Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

iCraveTV Sued by Networks 171

Posted by Roblimo from the you-knew-it-would-happen dept.
heinzkeinz writes "iCraveTV, the Canadian company broadcasting network television signals over the internet, has been sued for copyright violation. Read the story from CBC here. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iCraveTV Sued by Networks More

iCraveTV Sued by Networks

Comments Filter:
  • They're taking someone else's copyrighted property and rebroadcasting it, which wouldn't be *so* bad if they weren't also *charging* for it. That's what'll kill their case even more than the simple fact that they're breaking copyright laws. If this even goes to court, I bet it'll be a very short case with a very predictable outcome.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

  • Re:iCrave doesn't have much of a chance. (Score:5)

    by BJH ( 11355 ) on Tuesday December 07, 1999 @11:25PM (#1477176)

    As I understand it, it's perfectly legal under Canadian law to rebroadcast anything that was originally broadcast publically as long as you don't make any changes to the signal (e.g., adding advertisements). Whether charging for it makes a difference, I don't know - but the rebroadcasting itself is not a copyright violation.

  • Holy Cow! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What a terrific idea! That's the first time I can watch American television. I hope they prevail in the upcoming lawsuit.
  • what icrave is doing doesn't seem necessarily wrong to me. after all, the television signals are out in the public, right? and as icrave re-broadcasts the signals, they are *not* editing out the commercials that are paying for the radio signal distribution in the first place? icrave merely adds a banner to to the redistribution? further, if the signals are re-broadcast over the net in real-time, what do the networks care if they are viewed on a tv set or a computer monitor? in fact, it would make sense for the networks to contract icrave to make the signal available to people who would otherwise be not home to watch tv. if icrave has already invested in the infrastructure to carry the bandwidth load, it would save the networks some money, i would think...

    just my 2cents.
  • First, I have a hard time seeing how broadcasting over IP is any much different than broadcasting over some other protocol (that being a physical protocol over a dedicated cable or whatever).

    In fact, with the extended usage of IP-over-the-TV-cable and in the not-so-distant future when the bandwidth reaches the point where it is not going to be a limitation, it may even make sense to do just what they're doing. Imagine, all programs available to choose from at any time - and being able to cut the crap? Imagine watching Ally McBeal all day long ;)

    A further bonus is, that with the development of secure, electronic transactions etc, it may make pay-per-view and different viewer-statistics much easier to obtain than today. Downside is, of course, that it makes viewer-statistics much easier to obtain than today (here we go on the privacy-issue again.....)


    That said......I am thinking in terms of a TV-station using this model for distributing their programs. It's completely different from unauthorized relaying of other peoples programs....IANAL, but my common sense tells me that yeah, a lawsuit is in place here. If canadian law disagrees, then - to me - canadian law contradicts common sense.....
  • what the networks fear is the loss of the local advervising dollar. It is the same story with the sattalite dishes you can buy for less than $100 now. unless you can _prove_ that you cannot recieve local affiliates in the area that you live in, the sattalite providers can no longer provide the network feeds, for the simple reason that the local affiliates lose the advertisment time in your home.
  • Think on this: one pays for cable access. Yet, even though one could still theoretically put up an antenna for network TV, cable companies are required to broadcast network TV over their lines. Now, here is a new medium; it is conceivable people would only watch 'TV' over the net. Wouldn't the FCC then need to require that such providers also provide network TV in addition to any proprietary content?

    One would also think that network TV would lobby the FCC to decree this ... but instead, they're suing someone handing them a present.


    Probably the only reason they're suing is because they want to do it themselves, and make even more money. =)

  • a violation of the broadcasters copyright. iCraveTV is adding their banners which makes them money, which is a violation IIRC of the Canadian copyright laws regarding broadcasting. The broadcasters are also not getting the advertisement money since it is not a registered broadcast. If I were the broadcast companies I would be pretty pissed off myself. I think one of the major reasons broadcasters like ABC et cetera haven't begun massive netcasting is the fact that the quality of video that can be broadcast over a 28.8 or 56.6 modem is crap. It's crap on a 512k cable modem for the most part. Quicktime does a decent job of delivering video at higher bandwidths but it's a joke at lower ones. Until we all have T1s or xDSLs idiot boxes will still be required.
  • More often than not, I side with the defendant. Not so in this case. They take another companys broadcast, and rebroadcasts without their prior permission. In my book, that is a bad thing.

    I don't know if they are doing something legally wrong, but I seriously think it is morally wrong. Less users watch the original broadcasters, and some watch the new one. The originals loses advertisement money, and the rebroadcaster earns them -- by theft.

    Therefore I think iCrave should be severly spanked by the canadian law system :-)

  • There should be some kind of law, that forces the networks to make their content easily available over various media such as the net.
    i.e If they are not willing to broadcast their stuff over the net, .
    they should allow icravetv.com to broadcast it. The justification for this would be an anti-monopoly consumer .
    rights argument. As you pointed out, NBC won't be losing any money from this and the people .
    watching would have missed TV otherwise.
  • i see your point about the fear of losing the local advertisement money, but if you check out the icravetv.com website, you'll see that they ask for your area code (presumably so that they can broadcast the local signal to you, not the signal from another area), so the advertisements should stay local.
  • I think the real shame here is that the cable company haven't viewed this as an opportunity to further their broadcast technology. iCrave have come up with a cool way to broadcast to people over the web, but have unfortunately broken copyright laws in order to do it. Mr Corporate Cable guy has then jumped in with both feet and decided to sue. Surely there could be a collaboration of some sort here that would allow people to get better access to these channels?

    It's a bit like the MP3 argument all over again - excellent distribution medium, excellent quality product - but unfortunately against copyright and therefore illegal.

  • I don't think there is any way the defendant can not loose this case. Until the Freedom of information is practiced by our governments, they are going to continue to fuck around with a patchwork of futile laws about how one is allowed use the signals one picks up from the air, copy the permutations of bits on ones harddisks, or write programs.

    Personally I think its pretty scary, the TV signals are in the air all around us, how the fuck can they not be public domain?

    If people were looking at the Internet the way they should be looking at it, they would see that this is no different than having a bigscreen TV in bar, which I understand is compeletly legal. But no: the Internet has be the great medium for corporate prostitution of the 21st century, not a place where people like to hang out, so we might as well forget it...


