OMG. The NFL going for title of "Biggest Douche Organization" EVER

[sukie]

NFL won’t pay man who has most of Super Bowl I on tape


No full recording of the original broadcast of Super Bowl I exists because in the 1960s networks rarely saved their tapes. But one man owns what is believed to be the closest thing to a full recording, tapes his late father made of most of the game, minus commercials, some plays that came right after commercial breaks, halftime and some of the third quarter.

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznptq4ymmwnwjhnjm1ngmynmy0zty0mwzimdjmyti2owu0-e1429662094368.jpeg?w=250


That man, Troy Haupt, asked the NFL for $1 million for his dad’s old tapes. The NFL replied that it would give him $30,000. When Haupt spurned that offer, the NFL stopped talking to Haupt entirely, other than to warn him that if he sells the tapes to a third party, he’ll be violating the league’s copyright and the NFL will go after him.

more...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/02/nfl-wont-pay-man-who-has-most-of-super-bowl-i-on-tape/



So the guy owns what is the single almost complete broadcast copy of the first Super Bowl IN EXISTENCE... In what I think is a lowball... askes for a million and the NFL that made, what, 10 BILLION last year... says nope... 30k.

DOUCHE Douche Douche.

[Turf]

No full time refs, lowball the cheerleaders, no official ball handers, really a petty league with the millions and tax exclusions they have.

[sukie]

Seeing that this is a piece of history and one of a kind... you would think the 1 million was WAY low of an asking price... 30k? Really?

[Joe Fo Sho]

NFL won’t pay man who has most of Super Bowl I on tape


No full recording of the original broadcast of Super Bowl I exists because in the 1960s networks rarely saved their tapes. But one man owns what is believed to be the closest thing to a full recording, tapes his late father made of most of the game, minus commercials, some plays that came right after commercial breaks, halftime and some of the third quarter.

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznptq4ymmwnwjhnjm1ngmynmy0zty0mwzimdjmyti2owu0-e1429662094368.jpeg?w=250


That man, Troy Haupt, asked the NFL for $1 million for his dad’s old tapes. The NFL replied that it would give him $30,000. When Haupt spurned that offer, the NFL stopped talking to Haupt entirely, other than to warn him that if he sells the tapes to a third party, he’ll be violating the league’s copyright and the NFL will go after him.

more...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/02/nfl-wont-pay-man-who-has-most-of-super-bowl-i-on-tape/



So the guy owns what is the single almost complete broadcast copy of the first Super Bowl IN EXISTENCE... In what I think is a lowball... askes for a million and the NFL that made, what, 10 BILLION last year... says nope... 30k.

DOUCHE Douche Douche.

The NFL Network replayed Super Bowl 1 twice in the past few weeks. I believe they used what tape they had and a recorded radio broadcast(?). Did you watch it?

[sukie]

it was a piece meal cut and past of the game. I didn't watch it. it is referenced in the article.

[Joe Fo Sho]

it was a piece meal cut and past of the game.

Right, which is kind of what this Haupt guy has. Only his version is better.


I didn't watch it. it is referenced in the article.

I don't know anybody that watched it. I think that's why the NFL doesn't really care much about it.

[sukie]

The haupt guy is missing a few plays after commercials aired but the commentary and play by play, for what he does have, are from the TV broadcast...

[Joe Fo Sho]

The haupt guy is missing a few plays after commercials aired but the commentary and play by play, for what he does have, are from the TV broadcast...

Right, he clearly has the best recording of it, but I think he's missing almost half of the 3rd quarter.

If he had the game in its entirety, I think it would be a different story. I mean, what's the NFL going to do with the tape, play his portion of the game on NFL Network? They just did that, albeit a lesser recording, and nobody I know cared about it. I think it has sentimental value more than anything, and the NFL is not in that business.

[OpIv37]

Seriously? They'd make their money back in ad revenue on the first time they showed it on NFL Network. They could probably turn a profit if they sold it on DVD or iTunes.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Seriously? They'd make their money back in ad revenue on the first time they showed it on NFL Network. They could probably turn a profit if they sold it on DVD or iTunes.

They'd make the same in ad revenue if they showed their "Top 10 People Named Steve" countdown, without shelling out $1 Million for the content that they already own.

You think they're going to be able to sell a DVD of 80% of Super Bowl I?

[Victor7]

30 k !

lol

Now that is lowballing if I've ever seen it.

