NFL to Owner of Only Tape of Super Bowl I Broadcast: Drop Dead

[jose melendez]

Interesting piece from the NYT today, on how there is only one copy of the broadcast of Super Bowl I in existence, and the NFL refuses to buy it from the guy who has it and has vowed to sue him if he tries to sell it.

CBS and NBC, which televised the game, did not preserve any tapes. But the copy that Haupt owns — of a broadcast that launched the Super Bowl as an enormous shared spectacle that attracts more than 100 million viewers — might never be seen on any network. The N.F.L. does not want to buy the tapes and has warned Haupt not to sell them to outside parties or else the league will pursue legal action.

But the league does not seem to agree with him that the tapes are a significant enough part of its legacy that it should pay him what he wants. It countered his initial request for $1 million with a $30,000 offer. It never raised its price and is not interested anymore in paying anything at all.

The league also squashed a plan by CBS to interview the holder of the tape in return for money.

In conclusion, fuck this league.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

So this is a whole tape? As opposed to the partial one the NFL Network was showing a week or two back?

 

[jose melendez]

Yes, and it's the television broadcast--though it's missing half time and some of the third quarter.

 

[Average Reds]

So this is a whole tape? As opposed to the partial one the NFL Network was showing a week or two back?

What was shown was not a partial tape. The NFL spliced together the audio from Super Bowl I - I don't know the source, but apparently this exists - and clips from NFL Films to approximate a broadcast. I saw parts of it and give them high marks for approximating a broadcast.

After reading the NY Time article, my guess is that they did this as a way of saying "Fuck off, we don't need you" to Troy Haupt. (And to be honest, they probably don't. The NFL Films clips appear to be in good shape, while the Haupt video is decaying from being stored in an attic for decades.) Regardless, one would think that the NFL would want to reach a deal with him to preserve a piece of history. But apparently the ability to crush everyone they deal with is most important to the NFL.

With such a sense of class in everything they do, it's a mystery why the NFL is not part of the Trump empire.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

IANAL but could paying Haupt more than just a token amount, call it 50 years of storage fees, set some sort legal precedent regarding ownership of sports broadcast? IOW if they pay $1M for their own product, might they be opening a door that profession sports might not want opened?

I'm guessing not, but $1M to the NFL is ~2% of a single Thursday night game

 

[jose melendez]

What was shown was not a partial tape. The NFL spliced together the audio from Super Bowl I - I don't know the source, but apparently this exists - and clips from NFL Films to approximate a broadcast. I saw parts of it and give them high marks for approximating a broadcast.

After reading the NY Time article, my guess is that they did this as a way of saying "Fuck off, we don't need you" to Troy Haupt. (And to be honest, they probably don't. The NFL Films clips appear to be in good shape, while the Haupt video is decaying from being stored in an attic for decades.) Regardless, one would think that the NFL would want to reach a deal with him to preserve a piece of history. But apparently the ability to crush everyone they deal with is most important to the NFL.

With such a sense of class in everything they do, it's a mystery why the NFL is not part of the Trump empire.

That's what I find kind of appalling. Okay don't pay him a million, but make a reasonable counter. $100K or something, or at least don't sue the guy. The guy's father produced something of actual historical value.

 

[moondog80]

I dunno. I could easily make the case that the guy is trying to extort the NFL. They're the only ones who can legally buy it, and they don't really need it, but they should just give a guy who simply got lucky that the tape ended up in his hands million dollars, just because they have lots of money?

 

[Leather]

No, you can't.

Negotiating is not extortion. He's not threatening to do something illegal or otherwise harmful to the NFL with the tape. He's just driving a hard bargain, which is absolutely a viable and defensible tactic. Moreover, his asking price is not outlandish, given:

In 2005, he read that Sports Illustrated had described a tape of Super Bowl I as a “lost treasure” because CBS and NBC had not saved copies of their broadcasts. The magazine estimated that a tape, if found, would be worth $1 million.

But, you know, by all means, side with the malevolent corporate leviathan that has low-balled him and then threatened to sue him over something his father recorded and hoped would pay for his kid's education 50 years ago.

 

[Hoya81]

I dunno. I could easily make the case that the guy is trying to extort the NFL. They're the only ones who can legally buy it, and they don't really need it, but they should just give a guy who simply got lucky that the tape ended up in his hands million dollars, just because they have lots of money?

