Deal Reached in iCraveTV Case 233
Anonymous Coward writes "According to the Associated Press and Altavista News, iCraveTV agreed yesterday not to rebroadcast American TV programming. See the full story here. Of particular interest is that 'The plaintiffs -- including Disney, MGM, Paramount and ABC, CBS and Fox -- accused iCraveTV of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition.'"
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:1)
The more viewers, the better the ad rate card, and the more likely you'll get sponsors to begin with.
Our local TV station ran into something like this. The cable carrier MUST carry their signal, and the satellite dishes are NEVER allowed to carry the signal, that is, satellite subscribers are never given a waiver.
Well, the local cable guys messed with the basic package, moved the popular channels into the very expensive premium packages, and told customers to pay up or else.
Now a third of the potential viewership has a dish, and never sees the local station programming. The sales people keep quitting because they're no commissions for them anymore, the local business owners won't even talk to them.
The station lost half a million last year, looks like fold city.
Answer me this one more time, "Why do network stations want to limit their viewership?"
Its not just an American thing. (Score:1)
Yeah Right! (Score:1)
Section 8
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Re:Napster type idea for TV... (Score:1)
I think the lack of codec's would be first problem. We could use patent free publicly available codecs, but I don't think we'll find anything near as good as Real, MS or Apple have.
The second problem is the server. Even a napster style arrangement needs a server to allow clients and servers to find one another. The lawers would probably go after the person running the server. This could work with a distributed server arrangement like DNS plus some sort of dynamic root server setup plus public codecs, or dynamically linking to closed source codec libraries. Maybe we could use IRC servers as a difficult to shut down way of distributing dynamic server addresses. There are options... I'm not going to stop thinking about this any time soon. Anyone interested in participating in such a project can email me at vic@zymsys.com [mailto]. I may not be able to participate in the long run, but I can at least help us start.
Re:Missing the point (Score:1)
The thing here is that TV is paid for by advertisers and they want eyeballs, as many eyeballs as possible. And dont say "targeted marketting" because there is nothing targeted in the superbowl.
And it is only a violation of a government granted monopoly, they have no rights. The people has rights, companies have privileges.
Re:Stupid Canadian. Monopoly == Freedom. (Score:1)
Monopolies don't necessarily come from free competition, idiot. Take the "national champions" of countries that previously had nationalised industries, for example, rail companies, airlines, electricity companies, telecommunication companies. Did British Telecom get their monopoly through free competition? No. But now that the industry has been opened up and deregulated, the consumer is getting better service all around (whether it's from BT or one of their competitors).
Re:The Real Deal (Score:1)
I have no sympathy for these execs. They've spent their lifetimes trying to build a monopoly (if it weren't for exclusive television rights in sports I would be able to choose where I watched them... I wouldn't have to put up with their sub-standard broadcast quality and presenters with a collective IQ below 10. Right now, the small choice I get is because I live by the American-Canadian border). These guys need to be more flexible and be prepared for change rather than stagnating things for the consumers. Yes, I understand they want to protect what they've built, it's lining their pockets, which doesn't benefit me as a consumer.
Re: huh? -- It Ain't Just Eyeballs, It's Quality (Score:1)
Not all commercials have fine details that will be missed by a lower quality signal. I got the gist of the Mountain Dew commercial with the Cheetah when I saw an online version of it.
You also have to realise that people who are watching things online like this are going to realise that the quality would be sub-par, and would not hold it against the advertisor.
If they did, I'm sure advertisers would have found a way to block anybody with bad reception on their television by now.
Unfair (Score:1)
Re:Question: Content or channels? (Score:1)
Re:Maybe Not (Score:1)
--
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:1)
* I chose WPXI as an example only because I can see their studio outside my office window. If I was on the other side of the building, it would be KDKA. No commentary is expressed or implied. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. See dealer for lease terms.
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:1)
No, the Networks would not have been interested. I've talked with them, it's pretty much 100% "NO TV ON THE INTERNET" with the exception of the Networks' own small experiments. Actually, they will license the shows to you for a few million per episode...
Re:How about a new process? (Score:1)
Feh.
--
Re:I saw people watching TV in the mall once ... (Score:1)
Re:What security measures could be implemented? (Score:1)
A good first attempt would have been to peer to something like TorIX [torontoint...change.net].
You could then get lists from all the peers of subnets that contained local ports, then only serve to those IP's.
A side benefit of this "Killer Application" could be the encouragement of more local peering and perhaps even implimentation of Multicast.
Oh Well, back to dreaming,
Tom
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:1)
-lj 'Oh I'm a Lumberjack and I'm OK!
Re:The basis for such a law... (Score:1)
Copyright promotes "Science" and patents promote "useful Arts." Seems like Congress has gotten a little carried away with copyright, eh?
Can someone explain to me... (Score:1)
How did it end up in a US court, if iCrave is a Canadian company, and rebroadcasting is legal in Canada?
Re:Why they stopped (Score:1)
Really. I don't see it pushing the planet around on its axis, do you? Or around the sun for that matter. I learned in school that this was all happening before humans were walking on the Earth. Obviously this was all a conspiracy by those nasty teachers.
Either that, or you have a non-literal interpretation of 'literally'.
(cue Monty Python)
You can keep your Marxist ways
For it's only just a phase
Accountancy makes the world go 'round.