Maybe not give the guy a mill but seriously 30k ???

[OpIv37]

They'd make the same in ad revenue if they showed their "Top 10 People Named Steve" countdown, without shelling out $1 Million for the content that they already own.

You think they're going to be able to sell a DVD of 80% of Super Bowl I?

If you just showed 80% of the game? No. Throw in interviews with the players that were involved, narration, etc, yes.

[Joe Fo Sho]

30 k !

lol

Now that is lowballing if I've ever seen it.

Maybe not give the guy a mill but seriously 30k ???

Ha, yes $30k is absurd. They probably spent more than that discussing how low their low-ball offer to this guy should be.

[OpIv37]

$1 million is nothing to the league.

Imagine this: your friend who's an artist does a painting that you really like. It's the only one in the world. He says "You can have it for $10." You reach into your pocket fishing for change, find 3 pennies and say "I'll give you this."

It's a slap in the face.

[Joe Fo Sho]

If you just showed 80% of the game? No. Throw in interviews with the players that were involved, narration, etc, yes.

You might be right, I don't know. I just know that I wouldn't buy it.

I wonder what the quality of the tape is. Not just the missing content, but the actual video quality. Television was pretty crappy back then, and I'm sure the video recording hardware just made it worse.

[Joe Fo Sho]

$1 million is nothing to the league.

Imagine this: your friend who's an artist does a painting that you really like. It's the only one in the world. He says "You can have it for $10." You reach into your pocket fishing for change, find 3 pennies and say "I'll give you this."

It's a slap in the face.

Well in this scenario, the painting was originally done by me and my friend just has the only picture of it. Him holding it hostage could be considered kind of mean. Plus I already have like a thousand other paintings that I made and like better. People are mostly interested in my most current paintings, anyway.

[Mr. Miyagi]

1 million is chicken scratch for the NFL, but at the same time they don't want to set an example of being held hostage for it.

I think at the end of the day they'll work out a deal for 250K or something. It's still a nice payday for a tape found in the attic. It's not like the guy worked for it or anything.

[gebobs]

$1 million is nothing to the league.

Imagine this: your friend who's an artist does a painting that you really like. It's the only one in the world. He says "You can have it for $10." You reach into your pocket fishing for change, find 3 pennies and say "I'll give you this."

It's a slap in the face.

Let me play devil's advocate. You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife. You may ask yourself, "How did I get here?" Wait, no. Wrong tack.

OK, so you have a beautiful house and a beautiful wife. Someone takes something of yours. Maybe it's not worth a lot, but it has some sentimental value, like your wedding album. They call you and ask you to pay $10,000 for it. The money is not an issue really. They are selling back to you what is rightfully yours.

Rather than bother to get the police involved, you offer the person $50. That's mighty nice of you. Why is everyone saying your offer is insulting?

[sukie]

Let me play devil's advocate. You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife. You may ask yourself, "How did I get here?" Wait, no. Wrong tack.

OK, so you have a beautiful house and a beautiful wife. Someone takes something of yours. Maybe it's not worth a lot, but it has some sentimental value, like your wedding album. They call you and ask you to pay $10,000 for it. The money is not an issue really. They are selling back to you what is rightfully yours.

Rather than bother to get the police involved, you offer the person $50. That's mighty nice of you. Why is everyone saying your offer is insulting?

More like this...Say you LOOSE your wedding album... it was destroyed. Someone has a duplicate. Is that duplicate yours without cast? The initial broadcast was recorded over. The NFL had no copy of the telecast. it was gone. I think this bit of memorabilia is worth something to the guy being able to restore what was once destroyed.

[Joe Fo Sho]

More like this...Say you LOOSE your wedding album... it was destroyed. Someone has a duplicate. Is that duplicate yours without cast? The initial broadcast was recorded over. The NFL had no copy of the telecast. it was gone. I think this bit of memorabilia is worth something to the guy being able to restore what was once destroyed.

Do you want to remember your 1st wedding that badly when you're about to get married for a 50th time?

[gebobs]

More like this...Say you LOOSE your wedding album... it was destroyed. Someone has a duplicate. Is that duplicate yours without cast?

When you take it that far, you're missing an important fact that takes a perfectly good analogy and makes it a false one, that being copywrite.

