According to Consumerist, the NFL has refused to purchase the only known recording of Super Bowl I. The game was simulcast on CBS and NBC but neither saved a copy of the broadcast. So the only known recording was done by a private individual on Quadruplex videotape machine.
According to The New York Times ,
Troy Haupt is a 47-year-old nurse anesthetist here in North Carolina's Outer Banks. He has a secret to reveal about Super Bowl I: He owns the only known recording of its broadcast.
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.
Unless the league and Haupt make a deal to resolve the financial differences that have privately divided them since 2005, the tapes will stay in storage in a former mine in upstate New York.
Haupt's father, Martin, taped the game. Haupt never knew him. Haupt and his mother, Beth Rebuck, say they have no idea what he did for a living back then. They also don't know why he went to work on Jan. 15, 1967, with a pair of two-inch Scotch tapes, slipped one, and then the other, into a Quadruplex taping machine and recorded the Green Bay Packers' 35-10 win over the Kansas City Chiefs. He told his family nothing about his day's activity.
It would take another eight years for Martin Haupt to tell his wife what he had done. By then, they had divorced and both had remarried.
He was sick with cancer and handed her the tapes.
"He said maybe they could help pay for the kids' education," she said. And she put them in the attic, where they accumulated dust and intrigue.
Related:
NFL Has a Recording of Every Play of Super Bowl I and Re-Aired That--but....
Related Stories
The original plan as CBS Sports announced was
- Super Bowl I will re-air for the first time half a century later
Forty-nine years to the day after Super Bowl I between the Packers and Chiefs went down, NFL Films is replaying a recreated version of the game at 8 p.m. ET on Friday, January 15th.
[...] The game originally aired on both NBC and CBS but all the tapes of the game "were either lost or recorded over". There was no "full video version of the game" until NFL Films fully restored the tapes, putting audio of a radio broadcast over top.
In an exhaustive process that took months to complete, NFL Films searched its enormous archives of footage and were able to locate all 145 plays from Super Bowl I from more than a couple dozen disparate sources. Once all the plays were located, NFL Films was able to put the plays in order and [stitch] them together while fully restoring, re-mastering, and color correcting the footage. Finally, audio from the NBC Sports radio broadcast featuring announcers Jim Simpson and George Ratterman was layered on top of the footage to complete the broadcast.
The execution, however, wasn't quite the spectacular that the National Football (hand egg) League's promotions hyped as NBC Sports reported:
[Continued.]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @08:37PM
At the least, take away their tax-free status. These parasites need some major ass-whopping. Ex-players should sue them into oblivion.
Besides, college football is way more entertaining.
(Score: 2, Informative) by ghost on Friday February 05 2016, @09:07PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 05 2016, @09:15PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @09:29PM
Besides, college football is way more entertaining
Ah the other set of parasites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @09:38PM
Yeah, NCAA and colleges (re basketball and football). If NFL at least fund their own development league, they would be a bit, slightly a bit, less of parasites.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Friday February 05 2016, @09:01PM
Seems like a donation to the Museum of TV and Radio or the LoC would be reasonable. At least they could then be preserved for a more sane age.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 05 2016, @09:14PM
Except for.....
"This copyrighted broadcast is the property of the National Football League. Any rebroadcast or reproduction without the consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited."
I can only assume something similar was spoken even for the first broadcast. I'm sure their lawyers are trying to get it for free even as we speak. Copyright is essentially forever these days, so if something equivalent to that was on the tape the NFL can claim copyright violation.
Now the current "owner" might tell them, if you try to enforce copyright I will burn the tape, so there is probably a bit of dance going on behind the scenes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @09:25PM
Is there even a copyright case here?
The infringement, if any, would have occurred when the broadcast was recorded onto this tape 50 years ago.
Moreover, the person responsible is long dead.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 05 2016, @09:40PM
Mere possession of copyright violating material is a copyright violation.
Trying to sell such is another violation.
So yes, there is a copyright issue here. If you don't believe me, just ask the Disney corporation.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Friday February 05 2016, @10:10PM
Mere possession of copyright violating material is a copyright violation.
