iCrave TV Loses Battle against U.S. Broadcasters 179
Doran writes "C|Net has this story about how the Canadian company iCraveTV.com has lost its latest battle in U.S. courts over whether it can rebroadcast TV signals over the Web. The broadcasters say it's theft, while iCraveTV sez it's just doing what's legal for other cable TV companies in Canada (ie. rebroadcasting TV). Of course, by framing the streaming video iCraveTV is doing more than just rebroadcasting, they're also adding more commercial content, which the broadcasters feel dilutes their TV commercials.
"
Re:Will it be missed? (Score:1)
Lets stop praying for someone to save us and save ourselves. ~KMFDM
Re:CANADA vs. US (Score:1)
This is just like online gambling... (Score:1)
I'd suppose you can also compare this to getting soft drugs in the Netherlands; do what you want there but don't bring it back!
Re:Damn Americans (Score:1)
I was told that the only way I could avoid paying income taxes was to renounce my citizenship.
Re:Damn Americans (Score:1)
if you want, and the US couldn't do anything about it...
until....
you get back on home turf, at which time you're screwed.
Canadian Conspiracy. Lorne Greene. Green card... (Score:1)
Sheesh. Don't you know that we've already taken over Hollywood? Our plans were set back a bit with Lorne Greene's death, but soon all the actors in Hollywood are going to up and move back to their homeland - Canada! ...and they're taking Hollywood with them!
I bet you didn't even know that one of the largest Canadian cities by population is Los Angeles, did you.
Now go watch the Canadian Conspiracy and slap yourself upside the head with a cod.
Intellectual property??!! (Score:1)
Re:I wonder what law they used ? (Score:2)
OTOH, I note that iCraveTV's domain is registered to a US company, William R. Craig Consulting. Perhaps that places them under the jurisdiction of the US courts.
But if they really are a Canadian company and not just a US company that has set up operations in Canada, the broadcasters are going after iCrave in a US court because under Canadian law they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:1)
And always remember: The US government(tm) is good....it's always good....gotta love that ""democracy""
This is your broadcaster signing off.
Re:Who needs iCraveTV? Me! (Score:2)
Re:Ah well... (Score:1)
Lets stop praying for someone to save us and save ourselves. ~KMFDM
Re:I wonder what law they used ? (Score:1)
Just? Debatable. Correct? NO! (Score:1)
Well, actually no, at least in Canada. Canadian law states that you can rebroadcast any TV program provided that a) you do not edit it, and b) you make a *reasonable attempt* to pay copyright fees.
You don't have to have permission from the copyright holder in advance, and if they are unreasonable in negotiating (or refuse to negotiate) copyright fees, you don't have to pay them anything.
Yes, it is a dumb law -- it goes back to the days when the canadian government wanted to promote cable TV, and thus passed laws designed to permit cable TV companies to rebroadcast material without too much trouble -- but it IS the Canadian law.
This entire issue has really been attacked from the wrong angle by the US broadcasters. Instead of trying to get a court order to stop the rebroadcasts, they should lobby the US federal government to lodge a protest with the Canadian government over this -- it falls under copyright treaties -- and get the Canadian government to change the laws.
But until the laws change in Canada, what iCraveTV is doing is completely legal.
Re:The Almighty Nielsens (Score:2)
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Superbowl was highlighted makes me suspicious. The only reason for this, IMHO, is that they want their ratings, which don't get counted on ICraveTV's rebroadcast.
Of course they are worried about the ratings, that's how they make money. The higher your ratings are, the more money you charge for commercials. If the Superbowl suddenly dropped hugely in the ratings this year (not saying iCraveTV could have that huge an effect, just a for instance) next year they wouldn't be able to charge nearly as much for advertising time as this year. Ratings==money.
QUOTE:
"...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..."
UNQUOTE
I think the problem here isn't that the Canadian law applies, no one will argue that. it's that they are/were also broadcasting American stations as well. I know they were broadcasting some New York stations, which makes the law VERY muddled. ICraveTV is Canadian, but they are getting American content, so which laws apply? If they had only been broadcasting Canadian content, it would have been a lot more cut and dry.
keep yuir damned rocks (Score:1)
Why not build a giant broadcast signal jamming network along your northern border to stop "Ami-Kultur" from reaching us poor canucks. Then we won't be able to do anything with it.
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:1)
(Apples != oranges) && (framing != local insertions)
Re:Damn Americans and toxic waste (Score:1)
Naw, I think he got the point. Perhaps you missed his subtle humour?
Your analogy is wrong. It is illegal to dump toxic waste in both countries. You'd have to pick something that is legal in the US and illegal in Canada -- like buying assault rifles or something - I don't know, whatever.
