Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television United States The Courts

Major Broadcasters Sue TV Streaming Nonprofit Locast (variety.com) 90

Posted by msmash from the it-begins dept.
Four major broadcast networks have filed a lawsuit against Locast, a New York-based nonprofit that streams local broadcast programming over the internet. From a report: In their lawsuit, ABC, CBS, NBC Universal and Fox allege that Locast violates their copyright by retransmitting their programming without permission, likening it to Aereo, the TV retransmission startup that shut down in 2014 as the result of a similar lawsuit. "Locast is simply Aereo 2.0, a business built on illegally using broadcaster content," the lawsuit reads in part. "While it pretends to be a public service without any commercial purpose, Locast's marketing and deep connections to AT&T and Dish make clear that it exists to serve its pay-tv patrons."

Locast responded to the lawsuit Wednesday morning with the following statement: "Locast is an independent, non-profit organization that provides a public service retransmitting free over-the-air broadcasts. Its activities are expressly permitted under the Copyright Act. The fact that no broadcasters have previously filed suit for more than a year and a half suggests that they recognize this. We look forward to defending the claims -- and the public's right to receive transmissions broadcast over the airwaves -- in the litigation." Further reading: Locast, a Free App Streaming Network TV, Would Love to Get Sued.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Broadcasters Sue TV Streaming Nonprofit Locast More

Major Broadcasters Sue TV Streaming Nonprofit Locast

Comments Filter:
  • How long will the severely outdated network TV business model hold on?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sh00z ( 206503 )
      That question isn't exactly relevant to this discussion, because Locast just uses the exact same model. They're not skipping commercials or substituting their own--they are only echoing the broadcast. It's a very useful service. My son isn't allowed to install an outdoor antenna in his Brooklyn apartment, and accesses local broadcasts on his AppleTV.
      • Someone took their product and freed it onto the internet and they have an issue with that. Why should purchasers of network TV be expected to forgo the conveniences of the 21st century just because of the way the product is delivered? It is the fact that their business model is not providing aforementioned conveniences that is causing the demand for a service like this.

        • Re:The real question: (Score:5, Informative)

          by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @08:13PM (#59021040) Homepage

          Took some hunting, but here's the law Locast relies on:

          https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

          The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if--

          (5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.

      • My son isn't allowed to install an outdoor antenna in his Brooklyn apartment

        Your son can tell the landlord to kick rocks then. It is illegal to prohibit legal OTA reception by a private citizen. That is section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000 there can be a limitation if the intended installation of an antenna would require any kind of change to the structure, like drilling holes. However, if your son is plans on an installation that does not require drilling or mounting, then the landlord hasn't a leg to stand on. If the landlord real

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )

          It is worth noting that the rule you are referring to does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. In some cases, particularly in strata or coop situations, it can further even apply to so-called "limited common property", including places such as outdoor patios and exterior

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      It's not "outdated" if it's holding on. It's still relevant and that's evidenced by the power of these corporations.

      • When corporations are holding on "in spite of" the technology they use instead of "by" the technology they use, then their customers are being under served.

      • The ice delivery man, and the buggy whip manufacturers probably thought the same thing until their business model went over the cliff about the same time that refrigeration and internal combustion engines hit the steep climb of wide adoption.

    • How long will the severely outdated network TV business model hold on?

      As long as there are blue-haired old farts out there that don't know anything or REFUSE to know anything about technology and are unwilling to adapt.

      Unfortunately, we have to suck it up and deal with it.

      • As long as there are blue-haired old farts out there that don't know anything or REFUSE to know anything about technology and are unwilling to adapt.

        Back in the real world content publishers are hard at work building castle walls and specializing rather than standardizing access in anti-consumer turf wars to gain market position.

        Current solution is custom apps and sometimes custom hardware for each and every castle. Each with their own custom non-interoperable interfaces that have to be launched or switched on separately. Captive terms for captive audience including not being able to store content, skip or fast forward ads, content disappearing at whim

      • >"As long as there are blue-haired old farts out there that don't know anything or REFUSE to know anything about technology and are unwilling to adapt."

        And yet the typical "rebroadcasts" of local stations on cable and other services are MUCH lower quality than what is sent OTA. I know, I have experienced it and also know the bitrates. So there are still very valid reasons for wanting OTA, even if you have cable or whatever streaming stuff. Granted, probably not a lot of people know, care, or would bot

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        Or as long as those of us that realize that old technology is actually still good technology in certain circumstances are unwilling to still use them.

  • Nonprofit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ryzilynt ( 3492885 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @11:58AM (#59018240)

    It's a nonprofit. These programs are already being broadcast out over the air at no cost, to anyone with an antenna.

    Why? Because they contain advertisements that ABC,NBC, CBS, Universal and Fox are getting paid for.