--
Re:Why they stopped (Score:1)
Seems clear to me (Score:2)
----
Please get the story right (Score:2)
This isn't entirely correct. The first paragraph of the actual story reads:
"A Canadian Internet site agreed Monday not to rebroadcast American TV programming to audiences in the United States without permission"
Which to me implies that they can continue broadcasting American content, so long as they ensure it doesn't cross the border into America (as discussed later in the article when they talk about bolstering security on the site).
I'd be interested to see whether iCrave starts broadcasting again before Canadian law is clarified (the site is still inactive).
Why is this considered unfair competition? (Score:2)
Why is this considered "unfair competition"?
Perhaps the major TV networks are too large, slow-moving, behind-the-times and unimaginative enough to respond fairly to a innovative [up-]start[-up] that challenges their very way of doing business? It makes me sad to see that they won because iCrave couldn't afford to continue battling the lawsuit, not because they were right.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
First of all, iCraveTV *is* only rebroadcasting content that is being sent over public airwaves, in their entirety. They did not alter any content or take anything that is not being broadcast over the airwaves. This is allowed under Canadian law as long at there is no time delay.
Secondly, this is nowhere equivalent to copying a CD. This is equivalent to copying a free CD that is publically available through the airwaves. A better analogy would be copying a free newspaper. Free newspapers typically make their money from advertisment (duh) just as television stations do. Free newspapers are not sold. Television is not sold. Advertising is sold.
And as you said, "Nothing is stopping anyone from streaming PUBLIC television", which is exactly what they're doing. If it wasn't legal, there would be no cable companies in Canada. All Canadian cable companies do (besides licencing crappy channels like golf channels, etc.) is rebroadcast publically available content in its entirety. This is no different from what iCraveTV does (except, of course, iCraveTV has no crappy golf channels).
As for making money off it, I don't think they should be treated any differently from cable companies or TV manufacturers. Shaw, Rogers (Canadian cable companies), Sony, RCA, etc. all give you advertisements when you're watching TV, but they don't intrude on NBC's or CBC's or anyone else's ads (without licencing). If you have a Sony TV, most likely it has a Sony logo just below the screen. If you're watching iCraveTV, most likely it has banner ads just around or behind the "screen". BFD.
Re: huh? -- It Ain't Just Eyeballs, It's Quality (Score:2)
This assumes that the people who are watching online would have watched on TV otherwise. This clearly would not be the case if the person watching is outside the broadcasting range of the television station, and not even definite if the person is within range. Not everyone has a television by their computer, and if they're at the computer watching television, chances are there is something that they're working on that requires them to be on the PC.
I think they they have reasons to want to restrict this, but it's not due to the advertisers losing eyeballs.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
I was over at a friend's house last night and watching the little kids learn about property rights. One of her little girls has learned that everything "belongs" to her and if the other baby takes it, she takes it back. "Mine!" She does it to adults too. Actually, its kind of funny. Its behavior like that which reminds me of the broadcast industry, which is not so funny.
Re:Seems clear to me (Score:2)
iCrave's ads, afaik (I really have no interest in watching anything but the simpsons, and I get that fine in the US) were alongside the regular ads. The only argument that could be made to claim that iCrave's ads were detracting from the network ads would be if too much advertising impairs the ability to see ads. However - if this is the case, it should be equally illegal for (say) a sports bar to put up an ad next to an actual tv set, or to display tv on the jumbotron in times square (convieniently moved to canada)
That's a dumb argument. The law doesn't say that the rebroadcast advertisers get exclusive rights over some particular area other than that of the broadcast display itself.
While I think it's a waste of bandwidth, I'm on iCrave's side here. They found a fun niche in the law so more power to 'em. It's hardly as though the networks are lilly white.
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
And as for moral questions - well, what moral questions? Copyright is not inalienable. It exists purely as an enticement for people to create content, with the understanding that it will pass into the public domain (where it becomes useful for everyone and not just the author).
So there is no moral component. It is *not* immoral to redistribute content, and unless there is a law against it (in this case there isn't) it's not illegal either.
You're just being misled by people who are greedy and lazy.
Denial of Service by legal process? (Score:2)
It makes me think that they would react favourably to the commmunity blatting them out of existence on the net with a combined bouquette of DDoS attacks until they back down. After all, it's conceptually the same mechanism that they use, so they'd welcome a peer agency I'm sure.
:-)
Re:Just like MP3's.... (Score:2)
Please explain this. Were advertisers annoyed that too many people were seeing their ads?
You do understand that *all* the original content was being rebroadcast? Commercials were not removed, muted, or altered in any way. Additional ads were *added*, but nothing was removed.
Trial by Combat (Score:2)
This might actually work. According to this web page [uu.net], Trial by Combat is still a valid part of the common law in Maryland, and perhaps other states in the USA. I can just see it, Bill Gates and Ray Noorda in an arena, hacking at each other with battle axes.
Thought Experiment (Score:2)
Re:A big issue (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? My understanding of the television business is that the television networks pay their affiliates to carry network programming. The networks get to sell most of the advertising slots in network provided programming. The affiliates get a limited number of slots for local advertising plus they get fees from the network. The affiliates also agree to carry all of the network's prime time programming.
iCrave's revenge (Score:2)
That's what I'd do.
LK
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
As usual (flaimbait, probably) it seems someone with an idea jumped forward with it without really thinking about how anyone else would feel. Ultimately, TV will be on the internet. It could have been sooner if they had decided to walk up to the networks and ask rather than just take what they pleased.