The VCR lawsuits have long since put to rest any question of the legality of recording a broadcast to tape for personal use & time shifting. It IS completely legal.
Trying to sell such is another violation.
In general yes, but not if they are selling the copy back to the copyright holder. The copyright holder would explicitly be authorizing that sale simply by being a fully informed party to it.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 05 2016, @11:12PM
Betamax didn't arrive till 1975. The Betamax decision much much later.
Quadruplex was a commercial product used by the tv industry, and as such he was clearly using it as part of his job, and can't claim home/personal use. No where does it mention that he even had the equipment to play it back. Clearly stolen from his job.
By declining to buy, the NFL puts him on notice that he can't sell it. Since they would be the only legitimate buyer.
But that does not mean that they can't seize it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:44AM
The person who recorded it is dead. The tape is now owned by his son. The quality and rarity of the recorder is entirely irrelevant. The ability to play it back is irrelevant. If his employer objects to his decades old infraction of a rule (if it existed) against using company equipment for personal benefit, they can fire him but it would be moot at this point.
The most the NFL could likely do legally since they don't own the media is demand that it be erased beyond recovery.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:57AM
I presumed simply by virtue of the dates involved that Quadruplex must have pre-dated Betamax etc, but wasn't aware of the details.
You raise a good point that he did it 'at work', but it was still clearly for 'personal use'. If I use the VCR at the office to record a show and then bring it home, its still well within the betamax ruling. Even if i don't own a VCR and never get around to actually using it. The betamax ruling, even though it came after quadruplex still would very likely apply to the technology and usage scenario.
Clearly stolen from his job
That's hard to say, yes maybe he misapproriated the use of the equipment for personal use during the game. And maybe the tapes themselves were 'stolen' from the supply closet. Or maybe he had that much leeway at the office in his role. And maybe the tapes were used and were to be discarded, and the company had no issue with him taking them home... to make an art project or whatever. I carry old gear out of the office home all the time, and I'm not "stealing it". Regardless, making a recording of a program on a stolen tape doesn't alter the status of the recording itself.
By declining to buy, the NFL puts him on notice that he can't sell it. Since they would be the only legitimate buyer.
For now, quite so. But sooner or later (ok... later) the copyright will expire. And he (or his descendants) will still have the only intact copy.
But that does not mean that they can't seize it.
They? Being the NFL? Hardly. They don't own the tapes. And they don't own the copy of the game on it. (They own the copyrights to that copy, but not the copy itself.) He could even shift it to VHS or DVD if he likes, if he could figure out how, for his personal use.
His original employer might theoretically able to make a case to seize the "stolen tapes", maybe if they can actually prove they were in fact stolen. Its doubtful they'd even be able to prove the tapes even belonged to them in the first place. Did they file a police report when they went missing? Do they have inventory records showing the purchase of those specific tapes? Its almost laughable.
Expensive Jewelry, Paintings, Automobiles, that's kind of stuff you can get pinched for 50 years later since the original owners or their estates will have ample documentation that the property was rightfully theirs in the form of insurance, registrations, and filed police reports when it was stolen etc. But a couple blank reels that might just as easily been from a waste bin as the office supply closet... good luck.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:29AM
No. it wasn't for personal use. It was for profit all along. He had no player.
As for your arguments about seizure, you are talking nonsense here. (And I suspect you know it).
Commerce Dept seizes tons of copyrighted goods every year, even when the copyright holder doesn't own the media.
You don't have to own the DVDs in order to seize an entire shipment of illegally duplicated Movies or music.
You don't have to prove where he got the blank tapes, All you have to do is prove he HAS them, with an NFL production on them, with no legal authority to have them.
You may wish your imaginary rules are what the law says, but that is not the reality we have today.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:19AM
No. it wasn't for personal use. It was for profit all along. He had no player.
It was just to 'have it'.
What was the profit plan, wait until he died, leave it to his kids, and hope the NFL didn't have any copies so they could sell it back to them? Seriously?
Commerce Dept seizes tons of copyrighted goods every year, even when the copyright holder doesn't own the media.