    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • I think that icrave is awesome. It gets in my bookmark list, at least until it goes out of commission (IF it goes out of commission) but I suppose I'll have to get realplayer working now. Darn, it always segfaults on me. Anyways, finally, something to do in a boring computer class! :)

    If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
  • They do use Real Software to broadcast the video over an IP network (namely the Internet). I don't really get what you're missing.

    Besides, it isn't always easy to determine physical location by IP address. In some simple cases, you can use host resolving, but more and more non-US companies and sites use .com, .net and .org. And since close to nobody uses .us, you can't check for that either... (OK, .ca might help, but I guess Canadians use .com/.net/.org as well.)

    /* Steinr */
  • Does no one read the articles associated with slashdot news stories anymore? They're distributing it for free.
  • Unless of course, they find some way to count the people that are watching the online one, and the broadcaster can consider that a larger audience and charge advertisers more (not to mention that the broadcasters can say "hey look, we're broadcasting on the net. you want to advertise with us.")

    But realistically, you're right: they're toast. And I hope they are. This is stealing, plain and simple.

    -Chris
  • (And I do mean elitist, not 3l337)

    Okay, guys, in order to keep your argument up, you have to start watching this channel ASAP.

    You see, you wouldn't normally watch these television channels anyway, right? So you wouldn't be paying for a TV in Canada, nor buying the products that are advertised, nor supporting the politicians with their public service announcements. So, since you weren't going to pay for it anyway, it's okay for you to take; it won't make any difference.

    -Chris
  • They are charging for it? I don't think so... they stated that they are only charging for advertising. Much like just about every other internet startup these days.... eventually there will just be onebig lump of money moving around an weekly cycles.... *sigh*
    ==============================
    Fran Frisina (franf@hhs.net)
    Yes, you can make money on the web!
    http://www.zero-productions.com/money
  • When I moderated (positively) someone else's comment this one somehow got moderated negatively without any assistance from me, so I'm commenting to cause it to be undone. Somebody else will have to up-moderate that other post.

  • They *are*, as I understand it, editing the signal to add their own advertising and a charging the _advertisers_.

    Repeating a signal is one thing. Changing it first is clearly a violation of copyright.

    Also consider the lack of editorial review on the part of the networks vis-a-vis the new ads. How does the end user know the new ads aren't part of the original broadcast?

  • Canadian Area Codes (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From Yahoo:

    403 Alberta (all locations)

    604 British Columbia (lower mainland)
    250 British Columbia (all other locations)

    204 Manitoba (all locations)

    506 New Brunswick (all locations)

    709 Newfoundland (all locations)

    902 Nova Scotia (all locations)

    905 Ontario (Hamilton, Mississauga, Niagara Falls)
    519 Ontario (London)
    705 Ontario (North Bay, Sault-Ste-Marie)
    613 Ontario (Ottawa)
    807 Ontario (Thunder Bay)
    416 Ontario (Toronto (metropolitan))

    902 Prince Edward Island (all locations)

    514 Quebec (Montreal)
    418 Quebec (Quebec City)
    819 Quebec (all other locations)

    306 Saskatchewan (all locations)

    403 Northwest Territories (MacKenzie, Victoria, Banks)
    819 Northwest Territories (Keewatin, Baffin)

    403 Yukon Territories (all locations)
  • How is it hurting the stations anyway?

    Well, there would have to be some percentage of people using it instead of regular TV; then, if iCraveTV can change the original ads for others, or just wipe them, there's lost revenue. The damage doesn't have to occur now: they react now because if they wait it'll be too late.

  • they may prevail (Score:4)

    by cebe ( 34322 ) on Wednesday December 08, 1999 @01:06AM (#1477205) Journal
    I think they might just find a loop out of this one. I havent cancelled my cable service just yet (altho it has crossed my mind.. all the channels I watch are right on there anyway.. plus any reason not to support cable companies is a plus)

    But seriously... I think somewhere in that copyright it probably forgets to mention a very specific word. Internet broadcasting. (In fact it probably says something quite specific... and therefor, wont apply to the site)

    Do you really think this guy would have shelled out the capital to start this site without consulting a couple lawyers first. I'm sure they went through the copyright papers carefully.. and planned their loopholes in advance.

    Furthermore... the networks had to have seen this coming. They should have amended their copyright 3 years ago when it was clear this internet thing wasnt a passing phase.

    I personally hope icravetv.com wins... the networks should have forseen this... and protected themselves. When they lose the lawsuit, they should then proceed to jump on the IP bandwagon. I'm sure they could find a way to secure their profits.
  • I looked at the site a bit more, they're not removing the original ads and adding their own, but they are sticking their own ads on the bottom of the "tv screen".

    So the original broadcast is still intact, there's just some extra crap at the bottom.

    I'd like to look at it myself and see what it's like, but I really, really hate RealVideo.
  • OK. This one is simple, and I can break it down with one short hypothetical.

    I am going to start a website that is an EXACT duplicate of SlashDot.org. I'm going to show their ads, but, I'm also going to have MY banners everywhere. I'm not going to ask SlashDot, or Andover.net for permission.

    How long will I last?
    Not too long my friends.
    I am STEALING. I am stealing their copyrighted information, and displaying it to their intended audience without their permission. And that, like it or not, is wrong.

    These television stations have paid an enormous amount of money for these programs, these station identifiers and the syndication rights to other broadcasts. They have to recoup these costs by advertising, and being able to PROVE to their advertisers that the viewer saw the advertisement on THAT station. This incident is taking away their way of life, and is wrong.

    Now, my prediction:
    icravetv.com will be bought out by either:
    AOL
    Real
    Microsoft,
    and will be launched as a branded 'broadcast' site, and everyone will be rich, bceause icravetv is now going to be an, um, not household but perhaps, desktop word.
    Can anyone say IPO?



  • the TV signals are in the air all around us, how the fuck can they not be public domain?

    Well somehow I think that you should be able to create information for a profit, just as you can build a car for profit. If a car is unlocked in the street, that doesn't make it public domain, does it? Neither is an uncoded (or too-weak coded) radio signal "public domain".

    If I steal a car or copy copyrighted material, you (or rather the insurance company) could argue that the owner ought to have locked the car/encrypt the data, but that doesn't make my action any more legal.

    This is not a "company vs the web" issue it is "company A vs company B" where company B is freeriding.