Also, the Canadian company in question is not - continuing to examine your analogy - dumping into American territory. The small Canadian company is taking toxic waste (I love that you chose toxic waste as an example) that has been dumped in massive quantities in Canada by huge American corporations and putting it in a big vat IN CANADA. Then, knowing how much Americans love their toxic waste, they've set up a service where by Americans can set up their automated robotic agents to cross the border into Canada - come to the Vat o' Goodness, scoop up some of the waste and return to America with it. And now an American judge has ruled that its the Canadian company that's doing the dumping?!! and it's wrong for that to happen in the United States.
Ridiculous!
The injustice!
Fight this infamy iCraveTV !!!!
Perhaps the Americans should pull an Australia and block their citizens from doing certain things with their robotic agents...
Ah well... (Score:1)
Re:The Almighty Nielsens (Score:2)
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
$5 million? Gee, that's a lot of damage. How does waiting for a new frame of the Super Bowl every 20 minutes while the phrase "Net Congestion, re-buffering" sits at the bottom of the screen translate into $5 million in damages?
Canadian broadcasters are upset too (Score:1)
Re:Ah well... (Score:1)
Old school (Score:1)
Re:The Almighty Nielsens (Score:2)
I know they were broadcasting some New York stations, which makes the law VERY muddled.
By the same token, the New York stations are being recieved in Canada. How would they like to have Canadian broadcast laws applied to them? Perhaps they should be penalized for not having their quota of Canada centric shows?
Or, they could require iCrave to not serve Americans, just as soon as American broadcast stations quit serving Canadians.
In short, it's not all that muddled, if you're a Canadian living/working in Canada, Canadian laws apply, if you're American living/working in America, American law applies. Anything else opens a HUGE can of worms including questions like "Do American companies who employ Canadians in America have to comply with Canadian labor law?" (I think not).
Re:Just? Debatable. Correct? Yes. (Score:1)
The fact of the matter is that the work is copyright and redistributing it, even if it was initally broadcast, is illegal.
Not illegal in Canada, and iCraveTV is based out of Ontario.
My favorite part of the article is where it mentions that the NFL was desperate to get it taken off the air before the Super Bowl. (Because after all - People *want* to watch the Super Bowl on a small, low quality picture. Not only that, but if iCrave was still up, non-Canadians would get to see how rather than allowing us to see these multi-million dollar commercials, the local stations replace them with ads from used car dealers, Canadian Tire, Zellers, etc.
I wonder if the heavy publicity of the site on Slashdot contributed much to the temporary shutdown of the site. It seems likely, seeing as the first suits were brought against them the day after it was first mentioned here, after several months of operation.
------
Just more advertisements? (Score:1)
Lets stop praying for someone to save us and save ourselves. ~KMFDM
MPAA again (Score:2)
Re:Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady (Score:2)
In Canada its not questionable at all, its well within the law.
This isn't about Big Bad Corporate America stifling the global evolution of the net, either. When those networks sell advertising, it's with the understanding from their customers that they will have 30 seconds of captive audience. You can't run a site that sponges off other people's (very very large) investments for your own personal gain without expecting the legitimate owners of that signal to get a little peeved.
I really have no idea why they're so upset, iCraveTV isnt filtering out the ads and placing their own in, the ads are still there, uncut, uncensored, they've left the stream alone, the people who bought the ads are getting a WIDER audience because of iCraveTV, for nothing.
That notwithstanding, how can iCraveTV, a Canadian company, operating within Canadian law, which has disclaimers, and even a area code check to futilely filter out non Canadians from watching it, get sued in a US court where US laws apply? This makes no sense. If they want to sue iCraveTV they should sue them up here.
Let's not let the overwhelming trend of attacking people for defending their IP extend into areas it doesn't belong. When someone tries to patent "One-click shopping", I understand the community getting irate. But iCrave is not the good guy here, they're the leech. And I say that as a loyal customer of theirs.
They arent leeching, they're providing the stream uncut, INCLUDING all the ads, they're just rebroadcasting the ENTIRE stream online, which is totally legal here, possibly to people (like me) who cant even get cable in his area.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:2)
Thats rediculous! rofl! With this logic, you're going to now ban any TV with more pixels then the NTSC specifies? They aren't modifying the signal in any way, with or without the ads on the bottom and the right, the signal would HAVE to be rastered smaller to be useful to anyone who doesn't have an OC3. Not to mention, I can click "Double Size" or "Full Screen" in real player, clicking that am I also modifying the content?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:I STILL think iCraveTV will lose. (Score:2)
Actually it is covered by the C anadian Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca]. S ection 31 [justice.gc.ca] covers Retransmission. This is half out of the jurisdiction of the CRTC. I say half because they have influence over the Broadcasting Act.
The Globe and Mail [globeandmail.ca] has a number of articles [theglobeandmail.com] on iCraveTV that give a better explanation of the court date and give a thorough background on Mr. Craig.
The information I have read is conflicting over whether this is a Canadian company or a company based out of Pittsburgh.
Checking with NSI it looks like their domain is registered in Pittsburgh.