You don't have to own the DVDs in order to seize an entire shipment of illegally duplicated Movies or music.
Ok, I see your line of argument; and I get where you are going. But even that is an entirely different scenario. Go ahead, report that this guy has a single copy, of an otherwise lost broadcast, on an obsolete medium... and they'll rush out exactly the same as they do for a container full of counterfeit Disney movies.
He's got the equivalent a couple reels of analog tape that he recorded from a broadcast. No amount of bluster is going to fool anyone that its a container full of knockoff goods destined to sold illegally in black markets. That's not applicable here.
And even if they did seize it on that pretext it would go into evidence, it would not simply be turned over to the NFL. And this guy would have to lose in court, which is certainly possible, but far from a given, given the circumstances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @03:33AM
Even then, unlike counterfeit goods and the like, the original owner still has rights over the tape. They could still argue that the proper remedy in accordance with all the ownership interests is the destruction of the tapes, rather than allowing the NFL access to them. In fact, given the repose over the original copying, that is probably why the NFL hasn't sued them over the tapes; they know that is a real possibility it will be destroyed. They are basically untouchable unless they do another act that violates the various laws around IP.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Friday February 05 2016, @10:22PM
I'm not sure of the durability of Quadruplex, but any media beyond stone tablets have reliability considerations at 50 years.
During the legal proceedings, a third party should be allowed to digitize the tape for archival purposes. Even if you dislike the event, there is no denying that the Superbowl is a core aspect to this era of American culture. It should be archived for that reason alone.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday February 05 2016, @11:33PM
If they have any sense at all, those tapes are digitally duped in the highest possible resolution and stored on multiple SSDs located in geographically diverse areas.
Last I heard, the NFL was offering $30K against the owner's $1M ask. Were I the owner, I'd settle on something in the neighborhood of $250K (NFL probably put that much into their lame reproduction they recently made) - but I'd also bet that the NFL has pissed him off the the point that he's thinking of raising his ask.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:05AM
If I were in possession of the tape I would tell the NFL that they can wait until it enters the public domain to see it ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:49AM
What's especially telling is that the NFL is offering less money than what they can get out of an infringement suit. They value it less than the possible statutory damages. Aren't statutory damages supposed to reflect how much something may be valued. If something like this isn't even valued that much by the NFL isn't that an indication that statutory damages are way too high?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:51AM
(or it could be an indication that the NFL is trying to take advantage of the fact that they are the only possible entity that can purchase the works and hence they are scamming this person over).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @06:48AM
The person who recorded the tape is dead. Even if there is a copyright case, they simply cannot collect damages from the responsible party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:36PM
I know but that's not the point I was making.
(Score: 4, Funny) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 05 2016, @10:36PM
Apparently we've welcomed former Slashdot editors to the staff. [soylentnews.org] Cheers!
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @11:45PM
It's a stupid game.
Why anyone is interested in it is beyond me.
Supporting these morons and their pathetic "sport" is dumb too.
Even if you don't agree that it's stupid, go play the damn game instead of helping to make billions for a bunch of greedy scumbags.
Whether it's this stupidity over some crappy recording or the utter lack of empathy for the many who've been brain damaged for the pecuniary benefit of a few people, it's clear that nothing of value is gained.
The whole college sports debacle is even worse. "Educational" institutions collectively reap hundreds of millions or even billions, while finding ways to cheat the exploited players of a decent learning experience. Most of those poor kids won't end up with lucrative contracts to have their brains bashed, and the schools pretend that they're educating them instead of just allowing them to slide so they can make more money for themselves.
The vast majority will end up without relevant skills and end up with a worthless piece of paper that will barely qualify them to speak the age-old mantra, "do you want fries with that?"
Go ahead and watch. By doing so you're implicitly endorsing traumatic brain injury and cheating young adults out of a decent education in order to profit a small group of sociopaths.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:06AM
Why anyone is interested in it is beyond me.
Supporting these morons and their pathetic "sport" is dumb too."
I've been tempted to say something similar but it's mean-spirited and wrong. It's a game, it's as legitimate as any other game.