    C'mon. Sure information wants to be free, but few of us wants *all* our information s to be free. (unless you are Jenni [jennicam.org])

  • The very tiny type at the bottom of this page says" All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-99 Andover.Net." If you duplicated this site exactly and included the above statement I think you would be okay...unless your poor....then your screwed.
  • It's a bit like the MP3 argument all over again - excellent distribution medium, excellent quality product - but unfortunately against copyright and therefore illegal.

    Its not quite like MP3: for one, the image quality is terrible. More importantly, its not quite as blatantly illegal as ripping a song off a CD.

    It is illegal, though. They are re-selling a product that, in most cases, you can't legally re-sell. The commercial stations are in a difficult position: they aren't making any more money from the re-broadcast, and iCrave is making money from selling banner ads to other companies. If iCrave had paid for a redistributon license, they'd probably have avoided this suit.

    I'd like to see a list of stations that are suing them. I'll be willing to be its only the private stations that are angry. TVO/TFO (Ontario public) WNED (Buffalo public) and potentially CBC/SRC (Canadian national public, although they run ads) have much less,if anything, to lose.

  • Now, IANACL (I am not a Canadian Lawyer), but I can see how this could be a copyright violation. And I doubt that they could stand up against some heavy hitting networks with lots of cash to feed the legal machine.

    And, in my opinion, it is still probably too early for this kind of service anyway. A simple rebroadcasting doesn't take advantage of the new medium. How about making it searchable (gee, I remember this great quote, but not who said it or what it was in), and on demand (I want to watch show X now!).

    I don't know much about Canadian network TV, but if it is anything like network TV here, I don't think I would miss iCravetv a whole lot. Yeah, sure, there are a few jems in there every now and then, but most of it is garbage. I would much rather get transmition of a select group of Cable channels (and only the ones I want, no Food stations, Religious stations, (non)music stations, and all of that other cruft).

    Here is a easier solution: get basic cable (gotta have it with the cable modem service anyway) and a tv card for your computer. ;) There, that was easy wasn't it? You can even set up cron jobs to record your favorite shows. No messy lawyers to deal with.

  • There are some problems inherent to mirroring a site without the site owner's consent. If you have an IP address (or range) of your own, it will get blacklisted. If you have a dialin account, they'll blacklist your ISP ip addresses until they make you desist.

    Even if you have enough IP adresses to spread the load, you stil have to clean up the url's, reverse engineer the perl cgi scripts, replicate the article database (because if you don't, either your search won't work, or you'll have to query the original slashdot database, and they will notice the load from your system) and a lot more.

    All in all, easier said than done.

    Candians are bad... what?

  • If some company is beaming their broadcasts into my house without my permission why can't I look at it? Afterall it could be mind control rays from the Montauk project.

    Who gave the goverment the right to sell the airwaves inside my house to some giant corporations?

    If you don't want me to look at it don't beam it at me. And just because I have banks of Rockwell International 95 ELF/VLF/HF/VHF/UHF Receivers in my bunker don't call me paranoid....someone has to watch the watchers.

  • Here's another answer: if I was network TV brass, I would snatch this company (iCravetv) up. Have them broadcast my programming only. Sounds like a good way to get more advertising money to me.

    But of course, everyone's reaction these days is to bring out the legal guns. *sigh*

    Just a thought anyway.

  • How About the Copyright Notice on all NFL Games? (Score:5)

    by dave_aiello ( 9791 ) on Wednesday December 08, 1999 @01:45AM (#1477218) Homepage
    How many of you, if asked, can repeat the copyright notice that is read over the air on every NFL game? Something about any presentation of the:
    ...pictures, descriptions, or accounts of these games without the express permission of {insert home team name here} and the National Football League is expressly prohibited.

    Well anyway, you get the idea. What did icravetv.com think was going to happen, if the NFL goes to such great lengths to warn you not to rebroadcast their games? And, this is only one of the major copyright holders that has been infringed upon.

    For those of you who might want to flame me, I am in favor of OpenSource, but only if the developer of the product in question grants those rights of his/her own free will. Icrave's CEO's comments indicate that they have no such agreements with anyone.

    I don't think there's any question that the Canadian justice system's response will be swift and that they will side with the broadcasters on this one.

    I also agree with the technology analyst that is quoted in the CBC piece when he says that the TV networks and cable channels themselves should be putting their own content on-line using one or more multimedia formats like RealMedia, QuickTime, or Windows Media Player (yuck).

    Most of the major network affiliates in radio are on-line already through Yahoo! Broadcast or Go Radio. That seems like a good solution for everybody so far.
    --

    Dave Aiello

  • > Personally I think its pretty scary, the TV signals are in the air all around
    > us, how the fuck can they not be public domain?

    Oh, the SIGNALS ARE public domain. It's just the DATA that's not.
    -- ----------------------------------------------
    Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!

  • Re:They'll loose - and rightly so (Score:3)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Wednesday December 08, 1999 @02:13AM (#1477221) Homepage
    But, that car isn't built with a very finite public resource. When cars are built with in such a way that only 20-30 can operate within a certain area, then they might be comparable to radio signals.

    I think that all signals transmitted through public airspace should immediately fall under a free distribution license. Different from public domain. In PD, the work is completely open, you could claim you wrote it and disto it under your own copyright. But with free distro rights on otherwise copyrighted work, as long as you didn't modify it, or claim ownership, etc, you'd be able to distribute it.

    The airwaves are too valuable for things that have to be mobile, like cell phones, police radios, and the like, to waste them by letting people broadcast proprietary copyrighted and unredistributable works. I'd like to see all TV, radio, and internet, except for some public service radio channels, and internet via cellular, go to fiber soon.

    The cellphone companies have the right idea. While they have lobbied for some laws against listening in on cell calls, they simply encrypted them. The smart thing to do, use technology instead of the law.

    Anways, I don't think the idea of commercials as seperate entities is going to exist much longer, they're too easy to edit out with devices like a tivo. But how do you edit out the fact that Ms McBeal is drinking a coke and driving a lexus?
    This would drastically change the whole industry. When anyone watching Ally McBeal is seeing the ads, why will they want to limit distribution? In fact, they'll encourage it if they're smart. If you record a show, you'll see the same product placements later. They'll simply expand the nielson ratings to include time-shifted viewings and multiple viewings of taped material.
  • I agree with most of your comment, especially

    "I am STEALING. I am stealing their copyrighted information, and displaying it to their intended audience without their permission. And that, like it or not, is wrong.