Re:I STILL think iCraveTV will lose. (Score:1)
(CRTC doesn't make law, they make regulations; there IS a difference)
1) They do not have any authority over the Internet.
2) As he is rebroadcasting an unmodified stream and he is doing so over the Internet CRTC does not have jurisdiction.
And yes. I am Canada. And yes, I paid close attention when CRTC made the first statement. They could have pass some BS regulations. Instead, they opted out.
Re:Just? Debatable. Correct? Yes.(not even close) (Score:4)
It is not so absurd when the activity being carried on in another country is by an American. William R. Craig Consulting owns the iCraveTV domain name. William R. Craig Consulting appears to be registered in Pittsburgh. Last time I knew Pittsburgh is in PA. :)
"key Court battle" was merely an ex parte injunction, made without even an appearance filed on behalf of ICrave
Due to matters relating to his divorce, Mr. Craig would be arrested as soon as he stepped foot in PA. Hence he did not appear in person. Instead he gave a deposition in Ontario on Thursday.
End result: Our LLB friend had better do a little more research into the specifics of the case before slamming the CNET reporter.
Re:I wonder what law they used ? (Score:2)
Re:Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady (Score:2)
I can also understand iCraves position, the shows have been broadcast, plenty of cable companies insert their own advertisements into the stream, why shouldn't they be able to do the same thing except on the internet? It makes sense. I think the TV industry is just scared of the internet. They have pretty strict regulations about mentioning the internet on TV. There was a recent series of Nike commercials that told people to go look at a Nike web page to choose their own ending to the commercial they just watched. The Corporations that control TV refused to play it. They made Nike change the commercials around so that they didn't tell people not to watch TV. The people who run the TV industry are terrified that the Internet will destroy their industry.
Re:Just? Debatable. Correct? Yes. (Score:2)
When the broadcast is licensed in a certain way, you consent to the terms of that license.
When the copyright holders (say, the NFL), *license* a canadian broadcaster to broadcast over the air, they are agreeing to abide by all the legal implications of that broadcasting right. This means it can be rebroadcast.
Now, on an *intent* issue, I believe the way the original law is worded ist hat the signal may not be time-shifted (ie: to a different time slot.. propagation delays are okay...), and may not be modified as to content. If you are going to rebroadcast, you must rebroadcast *only* that signal, as the original broadcaster intended.
Now.. the video stream that comes over RealVideo from Icrave has the original video content *framed* by other banners... (not html banners.. they are in the video stream, or at least, it looks that way in the player). So as to *intent*, they are using someone elses video stream to insert their own advertising. This is exactly what the original law was meant to protect.
You say, 'even if it was initially broadcast'.
Realize, please, that Icrave is not trying to claim some bizarre exemption under canadian law that says any broadcast singal is free game... there is explicit law dealing whith TV Broadcasting over publicly owned airwaves, and that law says that those broadcasts may be picked up and rebroadcast by anyone, so long as they are rebroadcast live, and the content is not modified.
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:2)
iCrave TV operates under a different section of law... that, in Canada, a TV signal broadcast over public airwaves may be rebroadcast, without payment to anyone, so long as it is rebroadcast in realtime, and without modification (effectively, the only thing this accomplishes is extending the viewer count for that particular channel.).
Icrave, by wrapping their own banners around the outside of the signal (sort of shrinking the original signal).. well.. that seems to constitute 'modifying' the content of the signal.
This is all bulls... (Score:1)
Lawyer: It's pretty clear cut (Score:3)
While the cable rebroadcast makes for a nice analogy, there's a serous problem--It is a very specific legal exception. Not only *can* the cable companies use these signals wihtout compensation, but they *must* carry them without compensation. Satellite, etc., can't do this, and must negotiate terms in order to rebroadcast.
Come to think of it, it seems to be that local stations have a choice between "must carry" and "negotiate," but it's been a while.
Anyone other than cable who grabs the signal and redistributes it (save for personal use such as time-shifting with a vcr) is stealing it and in violation of the copyright. It's that simple. It doesn't matter whether you're a competitor rebroadcasting a quarter second later, a satellite company, an internet broadcaster, or someone who tapes things to resell.
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:2)
This is a fairly recent law (6 years). It's stupid, because there's no reason a broadcast channel would NOT want to reach a wider audience. The Canadians have it right. If you broadcast a signal, everyone should assume that you'd be happy to reach more viewers.
* What's realy stupid is that if the cable company doesn't want to carry a broadcast station, the broadcast station can force them to. If the broadcast station makes any demands, the cable company can drop them, but if they ask for nothing in return, they can be forced to carry them. That was also part of the 6-year old law. At the time it was passed, my cable company had to drop a couple of decent channels (no room) to carry a couple of home shopping channels and a PBS affiliate that only broadcast 8 hours a day.