"Even if you don't agree that it's stupid, go play the damn game instead of helping to make billions for a bunch of greedy scumbags."
Now THAT I can 100% agree with. If you enjoy football, go play football, please. Don't sit on the couch stuffing your face and 'feeling yourself part of something bigger' because you are fanatical about a game you don't even play. Particularly don't go around voting for politicians to use public funds to promote this waste of time while our bridges are falling down, please.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:34AM
"It's a stupid game.
Why anyone is interested in it is beyond me.
Supporting these morons and their pathetic "sport" is dumb too."
I've been tempted to say something similar but it's mean-spirited and wrong. It's a game, it's as legitimate as any other game.
I disagree. If my statement is interpreted as "mean-spirited," then folks aren't paying attention. My personal slant on this (or any) topic is just that -- mine.
I stated my opinion. If some are insulted by it, that's both their prerogative and their issue, not mine. If you disagree, let's discuss. Or not, as you choose. I have no interest in telling anyone what they should think or believe.
Just to clarify, while I may think a particular behavior or activity is "dumb," that doesn't mean I'm making a personal attack on anyone who engages in said activity or behavior.
I don't watch the sport and have little interest other than the damage (physical, economic and intellectual) it seems to cause to those who are exploited by a small group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:05AM
I 100% agree. Do not watch anything you cannot do yourself. Do not go to art museums if you cannot paint. Do not read literature if you cannot write a decent stanza. Do not read narrow-minded dumbass opinions if you cannot write them yourself (whew, at least you have THAT one covered!).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:13AM
The ancient Greeks had the Olympics; we have gridiron football, baseball, and basketball.
Why was theirs so heroic and ours so lame?
(Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:21AM
Step 1. Secretly rip tape to digital video.
Step 2. Negotiate price with NFL and sell them tape.
Step 3. Profit! While laughing all the way to bank.
Step 4. "Leak" video to internet some time after transaction but before broadcast.
Step 5. Laugh more as NFL is completely fucked over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @06:23AM
Secretly rip tape to digital video
Publicly threaten to publicly burn tape if my demands aren't met by a specified time
Livestream the event of me holding the tape next to a fire and waiting for the deadline
Livestream the event of me burning the tape if they ignore my demands.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday February 06 2016, @05:07PM
Secretly rip tape to digital video
Publicly threaten to publicly burn tape if my demands aren't met by a specified time
Livestream the event of me holding the tape next to a fire and waiting for the deadline
Livestream the event of me burning the tape if they ignore my demands.
All the while dressed like a member of ISIS.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:59AM
I just went down to my storage closet and found one I recorded 30 years ago. I was in the Army and our unit was heavily involved in A/V production. With these NFL stories and the recent article on Arstechnica [arstechnica.com], I had to go look for it. My original job involved programming 6502 assembly on an Apple IIe which outputted its NTSC signal to a Sony BVU 800 3/4 inch VTR. We had some really kick ass shit, better A/V equipment than most TV studios had at that time. My civilian boss had so much clout that one day I mentioned that it would be nice to have a refrigerator in our office. Dammit if he didn't get the Army to deliver a full sized one to our office the next day!
Then the space shuttle Challenger blew up. I was suddenly tasked with recording everything in the media, mostly from CNN back in those days and using our equipment to produce a video presentation. I did so, and some of the shit was disturbing. CNN actually broadcast a shot of the reaction of the parents of one of the astronauts when they saw Challenger explode. I deleted that shit.
But the other footage I kept, and there is a lot of it - much of it doesn't really seem to exist anymore. It may exist in some storage closet in CNN, but as far as I can tell it doesn't exist on teh Interwebs.
So I made a copy of that presentation on VHS and mostly forgot about it. Now I have found the tape. If I can find a working VCR, I'll digitize it and upload it to Youtube.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @12:44PM
I must be dense but what "presentation" is it that you have a copy of? I somehow missed that in everything you were saying.
But whatever it is please do digitize and upload it! The archivist in me loves the idea of lost treasures being resurrected.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:18PM
Dinner bowl that
who gives a fuck