Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Searching in my mother's house I found something very interesting: parts of the 1979 Monday Night Football contest between Denver and Pittsburgh, but since we didn't had back then a video cassette recorder, I recorded with a tape recorder that my parents gave me for my 8th birthday. It is a very old AMPEX cassette, and it's the Spanish-dubbed game (back then in Mexico, the Monday Night games were broadcasted with a two hours delay and until two years later it was practically imposible to view the American networks ABC, CBS and NBC, plus the commercials were blacked out when finally in 1981 we could see them). The most amusing thing is the way the Mexican commntators back then pronounced the name Haven Moses, the Broncos WR who scored their only TD of the game.

Steviek wrote:The NFL would surely not care if the PFRA lobbied for something like this. With all due respect to the fine gentlemen who serve as officers of this organization, it would be a colossal waste of time dealing with the league. As far as I know, there is not a tremendous amount of direct interaction between the PFRA and the NFL and any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.

Except it appears that SOMEONE from the NFL monitors this site.

As an author, I'm a very strong believer in copyright laws in general. However, I'm also an opponent of using copyright laws to prevent publication instead of protecting publication, which has become an all too common practice, particularly with libraries and other institutions that hold archives of various kinds.

I'd love to see some kind of "use it or lose it" clause in U.S. copyright that would require a copyright holder to publish or forfeit copyright.

Steviek wrote:This is a debate that reemerges every so often. The problem is that people who have a keen interest in viewing these videos overestimate the interest from the general public. It's miniscule and not very profitable. .

I think that is right, this is not a group that has mainstream interests. We are an esoteric group in our interests. The general fan base of the NFL is not really interested in the things we like to discuss and view and post about.

We don't things (that often, anyway) like do fantasy football or predict games or thinks like that. We find small things interesting which makes it kind of fun.

Back in the '80s NFL Films commercially sold packaged sets of team highlights (i.e. Cowboys '65-'69, Dolphins '70-'74) on VHS. They only selected a few successful teams and memorable years that might have had mass appeal. You could get these tapes for $70. My guess is that they didn't move a lot of units so they abandoned this approach. If you order a dvd from Films you get your very own dvd label hand typed, then personally walked over and lovingly loaded into a dvd burner. You are paying for the human interaction more than anything else. You want 'em cheap? Bring on the robots!

Two years ago they had a paid streaming service but gave up on it before posting everything. Maybe due to a lack of interest? I don't know because no explanation was given. If they think a lot of people are going to pay $50 a piece for 23-47 minute DVDs I'm afraid I've got some bad news. So if they have no interest in doing anything about their old content why care about other people posting it? They have their own YouTube channel. They have no problem posting what some schlub thinks about the Buccaneers secondary. How many more people would watch that rather than the 1976 Buccaneers highlight film? It's a bad look for them.

rhickok1109 wrote:As an author, I'm a very strong believer in copyright laws in general. However, I'm also an opponent of using copyright laws to prevent publication instead of protecting publication, which has become an all too common practice, particularly with libraries and other institutions that hold archives of various kinds.

I'd love to see some kind of "use it or lose it" clause in U.S. copyright that would require a copyright holder to publish or forfeit copyright.

Great minds think alike - I have had this idea as well.

I've said before there should be an NFL freedom of information act. I cannot imagine that anything from >50 years ago could truly threaten the fortunes of a modern franchise. Even Dick LeBeau isn't likely rolling out the same coverages that Shula tauyht him in Detroit in the 60's.