Re:Just like MP3's.... (Score:2)
s/illgeal/illegal/g and repeat after me:
I couldn't care less if some company is losing megabucks because of the legal actions of other companies and/or consumers. It's fine with me if companies go after people who really are breaking the law - for example, distribution of mp3 for which you do not have the copyright is illegal in the U.S. What iCraveTV was doing was not illegal in Canada, and it's too bad that they didn't have enough money to buy justice. Corporations are happy to hold consumers to the strict letter of the law; I see no reason that the same standards should not apply to them as well.
Re: huh? -- It Ain't Just Eyeballs, It's Quality (Score:2)
You are missing an important factor: Some eyeballs are worth more than others.
Which advertisement do you think would be more effective, one on a 25-inch color TV or one in a jittery 3-inch by 3-inch window on a 19-inch monitor?
Which interstate billboard do you think makes more money, the one downtown where traffic crawls and folks have minutes to read the message or the one on the outskirts of town where traffic whips by at 85 miles an hour? Both get seen by the same nubmer of eyes but the billboard downtown rents for far more money.
One more example. Star Wars: Episode One could only be shown in certain theaters meeting a high visual and sound quality. You would state that more eyeballs and tickets sold would be prime and that Lucas should have shown the movie in all theaters where a ticket could be sold. But that would have been the wrong approach to take. Lucas had to consider quality of projection as well.
Online eyeballs aren't worth as much as television eyeballs and online pulls people away from television.
Those of you who think eyeballs and nothing else are missing two points. First, copyright is golden. And, second, quality counts; not all eyeballs are equal.
Init 'Never More Than +2' Zero/P
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Seperate===seperable. Seperate is exactly equivalent to seperable. They were not seperable, therefore they were not seperate.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Adding advertisements that can't be removed is every bit as much a modification to the signal as deleting the advertisements off of the original signal (which they don't do). If they could be seperated by the average Joe (by adding a button to turn them totally off), then you might be able to claim that the signal truly is the original signal... but if you can't seperate the two, then they are not two entities, they are one.
Your Sony logo on the TV is not integral to the signal. With a TV swapout, it might say Panasonic, but the signal is the same on both TV's. The advertising banners were intrinsic to the television feed, and THAT's the point. It's an addition to the signal, which means it is no longer the original signal.
It's clearly illegal anyway ... (Score:2)
It would be illegal for me to post the full text of the latest Peter Hamilton novel on my web page. Excerpts of it would be legal (under the fair use doctrine), but the full thing would not be; I would expect to have lawyers for the publisher harassing me as soon as they noticed it.
It's just as illegal for iCraveTV to rebroadcast television programs. Two-minute long excerpts would probably be ok under fair use, but
None of this means that television will never be viewable over the net --- but it will have to be something the producers of programming choose to do, or that the networks choose to do (and they're often distinctly different); it can't just randomly be done by someone who does not have any legal rights to the programming whatsoever.
[Note --- these copyright issues are governed by international treaty, not by national law; they are binding in Canada, the US, and any other country which has signed the Berne convention
Re:Why they stopped (Score:2)
Wise Move (Score:2)
Fighting the Good Fight would have consumed a huge amount of their resources, resources they could put towards expanding the market. Once the market is large enough, the large TV networks will have no choice but to adopt the new medium.
The reasons MPAA/RIA are fighting a losing battle against MP3 is because MP3 is already too much a part of our lives. iCraveTV is making the right move doing the same, even if it means humbily backing away from a challenge.
Framing IS modifying the data (Score:2)
--jeff
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
Like I said it my other post, media execs are scared, hurt, and unable to think rationally.
--
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
They pay to reach some number of viewers, estimated according to typical ratings for a program.
If iCraveTV rebroadcasts the show, the advertisers are getting a free ride for the additional views, and iCraveTV gets ad revenue of their own, but the network gets nada for the additional viewers.
Maybe Not (Score:2)
jpowers
-jpowers
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
Just like a "click wrap" license agreement cannot take away a norwegians right to reverse engineer software for interoperability, the same is true of a statement like that on a broadcast IN CANADA for someone to rebroadcast that transmission in its entirety, unedited.
Under Canadian law this is legal, as long as it gets rebroadcast in real time, all original content in place (commercials, etc), then its quite legal in Canada, and no little disclamer can take that away.
Why iCraveTV chose to show up in that PA court I will never know, I sure wouldn't have as it has no jurisdiction.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
The banners are seperate streams, the actual TV signal is one stream, the bottom banner is a seperate stream, and the right side banner is also a seperate stream. You CAN separate them (by only loading the one stream), but the way they did it in real player is obscure enough that the average joe would not figure out how.
Again, this is irrelevant as they are not adding banners to the actual TV stream, they are adding banners AROUND the stream from seperate streams. Canadian law is very specific, the TV signal must be broadcast in its entirety in real time, and thats what was happening.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
I'm sorry but it doesnt. Their actions were in Canada, which makes their actions in jurisdiction of Canadian law, not US law, where they were incorporated has little relevance. Thats like saying I'm born in botswana, but when I travel to another country and do stuff there, I am still under botwaana law.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
You go into a Toronto courtroom with a PA court decision on a Canadian company where Canadian laws are in jurisdiction, and say "Look here judge, this PA judge said iCraveTV is stealing our content according to US law!" That judge is going to throw you right out of court and not hear your case at all.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
You CAN separate them
-- iCEBaLM
International copyright agreements (Score:2)
On a slightly different point, if someone negotiates a licence to do the web broadcast of something, and someone else then mirrors that broadcast, possibly stripping out advertisong and stuff, does the licensee have the right to be pissed off and do something about it? Some laws have a purpose.