    If NBC, CBS, etc want to pay for infrastructure that Locast can use to track how many people stream and what they stream from their platform then these content providers can make even more money.

    OR if Locast wants to build the infrastructure themselves they can charge ABC,NBC etc to provide them with stats. Locast would not take this as profit, they would use this to pay for more bandwidth.

    But Locast is currently taking nothing at all from them , and they are making no profit.

    • Despite the fact these contain advertisements their parent companies lobbied for and won the right to charge if another service wants to carry their channels WITH the ads unaltered. This includes Comcast, Dish, Verizon, & AT&T. They've already successfully sued and gotten a similar company shut down over this. The only difference here is the company in question is a non-profit.
  • Just because you are a not for profit doesn't mean you can violate copyright law. If that was the law then not for profits would publish books and music with no payment of copyright royalties. The license for broadcast TV is for in home use other wise you have to pay licensing fees.

    • The license for broadcast TV is only valid because of copyright law. The US copyright law has an "exception" for "repeaters". If you live in a valley with bad TV reception, your community can install a repeater to re-broadcast a TV station so that you can watch it. This can be the local government, or a non-profit. This clause is specifically in copyright law. Locast is owned and run by a non-profit. It asks for donations to pay for its expenses. It's argument that it meets the letter of the copyright law is probably valid, but courts will decide that.

      In many ways, for this suit to succeed, the non-profit status of "Sports Fan Coalition, NY" will need to be challenged. If SFC, NY is actually a non-profit, the suit should be thrown out.

      If you use Locast to get local TV and then put in on screens in a bar, you still need a license for use in the bar. The fact that Locast is there does not change that. It also is probably true that there are bars, with licenses, that use Locast. This does not make Locast any more or less a copyright violation.

    • Re:Antena TV was just ruled against a few months a (Score:5, Informative)

      by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @12:30PM (#59018420)
      The relevant statute here is 17 USC 111(a): "Certain Exempted. The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if... the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service."

      Copyright law is not a monolith, there are a collection of statutes pertaining to the topic. This particular statute, which is what Aereo was sued under for doing the same thing but with a fee attached, exempts nonprofit organizations, which is what Locast claims they are. The plaintiffs in this case are arguing that Locast is not actually nonprofit, they're just pulling in profit from other undisclosed sources.

  • This is literally exactly what the cable industry did in its' infancy. They retransmitted local channels via wire to the end user. The only difference here is 45 years or so of entrenchment, and cross-ownership between the networks and the content distributors (cable/satellite).

    • Until about 10 years ago Cable companies were required to retransmit local broadcasts. About 10 years ago Congress changed the rule and allowed the broadcaster to decide, they could either require the cable companies to retransmit or they could require a fee and the cable company could decide whether to pay it.

      Guess which one the networks choose? Free rebroadcasting of the transmissions does harm them now that they are allowed to charge for that privilege. Congress shoudl have never changed the law IMO, if

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LocalH ( 28506 )

        But that's on an individual station basis. There *do* exist stations that use must-carry. The networks should be seeking retransmission fees for their O&Os and not trying to shut the whole company down.

  • Wow what a great service. I never heard of them, but thanks to the lawsuit providing free press I now do!

  • Free and clear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @12:29PM (#59018406)

    From an anonymous coward on the original Slashdot story:

    17 USC 111(a): "Certain Exempted. The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if... the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service."

    Locast will get the suit thrown out in the very first court and it will stick. It's blackletter law that what they're doing is explicitly legal. No amount of allegations about AT&T and Dish changes what the organization actually is. Locast was founded by a lawyer expressly to be what it is, so you can be certain it scrupulously maintains its non-profit status. Hell, it could literally accept AT&T or Dish funding and still be legal because Dish is gaining no commercial advantage, directly or indirectly, because they still pay all local broadcast fees. They passed on the increased local broadcast fee to their customers just last year.

    And I will bet any sum you care to name that the next Disney Copyright Grab will include a provision to eliminate that clause from 17 USC.

  • ...who has more money!

    Because that's all this will be. It will not be on the merits of the case. It'll be whom can afford to clog up the courts longer.

  • DirecTV mentions this when you try to go to the local CBS affiliate.Up to this latest tiff, I did not know about Locast

  • Gotta love a company that can manipulate Streisand effect in the marketing of their product!

  • The company will probably lose. While it is logical to use such a company as effectively a paid (or free) virtual antenna, Congress specifically considered this and passed laws, such as why bars have to pay to show, and why cable companies either have to pay a negotiated value or be forced to carry, but for free, at the broadcast channel's preference. And negotiatiins often fail so they don't carry temporarily.

    So paying for it has nothing to do with it because the laws are about the broadcast networks get

Slashdot Top Deals

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Close