Re:Just? Debatable. Correct? NO! (Score:1)
Re:Lawyer: It's pretty clear cut (Score:1)
Here's an example of how it works here in the US and you can see several details that are relevant to comments in this thread: (you folks in Canada and Oz can scroll on by)
WGN in Chicago is licensed by the FCC to provide service in the Chicago market. According to the "must-carry" provision of the Communications Act, the Chicago cable systems HAVE to carry WGN (without change or charge) if they are in a certain range of the signal, defined in millivolts received with a certain type of antenna. And, WGN wants to be on the Chicago cable systems. If they are not on, viewers have to buy a separate antenna and A/B switch to watch WGN, and most of us would just say 'screw it, I've got 30 other channels.'
WGN is also prohibited by the FCC from increasing transmission power or putting up a taller or better antenna so they can get their signal out farther.
WGN also licenses another company, United Video Satelitte Group, to send the WGN programming out on satellite to be re-sold by UVSG to cable systems. USVG owns the rights to the sat feed; they paid WGN for that right. USVG then sells the rights to carry WGN to local cable systems.
The WGN satellite program is a separate legal entity from WGN broadcast; UVSG can include cue tones to run local commericals and they also must cover any programming that WGN has that is already licensed by broadcasters in the local area, if the broadcast station protests the programming.
If the local station bought the exclusive local broadcast rights to say, "Slashdot World News," they have the license for that local market. Another broadcast station or cable system can't legally put that program on the air.
Re:Linux and iCrave (Score:1)
I believe an analogy would be that since Apache is open source, nobody would get sued for posting copyrighted material on a web site.
If iCrave content was not reproduction of content that was already the property of somebody else, they would not be in court.
And just to take the opportunity to go off editorializing, why doesn't iCrave do exactly what I think you are suggesting; put alternative content on the web?
Popular opinion (not yours, nor necessarily any one
1. TV sucks and lacks content...
2. Streaming video opens the doors to quality video content...
3. So, we get streaming video, and what shows up? The same crap we didn't like anyway, TV broadcasts.
Get TV broadcast off the web and replace it with some real content... like, uh.. um... the hampsterdance.com channel.
Re:keep yuir damned rocks (Score:1)
And a signal jamming network won't help, because all it could do is pump radio garbage out over the current broadcasts. It would replace the current signal spillover with a garbage signal to drown out all others. Canada still wouldn't be able to use those frequencies.
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:1)
Re:Damn Americans and toxic waste (Score:1)
Yeah, except that they supply the robotic agents. Look, I send a signal to my provider, who relays it to someone else, to someone else, to someone else etc. until it reaches iCraveTV. Then they send back a TV feed through the chain of servers eventually reaching me.
You can't criticize America for spilling over radio signals and then defend iCraveTV. After all, to retrieve those radio signals, you have to turn on your "robotic agent" (your TV) to fetch out of the air for you things which to your 5 built-in senses are completely invisible.
iCraveTV is supplying to Americans something which is illegal to supply in the United States.
US Ruling (Score:1)
Could they be arrested for simply crossing the border and entering US jurisdiction?
Could advertisers on iCraveTV based in the US be harrassed by association?
Does anyone know if this would effect an IPO or getting US Venture Capital or investment?
Play this scenario out for a moment: iCraveTV loses appeals, etc and the ruling stands. US government strongarms US based suppliers, network providers (sprint, mci/uunet) from relaying content into the US.
hmmm...
Tax credit (Score:2)
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:1)
Re:I wonder what law they used ? (Score:5)
1) The US has prosecuted people, in foreign countries, and for acts performed in foreign countries, under US law. They feel that if it touches the US in any way, US law applies.
2) The US court can give whatever verdict they like. This does not change the fact that they have no jurisdiction in Canada. They may have ruled that iCrave is violating American law (that sure was a speedy trial.. btw... but that's because this is so clearcut under american law)... but they have no jurisdiction here in canada.. so they can't ENFORCE Their ruling.
Can a canadian court issue a ruling against an american company? Sure.. can they enforce it? Doubtful.
Re:Ah well... (Score:1)
Re:Ah well... (Score:1)
Lets stop praying for someone to save us and save ourselves. ~KMFDM
Border Regulations (Re:Jurisdiction) (Score:2)
For decades now, Mexico has transmitted radio broadcasts within levels which they have considered appropriate, to the ire of the U.S. on as the signals have jammed out the stateside broadcasts. This involved not only the statioms along the borders of Texas & Louisianna, but even as far as Baltimore, and the Eastern Seaboard.
iCrave's taken the spill of signals from U.S. broadcasts along the border (while in levels negotiated via free trade accords, etc.) and has used it for their own business purposes. One would think by now (as the FCC and even Congress have been sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and his ilk) the main brunt of legal action regards the distribution and control of a commodity (con$umer) resource.
Unlike the radio broder wars, this is a money issue, as any city which watches content from U.S. interests is "market share" regardless of country. Without revenue to studios, networks, or advertisers, the only free TV might as well be static.