    And all the disclaimers in the world will not change the fact that they are hijacking without permission.

    I think that AT&T will be the buyer on this one, with their ever expanding cable plant and cable influence they would be a very good partner to the networks. I can't see the broadcast TV advertisers or production companies making too much noise, the net-net of this is that they will get a larger audience for their product.

  • I remember visiting another site a year or so ago that also broadcasted tv. ACtually, I dont think it actually producasted tv, but it had links to the actuall websites of the tv companies that were broadcasting the TV. It had a huge huge selection, which stations in tons of countrys, from England to Iraq. I used to watch some german television on it from school. It didnt have its own url, I think it was probably on a free webhost somewhere, like tripod, yes, I am sure it was tripod. I wonder if its still around, I dont suppose anyone knows what I am talking about do they? I have misplaced the url and would like to find it again.
  • I'm glad to hear their not going to the extreme of editing the broadcast, so maybe they have a shot at defending themselves.

    However, I think the networks can make the arguement that their broadcasts are intended to be viewed full screen and that adding content, even outside the original screen, makes a significant alteration to their copywritten material and does not, therefore constitute simple re-transmittal.

    The networks have several reasons to try to stop this from an advertising point of view:
    1. The iCraveTV ads runs a significant risk of having those ads conflict with the ads in the content.
    2. The ads may conflict with the editorial policies of the network (e.g. Porn ads). Although clearly not their fault, ads like this could reflect badly on the network.
    3. Broadcast networks derive their revenue from advertising. Allowing iCraveTV to sell advertising during their broadcast, potentially reducing the network revenue stream, without iCraveTV sharing any of the cost of producing or transmitting the original signal, is simply wrong.
  • Alberta has two area codes. But, the new one is so new I can't remember! 708? This is a stupid post from me, I really should post anonymously but what the hey.

  • As somebody who works for a local television broadcaster, maybe I can provide a different perspective on this.

    First off, you should know that even as a broadcaster, we are prevented from transmitting Major League Baseball video on the 'net. We Webcast all of our weekday evening newscasts, and we have to cut them off before the sports segment because of a cease-and-desist order filed by MLB.
    Personally, I think their policy sucks. Who's going to not watch baseball on TV because they saw a highlight clip in 120x90, 10fps RealVideo on our Web site? "Oh, I've had my fill of baseball for today after watching that jerky clip where I could n't even see the ball... guess I don't need to watch the World Series..." Please.

    But what MLB is probably doing is just staking their claim to their intellectual property. Someday, with broadband to the home, online video may seriously compete with broadcast television. If MLB didn't fight for the right to control their property now (as silly as it seems today), they'd be screwed down the line.

    As for anybody who thinks that it's OK to rebroadcast a television station's content just because you're not editing out the commercials, what do you think about framing a Web site and slapping your own banners up top? Is that OK just because you didn't take the banners out of the content-providing site?

    iCraveTV is nothing more than a little parasite that will be squashed soon enough. International legal issues may slow the process a bit, but the idiots who dreamed up this get-rich-with-a-dot-com scheme will not even be a footnote in the history of the 'net.
  • The day that iCraveTV.com was launched, CITY TV (Independant station here in Toronto, channel 57 in area code 416) gave it a review & a recommendation on their breakfast show.
  • The airwaves are great for broadcasting. Sure cable might be better in the cities, but they become very expensive as soon as there is a distance involved (and this was in canada, right) The problems with radio distribution start when you have multiple sources and multiple clients. (like cell phones) For one-way single source, wide distribution material, radio rules.

    You have an intresting point, though. The distinction btw public domain and public distribution might do the trick:

    Public domain: Use it however you want as long as you name the source.
    Public distribution: Distribute the unaltered material freely (and may the source be with it)

  • The broadcasters are also not getting the advertisement money since it is not a registered broadcast
    So what? I'd look on iCrave as a value-added reseller. If you use the iCrave site, then you're also getting the original ads for which the networks were paid. There's a compelling argument, IMO, that iCrave should be able to charge the networks. They're opening the networks' adverts to a wider audience.
  • Actually the satellites can now broadcast local affiliates, but they pay for the rebroadcast rights. The previous prohibition of satellites broadcasting local stations was more a result of the cable lobby than the affiliates.

    Incidentally if you want to get national network feeds (which is still hard) just say that your dish is for an RV.
    --
  • Nitpick: 514 broke up last year.
    514 Quebec (Montreal island)
    450 Quebec (Greater Montreal region)

    Basically everyone who was 514 is now 450 except for the island of Montreal. [mapblast.com]
    ---

  • Its not quite like MP3: for one, the image quality is terrible. More importantly, its not quite as blatantly illegal as ripping a song off a CD.

    Not to quibble, but at least here in the States ripping an MP3 off a copywrited CD is perfectly legal. Having your friends over and playing the MP3 is perfectly legal. Giving the MP3 to a friend is of questionable legality. Selling the MP3 without a licensing agreement or putting it on a public server is almost certanly illegal.
    --
  • No of course you wouldn't be ok. That's like saying if you copy a book and sell it, but retain the copyright notice everything is peachy keen. You can't, that's the whole point of copyright, to protect investment in things that are easy to duplicate. While it seems onerous at times, and certainly the length of copyrights in the US are out of all proportion, it sure beats having to sign a EULA in order to view or purchase creative material.
    --
  • According to their website:

    If you have trouble getting a station, call your Internet Service Provider(ISP) about "multicasting." Multicasting will provide you with greatly increased reliability of reception and will provide you with greater potential clarity with DSL, ISDN, cable or satellite connections. Your ISP is the company that you pay to get access to the internet. Look at your monthly bill for their phone number and address. Call them now!

    Wow. Multicast is pretty much impossible for most small ISP's to support. They almost make it sound like you're getting ripped off if you're not on a multicast compatible ISP.

    Legal questions about rebroadcasting aside for a moment, that's a kinda scary precedent to set. Multicast has never really caught on, for several reasons. If people like this create an artifical demand for something that can be done other (perhaps better?) ways, this could have bigger effects on the net than just a lawsuit.

    "We've had 5 people call in today asking us for multicast."
    "What do they want with it?"
    "They didn't know, they just knew that they needed it."

    :)

  • You don't check by using the .com or .org, etc. You check the IP address and what company or organization it belongs to. You can look up IP address registration at rs.arin.net. It may not be foolproof, but it would at least show a reasonable effort on the part of the network.

