making him rich, of course.)

I get that he thought he had a winning lottery ticket, but it's clearly not - he should have taken the $30,000. That's a lot of money for something that he basically found in his attic....

 

[Kitaman]

$30k (or perhaps $50k after tax, with negotiations) ain't a bad inheritance. Should have made a copy and took the money.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Conditioning the return of stolen property on the payment of money is . . . extortion? No?
Father committed a crime and a tort when he copied the game. The son's position appears to be, "you should be thankful my father stole this content, and give me a hefty finder's fee to get it back."
The NFL should lower the offer to 15k and tell this guy he has 10 days to turn over the tape or the lawsuit gets filed.

If you want some insight into who controls what, consider this:

You intentionally infringe a valid patent to make money and you're, maybe, liable for triple lost profits. No criminal liability.

You intentionally infringe a valid trademark to make money and you're, maybe, liable for damages to the brand and maybe triple damages. No criminal liability.

You intentionally copy and sell 20 Cyndi Lauper songs to your buddy that are copyrighted and you are liable for 3 million dollars in damages and up to 60 years in jail.

 

[Squeeze]

Conditioning the return of stolen property on the payment of money is . . . extortion? No?
Father committed a crime and a tort when he copied the game. The son's position appears to be, "you should be thankful my father stole this content, and give me a hefty finder's fee to get it back."
The NFL should lower the offer to 15k and tell this guy he has 10 days to turn over the tape or the lawsuit gets filed.

assuming the nfl had intellectual property control of games in 1967, which I highly doubt they did, a statute of limitations would kick in anyways.

he should give them to his kids and have them wait until the copyright runs out and sell to the highest bidder

 

[TasteofUConn]

assuming the nfl had intellectual property control of games in 1967, which I highly doubt they did,

I'm not sure whether you're arguing that copyright law didn't exist in 67 or the NFL didn't have a copyright in the material they created. Both are wrong, but I'm curious as to which wrong you are.

wait until the copyright runs out and sell to the highest bidder

Probably runs out in 2062. That is with current law. Congress is free to lengthen that, which they have now done twice in order to prevent the Mickey Mouse copyright from expiring.

statute of limitations would kick in anyways.

If anybody tries to sell the tapes, other than the NFL, prior to expiration, they commit a crime. The clock for the federal statute of limitations for prosecution would begin upon the sale. So, no.

Do you often play lawyer?

 

[Adios]

Who did this dude contact in the NFL? Would anyone know? Serious question.

Given the situation, looks like he should have taken the $30K.

Edit: The NFL is known to be notoriously cheap when it comes to it's own collectibles. Quite unappreciative of the fans. But like facebook, people can't get enough. I don't see the NFL going out of business either. Consider how few season ticket holders even get to go to Super Bowls.

 

[Kitaman]

Conditioning the return of stolen property on the payment of money is . . . extortion? No?
Father committed a crime and a tort when he copied the game. The son's position appears to be, "you should be thankful my father stole this content, and give me a hefty finder's fee to get it back."
The NFL should lower the offer to 15k and tell this guy he has 10 days to turn over the tape or the lawsuit gets filed.

If you want some insight into who controls what, consider this:

You intentionally infringe a valid patent to make money and you're, maybe, liable for triple lost profits. No criminal liability.

You intentionally infringe a valid trademark to make money and you're, maybe, liable for damages to the brand and maybe triple damages. No criminal liability.

You intentionally copy and sell 20 Cyndi Lauper songs to your buddy that are copyrighted and you are liable for 3 million dollars in damages and up to 60 years in jail.

Curious, if a Bar charges an entrance fee to watch the Super Bowl are they breaking any 'make money' laws? Would the bar be stupid to advertise such an event due to such liability? I know its impossible to enforce but curious nonetheless. I recall some event that a bar(s) got in legal trouble years ago, not sure if it was boxing or another broadcasted sport, perhaps PPV.

 

[Squeeze]

I'm not sure whether you're arguing that copyright law didn't exist in 67 or the NFL didn't have a copyright in the material they created. Both are wrong, but I'm curious as to which wrong you are.

Probably runs out in 2062. That is with current law. Congress is free to lengthen that, which they have now done twice in order to prevent the Mickey Mouse copyright from expiring.

If anybody tries to sell the tapes, other than the NFL, prior to expiration, they commit a crime. The clock for the federal statute of limitations for prosecution would begin upon the sale. So, no.

Do you often play lawyer?

you said:

The NFL should lower the offer to 15k and tell this guy he has 10 days to turn over the tape or the lawsuit gets filed.

so I said, the nfl can't file a civil suit due to it happening 50 years ago. furthermore, if his kids wait out the copyright and sell, they wouldn't be committing any crime, dummy.

But that's a stupid idea. He should just threaten to destroy it; find out how valuable the NFL REALLY thinks it's worth.

 

[TheChamps990411]

The NFL's response was a reasonable response to an unreasonable request. The articles about the "NFL being the NFL" are just cheap, dumb theater.

He's asking a million dollars for something that he can't actually sell - there's no putting up for auction or selling to a collector. (The NFL owns the content on the tape. I'm guessing you missed that part.) He thinks the tape should make him rich. The NFL doesn't think they should make him rich, so his next tact is to try to shame the NFL into making him rich by proposing in the NYT that they jointly sell the tape to "help some great charities." (While making him rich, of course.)

I get that he thought he had a winning lottery ticket, but it's clearly not - he should have taken the $30,000. That's a lot of money for something that he basically found in his attic....

You can in fact sell to a private collector. Money talks. If the NFL were to purchase this tape they would make millions off of dvd sales and broadcasts of the footage. All i need to know about the NFL is theyd rather spend millions in court to sue the guy over giving him a million for the tape. Im sure youd try to make the most money you could if you were in his position.

 

[Deadrody]

Congress is free to lengthen that, which they have now done twice in order to prevent the Mickey Mouse copyright from expiring.

And Congress needs to 1) stop doing that and then 2) roll back copyright law to what it was originally.