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
It's easier than you think. When I was messing around with Microsoft Netmeeting(which doesn't even come close to working at all), I was able to pipe in my TV card instead of my webcam. People I chatted with were watching the Drew Carey show instead of my ugly mug. Pretty fun actually.
Re:What they don't want you to know... (Score:2)
Incidentally, the same thing seems to be happening to satellite TV. See, I'm not sure how many people here have an old-fashioned satellite dish (i.e. not those satellite-pay TV rigs that have become popular recently) but you used to be able to get network broadcasts on wildfeeds, but that seems to be more difficult now. Oh, for those of you who don't know a wild feed is when the networks are beaming their programs to their affiliates, with big black spaces where the local commercials would be. It used to be a way for us to get Babylon 5 a few days early, when they were beaming the show out. This was legal. Rich people in Canada who could afford satellite dishes like my parents' could do this too. Because, you see, no one owns the air! If you can pick up the signal, you are allowed to watch it.
Of course, I don't see my parents as often as I used to, so I don't have as much access to their dish. So it may just be when I call my Dad and say, "Hey, I missed the Simpsons, see if you can catch it on a West Coast wild feed," he just doesn't feel like hunting through Orbit to try to find it, so he says, "Sorry, we don't seem to be getting that wild feed anymore." Any satellite-dish enthusiasts out there who can verify this?
Oh, incidentally, everyone does know that they've been steadily increasing the ratio of Ads-to-show, right? One of the reasons why I don't bother paying for cable is that most of the cable channels with commercials show far too many. I'm guessing that eventually I will no longer be capable of watching network TV either for the same reason. Already, I have a hard time "watching" TV unless I'm doing something else at the same time. (Like playing games on my PC, for instance.)
The NFL Must be relieved (Score:2)
Of course, Foot Locker advertisements wouldn't do much for your average European viewer, but there are definitely advertisers out there who could benefit from an international audience.
Re:Why they stopped (Score:2)
Re:Why they stopped (Score:2)
Would you dismiss problems such as:
a) broadcasters not knowing how much to charge advertisers because some company is rebroadcasting their station all over america
b) taking control of IP away from the original owners?
Stating that it's canadian law is dogma at best. The companies involved in this case definitely have a good argument regarding this law and the practices of iCraveTV and when future cases come where there is not a settlement there will surely be a precedent set in favor of these companies.
Re:Why they stopped (Score:2)
That wasn't the point. There are(were) no mechanisms in place to prevent someone from the united states from viewing iCraveTV other than having a Canadian postal code.
"Maybe so, but I wouldn't bust into America and force them to use the Metric system, so why are Americans busting into Canada and forcing their laws onto us? "
This argument makes no sense at all. The fact is, they are exploiting a law that does not work well in the internet age. You can rant and rave about how the law is the law, but it doesn't make it magically an argument that makes sense. iCraveTV would have lost the lawsuit.
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
Re:OT: price of CDs and Metallica (Score:2)
S&M is the only Metallica album I don't own
We very well may. I live about a half hour east of the Slashdot Compound in Michigan. $19 is typical for the ultra-popular stuff in the larger 'Best Buy' type stores. Trolling other places will usually net you a copy for 15-16. It's still not 12 though!
Just like MP3's.... (Score:2)
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This exists the same way with MP3s. Who cares if it isn't "technically illgeal"? (FYI, I am not a lawyer). When you can get all the mp3's to make a CD, why would you buy CD? For CD players? Don't you or one of your friends have a CD burner? We ultimately hurt ourselves when we download & distribute illegal mp3s.
Regarding the earlier story about the music industry making more money and selling more CD's this year: Haven't you noticed, in the US, that we're in the longest sustained poistive enconmic growth in the nation's history? EVERYBODY is doing better. Hell, on my campus, the dining halls are suffer from lack of staff; everyone is taking more professional and/or higher paying jobs.
.mp3 and digital movies are not harmful; illegal (read obtained without permission from the author and/or distrubitor) mp3's are.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
News?? (Score:2)
(http://www.dtheatre.com/post.php3?sid=738 [dtheatre.com])
What has become of the slashdot we used to love?
Isn't US TV shit anyway? (Score:2)
What about getting broadcasts from areas that have no hope of being seen over here? I'm thinking of BBC / C4 from the UK specifically.
I still don't get it. (Score:2)
I still can't understand why these companies would be upset at getting MORE viewers. Surely server logs could be monitored, and doing such you could find out accurate numbers of what percentage of the population was watching your program, as opposed to those outdated neilsen ratings.
Also, whats the big deal if people rebroadcast your material? As long as it's live and not recorded, I don't understand what they're all up in arms about... all their gettig is more viewers = more advertising.
As a side note, i plan to start streaming TV as son as i get a faster Internet connection so NBC WATCH OUT! IM STEALING VIEWERS! :o),/p>
How about a new process? (Score:2)
Heh! (Score:2)
Nothing preventing you from creating a content company and broadcasting your own streams over the net. Is there?
This would fill a hole on the current internet. Plus it'd be kind of neat if you didn't force the customers to watch at a set time. Just sit down at the computer whenever and click on the show you want to watch.