Possibly, but the league is definitely playing hardball by not negotiating, threatening to sue if he sells to a third party and forcing CBS to rescind the interview offer.

 

[Leather]

It's not extortion. It's also not embezzlement, robbery, misappropriation, or theft by swindle, in case anyone is wondering.

It was observed in People v. Fort, 138 Mich. App. 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) , that the elements of extortion are:

• Communication;
• Threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another,
• With intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will.

http://extortion.uslegal.com/elements-of-extortion/

Bolded to highlight the missing element. He's not threatening to do anything illegal. Not extortion.

 

[moondog80]

No, you can't.

Negotiating is not extortion. He's not threatening to do something illegal or otherwise harmful to the NFL with the tape. He's just driving a hard bargain, which is absolutely a viable and defensible tactic. Moreover, his asking price is not outlandish, given:



But, you know, by all means, side with the malevolent corporate leviathan that has low-balled him and then threatened to sue him over something his father recorded and hoped would pay for his kid's education 50 years ago.

It's OK for the guy to drive a hard bargain but not the NFL? Do corporations typically decide they can start losing negotiations sometimes once they hit a certain level of success, just because a million dollars here and there won't really hurt them?

They didn't lowball him. The dude overplayed his hand. He has no other options, and they don't need what he has. Moreover, he didn't do a damn thing to earn the money other than fall ass backward into what he thought was a winning lottery ticket. A million dollars, just because some SI writer with no understanding of the copyright issues involved decided to use a big, round number? He got greedy. He should have been happy with the $30,000.

 

[moondog80]

It's not extortion. It's also not embezzlement, robbery, misappropriation, or theft by swindle, in case anyone is wondering.



http://extortion.uslegal.com/elements-of-extortion/

Bolded to highlight the missing element. He's not threatening to do anything illegal. Not extortion.

No, it wasn't extortion. That was a bit of hyperbole. But if he said he would sell the tapes to someone else (the article wasn't clear, but the CBS interview might qualify), he did threaten to do something illegal.

 

[jose melendez]

I don't resent the NFL for not just handing him a million dollars. I resent them for playing hardball about an amount of money that has a marginal value of zero to them. It's petty and dickish

 

[Average Reds]

IANAL but could paying Haupt more than just a token amount, call it 50 years of storage fees, set some sort legal precedent regarding ownership of sports broadcast? IOW if they pay $1M for their own product, might they be opening a door that profession sports might not want opened?

I'm guessing not, but $1M to the NFL is ~2% of a single Thursday night game

Since all parties have accepted that Haupt has the right to the tape, but he does not have the right to sell it to anyone other than the NFL, this means there are no "ownership" issues in play. The only question is whether the NFL values an actual tape of the first Super Bowl broadcast or not. If yes, what price are they willing to pay for it?

I dunno. I could easily make the case that the guy is trying to extort the NFL. They're the only ones who can legally buy it, and they don't really need it, but they should just give a guy who simply got lucky that the tape ended up in his hands million dollars, just because they have lots of money?

That's a bit simplistic, no?

More to the point, the fact that the NFL strong-armed CBS into backing out of a deal to pay him for the interview indicates that for them, this is all about them asserting their power.

The issue isn't whether the broadcast has value to the NFL. (It clearly does.) It's that the NFL is pissed that this guy won't just give it to them. Of course, if he does give it to them, he might be subject to gift taxes since there is a published estimate of the worth of the tape and he has not "declined" ownership. (The precedent here was established for baseball memorabilia. The IRS ruled that a fan who gives a historic home run ball to the player/team does not have to pay taxes because they are "declining their prize." This wouldn't seem to apply here.)

If I were Haupt, I'd call their bluff. Have the tape restored and transfer the broadcast to a medium that won't disintegrate over time. (Like a DVD.) Then inform the NFL that you have placed a stipulation in your will that upon your death the broadcast is to be destroyed unless the NFL makes a reasonable offer.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I don't see why the NFL should pay more then they think the tape is worth. And apparently we're talking about a tape that is missing a not insignificant portion of the 3rd quarter, has missing plays coming off commercial breaks, doesn't have most commercials or halftime, and bleeds colors and skips up & down due to the effects of time and weather.