Re:Damn Americans (Score:3)
One of my first jobs was outside the United States, in a part of the UK. I was surprised to learn that both the federal and state government expected me to pay income taxes on money earned outside the United States, even though I was a legal resident of the UK.
Usual slashdot bad headlines.. (Score:3)
The NFL is full of it.. they already allowed the programs to be *broadcast* over *RF*, which is broadcasting in the true sense of the word.
If iCrave had, instead of an internet RealVideo server, simply had some kind of legal-but-wierd radio receiver that allowed anyone in the world to pick up VHF TV from Ontario.... nobody would be suing them.
OPEN SOURCE ICRAVE (Score:1)
the sky in chiba city was the color of television tuned to a dead channel. case wandered out the door of ratz's place and met up with lonny zone, the finn, natalie portman, and fat-time charlie. "hey boys and girl," case said. "do you know where i can hook up with larry moe and the panther moderns?"
"try larry's micro softs," advised the finn. "but you'd better look out. wintermute is on a rampage, and you know these open source ai units can be a bitch when they're on a rampage. turing's got an electromagnetic shotgun wired to the head of each one of them fuckers."
"and to top it off," explained natalie portman, "it turns out that icrave is not at all willing to give in to our demands of open source. we believe them to be working with the evil forces of bill gates, julius deane, lupus, and esr."
"now that," said case under his breath, "is so much bullshit."
part 4: the straylight run
case reached into his pack and pulled out his ono-sendai cyberspace vii, a top-of-the-line deck that armitage had outfitted him with in some back-alley pawnshop in chiba.
he closed his eyes.
found the ridged face of the power stud.
and in the bloodlit dark behind his eyes, silver phosphenes boiling in from the edge of space, hypnagogic images jerking past like film compiled from random frames. open source, naked, petrified young teenage starlets flew by in the blink of the mind's eye. symbols, figures, faces, a blurred, fragmented mandala of visual information.
please, he prayed, now --
a gray disk, the color of chiba sky.
disk beginning to rotate, faster, becoming a sphere of paler gray. expanding --
and flowed, flowered for him, fluid neon origami trick, the unfolding of his distanceless home, his country, transparent 3d chessboard extending to infinity with hot young teenage starlets as far as the eye could see. inner eye opening to the stepped scarlet pyramid of the eastern seaboard fission authority burning beyond the green cubes of mitsubishi bank of america, and high and very far away, he saw the spiral arms of open-source systems, forever beyond his reach.
and somewhere he was laughing, in a white-painted loft. for before him was neuromancer. "i've been waiting for you, case," said neuromancer. "are you familiar with the open source movement?"
thank you.
For all you iCraveTV lovers.... (Score:1)
Lets stop praying for someone to save us and save ourselves. ~KMFDM
Re:I wonder what law? (Was it ANY law at all?) (Score:5)
A mandatory order in respect of any activity in another jurisdiction is without foundation in law.
I assume this was obtained on an ex parte motion, done simply to make ICrave file an appearance later on to fight it on a forum non conveniens basis. This will increase legal costs for ICrave or leave ICrave with an order outstanding against if and when the matter comes before The Superior Court of Ontario.
US Counsel should have stuck to an action for damages instead of an injunction. Speaking from experience, an Ontario judge will not even pay *lip service* to judicial comity if he/she sees an American court purport to make a mandatory order to have effect in Ontario. Quite the opposite - an Ontario judge will be pissed off as all hell at the mere existence of such an Order. You'll have any judge in Toronto simply *antagonized* the instant he reads the motion record.
You want to start a motion with the judge unloading on you before you even open your mouth? Not in my "top ten tips" book for how to win at motions court at 130 Queen.
Very bad strategy on part of US counsel if you ask me.
Robert Trifts
Barrister & Solicitor, ON.
I STILL think iCraveTV will lose. (Score:2)
For those who think simple rebroadcasting of content available over the airwaves in Canada is legal for anybody, show me the section of the CRTC's [crtc.gc.ca] laws that make it so.
I read through the information the CRTC has on its Web site. They explicitly mention that they will not regulate the Internet, even though some content may be considered broadcasting.
If iCraveTV used cable, or a larger antenna, or some other telecommunications device to rebroadcast, I believe that they could do it, but they would need a license from the CRTC first.
Now, this is rebroadcasting, but it's over the Internet. The CRTC does not, and claims it never will, regulate the Internet. So what does that mean? Can companies rebroadcast freely over the Internet without a license, or does that mean that they do not have that right at all seperate from the CRTC granting it?
What if iCrave were to apply for a license to rebroadcast? That would force the CRTC to make a decision one way or the other.
Oh wait, this is being prosecuted in the US, where the matter is more clear-cut! I really don't understand why. This is supposedly a Canadian company, right? Unless...
Interesting... I can't find information on TVRadio Now Corporation, who owns the copyright on the web page. And there's nothing to do there either except click on ad banners.