  • Dumb Networks (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What idiots!!!! Here you have iCraveTV rebroadcasting a station programming, including it's commercials!!! The networks are only getting an INCREASE in their audience. Why are they complaining? iCraveTV makes money on adding banners and doesn't charge the user anything. Why don't the networks work with iCraveTV to work on getting this to work better in the future?

  • Yes. Go right ahead. If I cared I would encrypt my communications.

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • I don't think cable companies are REQUIRED to broadcast network TV. In this area (Columbus, Ohio), there's a big fight between the local cable company (Time Warner), and CBS. The owners of the local CBS affiliate also own a new News network, competing with CNN. Time Warner doesn't want to carry it. Both companies have been blasting the airways and papers lately about the fight. In the recent move, CBS has given Time Warner until Dec 31 to carry the new news channel on their basic service. If not, they will not renew the contract to allow Time Warner to broadcast CBS. In the latest volley, Time Warner is sending rabbit ears to every customer in case CBS is removed.

  • Re:Give a point for informative... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    780
    I think 708 is somewhere in Illinios

    but northern alberta is now 780

    yeah im gonna go anonymous.. this is kinda useless :)
  • But they're not charging for it! The site is totally free (and it's nice to be able to watch something on those long boring night shifts).
    I don't know where you pulled that they charged for using the site, cuz they don't. They just have advertisements running at the bottom of the broadcast. I for one hope they win the case and continue to broadcast over the net.

  • Not to quibble...okay, to quibble. Giving the MP# to a friend is just as illegal as selling it. You don't have to make a profit yourself to violate a copyright. For example, it'd be illegal to burn copies of commercial CDs and stand on a street corner giving them away. You don't have to make money off it. You'd still be copying intellectual property that you have no right to.

  • TV networks vs. e-commerce (Score:4)

    by heroine ( 1220 ) on Wednesday December 08, 1999 @04:42AM (#1477252) Homepage
    This goes along with the previous article on Fox television banning Linux from its website. The TV networks don't like the internet. They want to use it as a brochure but want e-commerce to die. No matter what you use it for, RedHat, VA Linux, SGI, IBM and all the others define Linux as an e-commerce server and we saw the effect of that when Fox banned Linux users. Any other company is certainly going to battle the internet as hard as they can.
  • It is possible to determine physical location by IP (up to a point). Netscape does some domain checking when you try and download the 128 bit version of their browser. I was never able to download it at work in Denver because they didn't recognise my IP as being within N. America.
  • So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
  • I guess I could have been more clear. I considered a few radio and TV channels to be 'essential services' for broadcast where fiber isn't practical. But, with something like CBC bringing news and some entertainment, I think the rest of the airwaves are better used for something other than TV/Radio.

    Personally, I consider Iridium and other global sat-phone services to be more of a public service than sattelite TV, if they both used the same bandwidth.

    And, you can still get TV signals. When a decent downlink gets to 4mbit or so, a private TV feed is doable, in TV quality, after being MPEG2ed.

    And, if the phone system was smart enough, everyone in the area who wanted to watch that program could, assuming it was a public feed, so that it would only be broadcast once.

    The difference between video on demand over the air, and current broadcast being that with video on demand, the service is being requested, it's not being 'spammed' to everyone. And with small cells within a city, you could serve a virtually unlimited number of people with low-power cells, instead of wasting the whole spectrum on TV signals, regardless of who watches.
  • Canada allowed mp3s for a while because copywrite laws only covered exact copies.

    I love Canadian logic. ;)

    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin & Hobbes
  • Sorry to tell you this, but iCrave is retransmitting *everything* the original broadcaster is transmitting.

    Yes, that includes advertising.

    Under Canadian law, iCrave is allowed to retransmit publicly broadcast signals provided the original content is not modified. And it isn't, so they're doing everything right and by the book.

    In fact, they're sending the TV signals to even *more* people than the signal would have ordinarily have reached. So this means more people see the advertisements and the advertisers get more bang for the buck.

    Calling this theft might be a bit too strong (and dead wrong).

  • CITY TV dosen't care who rebroadcasts their stuff because they are really a Toronto only station and don't make much money off cable subscriptions or advertising from non-Toronto markets. This is ofcourse completely different to how CBC, CTV, and Global operate.

  • How many of you, if asked, can repeat the copyright notice that is read over the air on every NFL game? Something about any presentation of the:
    ...pictures, descriptions, or accounts of these games without the express permission of {insert home team name here} and the National Football League is expressly prohibited.
    Well anyway, you get the idea. What did icravetv.com think was going to happen, if the NFL goes to such great lengths to warn you not to rebroadcast their games? And, this is only one of the major copyright holders that has been infringed upon.

    Just because you say something doesn't make it true. I could state that nobody is legally allowed to reply to this comment, but that wouldn't be legal, now would it. Most of the legalspeak you see (tv, shrinkwrap license) is fluff and scare tactics, and does not properly represent all laws.

    (Technically the article states that the NFL is still in the threatening phase, not the doing phase, at this time).

    Canadian law allows you to rebroadcast public domain signals real-time without modification, to your hearts content. Since all signals put onto the VHF/UHF TV channel spectrum are free for all in Canada, they fall into this category.

    Now, I don't know about the surrounding advertising the site uses, but I'm sure the court will have a bit of difficulty deciding that one as well. After all, it's not modifying the signal, just surrounding it.

    How do cable companies (in Canada) deal with this? Anyone?

  • Other then the really stupid subject line, good post. You demonstrate the problem rather clearly.

  • the sattalite providers can no longer provide the network feeds, for the simple reason that the local affiliates lose the advertisment time in your home.

    This seems like one more shining example of big business throwing their weight around and actually achieving the exact opposite of what they intend.

    Since I got my satellite disk (about 6 months now) I have not watched a local TV station EVEN ONCE. I probably would if they were broadcast over satellite, but I'm not willing to tolerate the poor reception I get now that I ditched my cable TV.

    I'm not sure how my abandoning their networks altogether preserves any advertising time for them. Oh well, can't say any of the big 4 networks were broadcasting anything that I really miss anyway....

  • The broadcasters are also not getting the advertisement money since it is not a registered broadcast.

    The TV networks were already paid by the advertisers the day the advertisers got their commercial on TV. It's not as if the advertiser has to pay the network $0.01 for every person who sees his commercial. It's a flat fee to get an ad in a certain time slot.