That's a million dollar tape? I bet if the guy was more reasonable out of the gate he could have landed on $50k, which I think is a more than fair price.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

It's petty and dickish

Since it's that time of the year: a small box of Thin Mints or Samoas isnt really worth $4. But if I actually say that to that adorable little girl (and her mom) who lives down the street, and I don't buy that $4 box of cookies from her, well......

Put another way: is there any other thing that the NFL could spend $1M on, and get this much good will and positive publicity?

 

[moondog80]

I don't resent the NFL for not just handing him a million dollars. I resent them for playing hardball about an amount of money that has a marginal value of zero to them. It's petty and dickish

$20 has a marginal value of zero to me, but I'm not going to pay that for a cup of coffee just because.

This is the guy's quote: "It's like you've won the golden ticket, but you can't get into the chocolate factory". Sorry, but I don't see why I'm supposed to sympathize with him. He thought he was getting a million dollars for doing nothing.

 

[loafnut]

Ho

It's OK for the guy to drive a hard bargain but not the NFL? Do corporations typically decide they can start losing negotiations sometimes once they hit a certain level of success, just because a million dollars here and there won't really hurt them?

They didn't lowball him. The dude overplayed his hand. He has no other options, and they don't need what he has. Moreover, he didn't do a damn thing to earn the money other than fall ass backward into what he thought was a winning lottery ticket. A million dollars, just because some SI writer with no understanding of the copyright issues involved decided to use a big, round number? He got greedy. He should have been happy with the $30,000.

How hard he worked for the tape has nothing to do with anything. The guy owns an asset, period. It's not like many of the nfl owners put any real work in beyond inheriting a team anyway.

You are totally missing the situation. He has nothing to lose. It's not like the NFL owns anything important from his life. That tape is worth a lot more than 30k to the nfl and they are the ones facing a loss of their history as the tape decays. I'd hold out for a lot and consider going to court to try for the right to sell it elsewhere.

Moondog lesson #1. Be happy with the scraps your corporate overlords toss you.

 

[ObstructedView]

After reading the article, I just knew I'd come on here and find contrarians trying to make the case for the NFL. Yes they have the right to do what they're doing, but that doesn't change the perception that they're a greedy, spiteful, tone-deaf organization. This is the same league that thought nothing of dropping $2.5 million on a half-baked report about deflated balls, and continues to incur substantial legal costs fighting the case in court. This should have been an easy PR win based on a feel-good story, and instead they come off like a caricature of an evil corporation.

 

[Toe Nash]

But, you know, by all means, side with the malevolent corporate leviathan that has low-balled him and then threatened to sue him over something his father recorded and hoped would pay for his kid's education 50 years ago.

I dunno, lots of people thought baseball cards were going to pay for their kid's education too...things change in value. I'm not convinced this is a priceless artifact. The NFL sucks, but not for this.

Edit: I'll elaborate: they should have let him do the interview with CBS...that's stupid.

 

[johnmd20]

After reading the article, I just knew I'd come on here and find contrarians trying to make the case for the NFL. Yes they have the right to do what they're doing, but that doesn't change the perception that they're a greedy, spiteful, tone-deaf organization. This is the same league that thought nothing of dropping $2.5 million on a half-baked report about deflated balls, and continues to incur substantial legal costs fighting the case in court. This should have been an easy PR win based on a feel-good story, and instead they come off like a caricature of an evil corporation.

Yeah, this is it right here. They could have offered 500k and probably gotten a deal. Instead, they offer a ridiculous amount for no reason. They look greedy and resentful and stupid. Which is the NFL's normal move.

 

[moondog80]

How hard he worked for the tape has nothing to do with anything. The guy owns an asset, period. It's not like many of the nfl owners put any real work in beyond inheriting a team anyway.

You are totally missing the situation. He has nothing to lose. It's not like the NFL owns anything important from his life. That tape is worth a lot more than 30k to the nfl and they are the ones facing a loss of their history as the tape decays. I'd hold out for a lot and consider going to court to try for the right to sell it elsewhere.

Moondog lesson #1. Be happy with the scraps your corporate overlords toss you.

I think they are more qualified to make that judgement than you are.

 

[jose melendez]

If I were Haupt, I'd call their bluff. Have the tape restored and transfer the broadcast to a medium that won't disintegrate over time. (Like a DVD.) Then inform the NFL that you have placed a stipulation in your will that upon your death the broadcast is to be destroyed unless the NFL makes a reasonable offer.