You can get to the nav bar by going to http://www.icravetv.com/nav.html [icravetv.com]. Interestingly, there's no physical address located anywhere. Didn't check the feed to see if it was still up -- I don't know any Toronto area codes anyway.
Re:I STILL think iCraveTV will lose. (Score:1)
iCrave was the only place where I could get a decent hockey fix without those damned 5 minute commercial breaks ala ESPN/Fox!
Re:The Almighty Nielsens (Score:2)
Interesting you should quote that. The local cable monoply shows advertisements for local services over top of, for example, whatever advertisements were on A&E this afternoon, among other things. All the US channels they carry, they edit at some point. Would it be possible to prosecute them? iCraveTV.com is even more in compliance than they are, and I agree that nothing should happen to them.. There's no other way I can watch Voyager currenly
---
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:2)
But what if, instead of realvideo, they were actually broadcasting on VHF (normal TV). And they took another stations signal, shrunk it a bit, and put their own video around the outside of it. *NOW* the *signal* they are presenting to other viewers has had it's content modified. THey are *NOT* simply extending the range.
The RealVideo stream contains *MORE* than just the original content, it contains extra advertsing infromation present at the side and bottom of the video signal, and this is what they will be prosectued over.
Re:Usual slashdot bad headlines.. (Score:2)
But the headline 'iCrave loses battle' is terribly misleading!
Re:It it just my browser? (Score:2)
Re:Damn Americans (Score:2)
But Canada and the USA (and the UK, etc.) tend to cooperate a lot on some laws (like International Copyright acts, etc.) and when legal issues come up that reference those international treaties, we tend to cooperate and allow the pursuing of a person or corporation
Re:Usual slashdot bad headlines.. (Score:2)
Re:MPAA again (Score:2)
Re:I wonder what law they used ? (Score:2)
Good case
Re:CANADA vs. US (Score:1)
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
Re:Ah well... (Score:1)
Re:keep yuir damned rocks (Score:1)
noone's asking you to stop are they?
i sure hope rebroadcasting is made illegal... (Score:1)
then again, so would this cool online thing... DILUTING THE COMMERCIAL CONTENT?!?! sheesh, if people don't watch your stupid commercials it's because they don't LIKE them. time to fire/re-hire marketting!
-barton
Corporate power is global (Score:1)
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html
Go read that. It's the history of how they took over.
Damn Americans (Score:3)
FCC could do some good for once (Score:1)
I want to be able to watch TV on my computer using the Internet and IP technologies. iCrave was the biggest effort anyone has made thus far, and it proves that it can be done. I am glad to see that people are pumped about it so that perhaps the networks will see that there is a demand?
I also wonder how much it would cost to buy syndication rights for TV shows over the Internet and actually run a legit all-IP tv station? Seems doable.
-k
Re:Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady (Score:1)
30 seconds times how many viewers?
That's what advertisers care about.
And is there any reason to think that people are going to watch iCraveTV instead of watching the same thing on their TV? I sure wouldn't! (I don't have a TV :)
So the advertisers are getting more than what they paid for. So they should be happy. So the broadcasters should be happy.
You can't run a site that sponges off other people's (very very large) investments for your own personal gain without expecting the legitimate owners of that signal to get a little peeved.
But making extra money off their stuff is not at all the same thing as taking money they would have made off their stuff. I really don't see that iCraveTV is hurting the sources of the material in any way. So I conclude they are peeved for no good reason.
--Seen
ICraveTV going down. (Score:1)
Doesn't look good...
Maybe we should stand up for our rights.. (Score:2)
I suggest you also write a letter or email to one of the people invovled, and mention why you won't be watching the super bowl. Considering the "Golden Goose" status that the super bowl has achieved in advertisers' eyes, you might just be able to shock them into realising how downright mean (and quasi-legal, if you squint at it just right and ignore Canada's sovereignty from the US) way they shut down an innocent company, a company that let people like me watch some TV when they wouldn't have otherwise.
Then again, their hearts might just be blackened and their minds recognising only money, kinda like the MPAA ilk who had a minor unfairly arrested (can you say Kevin Mitnick '00?). Shadowrun's future is starting to seem optimistic.
---
That's just stupid. (Score:2)
Re:Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady (Score:3)
I don't see how rebroadcasting anyone's local signal to a global audience is a Bad Thing©. The stations' "very very large" investment goes even farther for free. Most people at computers with broadband access to get a decent stream are (ahem) at work, and wouldn't be at a television otherwise, so this is simply expanding their audience.
I think the stations' primary gripe with that wider audience is that they don't get a ratings boost from it. They have no way of knowing that tens of thousands of people in Germany are getting their taste of "Verheiratet mit Kindern" in the original English "Married... with Children".
If iCrave was willing to share some of that blank space to those stations for advertising and/or provided (detailed?) viewer statistics, perhaps the broadcasters would cooperate and collaborate instead of fighting.