Re:Framing IS modifying the data (Score:2)
Wrapping a web site is different, as the content itself is changed (either strip out headers/footers, or re-format the data). Plus there's nothing to show where the wrapped data came from.
Re:So THAT'S what that means (Score:2)
Networks win out by selling ads all over the place. iCrave TV wins out because they can stick their own ads in and make a small profit. Viewers win because they can watch TV from anywhere. What is the problem here?
The problem is control, just as it is with DeCSS. The network affiliates lose out when I don't watch the super bowl on WZZZ and instead watch iCrave. Perhaps iCrave should set itself up as an affiliate of each network. It costs a lot, and there are probably exclusivity contracts (is that a word?), but gives more ad space to iCrave.
Winners and losers (Score:2)
If anyone is intrested, here are my thoughts:
Media piracy plays right in the hands of the big networks!
That is right. The winners are CBS/FOX/Disney et al.
Why? Because they have the content that "everybody" wants. Therefore enough people will pay for it even in a situation where every show and record is on a thousand pirate web servers.
Smaller networks and independent producers wont stand a chance. If they come up with a product that might generate some income, it will be
a) copied for free everywhere.
b) Hijacked by the big guys.
So what is left? Amateurs, who might be very talented, but lacks the (expensive) technical means of the megacorps.
Media will become just like the software business where microsoft and the other big guys control the market.
iCrave CEO Speaks (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
It seems some people are missing the point here, and are very quick to jump on the ol' bandwagon to beat down on big media. Not that I don't think we should (especially concerning DeCSS), but this time, iCraveTV is in the wrong
iCraveTV could of legally rebroadcast PUBLIC television (aka, anything you can get off public airwaves, which obviously, isn't CABLE) as long as they didn't alter any of the content. As far as I understand, they didn't alter the content, but we're forcing users to look at banners, which aren't part of the broadcast, and weren't paying for the right to post those banner ads. This is equivalent to copying a cd and selling it at full price, without ever giving any revenue back to the recording company or artist. "Hey, I'll just take your content, make money off it, and you'll NEVER see a penny of it". That's stealing.
Nothing is stopping anyone from streaming PUBLIC television, so go ahead. Grab that video encoder, run your antenna into it, and start streaming out over those ADSL and cable modems. Just don't expect to make any money off it.
this is bad, folks (Score:2)
iCrave is a profit entity, so it makes sense for them to back down... but this sets a dangerous real world precedent. They will work to tie us up and beat us into the ground, because they can. Exactly what form it will take (probably an agreement to comply with the cease and desist after most of the defendants are on the brink of bankrupcy) but either we put, and continue to put money [eff.org] behind EFF's efforts (and i'll confess that i have yet to do so but am seriously reconsidering)... or DVD outside MS/Apple disappears.
__
alt.geek
It is a sad day... (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Is it very common for people to throw away their high-quality television in favour of an internet stream? I would imagine that people mainly watched iCraveTV at times when they would have been unable to watch TV otherwise. So it's almost a sure bet that the number of hours people spent in front of advertising only increased because of iCraveTV. I'd even wager that this increase was not at the expense of time spent watching regular TV. As for the Superbowl, would you watch it over iCraveTV unless there was no possibility of getting to a regular TV?
If there is any question over the number of people watching the stations, iCraveTV would easily be able to come up with viewership statistics that are more accurate than what normal stations have. Would an ordinary TV station or cable company be willing to stream their content over the internet?
intellectual property (Score:2)
Now I would hardly call watching television an intellectual activity, I rather like to call it "my personal escape from intelligence."
Now seriously...
Does anyone know if this company was fined or anything? Did they get off with a "well, next time ask first."?
A big issue (Score:2)
I've read a number of posts about "Hey, it's just more viewers to read see the ads..."
Here's the problem...in many cases, the advertising isn't solely at the network's discretion. Network affiliates get to sell adds as well. In this particular case, only the affiliates being rebroadcast get this priviledge...which may or may not hurt them, but it hurts the network's overall marketability because I now no longer have to watch my local affiliate in order to see...say...ER (big ratings show). Well, the local affiliate in my area (in this case KING TV in Seattle) paid big money to be an affiliate, and now, because I can watch the NY station, they've lost their market.
This is the same reason why there are restrictions on some satellite networks ability to rebroadcast the networks.
The greatest issues at stake are this: It is completely illegal to rebroadcast to US residents, which is what the bulk of the suit(s)covered.
Canadian law allows rebroadcasting, but possibly not for profit (IANAL).
Just a few thoughts
-FP
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
This is pretty much exactly what Bill Craig himself told me in an interview for a Network World Canada article [216.126.71.1] a few months ago.
As mentioned in that article, he also figured it would add more viewers than even possible with cable, since many business areas do not have cable and can't go by straight antenna, so iCrave would be bringing TV to a whole new audience. (Not that I imagine a lot of bosses would be thrilled to find employees watching TV instead of working, and worse still the ire of the network administrator who suddenly has no available bandwidth...)
But some businesses could probably use the ability to watch the news in their offices, so the advertisers would be getting a whole new market.
The problem is that iCrave put its banners on, and made money without asking permission. And the issue of not allowing Americans to watch was not to prevent them from getting US networks online, but to present a qualified advertising list to local advertisers in Toronto.
The networks may have been interested in the idea of allowing iCrave to do this if the company had come to them first and said, "Hey, let us open up whole new audiences for you." And they would have had to concede that it's only fair to let the company bringing in the new audiences make money themselves.