If I were him, I'd probably be looking for a way to fuck the NFL for not negotiating in good faith. Could he vow to destroy it unless someone paid him X dollars not to? Could he sell the rights to future revenue from its sale? I'd really think about trying to form a partnership with some other organization to destroy it in some novel way.

It's not really that I have that much sympathy for this guy--it's that the NFL is a legally sanctioned monopoly that shakes down taxpayers all the time and, as some of the cheerleader stuff has shown, is spectacularly petty.

I really wish Congress would take up TMQ's idea of making events in publicly funded stadiums non-copyrightable.

 

[jose melendez]

I think they are more qualified to make that judgement than you are.

That's the case for him just burning it. Then we will see what it's actually worth to them.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

They didn't lowball him. The dude overplayed his hand. He has no other options, and they don't need what he has. Moreover, he didn't do a damn thing to earn the money other than fall ass backward into what he thought was a winning lottery ticket. A million dollars, just because some SI writer with no understanding of the copyright issues involved decided to use a big, round number? He got greedy. He should have been happy with the $30,000.

Should he have been? If he ran a Kickstarter "Stick it to Goodell. If we reach $30,000 + x, I will live-stream the burning of the tape," do you suppose he'd reach his goal? Because I'd throw in a couple hundred.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Ha, same thoughts.

 

[jose melendez]

Should he have been? If he ran a Kickstarter "Stick it to Goodell. If we reach $30,000 + x, I will live-stream the burning of the tape," do you suppose he'd reach his goal? Because I'd throw in a couple hundred.

Great Idea. I'm in for $25.

 

[johnmd20]

I think they are more qualified to make that judgement than you are.

If they thought it was worth 30k, (i.e. worthless) they NFL wouldn't fight his ability to show the video elsewhere.

 

[moondog80]

If I were Haupt, I'd call their bluff. Have the tape restored and transfer the broadcast to a medium that won't disintegrate over time. (Like a DVD.) Then inform the NFL that you have placed a stipulation in your will that upon your death the broadcast is to be destroyed unless the NFL makes a reasonable offer.

More power to him if he tries something like this. I seriously doubt the NFL would cave so publicly in such a situation, but maybe I'm wrong.

It's not that I like the NFL, I just don't see what they've done wrong here. The greedy overlord move would be if they tried to force they guy to give the tape to them. But all they've done is say no to his offer, and exercise their copyrights over the material. Leagues do this all the time. Put a Sox broadcast on YouTube and let me know how it works out.

 

[Average Reds]

I don't see why the NFL should pay more then they think the tape is worth. And apparently we're talking about a tape that is missing a not insignificant portion of the 3rd quarter, has missing plays coming off commercial breaks, doesn't have most commercials or halftime, and bleeds colors and skips up & down due to the effects of time and weather.

That's a million dollar tape? I bet if the guy was more reasonable out of the gate he could have landed on $50k, which I think is a more than fair price.

This is a bit of a straw man, in the sense that no one is arguing that the NFL should pay more than they think the tape is worth.

In terms of establishing a fair value, we do have some facts to guide us:

• Haupt does have an estimate - given in 2005 - that sets the value at $1 million. The number itself is relatively unimportant. The fact that there is an independent estimate of the intrinsic value is important
• The market for the tape is severely restricted. To be specific, there is only one buyer. The lack of competition for the tape means that the market value is likely significantly below the intrinsic value of the tape.
  
• CBS was willing to pay him $25k for an interview about the tape. In and of itself, this fact exposes the $30K the NFL offered as grossly inadequate.
• The NFL pressured CBS to rescind their offer to pay for the interview. This can only be explained as an attempt to diminish the value of the tape by eliminating alternative ways for Haupt to monetize his property.

What you and I may think about a fair price is meaningless. The market is telling Haupt that the value here is somewhere between $1 million at the high end and probably around $250K (ten times what CBS was willing to pay for an interview) at the low end.

Here's the other straw man I'm seeing bandied about. No one is saying that the NFL doesn't have the right to play hardball. We're saying that they are short-sighted weasels for doing so, when it is obviously in their interests to both own the tape and generate some positive PR for a change.

