http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492 David -vs- Goliath: round 2, in which Goliath clubs David with his Copyright Stick© and David may or may not fight back using Goliath's own weapon against him. en-us Sat, 2 Feb 2008 06:28:02 EST Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:41:32 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#11 Some years ago, my mother's church had video night on Saturdays, where they would show some sort of wholesome entertainment in the rec center for whoever wanted to attend.  It got shut down as a copyright violation.<p> I heard about it second-hand fro Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:41:32 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#10 <i>"The NFL already received all the money they're going to receive by licensing the broadcast to Fox, so going after church groups seems like an awfully capricious use of their enforcement rights."</i><p> Maybe they're just taking after the <a href="http: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:25:00 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#9 <blockquote>Well, that just plain makes no fucking sense.  What the difference between a bunch of people gathering at a sports bar to watch the game, and a bunch of people gathering at a church to watch the game?</blockquote>I'm sure perennial Superbo Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:53:14 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#8 <i>What the difference between a bunch of people gathering at a sports bar to watch the game, and a bunch of people gathering at a church to watch the game?</i><p> I dunno about the other denominations, but Baptists aren't going to be consuming or buying b Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:55:40 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#7 I'm thinking the over and the Giants on the money line, because he's an underdog/upset kind of guy.<p> As for the issue at hand, the NFL should be applauded for going after these churches, it's a huge favor to the poor saps whose wives are forcing them to Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:54:35 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#6 If you think about it for a minute, the NFL might be in the process of killing the golden goose with a policy like this.  The point behind the broadcast of the Super Bowl isn't to restrict where and when groups of people can watch it.  The point Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:38:21 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#5 <i>If the church is using a projection television, why don't they just move the projector close enough to the screen to make a 54.9" image?</i><p> Probably because it'd be harder to see at that size in some of these places - not impossible or anything, mor Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:17:48 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#4 Agreed...it's just plain stupid.  Maybe it because I don't work in advertising, but what difference does it make if 1000 people are watching one screen or 100 screens are watched by 10 people each? Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:07:30 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#3 <i>show the game on a television of the type commonly used at home." </i><p> What if they made a wall of 19in t.v.s and hooked them up like they do at Best Buy and instead of a bunch of images it created one unified image? Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:03:28 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#2 <blockquote><i>As far as the 55" screen goes as "common home size", I went to OfficeMax the other day, and they had some really nifty front-projectors that would make for an image far beyond that</i></blockquote>One of the linked stories shows a projection Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:54:25 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/2/1/111423/0492#1 Well, that just plain makes no fucking sense.  What the difference between a bunch of people gathering at a sports bar to watch the game, and a bunch of people gathering at a church to watch the game?  I don't get it.  It's not like <a href= Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:50:39 EST string http://www.treesandthings.com/search/