I think the problem is the Goliaths that be didn't like a little David snubbing them entirely, and, smart business move or not, they sought immediately to crush him.
-- Kimberly "this WILL be a method of TV delivery in the not-so-distant future" Chapman
The Real Deal (Score:3)
Unfortunately for them they did not bother to understand every nuance of the law and did not make a lawsuit proof site. (According to the lawyers I talked to.) To the execs here however the idea behind iCrave is deplorable and seeks to destroy the corporations they have built. They view this as an afront to their life's work. I however have enough stored up, and the credentials to work elsewhere in industry so I don't care what happens to the TV networks. I hope iCrave can help increase the demand for bigger pipes and help make my DSL cheaper.
Re:Napster type idea for TV... (Score:3)
So THAT'S what that means (Score:3)
-B
Question: Content or channels? (Score:3)
This brings up an interesting point, as some shows are "US shows", but are produced in Canada. How would Highlander repeats fare in this?
What is preventing... (Score:3)
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:3)
Advertising isn't their only source of revenue. They make money reselling the content into other markets that don't necessarily carry the same advertising as the original, if for no other reason, then simply because the advertisers may not be doing business in those markets. Those secondary broadcasts of the same material pay for content that they can sell, generally by selling advertising time themselves. Putting their content on the net undermines part of their market.
While I definitely don't like the bully-with-a-big-stick impression that they are making, they are right about what copyright law gives them control over. Copyright has always been a thorny issue because it is a government-sanctioned monopoly intended (at least originally) to encourage production of creative works. It is always legitimate to ask the question of whether a particular application of it achieves that goal.
Unwilling to negotiate broadcasting rights!? (Score:3)
But iCraveTV has indicated it wants to negotiate broadcasting rights from these networks and their intentions have never been to steal anything from the big network guys. Yet, the article quotes one of the Lawyers say that such a deal would not be possible, that "We've had a pretty hard-fought battle.". So is that how it works? Small company gave us grief so we refuse to deal with them regardless of potential gain?
It seems that many people support iCraveTV and the networks should realize this - that their viewers want it. It would also help them to expand - imagine how many more places will be able to view what their networks have to offer if they support iCraveTV.
- My Two Cents.
Re:The Real Deal (Score:3)
Another point in the debate is that the amount the broadcasting companies can charge for ads is determined by the number of viewers. If people watched from iCraveTV instead of over their normal TV, that is actually reducing the number of viewers of that TV station and thus the money they can get.
On the other hand, given the choice of watching TV on a TV or on a computer, I think most people would choose the TV. Those who watch on iCraveTV are probably watching shows they can't get on their TV or else they don't have a TV. So maybe viewership would not be reduced much.
The basis for such a law... (Score:3)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
How much are such laws actually promoting the progress of the "useful art" of television programming?
Re:huh? (Score:4)
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
if someone else tapes its and sends it out again, with more ads, even if they don't put the ads in the actualy tv picture, i expect compensation above and beyond what i already got for the orginal ads. Why should i expect it? because I created the content. Period. I own it, i have allowed it to be publicly distributed in a manner that i chose.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing.
First, no one owns publicly distributed content. That's an absurd idea. I distinctly remember Star Wars. Does this mean that my brain is owned by George Lucas? (note that after seeing TPM I may be willing to donate some brains to Lucas, he needs 'em) Of course not. Copyright confers a temporary monopoly on distribution - not ownership. No one owns intangible things. If you have the only copy of something you may de facto own it, but when someone else has a copy they can do as much as you, sometimes excepting redistributing copies.
Second, there are severe practical problems with what you propose. When is an ad considered to be so intimately associated with a particular block of ad-bearing content that it infringes on those ads?
- Can I sell a videotape where the tape is your content but the jacket has my ads on it?
- Can I even mention that my company made this particular tape which contains your content?
- Can I play your content on one TV and play my ads, simultaneously on a TV right next to the first?
I submit that as long as the ads associated with the original content are intact, and are not obscured then it's okay. Otherwise you are proposing that advertisments are not allowed to overshadow other advertisements. Just for starters you'd be wanting to demolish Times Square then, where people constantly fight to attract the eye away from the other guy.People can buy descramblers to try to get past any protections i have set up. i don't like that, but air is air and if i'm sending a signal thru that cable that comes into your house then thats my problem.
At this point you reveal that you are not in the TV industry. It is actually illegal to decode a scrambled signal that enters your property (at least in the US). Why? Because of people who are greedy and overprotective of their monopoly and who are unscrupulous enough to twist the government around to their way of thinking, even though there's an argument to be made that this is unconstitutional.
Personally, I agree with you. If someone's signal invades my property then I have every right to listen in, if I can. They can make it difficult for me (encryption), and I am iffy on whether or not I should be able to interfere with their transmission. Sadly though, the law doesn't agree. (You can't power your house off of induction from nearby high-tension wires either, more's the pity)
But what you can't do it record MY programming and then send it out in another medium. especialy if you are making money from it.
Oh ho! But Canadian law (remember iCrave is in Canada) clearly does not grant copyright (which doesn't exist unless it is explicitly granted) on the matter of rebroadcasting unaltered broadcast tv transmissions. This means that you have no redistribution monopoly in this situation, which is typically limited to cable tv.