But the NFL does what they always do, which is attempt to bully everyone they deal with and look like tone-deaf assholes in the process.

One additional comment about that last point. Remember last year when the NFL leaked that they were going to charge the halftime performer a fee for the exposure they were providing? Yeah, how did that work out for them? (Answer: Katy Perry laughed at them and she got paid. They aren't saying a damn thing about it this year.)

The NFL is running a bluff. If I were Haupt, I'd do exactly what he is doing - give interviews and make them look like assholes. It's his only leverage and it will work if he keeps the pressure on.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

It demonstrates pettiness, and greed, and an utter lack of consideration for the interests of its fans. The NFL believes it has leverage because it is the only buyer, and time is on its side. But it ignores the fact that its fans, upon whom the league has built its fortunes, want to see the video. If that video is destroyed or otherwise never seen, it's because the league has decided that its fans are worth no more than $30,000.

 

[Sox and Rocks]

I wonder if Tom Brady or Bob Kraft would be interested in a classic piece of NFL memorabilia?

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

If they thought it was worth 30k, (i.e. worthless) they NFL wouldn't fight his ability to show the video elsewhere.

Sure they would. You have to defend your copyrights or you lose them - whether he can show the video is a very different issue than the worth of the video.

What you and I may think about a fair price is meaningless. The market is telling Haupt that the value here is somewhere between $1 million at the high end and probably around $250K (ten times what CBS was willing to pay for an interview) at the low end

No, the market is telling Haupt that the low end is $30k, what the NFL offered. There's absolutely no reason to think its higher.

I could see $250K or even $1M if the tape had the whole game, and was in good shape - but it doesn't, and isn't. Its missing big chunks, is poor quality because of poor storage, etc. Its not something that the NFL can really broadcast or use - its probably not materially better than what NFL Films did - so its a curiosity, not a valuable item.

 

[lars10]

$20 has a marginal value of zero to me, but I'm not going to pay that for a cup of coffee just because.

This is the guy's quote: "It's like you've won the golden ticket, but you can't get into the chocolate factory". Sorry, but I don't see why I'm supposed to sympathize with him. He thought he was getting a million dollars for doing nothing.

How much would you pay for the only cup of coffee? I'm guessing a lot more than $20.

In any case the analogy is weak at best. Comparing a one of a kind item to something you can get on every street corner?

 

[moondog80]

How much would you pay for the only cup of coffee?

How much would you charge for a cup of coffee if only one person could buy it?

 

[Murderer's Crow]

This is both sports memorabilia and one of a kind. To value this at $30k when one of a kind items like MMs 71st homer went for $3M is insane.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

• Haupt does have an estimate - given in 2005 - that sets the value at $1 million. The number itself is relatively unimportant. The fact that there is an independent estimate of the intrinsic value is important

If the number is relatively unimportant, what if it had been $30,000? Would that change your opinion?

If it is important, shouldn't there be some examination of how the author came to his/her $1M estimate? What were the criteria that the author used, and what is the authors credentials? I am somewhat familiar with sports memorabilia and items like this and I find $1M to be a ridiculous number, even when putting aside the legalities of who can and cannot purchase it.

• The market for the tape is severely restricted. To be specific, there is only one buyer. The lack of competition for the tape means that the market value is likely significantly below the intrinsic value of the tape.

So short of removing the barriers on the market value how do we come up with a fair intrinsic value? I honestly don't know...

• CBS was willing to pay him $25k for an interview about the tape. In and of itself, this fact exposes the $30K the NFL offered as grossly inadequate.

What percentage of the $25k is due to the interview and what percentage is due to the actual footage they intended to air? Because we're only talking about the footage, not the interview or the interviewees time and efforts here. I think that matters. And again the league already owns the content - the only thing for sale is the physical tape that holds it.

• The NFL pressured CBS to rescind their offer to pay for the interview. This can only be explained as an attempt to diminish the value of the tape by eliminating alternative ways for Haupt to monetize his property.

I agree in large part with you here, however an alternate theory is that the league and CBS are business partners, and perhaps CBS chose to go another route once they learned that the Haupt and the league were fighting simply because they didn't want to upset their business partner. It's kind of the same thing but it could be less about diminishing the value of the tape and more about choosing sides.