  • Yes, two-way communication is far more important than one-way broadcast. A disturbing development is that more and more ISP's favour download times to upload. That is "Sit quietly and watch. Dont bother to interact"

    The fight for bandwith will continue and I fear that "we" will lose when the Big Corporations step in for real. You dont think that fast connections will come for free, do you? It will be deals like "really fast downloads from CBS, some interactibility from you" sort of a http-remote control.

  • So they don't claim copyright on the signal they're rebroadcasting, but it's not legal for me to turn around and re-rebroadcast it? Which is it going to be?

    Key difference: They're not broadcasting. :-)

    Internet broadcasting has not yet been defined as "broadcasting" under the laws in question. The laws are well-defined for stuff that goes on the airwaves, but the internet is not the airwaves.

    Also, since they're adding their Advertising, which is copyrighted by them, directly to the stream, you probably would get nailed there too.

    ---
  • So, curiosity, having killed the cat, came knocking on my door. Streaming TV on the web, huh? OK, I'll take a look.

    "Enter your Canadian area code" the site says. Ah, this is rock solid security. How many slashdotters don't know where to find a list of area codes on the web. Ah, there's one. I think I'll use 604.

    Then comes the surprise. Now I have to "certify", which consists of anonymously clicking a button, that I'm actually in Canada! Oh, this is ripe. It wouldn't terribly difficult for them to make a good solid guess based on my IP address -- then they could have dismissed me early on. Does this remind anybody of a "Yes I've over 18" button on a porn site? not that I've ever seen a porn site, mind you... but I've heard about them :)

    What the hell! I went ahead and clicked the "I'm in Canada" button... what's the worst that could happen, right? Then the Terms & Conditions, blah, blah, blah... agree, agree, agree...

    Then I get a friggin' link to a RealAudio stream, which is pretty funny because the crappy firewall at my work doesn't let RealAudio get through. So there you have it. Game over :(

    RP

  • So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?

    First of, your *RIGHT* to privacy is a complete bullshit phrase. If I really want to spy on you, do you think I give a damn about your rights? C'mon. Everyone has the right to privacy. But you gotta protect your rights, or someone else will take them away from you.

    To protect your right to privacy, you gotta make sure no one else can hear you. If I went into the park, and yelled my credit card info at passers-by, could I bitch about my right to privacy being violated? I don't think so. So stop bitching about your lack of privacy when you use devices that spew unencrypted data into the radio waves for any passers-by to hear.


    ---
  • There is one *major* difference between radio TV and the Internet: Radio TV signals are not accessible around the globe. The Internet is. I fully admit that this really makes no legal difference, but maybe the TV stations ought to be a grateful that more people can watch, at no extra cost to themselves?

    People will be watching, and whether it's on a computer monitor or a TV screen doesn't really make a difference. The local advertisers have their ads broadcast to even more people, the stations get more viewers, and viewers can watch from almost anywhere on Earth. The only people I see losing out are manufacturers of radio transmitters, and cable providers.

    Being a Canadian, I really, really hate cable companies' monopolistic business practises, so I say screw 'em. They've gotten a free ride for far too long. Let's see how well they do when there's some real competition a few years from now, when bandwidth is plentiful and real video doesn't suck so much.
  • ... mainly because they looked at the wrong precedents and loopholes. Since returning to Canada from Europe a few months ago, I've missed the quality programming that's been available in countries like the UK and the Netherlands. Both iCraveTV & the lawsuit appellants miss the point of having a service like this in the first place - that you can extend your reach beyond what is geographically possible using stereotypical analogue broadcast media.

    Ideally it would be that people could just get on the Net and watch/listen (in **some** form) most of the world's television and radio stations - there would be cacophony, but there'd be at least some chance that people would really start to open their eyes a bit.


  • Yes of course. The last thing we want is a bunch of pretend laws and rights that can't be enforced.

    You only have a right to privacy to the extent that it is possible to guarantee that privacy. And no law, only cryptography, can do that.

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

  • The networks have one thing to sell, that's us, the viewers. The advertisers pay the network for the privilege of attracting our attention.

    cheers,

  • Um, if iCraveTV is stealing their copyrighted content, isn't that blatently illegal? I mean, can you legally record cable TV in Canada?
  • I said they'd get sued and I also predicted why. (check out my post News From January 2001? [slashdot.org])

    They want have complete control over who accesses their content, and the internet is proving to make that impossible, especially for non-cable/pay-per content.

    I also stated (in an off sorta way) that part of their reason for suing will be because they paid for the content and iCraveTV didn't. Take note that they did say [slashdot.org] they are putting profits aside for the sake of compensating the people whose feeds they rebroadcast. I think this will seriously damage any case these companies have against iCraveTV in Canada and in the eyes of the CRTC.

    I knew this was gonna happen. heh.

    By the way does Canada have anti-SLAPP laws like we do in California, and would it apply to this situation?
  • The commercial stations are in a difficult position: they aren't making any more money from the re-broadcast, and iCrave is making money from selling banner ads to other companies.

    Actually, the commercial stations either are or will make more money because of iCrave. Advertisers pay per slot, not per "hit", and they do so based on expected hits per slot. This is why Neilson ratings are so important, and why Superbowl slots are so expensive.

    Advertisers who know iCrave exists will realize that a particular broadcaster is covering more area, and this increases the demand (thus the price) per slot on that broadcaster.

  • While I am an American, and therefore seen as a dork in the eyes of nearly everyone who isn't an American, let me offer my opinion.

    What iCrave is doing is legal. If you did it too, it would also be legal. But if you copied iCrave's data that would not be legal.

    Because iCrave is not broadcasting. If you want their data you send a request (e.g. clicking on a particular link or using a client that when started puts in a request) to their servers. Then it gives you data by the barrowload. But it doesn't send you that data even if you don't ask somehow. (that would be more like getting pingflooded and would be interpreted as a DOS on every possible IP address - good luck)

    So really, even if iCrave _wanted_ people to recopy their data it's not legal b/c you only get to ignore the copyright if you get it off of a broadcast.