To answer your question with your analogy (not mine), the duplicate is not yours. However, the other guy cannot legally sell it or any of the photos in it. To do away with the analogy, the rights to rebroadcast the tapes rest solely with the NFL.

[cookie G]

Let me play devil's advocate. You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife. You may ask yourself, "How did I get here?" Wait, no. Wrong tack.

OK, so you have a beautiful house and a beautiful wife. Someone takes something of yours. Maybe it's not worth a lot, but it has some sentimental value, like your wedding album. They call you and ask you to pay $10,000 for it. The money is not an issue really. They are selling back to you what is rightfully yours.

Rather than bother to get the police involved, you offer the person $50. That's mighty nice of you. Why is everyone saying your offer is insulting?

Except, the NFL doesn't own the tape, it isn't rightfully theirs. They might control rebroadcasting rights..but they certainly don't own the physical the tape.

But to make your scenario a little more accurate....

the "wedding tape" is actually a tape of one of the Kardashian's weddings. They got married to stage a wedding for whatever network they are on. At the time, it didn't go over too well in the ratings.

Being a Kardashian, the wedding tape was copied over by one of their sex tapes, which..is in the public domain by now.

One of the guests now has the only copy to it. Knowing that Ms. Kardashian (pick one), if they purchase the tape, will rebroadcast it and obtain millions in advertising fees, DVD's etc. You offer to sell it to them. You even offer to put some of the proceeds to charity (which this guy did btw).

They are insulted, and think you're holding them hostage for a tape they didn't bother to retain.

Instead, they piece together snippets of the wedding from still photos, and the end product looks like Bruce Lee cutouts in Game of Death.

The NFL isn't being sentimental about this. And whatever principles they are adhering to, idk..

Hell...a copy of the Declaration of Independence was sold in the early 90's for twice this amount. If there is anything that should be "donated" its something like that.

But..it went out on Sotheby's.

Now that this story is out, I can see that happening, regardless of the current broadcast rights. There's a good chance a wealthy sports memorabilia collector might want it.

[cookie G]

Luckily, unlike the SB tape, the negotiations for the sale/transfer of the tape WERE preserved.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W6FRXnmISBo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jon Voight plays a perfect Roger Goodell.

I'm so glad I bought his LeBaron.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Jon Voight plays a perfect Roger Goodell.

I'm so glad I bought his LeBaron.

Vehicles previously belonging to Periodontists usually have high resale value, good on you.

[gebobs]

Except, the NFL doesn't own the tape, it isn't rightfully theirs.
All analogies are imperfect by nature. They are, to use another analogy, like a Monet. From afar, you see the flowers and the girls playing in the field. Closer, all you see are brushstrokes.

The NFL does not own the tape. Really, they couldn't care less about the actual tape. The NFL cares about the broadcast rights of the tape. It's the only thing they care about. If they can get the tape and use it or a broadcast, I'm sure they would love it. If they can't, no one's the worse.

Haupt, bless his soul, is a lucky man, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has the tape, but the tape is not what's really for sale, the broadcast rights which the NFL owns and has never lost. He should take his $30k and feel fortunate.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Haupt, bless his soul, is a lucky man, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has the tape, but the tape is not what's really for sale, the broadcast rights which the NFL owns and has never lost. He should take his $30k and feel fortunate.

No leg to stand on?! Why he could just wait until the broadcast enters the public domain! The laws, as they were in 1967, allow this copyright to enter the public domain in a mere 95 years, which would be the year 2062! That is, of course, if the Disney corporation doesn't have them changed again like they did last time when Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain..

[cookie G]

All analogies are imperfect by nature. They are, to use another analogy, like a Monet. From afar, you see the flowers and the girls playing in the field. Closer, all you see are brushstrokes.

The NFL does not own the tape. Really, they couldn't care less about the actual tape. The NFL cares about the broadcast rights of the tape. It's the only thing they care about. If they can get the tape and use it or a broadcast, I'm sure they would love it. If they can't, no one's the worse.

Haupt, bless his soul, is a lucky man, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has the tape, but the tape is not what's really for sale, the broadcast rights which the NFL owns and has never lost. He should take his $30k and feel fortunate.

Its more like a Babe Ruth autographed baseball. The ball itself isn't worth much,, nor is the ink. But the rarity makes the value.

This is a one of a kind item.

If that's all the NFL is offering, I'll keep it in a vault. A Jackie Robinson glove used in the World series sold for nearly $400,000 once.