It demonstrates pettiness, and greed, and an utter lack of consideration for the interests of its fans. The NFL believes it has leverage because it is the only buyer, and time is on its side. But it ignores the fact that its fans, upon whom the league has built its fortunes, want to see the video. If that video is destroyed or otherwise never seen, it's because the league has decided that its fans are worth no more than $30,000.

I don't know how many fans want to see this video. Some, sure, but likely less than a tenth of a percent, wouldn't you agree? And I highly doubt that any fans are going to let go of the NFL rope over this. Who's not tuning in on Sunday because of this? Who's out for next season now? Are you?

 

[Leather]

Just kicking ideas around, I wonder if the guy could make a claim that the term that prohibits him from selling (much less showing) the tape to third parties should be void as against public policy.

Unreasonable restraint of trade that only serves to deprive the public from an important piece of American social history, the importance of which is evidenced by the public's constant subsidizing of the NFL, etc...

 

[teddykgb]

Oil Can I don't understand your position here. The NFL is threatening to sue him if he sells it to any party but them. That's a major component here. If anyone is being pressured or even extorted, it is him. He has something of value and they're basically trying to force him to sell it to them at a rate they decide.

Frankly I think it sucks that the article indicates the NFL has such a strong legal position. It's complete bullshit IMO for the NFL to hold a copyright claim to something like this.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

Unreasonable restraint of trade that only serves to deprive the public from an important piece of American social history, the importance of which is evidenced by the public's constant subsidizing of the NFL, etc...

I was wondering about that: this isnt a game film so much as it is a piece of 20th century history. Or could it legally be donated to the Museum of Broadcasting, and what might they be able to do with it?

But if even the Zapruder film has (had?) a price for exclusive distribution/showing.........?

(Anyone else see the episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the owner of a Baltimore restaurant trademarked the word "Hon" and went to extreme measures to enforce it, but then couldnt understand why she was reviled in the community?)

 

[Oil Can Dan]

My position is the the content does and should belong to the league. I cannot record the Super Bowl this Sunday, press DVDs then sell them on eBay. I'm sure this is somehow different in ways but I see it as similar. I don't see the historical nature changing things that much, because I don't know how valuable this tape is given the things we know (missing game action, questionable quality, etc).

So if the league owns the content then this guy can't sell it without their permission.

The league could buy it, but they don't think it's worth more than $30k. Or they just don't want to deal with this guy any more. Maybe the guy is a dick who's pissed he's not getting the Chocolate Factory after all and he's overplayed his hand?

If I'm the league, sure, I'd love to have the tape and I certainly don't want the bad press that's now coming. But, in the grand scheme of things it's not really that big of a deal. 'We' (the league) just basically put the game together from other scraps in a quality that is perhaps leaps and bounds better than this tape, so it isn't as if there's no visual record of this game whatsoever. We just aired it for free on our network. Anyone know whether the ratings on that were good or bad, btw? I tuned in for part of it but lost interest in the 2nd quarter, but it may have been that I didn't like the format they chose.

 

[smastroyin]

Maybe Martin Shkreli will buy it

 

[Average Reds]

If the number is relatively unimportant, what if it had been $30,000? Would that change your opinion?

Perhaps this was clumsily worded, but what I was trying to get across is the fact that the estimate is meaningless unless it is an objective estimate. Since the estimate was made before SI knew a copy existed, it is by definition independent and therefore useful (but not definitive) as a guide to the intrinsic value.

If they had said $30,000, that would also be useful. But they did not.

If it is important, shouldn't there be some examination of how the author came to his/her $1M estimate? What were the criteria that the author used, and what is the authors credentials? I am somewhat familiar with sports memorabilia and items like this and I find $1M to be a ridiculous number, even when putting aside the legalities of who can and cannot purchase it.

Of course. I don't have that information, which is why I suggested that this represented an upper limit and was not realistic given the other circumstances.

Honestly, I'm not sure of your angle here. I get that you think this is worthless, but given the offer from CBs, it's clear that the $30,000 offer from the NFL to purchase the tape is unreasonably low.

They are obviously free to make such an offer and if they get it, good for them. They did not and look like idiots.

As I said, I'm uncertain what point you are trying to make.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Perhaps he should sell it with a chunk of the proceeds going to fund CTE research and see if the NFL dares sue anyone involved with the situation.

