There are many “legal issues facing copyright holders of television shows whose product is available online through modern peer-to-peer networks.”  In the instance there is a copyright infringement in peer-to-peer file sharing, court cases are left to determine whether or not the fair use policy is applicable.  It has been suggested that the fair use argument depends “on whether the end user downloads for a private viewing experience or whether the end user downloads and extends the use beyond mere private viewing.”  In other words, the courts are responsible for determining whether the character of the television show has been changed from the original.  If, in fact, individuals are downloading television shows with the intention of using it for more than just “a private viewing experience,” then the fair use argument is much less valid.

            It is suggested that the television industry take as many anti-piracy precautions as possible, so to avoid the level of illegal downloading in the music industry. Though the fair use argument may prevail in some instances, the majority of copyright infringement and piracy cases cannot be explained by the fair use doctrine.  Therefore, copyright laws need to be updated to cover the technology that pirates are using to download their favorite television shows.  As the title suggests, individuals involved in these copyright cases need to prepare for the fact that the fair use argument does not work with television shows as well as it may with music. 

    High licensing costs are one of the many reasons that many former television shows are unable to be reproduced as DVDs.  Shows that are actually released on DVD often edit the language or change the music, in order to abide by specific copyright laws.  “And some shows, like WKRP [in Cincinnati], which is full of music, will probably never make it to DVD because of high licensing cost.”  Not only are some shows not even able to reach the DVD format, but those that do are often different than the originals. In these cases, the fans of certain television shows are disheartened and upset.  “The fans don’t want syndicated cuts. They don’t want the songs replaced.  They don’t want anything censored for political correctness.  They want to see it in the way they originally saw it broadcast, enjoyed it, and fell in love with.” Some shows have been released in full in other countries, and only limitedly in the United States, due to a difference in licensing fees.  For example, “only selected episodes from the first season of Ally McBeal had been released in the United States because of the high cost of music licensing. But in the United Kingdom, where different licensing deals have been struck, viewers can order all five seasons.” 

In some instances, fans are willing to wait long periods of until the studios strike a deal and the television shows are eventually released.  However, other fans are neither willing to wait nor pay the money for a show that has been altered from the original.  Similarly, some producers do not want their shows reproduced differently than the originals.  Since fans are unable or unwilling to legally purchase original copies of their favorite television shows, some have taken to finding and downloading them illegally.  As a result, many copyright laws and infringement cases have erected.  The technology of the Internet moves at a much faster pace than many of these current laws; therefore, since fans have take to finding alternative means of watching currently syndicated or previously cancelled television shows, copyright officials must find ways to stop them. 

This is a class action suit brought against the NFL for violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 (SBA) exempted professional sports leagues from the Sherman Act and allowed them to collectively sell their broadcasting rights. The NFL agreed to sell broadcasting rights to DirectTV so they could sell NFL Sunday Ticket packages to the public. This package is considered "all or nothing" for you either purchase the ability to view all games, or you are limited to only the 2 games in your region. Shaw argues that this limits options for the public while creating artificially high and non-competitive prices. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision that the NFL's actions did not fall within the bounds of the SBA. The NFL already received an exemption to the Sherman Act and that exemption must be narrowly construed according to the Court; after already being granted an exemption it would be wrong for the NFL to be allowed so much latitude.

After reading the Fenwick article, I had sympathy for the NFL, actually believing they were being deprived of their due "piece of the pie". However, I find it improbable that the NFL believed that their contract with DirectTV was fair to the consumer population. If Direct TV is the only provider and offers only one option, they essentially hold a monopoly on the market. If a compromise is to be made between the NFL and their fans, each group needs to be conscious of each other's well being. The consumer can not be held responsible for a ratings system that does not properly reflect viewership; the NFL should, and was held responsible for taking advantage of their fans. Is the NFL acting as a typical capitalist profit seeking firm? To a point yes, but Shaw reveals some greed on their part. The Nielsen ratings already limit consumers' options on the Super Bowl, now the NFL Sunday Ticket limits their options every Sunday. The latter action leads to me to stop giving the NFL the benefit of the doubt.