I'll take my chances with its value.

[BertSquirtgum]

I'd take the 30k and run.

[gebobs]

Its more like a Babe Ruth autographed baseball. The ball itself isn't worth much,, nor is the ink. But the rarity makes the value.
Indeed. In and of itself, it is a collectible, nothing more.


This is a one of a kind item.

As far as we know. If he is within his rights to sell the tape (and I'm not sure he is), by all means, sell to the highest bidder like any other piece of memorabilia. Don't wait too long though. With all this publicity, rival tapes, better ones even, may miraculously appear.

[Mr. Pink]

Thing is what the NFL Network broadcasted of the game was every play with the radio broadcast.

So what are they really gaining by paying this guy anything?

The only "value" to the league the game has is what they can make broadcasting it, well they've been broadcasting Superbowl 1 the past couple weeks now off the work they did on it to make it "complete-ish"

They gain an incomplete game with the TV broadcast. Something that won't generate any more ad revenue than what they have already. And something they still will have to do some editing work on.

Cost vs Value...simply put there is 30k value to this tape in the eyes of the NFL. Which is 30k more value than I'd say it has to them.

[YardRat]

Did the NFL have the disclaimer about copying, reproducing, etc on the broadcast at the time?

[pmoon6]

All analogies are imperfect by nature. They are, to use another analogy, like a Monet. From afar, you see the flowers and the girls playing in the field. Closer, all you see are brushstrokes.

The NFL does not own the tape. Really, they couldn't care less about the actual tape. The NFL cares about the broadcast rights of the tape. It's the only thing they care about. If they can get the tape and use it or a broadcast, I'm sure they would love it. If they can't, no one's the worse.

Haupt, bless his soul, is a lucky man, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has the tape, but the tape is not what's really for sale, the broadcast rights which the NFL owns and has never lost. He should take his $30k and feel fortunate.Thanked for the first sentences and the Impressionist reference.

Beautifully said.

[Mr. Cynical]

what's the NFL going to do with the tape, play his portion of the game on NFL Network?

Depending on what pieces the NFL has, they could edit it together with Haupt's version and get a pretty complete game. That is, of course, unless the pieces the NFL are missing are the same ones that Haupt is missing (more or less) So I bet that's the case, i.e., Haupt may only have a few mins here and there that the NFL doesn't already have, so net net it wouldn't be that valuable to them. Otherwise I have to believe they will ultimately come back with a higher offer, maybe $250K or something.

[gebobs]

Did the NFL have the disclaimer about copying, reproducing, etc on the broadcast at the time?

Probably not, but disclaimers are not really relevant. They have copywrite.

[trapezeus]

he made an offer, they countered and they didn't get anywhere. if it was me, I would have pushed back on 30 and asked for 60 and been done with it. it's super bowl 1. I would never watch it if it was on nfl network. as we get more pass oriented and the footage looks dated, it's just not intriguing for younger fans. it would be interesting if a john scott type of thing broke out and all the fans started saying how badly they wanted to see the footage and that they wouldn't accept the current stuff.

[Mike]

NFL won’t pay man who has most of Super Bowl I on tape


No full recording of the original broadcast of Super Bowl I exists because in the 1960s networks rarely saved their tapes. But one man owns what is believed to be the closest thing to a full recording, tapes his late father made of most of the game, minus commercials, some plays that came right after commercial breaks, halftime and some of the third quarter.

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznptq4ymmwnwjhnjm1ngmynmy0zty0mwzimdjmyti2owu0-e1429662094368.jpeg?w=250


That man, Troy Haupt, asked the NFL for $1 million for his dad’s old tapes. The NFL replied that it would give him $30,000. When Haupt spurned that offer, the NFL stopped talking to Haupt entirely, other than to warn him that if he sells the tapes to a third party, he’ll be violating the league’s copyright and the NFL will go after him.

more...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/02/nfl-wont-pay-man-who-has-most-of-super-bowl-i-on-tape/



So the guy owns what is the single almost complete broadcast copy of the first Super Bowl IN EXISTENCE... In what I think is a lowball... askes for a million and the NFL that made, what, 10 BILLION last year... says nope... 30k.

DOUCHE Douche Douche.

You should not be surprised

* IF the NFL could pay the players minimum wage they would. This is why you have a union otherwise players would be making $30k