    Now answer me this: are homemade satellite descramblers legal in .ca? If so then I will have to show some newfound respect to my neighbors to the north.
  • I just got this in the mail. :-)

    While it's not exactly what you're talking about, I just thought it was odd that I got the email seconds after reading this post.

    smartRay Network, Inc. launched the world's first Personal Mobile Portal for

    Wireless Application Protocol (WAP/HDML) and "Internet Phones." The FREE,
    integrated service offers consumers a mobile email account, news headlines,
    stock quotes, weather forecasts, lotto results, and more sent directly to
    users' cellular phones, pagers, and pdas. smartRay.com services are
    currently accessible both directly from a mobile "Internet Phone" at
    mobile.smartRay.com and via the web at www.smartRay.com.

    smartRay.com is merging content with cutting-edge communications tools to
    deliver information that consumers want, when they want it, wherever they
    are.
    As avid Slashdot readers, the engineers at smartRay.com felt that Slashdot
    content was vital to their wireless offering. "The geeks here at
    smartRay.com made us do it," says Troy Tyler, smartRay Network President and
    CEO, "We want to deliver the best content to our users for free regardless
    of device and service provider. We are proud to offer Slashdot."

    Founded in January 1999, and to date a Microsoft free environment, smartRay
    Network Inc. is dedicated to unleashing the potential of wireless devices to
    help consumer end users simplify and enjoy their lives. smartRay.com offers
    an integrated, complementary suite of Internet-based services to the growing
    universe of digital mobile phones, "Internet Phones," pagers, and PDAs.
    smartRay Network is based in New York.

    http://smartRay.com
    http://pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,13699 ,00.html

    ---
  • Sounds like this is specific to .ca law. If you broadcast something then as a result of that anyone else can repeat the identical broadcast. Copyright does not apply. Don't like it? Don't broadcast. No one's making you.

    Sounds like a good idea to me (it's like FidonetTV. Store and forward ;)
  • They take another companys broadcast, and rebroadcasts without their prior permission. In my book, that is a bad thing.

    If I tape a bunch of shows, then take them with me and a scout troop that are camping -- is that rebroadcasting w/o prior permission? What about a tower that strengthens or repeats the signal to a local rural area? Once you start putting stuff out into the public (ie: broadcasting the waves, putting up posters, etc), you have to accept the fact that people can come along and take a copy. It's in the public domain.

    Less users watch the original broadcasters, and some watch the new one. The originals loses advertisement money, and the rebroadcaster earns them -- by theft.

    Uh, what?! Are you familiar at all with how television works? It's a completely passive medium! Advertiser pays Johnny Network to put advertisements about some product in with some program. As long as the adds reach eyes, the advertiser will continue to pay Johhnny Network. It doesn't matter if Johhny Network personally hands out copies of the tapes, broadcasts it, or subcontracts the rebroadcasting to other people. ABC, et all, are still getting mega-dollars for commercial during sporting events, etc, and iCraveTV is not getting on red cent from them. All their profits come from putting ads around the TV signal, thus recouping their rebroadcasting costs.

    Therefore I think iCrave should be severly spanked by the canadian law system :-)

    Canadian laws support them. TV signals are very like GPLed programs -- I'm allowed to tape them, view them privately, maybe show proper clips of them. I'm also allowed to send them, unmodified, through whatever medium I wish -- so long as I have met the FCC requirements (which are NULL in the case of the internet). iCraveTV sends out unmodified signals, so I don't see a legal problem at all. I'm also horrified at how against this company people seem.
    ---
  • This makes sense _basically_ but not so much in the case of mp3s. It depends on where the line is drawn. Lichtenstein (sp) paintings are almost exact copies of other people's copywritten comic books. But you'd be stupid to sue over it. So at what point does an mp3 become an different work of art which is derived from some other work? The lawsuits over sampling are a good starting point, except that there's nothing wrong IMHO with sampling. Could you make a valid expressive point (irony perhaps) by including an exact duplicate of someone else's work along with your own? Maybe.

    Since copyright has no basis in natural rights or in reality it is very much a matter of interpretation. .ca's 'only if it's exact' law was not exactly the worst implementation you know.
  • I agree with you. And here's a further extension. Is it okay to non-intrusively tap power lines if you do so from your property without violating their right-of-way?

    They're dumping energy into the surrounding air (basically on the big high tension lines) which is going to waste and which may be going onto your property. They are typically considered a utility and have some extra privleges and restrictions, and they interfere with other public resources (like EM transmissions).

    So should you legally be able to set up an induction loop or something on the edge of your property and draw power from it?

    IMHO, yes. The power co knew what it was doing, and is free to attempt to purchase more right of way or not waste energy in such a way that it tresspasses onto my property. Unfortunately they tend to pass laws against this.
  • It's not so much the signal itself (which is public domain, being an electromagnetic wave), but it's the content of the signal. (Insert your favorite network here) spent millions to produce a show. They have the right to decide how and where it is used, and they have the rights to profits made directly by the show.

    Network affiliates purchase/share the rights to the national content. They have the right to broadcast the content. If iCrave were to work out some sort of affiliate contract with the major networks, they could probably broadcast whatever they wanted...
  • Actually Canadians _are_ bad, and Americans _are_ good. This is basically because America has vast natural supplies of goodness and during the 30's and 40's we established a strategic reserve supply of goodness in case of emergency.

    While many countries recieve exports of our goodness, we would be foolish to expend it all.

    At any rate, Canada unfortunately sits on top of one of the largest naturally occuring masses of badness in the world (the only larger ones are Russia, which we all knew, and Madagascar which is kind of strange). If Canada had not shipped the bulk of it's good supply to Britain in the early part of this century it would not be as big a deal as it is.

    And it still wouldn't be a problem given the healthy trade relationship between the naturally very good US and naturally very bad Canada but due to an oversight good imports/exports were not covered under NAFTA.

    At the moment good exports to Canada from the US are constrained and so Canada has reverted to badness. Hopefully this will be resolved soon and Canada can once again join the ranks of good nations, even though it has to do so artificially.
  • Why do you say it's impossible for most small ISP's to support? Granted, most don't, but multicast is NOT difficult to support.

    Large ISP's don't support it EITHER.. try getting it on @home.

    Multicast is one of those wonderful technologies that the commercialization of internet access has almost killed. It used to be you could simply call your upstream and ask them 'Hey.. I need on MBone...' and they would get workin on it.

    And they *should* make multicast available to the masses, that's what it's FOR.
    It's MORE efficient than any other method of moving broadcast data around, like video.