Mind you, this is just one point along the circle, but I hate it when long winded comments like mine get slightly larger.
Re:Damn Americans (Score:1)
I'm not saying the Judge in has any jurisdiction in Canada, or that the United States has any right to stop iCraveTV from rebroadcasting into the United States, but it does seem to cause a problem when a Canadian company is directly costing American companies money.
Linux and iCrave (Score:1)
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com [npsis.com]
That is the way authorized rebroadcasting works. (Score:2)
Re:The Almighty Nielsens (Score:1)
So what's wrong with that? Television broadcasters make their money by getting sponsors to pay for advertising. The sponsors buy the advertising because they to get exposure for their products. They measure the exposure by the number of viewers as projected from a survey of a small population slice, also known as a rating. The higher the ratings, the more exposure the sponsor is getting, so the more money they pay the broadcaster. Lower ratings mean less money, so if a company such as iCraveTV rebroadcasts their signal in such a way that ratings suffer, the broadcaster is losing money.
If you were losing money because someone was stealing your signal and rebroadcasting it in a way that isn't covered by any current rating system, you'd be pissed off too. And justly.
Just? Debatable. Correct? Yes. (Score:1)
Now, whether or not you feel that this law is just is an entirely different matter.
Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:2)
Some networks place queue-tones or have specific spots in the broadcasts for an advertiser to stick local spots into the broadcast.
It works by overlaying promo spots. In the early 80s, I worked on an Apple ][ based product that would detect queue-tones, pick the most profitable commercial that could be played, queue up the VCR (one of 8 1-inch professional units) switch from the network feed, pump out the advertisement, then switch back to network feed. This all was located on at the head-end (where they have the Satelite downlink, usually a remote location).
The Vat o' Goodness (Score:2)
Okay, the Americans' robotic agents expire when they reach the Vat o' Goodness - they last thing they do is say, "Please iCraveToxicWaste, please send one of your robotic agents with some waste to the following location." iCraveToxicWaste then does just that. Now, iCraveToxicWaste shouldn't have to comply with the laws of every country on Earth. Everything is illegal somewhere. But they get requests from all over the world. They just fulfil the requests as they come in. If the Americans don't like redistribution of toxic waste but Canada allows it. It becomes the Americans problem either when one of their citizens requests the waste (make that illegal a la the 18-19th entury Catholic Church) or when the toxic waste enters their territory (block the waste at the border a la Australia).
Besides its a tried and true method of making some scratch up here. Find an area in which the "Land of the Free" is not quite as free and make some quick bucks pissing off the powers that be in the USA by "sharing the freedom" so to speak.
One of our biggest multi-nationals got it's start by supplying booze across the border when alcohol was illegal in the States but not in Canada - Seagrams. Ask any bar owner on the Canadian side of the border how many customers are deprived underaged Americans. If America really believed in those laws Canada should be denounced regularily for "supplying" alcohol to underage kids - corrupting them!
Anyway don't worry iCraveTV obviously wants to be a player in the US. That's why they've followed the injunction.
America has 10x more people whose money we want and now = time to bend over again, um not liking this, this, um, really, sucks - ah christ!
Anyway, less talk - more beer! yay!
bye
Re:Just? Debatable. Correct? Yes.(not even close) (Score:1)
The simplest research would have involved dropping by www.icravetv.com to see the text "Access to stations and listings is not available at this time." at the bottom.
I sincerely hope, however, that this won't prevent Robert Trifts from posting in the future, because a) the parts regarding Canadian copyright law are correct, b) it resulted in the informed response by DMuse, and a+b = better signal-to-noise ratio: These two posts were the first ones I've read in the thread that were actually on-topic. Keep it up, both of you!
Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady... (Score:4)
This isn't about Big Bad Corporate America stifling the global evolution of the net, either. When those networks sell advertising, it's with the understanding from their customers that they will have 30 seconds of captive audience. You can't run a site that sponges off other people's (very very large) investments for your own personal gain without expecting the legitimate owners of that signal to get a little peeved.
Let's not let the overwhelming trend of attacking people for defending their IP extend into areas it doesn't belong. When someone tries to patent "One-click shopping", I understand the community getting irate. But iCrave is not the good guy here, they're the leech. And I say that as a loyal customer of theirs.
JMHO, as always,
Johnath
Re:Cable companies sort of frame already. (Score:2)
Well actually it doesnt, because those ads are comming from a separate streams. The TV video is one stream, the ads at the bottom are another, and the ads at the right side are another. If you knew the URL to just the TV stream, you could get it without the other two ad streams, but thats not how they have it setup on their site.
-- iCEBaLM
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Will it be missed? (Score:1)
Will iCraveTV be missed by anyone?
Re:Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady (Score:1)
Re:Just? Debatable. Correct? Yes.(not even close) (Score:5)
Actually, the story which reported on this is totally fraught with innacuracy and misunderstanding.