Cable, you'll recall, started out when people erected jumugous antannas and wired many people up to them. They've grown quite a bit, but that's the basic idea. iCrave doesn't differ in any significant way, and while I have not looked at the specific law, nor am I a lawyer, or even a Canadian, you could probably rebroadcast the signal in any way you liked as long as you didn't alter it. I would be prone to rebroadcast it as modern dance, myself.
That is what iCave is trying to do. Make money from someone else's work.
Precisely. Which is not only legal, but is the natural order of things. Public Domain content is someone else's work, and people make money off of it all the time. I don't see Shakespeare or Homer (the Greek poet, not the yellow clod) cashing any big checks lately. The light bulb, the radio and the telephone were all patented, yet I don't see GE sending money to Tom Edison, Bose paying royalties to Nikola Tesla, or Nokia giving Alexander Bell big sacks of money.
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are *artificial*. They don't exist unless the government says they do. Nor are they forever. Copyrights expire (this is being unconstitutionally sabotaged by big corporations), trademarks require constant use, and patents also expire.
So yeah, it's a grand old tradition to make money from someone else's work. Authors and inventors only get a monopoly for a while to compensate them for the effort of having come up with something to begin with. But then it's free, so as to help everyone out.
Now, I totally believe that you can't claim credit for things that aren't yours, but I'm perfectly willing to build something from an expired patent, or type up a copy of some public domain work, stick the original creator's name on it (I get credit for some particular implementation, but not the source) and be happy with it. And I'd love nothing more than to extend these same rights to other people regarding my own work.
iCrave found a neat law that worked for them. It doesn't impair the creator one whit. (you are still allowed to watch TV on a TV, you know) So I say, yay iCrave.
Then I complain because too much bandwidth is taken up by crappy tv shows. ;)
What security measures could be implemented? (Score:4)
I think one of the arguments used by the networks was that iCraveTV's security (authentication, really) was insufficient at restricting the viewership to Canadians only. But what could they have done?
There is no certain way to reliably determine the general (let alone precise) geographic area of a given computer connected to the Internet. Reverse DNS lookups can give you some idea as to where the person is coming from, but it's pretty much useless when RDNS resolves to AOL.com or some other such monolithic ISP. Proxy servers, dial-up lines, etc. also cloud the picture.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing - a degree of anonymity is a very nice thing to have - but, since I don't have cable (I'm in rural Canada - cable is expensive, don't get many channels, not worth it usually) it sure would have been nice to be able to watch iCraveTV... damn, and I'm not even getting enough of a tax refund this year to buy a dish...
<DireStraits>I want my... I want my... I want iCraveTV...</DireStraits>
________________________
huh? (Score:4)
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This makes no sense. The ad guys are selling eyeballs. Who cares whether those eyballs see "regular TV" or "Internet TV" or what ever. As long as some one sees the ad, who cares? If I understand the iCrave thing correctly, they re-broadcast the TV signal, commericals and all. The companies should be happy they are getting more eyeballs per buck than they normally would have.
But they're not, so this must be about control. And that's what sucks. Everything being controlled by companies, instead of our dollars.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
It just might be. Maybe 'cause it doen't make much sense. (At least to me...)
Before everyone goes all out of joint.. (Score:4)
Under Canadian law, on our Canadian soil, what iCrave is doing is legal. There is some questionability about whether or not they are 'altering' the things they are rebroadcasting, but that was not an issue in this case.
Under U.S. Law, what they are doing is NOT legal.
So, please understand that they were not out to blatantly do something illegal or break the law.. they had every reason to believe they were allowed to do what they did.
The agreement they came to was
a) they would not intercept radio TV broadcast from the US and
b) They would take more thorough measures to ensure that those watching the shows on iCrave were from Canada *ONLY*, and NOT the U.S.
Realize they can still rebroadcast any radio-TV broadcast that originates on Canadian soil.
If those broadcasts happen to include American programming, that's okay... iCrave simply promises not to intercept radio that was BROADCAST FROM the U.S. (which they were doing before, and was somewhat beyond the scope of canadian law.)
What they don't want you to know... (Score:4)
Here is why commercials exist:
TV was originally broadcast over the air (via UHF and VHF - in fact, it still is), and anybody with a receiver could pick up the broadcast. Because there wasn't any way for the broadcaster to know who picked up the signal, they couldn't charge the owners of the receivers to watch the signal. They had to find a different revenue model, and since radio is where many of the original broadcasters started from, radio ads became TV commercials. These commercials were paid for by advertisers to the broadcaster, to pay for the TV transmission, mostly. Thus, everyone got TV for "free" - they just had to watch the commercials.
Fast forward to the 1960's - commercials and TV are pretty much common items, and everyone has an antenna on their house. But people want more channels, and they want higher quality. Neighbors band together and buy large "neighborhood" TV antennas, centralize the antenna, then split/amplify the signal off of it to feeds that run to each house, allowing these people to see more channels at a better quality. Appliance sellers in the area see this, and think "Hey! I sell TV's - maybe I can set up an attenna for the neighborhood, and charge people $5.00 bucks a month to use it if they buy one of my TVs!". People go for it, because it is cheaper and easier than convincing all the neighbors (notice that there is a laziness factor here - most shit in history that we hate is cause by many people being lazy) to buy a central antenna, the quality is just as good (maybe better!) and thus, the first distributed, monthly-charge "cable" service begins.
Now, what about the advertisers? Well, they don't really care (or they don't notice), because more "eyeballs" are still seeing their advertisements, which is all they want. And the broadcasters? They don't care, either, because they are still being paid by the advertisers to broadcast. Everybody is happy...