  • My apologies on the subject line...I was going for that whole 'South Park/Celine Dion' thing.
    Some of my best 'net pals are Canadian, and, oddly enough, they think it's funny when I tease their sorry, too-whitebread country.
    :-)

    Yours in perpetual sarcasm...
  • Why do you say it's impossible for most small ISP's to support? Granted, most don't, but multicast is NOT difficult to support.

    Large ISP's don't support it EITHER.. try getting it on @home.

    Multicast is one of those wonderful technologies that the commercialization of internet access has almost killed. It used to be you could simply call your upstream and ask them 'Hey.. I need on MBone...' and they would get workin on it.


    I run a small ISP. I called our upstream, and asked. "Mbone isn't available."

    "What if I really want it? What if my customers demand it?"

    "You'll have to pay for all engineering expenses involved, as well as agree that we have no liability if it doesn't work."


    But, we're getting far off topic here. :)
  • The CRTC has taken a pretty bold position by keeping their hands off the Net. It might be that Fox and the NFL win this round (and its not clear to me that they will), this is a short term problem.

    As Net bandwidth increases, they will just move these sites to another country -- Russia, Mexico, Taiwan, wherever. That's already the case with online Casinos.

    Also, the networks (even Fox) will eventually have to join the Net anyway. Say they win this case. CITY TV and CBC give iCrave permission to rebroadcast anyway. Since the CBC is paid for by Canadian taxpayers, I can hardly see them not giving iCrave permission to rebroadcast to Canadians. Now CITY/CBC get all the Net viewers and Fox looses out. I can't see how that helps Fox's bottom line.

    Ken
  • I run a small ISP. I called our upstream,
    and asked. "Mbone isn't available."

    "What if I really want it? What
    if my customers demand it?"

    "You'll have to pay for all engineering
    expenses involved, as well as agree that
    we have no liability if it doesn't work."


    That's easy. Change your upstream provider.

    Look; if enough end users demand multicast, then ISPs will provide it because the end users will change their ISP to someone that does. And if enough ISPs want to provide multicast to their end users, then upstream providers will have to provide it to keep their ISPs.

    Things like iCraveTV might just be the killer app that multicast needs to take off. If I go over to some neighbor that has ADSL and flawless TV because of multicast, what do you think I am going to do as a consumer?

    Ken

  • I don't see how this would hurt Slashdot. Will it prevent anyone from seeing slashdot? W ill it reduce the number of people who see these adverts?

    No... but it's the readers and the advertisers who benefit then, not Slashdot (the site, Andover.net, Rob, whatever your personal perception of "Slashdot" happens to be. It certainly includes the readers and the advertisers, but neither of those groups would be here unless there was something to bring them together.)

  • I think it's really funny how articles like this prompt so many comments saying "this is legal" and an equal amount of comments says "this is illegal"...

    Basically, it shows how misguided society is as a whole with regard to copyright laws (and probably most laws for that matter.) I am equally guilty of this, of course, as my initial reaction was "that must be illegal"... but upon further investigation, in Canada anyway, it seems to be legal (of course, I am no lawyer, so enterpret my enterpretation as you see fit) and like most people posting to /., I have not given you any URL's to back this up. :)
    -dr

  • If I give a friend a Rio player with an MP3 I made stored on it, I believe that this would be fair use, but then again, IANAL.
    --
  • Well somehow I think that you should be able to create information for a profit, just as you can build a car for profit. If a car is unlocked in the street, that doesn't make it public domain, does it?
    That's an irrelevant example. If I steal your car, you no longer have use of it. If I copy your CD/MP3/software/TV show/whatever, you still have use of it.

    Should you be able to profit from creating information? Sure; otherwise there's going to be a heck of a lot less information created. Songwriters, authors, and hackers have to eat, after all.

    Should the mechanism for that profit be the state locking up people who make unauthorized copies? Nope. That's always been ethically questionable, and now in the "digital age" it's just no longer practical. (It's also worth noting that very little of the profits actually end up in the hands of the songwriters, authors, and hackers who create the information.)

    We need a new pardigm to support authors and artists while not trying to prevent copying. My suggestion is unlimited copying (so long as authorship credit is preserved), with royalties required for for-profit use, sort of like what's now in effect for musical performances. (I can sing Bob Dylan songs to my friends and neighbors 'till my voice gives out and not pay a cent, but if I play in a bar where music is an profit-drawing attraction, the bar owner pays BMI or ASCAP who then pay Bob.)

  • You see? That's exactly the problem -- there _are_ methods, but there will always be cases where they guess wrong. And even if I do connect from an American IP address, I could just be using a proxy. You never know :-)

    For your 128-bit encryption needs, try Fortify (http://www.fortify.net/ -- sorry, I would have made that in HTML if my keyboard layout wouldn't have conflicted with my WM...)

    /* Steinar */
  • ICravetv is just rebroadcasting the signal with the advertising intact. You reach more viewers sell more products what's the problem?

    I agree there is some content such as pro sports where the local stadium would be competing with an internet broadcast. These rare conflicts are easy enough to overcome by excluding the content from the internet. Also advertisers often tailer content to local tastes so they may feel that "their dog" is getting the wrong message. Since this is broadcasting on a one-way street (network TV is not interactive like slashdot) it is really just helping to expand the viewing area.

    These are real issues but over time a lot of them will be worked out. It might even be better if we had more global oriented advertising..

  • Just because a Canadian company did something like this doesn't make Canadians bad, does it? Or are you just being bigoted?

    At any rate, some Canadian Slashdotters happen to have already stated that they doubt icravetv will win this case.

    I don't side with icravetv (as a Canadian) because they are violating Copyright. There are specific laws in Canada (visit the CRTC [crtc.gc.ca]) protecting broadcasters, etc. This is also fairly well covered by International Copyright Law.

    The networks have to get rights to distribute the content. The cable companies often state that you can't resell their content. It would seem to me that presenting content with revenue from the hits would be at least profiting off of the content.
  • Personally I think its pretty scary, the TV signals are in the air all around us, how the fsck can they not be public domain? Blame CRTC. For example, it is ILLEGAL (And I don't need a lawyer to know that) to own a non CRTC-approved satellite system (i.e U.S. DirectTV, DishNet). The RCMP can bust down your door, walk out with your gear, and tear the dish off your roof. Blame CRTC, Blame CRTC For preventing me to choose What I'd like to see on my on TV Blame CRTC, Blame CRTC For caving in in to all the whims Of the cable TV monopoly (sung to SP's Blame Canada)
    ---

Slashdot Top Deals

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Close