First - do NOT presume to apply the law of American broadcasting or copyright to Canada. Our copyright laws, particularly with respect to rebroadcast rights are different - and the laws of Canada and England do NOT recognize the tort of unfair competition or ANY exclusive right to broadcast an event (such as the Superbowl). (That is why Canadian "live" events are technically tape delayed).
The tort of unfair competition is the key to understanding this case. Canada does not recoginize it. The legal conclusions which flow from this split in the common law are potentially VERY large in this case.
Second - this was an interim injunction without foundation in law or jurisidiction. It is ABSURD to suggest that ANY American judge has jurisdiction to make a mandatory order in respect of an activity carried on in another country. There is simply no jurisdiction to make any such order. The order is so *laughable* in this regard as to stretch my belief that such was ever made in the first place.
The story is unclear in the actual facts, but I would assume that the so-called "key Court battle" was merely an ex parte injunction, made without even an appearance filed on behalf of ICrave, as to file such an appearance for any purpose (other than to oppose on grounds of forum non conveniens) would attorn to the jurisdiction of the American court - which Icrave clearly will not do.
To sum up:
The story's author obviously does not know what he/she is talking about and probably wrote this story based on a press release;
There *are* substantial differences in Canadian and American law regarding re-broadcast rights and copyright and it is Canadian law - not American law which applies;
Canadian law does not recognize the tort of unfair competition;
An American court has no jursidiction to make a mandatory order of any kind regarding an activity carried on in another jurisidiction - and there is not even a *scintilla* of legal doubt regarding that statement.
End result: whoever writes this stuff for C/Net doesn't have a clue as to the topic matter of what they presume to be writing about.
Consequently, most of the posters in this thread don't either...
Robert Trifts
LLB, (Ontario)
Re:Jurisdictional issues? (Score:2)
Seriously though, who is number 51 then?
----
Re:For all you iCraveTV lovers.... (Score:2)
For me, iCrave offered a superior picture to my normal TV. Not to mention getting channels from Canada I couldn't get here by any means. What if I was learning Japanese and I could get a few broadcast channels from Japan over the inetrnet? It could all be so useful...
I wonder what law they used ? (Score:3)
How can a judge in Plattsburgh, Pa, order a canadian company to provide logs and shut down its service ? That's the thing I can't understand.. Would anybody care to explain me a little international law ? I'm canadian. Could I sue an american company, and have a canadian judge decide the outcome ? What if I win, and I get a court order saying that I can seize property from the american company. Then what happens ? Who makes sure that the court order is respected ?
Thanks.
'Unframing' the streams (Score:2)
Online agents (OT) (Score:2)
So in a way, this is related to the topic, because I think ads probably do work on the majority -- the people who would shell out that extra $100 for no reason. The only ads I pay attention to are those that introduce a new product or provide some kind of information as to why a product is better than one I already use. But unsubstantiated crap like "Duracell lasts 6 times longer than Energizer," then contradicted on the next channel by "Energizer outlasts Duracell 3 to 1," I don't pay any attention to that. But if I have to buy corn flakes, then why not buy Total corn flakes, which have 100% of vitamins and minerals (this is an example, I dont eat corn flakes).
Sometimes I click on banner ads. Like, "Oh, I want to buy some blank CDs at outpost.com. Let me go to go2mac.com and click on their banner ad so that they share in the wealth." I don't click on ads otherwise, and I make it a point to only click on ads that go directly to the site I want (ie, not involving doubleclick or imgis or whatever the other banner ad servers are); that's just a personal thing though.
And as for free internet, the banner ad there feels like someone is nailing me in the brain, so there they're inflicting pain on me so it's like they're charging me... or something... but it's easy to ditch the banner ad on a lot of the clients. NetZero's was so easy...
___________________
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:3)
Registrant:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (ICRAVETV-DOM)
904 Beaver St
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
US
Domain Name: ICRAVETV.COM
The Almighty Nielsens (Score:4)
QUOTE
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Superbowl was highlighted makes me suspicious. The only reason for this, IMHO, is that they want their ratings, which don't get counted on ICraveTV's rebroadcast.
QUOTE:
"...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..."
UNQUOTE
When you consider that Canadian law allows for this, so long as they pay the copyright holders, their only motivation can be the ratings.
Finally, how many people have the bandwidth for this? They aren't even touching a signifigant segment of the market. In fact, by rebroadcasting content, they are probably EXTENDING the market by getting people who ordinarily wouldn't be watching television to view the webcast
This is just a case of a small company getting slapped for daring to do something useful/cool.
--Ruhk
Re:Well, let's be realistic, it was a little shady (Score:2)
Actually, I quite agree. As opposed to the DVD thing, this actually has some basis in law.
But how is a US judge going to shut down a canadian company?? Couldn't they just pull out of America? This has been raised in other comments and is a good question.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.