 

[Marciano490]

Maybe Martin Shkreli will buy it

Just hope Bart Starr doesn't talk smack or Shkreli will cut him out of the tape.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

CBS did not offer to buy the tape, so I'm not sure why the $25k offer from CBS is getting so much attention here. They offered that money in return for him making himself available to tell his story, and for the right to rebroadcast a portion of his tape. I'm not even sure that second part is legal, and if not perhaps that's why CBS changed their mind. But in any event CBS was not going to become the owner of this tape so their $25k offer is irrelevant to what a fair price from the NFL for the tape should be.

I'm not doing a good job of stating my point so I'll stop. Basically it was just that it seems everyone was jumping on the league as the bad guy in this case, and I'm not sure that's warranted. But I feel like I'm defending Darth Vader and that's no fun, so I'll quit while I'm only slightly behind.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

I don't know how many fans want to see this video. Some, sure, but likely less than a tenth of a percent, wouldn't you agree? And I highly doubt that any fans are going to let go of the NFL rope over this. Who's not tuning in on Sunday because of this? Who's out for next season now? Are you?

Do I agree that fewer than 1 in 1,000 NFL fans would like to see this video? No, I don't. I know I personally would like to see it. And I'm not sure why someone needs to go cold turkey on the NFL over this for it to matter. I'm not questioning the right of the NFL to defend its copyright in the content of the man's recording for as long as the protection exists under the law (which, by the way, didn't really even exist at the time of the recording, so it's not like we're talking about a bad actor). But I have every right to see it as a fuck you to me, the fan. George Lucas had the right to fuck up the Star Wars movies; that didn't seem to stop people from lining up for the prequels; but nor did it endear him to the fans who made him rich.

Yes, the league is going to do just fine, and its bottom line will not suffer for its behavior. But it could pay this man a reasonable sum and more than make up for it even by showing it on the History Channel. But it wants to play the tough guy, and this play is just another of the bundle of dildos it has rammed up the ass of its fans over the last decade or so.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Do I agree that fewer than 1 in 1,000 NFL fans would like to see this video? No, I don't. I know I personally would like to see it... But I have every right to see it as a fuck you to me, the fan. .

But why do you see it this way? The NFL has intoned that its not that valuable because their footage is BETTER - what is making you feel like you're being disadvantaged by them not writing a blank check to a guy for his crappy footage?

 

[WayBackVazquez]

But why do you see it this way? The NFL has intoned that its not that valuable because their footage is BETTER - what is making you feel like you're being disadvantaged by them not writing a blank check to a guy for his crappy footage?

How have I been unclear? I would like to see the video. Why would I rather see an uncolorized version of Casablanca? Or prefer to listen Nat King Cole singing Unforgettable rather than his daughter and him? Why do some people pay thousands of dollars to attend the game, when the television coverage is BETTER?

Because I want to see it. And unfortunately, the only way I can do so is through the NFL. And the NFL doesn't give a fuck.

 

[Average Reds]

CBS did not offer to buy the tape, so I'm not sure why the $25k offer from CBS is getting so much attention here. They offered that money in return for him making himself available to tell his story, and for the right to rebroadcast a portion of his tape. I'm not even sure that second part is legal, and if not perhaps that's why CBS changed their mind. But in any event CBS was not going to become the owner of this tape so their $25k offer is irrelevant to what a fair price from the NFL for the tape should be.

If you don't understand why the ability to generate revenue with content is a critical component of how that content is valued I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not doing a good job of stating my point so I'll stop. Basically it was just that it seems everyone was jumping on the league as the bad guy in this case, and I'm not sure that's warranted. But I feel like I'm defending Darth Vader and that's no fun, so I'll quit while I'm only slightly behind.

We are jumping on the league because it is yet another example where the short-sighted mentality that drives the NFL to feel as if that they have to "win" every battle.

My suspicion - and that's all it is - is that the NFL is pissed that own the copyright but don't own the only copy that exists of the game, which is a rather unique situation. Rather than dealing with this reality and regaining the property in question, they are trying to bully this guy until he capitulates. Like they do with everyone. And he's throwing it back in their face.

The crux of your disagreement with this seems to be that the (now digitized) video has no value to you. But this is obviously not the case for others or CBS would never have made their offer. And make no mistake, their offer is tangible proof of the value of the footage.