Let's move to the 1970's - things are still pretty much the same, except most of the "mom & pop" cable systems are gone, either bought out by other companies, or for other reasons. But the cable system still exists, except for one change: There isn't a central "antenna" anymore, not in the everyday sense. What the cable companies are now doing is using microwave feeds and some are using satellite feeds (ala HBO). These microwave feeds are still "free" - in fact, you could buy microwave "dishes" and get signals out of the air of a very high quality, for a few hundred bucks. Other "free" sources could be gotten via home sattellite dishes - HBO could be picked up, as well as many other stations.
One thing about HBO, though - HBO was a "premium" channel - you were supposed to pay the cable company a fee to see it, and part of that fee went back to HBO to pay for the rebroadcast license the cable company had with HBO. Those with microwave dishes and sattelite dishes, however, didn't pay this fee. HBO got upset (rightly, for HBO's broadcast contained no commercials, so something had to pay for it), and began scrambling the signal. Dish owners fought back with descrambler's, arguing that the signal came onto their property, and that they should be able to see it. Back and forth it has gone (and still does today).
The 1980's came, and decoder boxes were the norm. Why? The national broadcasters were sending out the feeds via satellite and microwaves (in addition to over-the-air). These feeds still contained commercials (some also had spots where the local cable companies could insert commercials), which advertisers paid for. The cable companies, though, had to pay for a license to rebroadcast the broadcaster's signal. Because of this, they had to keep control of the signal, so they began to scramble their broadcasts as well. Now, it was difficult to impossible to see the signals via a satellite or microwave dish.
So, let's see - where are the broadcasters getting their money from? Ah yes, from the cable companies (and indirectly from the viewers) and from advertisers. But is the amount that viewers pay for cable still a "convenience" fee, like it was when cable started...?
At the end of the 1980's, and throughout the 1990's, more and more cable channels were added. Most all of these channels were "private" affairs - in other words, they weren't put out by the original national broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS). Many of these channels you had to pay for (either per-channel, or in a "package, most oftentime the latter), and most of the channels had commercials. We now have a wonderful system where you pay to watch commercials, rather than the commercials supporting the broadcast of the channel. Unfortunately, we don't have any choice about paying, otherwise we are stuck with only 3 to 4 on the air channels (and this will quickly go to 0 on the air channels when HDTV broadcasts are common). I am not arguing for free cable though. I think we should pay the convenience fee (to the cable company), and the premium channel fees to the cable comapny as well. The other channels are supposed to be advertiser supported. If this was the case, then why can't you pick up these supposedly "advertiser supported" channels on a satellite dish (like Lifetime, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E)? Why is Lifetime only available in higher tier packages on DSS, not in the basic tier? How is it that the "convenience fee" that cable companies charge tend to go over $30.00 a month?
I guess one thing would be good about TV over IP, when it gets here: It will allow broadcasters to really compete for eyeballs, by only allowing those who pay-per-hour or whatnot access to the channels, and it will allow the "subscriber" to pick and choose what channels they want to see, rather than get the channels in "packages". The only thing I hate is that they will be able to track viewing habits, as well as control whether you can record a show or not. It will make today's banner ad and DVD problems seem like a sandbox spat...
Repeat of MPAA iCrave Action (Score:4)
http://www.pbj.cz/pbj/article.asp?id=70386 [www.pbj.cz]
It looks like the whole iCraveTV.com events played out in the Czech Republic as well. This simply proves that iCrave and their Czech counterparts were fullfilling a market niche (I watched a bit while I was in Japan).
If the MPAA doesn't want to keep repeating this around the globe, they need to sit down with the broadcasters and find some way to get television programming on the web. There simply is no reason, all these years after the first web radiocasts, that streaming television can't be found online.
The real problem... (Score:4)
Present Canadian law says that the airwaves belong to everyone... anything on the airwaves is fair game.
So if I decide to put up a web-site (as I'm a Canadian) that has these channels taken from an antenna - then the US networks and the NFL would have a much tougher battle ahead of them.
Gee, maybe I'll just do that... any venture capitalists out there that want to go for a fun ride?
Why they stopped (Score:5)
"Craig said the company was settling because it could not afford to continue fighting the suit."
The industry promptly postures:
"Today's settlement signals that the rights of copyright holders and creators cannot be ignored.''
What this tells me is who ever has the biggest bat wins. Not who's right or wrong, but who can pound the other into submission.
Re:The Real Deal (Score:5)
Does this mean NBC be suing SONY soon because it's not easy to remove that "SONY" logo on my TV and remote? The SONY logo isn't inside the TV frame, but then, neither were iCrave's banners...
It's not like iCrave was removing any ads. Were advertisers complaining that too many people were seeing their ads?
> they did not bother to understand every nuance of the law
Actually, I think they understand Canadian law pretty clear. The only nuance they missed was how deep Corporate American pockets are. Does Canada's law that allows rebroadcast somehow limit adding additional material?
Re:Why they stopped (Score:5)
Canadian law (or atleast the providence that icrave is located in) states that anyone can rebroadcast broadcast TV signals. The problem comes in play where American law colides with their law.
Napster type idea for TV... (Score:5)
The idea being that if you had a TV tuner on your PC, you would run the software to act as a server, for maybe 3-4 users. With a network of at least 2500 people running this software, you'd pretty much get wide coverage across the continent.
Illegal, most likely, but is it possible?