Tenhigh Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 But he does own the only copy, and eventually it will become public domain. WEO, are you an economist, or involved in finance? Why did you ask that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I'm just trying to get an understanding of the kind of guy who enjoys seeing a person get lowballed by the NFL. Let's say your car gets stolen. Some time later you see it for sale in your Pennysaver. How much would you pay the seller to get your property back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Why did you ask that? Because those are the kind of people I could see enjoying this situation, and supporting the NFL. And he calls himself Mr. WEO (an acronym for "World Economic Outlook"), which invites that kind of inquiry. Let's say your car gets stolen. Some time later you see it for sale in your Pennysaver. How much would you pay the seller to get your property back? It's not the same. Martin Shkreli, is that you? Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Because those are the kind of people I could see enjoying this situation, and supporting the NFL. And he calls himself Mr. WEO (an acronym for "World Economic Outlook"), which invites that kind of inquiry. It's not the same. Martin Shkreli, is that you? How is it not the same? He's asking them to buy back their proprietary content. Do you think that the folks over at Google should be able to upload Super Bowl clips on Youtube (surrounded by revenue generating ads)? If not, why not? Why can't anyone simply film the SB and charge others to watch that film--or simply sell them a copy of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) How is it not the same? He's asking them to buy back their proprietary content. Do you think that the folks over at Google should be able to upload Super Bowl clips on Youtube (surrounded by revenue generating ads)? If not, why not? Why can't anyone simply film the SB and charge others to watch that film--or simply sell them a copy of it? It's a bad analogy. So WEO, are you in finance/economics/banking (or should I take your evasion as a "yes")? Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayoffsPlease Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 What is the market value of the tape? The NFL would like the tapes but how much money are they gonna make off it? $1 million is less than the price of a 30 second commercial for the super bowl. I am pretty sure they can make money from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 It's a bad analogy. So WEO, are you in finance/economics/banking (or should I take your evasion as a "yes")? I am not in finance/economics/banking, but my 14 year old son assured me that this is copyrighted material solely intended for the use of the NFL's audience (he hears that on every telecast). So that's a bad analogy too, huh? Why is that? $1 million is less than the price of a 30 second commercial for the super bowl. I am pretty sure they can make money from it. Well, it is their content (solely) and they are entitled to "make money from it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I am not in finance/economics/banking, but my 14 year old son assured me that this is copyrighted material solely intended for the use of the NFL's audience (he hears that on every telecast). So that's a bad analogy too, huh? Why is that? Well, it is their content (solely) and they are entitled to "make money from it". Why have they offered him ANY money then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 They offered him money for access to portions of tape they did not have copy of IMO. The tape which was badly preserved had sections missing as taper manually stopped and started tape machine to save tapes. The tape owner heard a report claiming value BUT the one making estimate of value never saw condition of the tapes nor what was missing; it was a hypothetical estimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 KD in CT hates this guy for some reason. Actually, I just hate asshats who think this guy is entitled to a million dollars because 1) that's what he choose to ask the NFL to give him for a video they already pieced together from other sources and 2) the NFL has 'too much' money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Actually, I just hate asshats who think this guy is entitled to a million dollars because 1) that's what he choose to ask the NFL to give him for a video they already pieced together from other sources and 2) the NFL has 'too much' money. The way they describe the tape as missing halftime and the 3rd QT he shoulda took the $$ when they offered it. It would be worth a million if it was a complete recording not scraps with visual issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The way they describe the tape as missing halftime and the 3rd QT he shoulda took the $$ when they offered it. It would be worth a million if it was a complete recording not scraps with visual issues. Only reason why it was "valued" at $1M was because some media person speculated it would be worth that much if some tape was found. The media never offered to buy if for even half that much for they would have more ability to negotiate with NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Actually, I just hate asshats who think this guy is entitled to a million dollars because 1) that's what he choose to ask the NFL to give him for a video they already pieced together from other sources and 2) the NFL has 'too much' money. "Asshats" Well, I don't believe either of those. He hasn't stolen anything, and the value is whatever he is able to get for it, and that can change. I wonder what you guys would do in his place? It's easy to say you would accept it, but more likely (judging by the competitive spirit you are showing in this thread) you would feel like you were getting shafted by the NFL Goliath, and look for other ways to profit from the tape. Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Why have they offered him ANY money then? They are the only entity that can buy it. The tape is his to keep--it's his property, but it's content belongs to them. They can't demand he hand it over. They though it had value to them and that value was 30,000. Because it is his property, he is free to do with it what pleases, except sell it other than to the NFL> Pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 "Asshats" Well, I don't believe either of those. He hasn't stolen anything, and the value is whatever he is able to get for it, and that can change. I wonder what you guys would do in his place? It's easy to say you would accept it, but more likely (judging by the competitive spirit you are showing in this thread) you would feel like you were getting shafted by the NFL Goliath, and look for other ways to profit from the tape. I've already told you what I would most likely advise someone in that position. But I would want to do a very thorough examination of the copyright terms and the relevant law at the time if the recording - which will be the applicable law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I've already told you what I would most likely advise someone in that position. But I would want to do a very thorough examination of the copyright terms and the relevant law at the time if the recording - which will be the applicable law. I'm guessing the NFL legal army has already done that., as has his own lawyer--hence he's sitting at home with the tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) I've already told you what I would most likely advise someone in that position. But I would want to do a very thorough examination of the copyright terms and the relevant law at the time if the recording - which will be the applicable law. Okay, one guy has come forward (you're everything to me)...thanks man. I guess we will have to wait and see how it unfolds. I'm betting he gets more than $30,000. But the more interesting aspect of this thread, is why some don't want him to get more than $30,000. Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) So here is a new article about this controversy. http://fortune.com/2016/02/04/superbowl-copyright/ "To understand why the NFL, which has a fierce reputation for protecting its intellectual property, does not control the tape, it’s important to understand a few legal issues glossed over in the Times report. The first is that, even if the league has rights to the footage, it can’t stop Haupt from selling the tape itself. According to copyright lawyer Lloyd Jassin, the right to sell the tape is protected by the so-called “first sale doctrine,” which lets people resell used books and movies. “The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work has the right to resell that copy without the copyright owner’s permission,” said Jassin. His assessment squares with that of legal scholar David Post, who likens Haupt’s situation to someone who wanted to sell a used DVD copy of last year’s Super Bowl highlights. Post also says a law professor cited by the Times incorrectly claimed “the law favors the league,” and adds the NFL’s threats against Haupt are just “bluster.” Will it anger you if this guy gets a nice sum for it? I think he will sell it to someone outside the US, just to add another layer of legal complications. At least, that's what I would try to do... Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in Jax Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Getting a kick out of some of the inaccurate replies in here. OF course, this ONE-OF-A-KIND recording is much different than the weak analogies that have been offered up in this thread. Also, before I even read the post above about the "new" article, my 14 year-old daughter could have told me that the guy could sell it to whoever he wants to. The copyright, and the warning that is spewed out for just about all broadcast sports events, is meant to prevent REBROADCAST or retransmission. Selling it is NOT rebroadcasting it. And if he conducted the sale "in private", to another "private buyer", how would the NFL even know about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'm just trying to get an understanding of the kind of guy who enjoys seeing a person get lowballed by the NFL. Lowballed? It's like he worked 15 years for this tape. What did he even personally do to acquire it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts