Slashdot Mirror
iCraveTV sued for IP Theft
LocalYokel writes "This Yahoo! article states that 10 motion picture and 3 broadcasting companies today filed a complaint against iCraveTV and individuals and companies behind the Internet operation, including William R. Craig, William R. Craig Consulting, George Simons and TVRadio Now Corp. They're also in hot water with the U.S. National Football League. Is the idea of streaming Internet television, the dream of many, truly viable under the constant threat of copyright lawsuits?" This isn't the first time we've seen action against iCrave; check it out here. The original Slashdot iCrave story is here. Enjoy.
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.
I hate that! Especially the poor quality of the local commercials! Grrr!!
"iCraveTV _does_ add content by sending its ads out as well as the video. Whether they pop up in the same window is not relevant"
I use iCraveTV. It is easy to see logos and slogans that pop up on the screen. The only way I see most not being visible is if you run in a resolution above 1600x1200 or want to read the legal speak at the end of television commercial cons.
Don't any of you guys read the article?
That's funny. After eliminating commodity based unemployment (due to recent asian crisis), as well as the restricted fishing industry, our incredibly stupid social system only has a 1.2% higher unemployment rate.
What i would like to see is all media under the copyleft. Perhaps a Media GPL?
416 905 613 And so on...
You'd think the television networks would be happy about these people, after all, it means their advertising can reach even more people. P.S. Weee first post!
If they would just pay the damn licensing fees. why does everybody on this planet think they can just steal whatever ideas they want to use to make money off of.
And obviously not speaking for the rest of you, but I would rather have my TV be my TV, my radio be my radio, and my computer be my game console... err, workstation.
Kill your TV, and keep that crap off my IP.
Anyway, with the GPL, it doesn't matter if I don't believe in copyrights (as it happens, I do) as long as those who redistribute the software do. If I write a software license that states people who break it will be hit by a falling anvil, then they are the ones who would have to believe that, not me.
if you're in the US and you enter a valid Canadian postal code
I tried this (it asked for my area code (not postal code) to which I responded 807, that being the area code I would have if I lived a couple hundred miles north of where I do), and it fired up RealPlayer, but then claimed I didn't have the proper component to decode the stream. This is with G2player-6.0-0.99092901.i386.rpm, is there a more recent version?
One has to wonder why they are suing a Canadian company in a US Court. The US Court has no jurisdiction over the Canadian company.
subject says it all
I have to disagree. Using the GPL is a statement that software should not be owned. It's carefully designed to simulate a world in which copyright law doesn't exist, by prohibiting the harmful actions copyright law allows (and by preventing some weaker license from being substituted). Several proponents really do argue against copyright for software.
I realize the current system involves rewarding broadcasters for being unable to reach each other's audiences, but that's becuase the current system is broken as designed. The notion that a competing organization will be penalized for delivering content (which the owners were willing to send to all and sundry for no charge!) in a more useful form is just sickening. That's no way to support a civilization.
IMHO nobody gets to hand out anything that dangerous without serious warnings, especially not and claim it's drinkable!
My TV isn't next to my computer. It has a crummy analog tuner and mediocre signal reception at best. It has no idea what programming is available even at just this moment- for that I have to go back to my computer (or else buy a dead tree). Even if I were willing to give my good money to the despicable sleazeballs at the local multicast monopoly (TCI), this wouldn't improve much. Since the local unicast monopoly (US West) actually kinda has DSL here, streaming video is pretty cool when I can find it, and it'll be offered more often as the masses begin being able to receive it. And they will subsidize a backbone the likes of which most of us have never seen.
IMHO that's always a Good Thing. Any time an organization is powerful enough to buy or coerce the privilege of having no competitors, the free market has failed and somebody's getting ripped off severely.
legal or not, please don't call this theft. copying your car would be a whole lot different than stealing it - wouldn't you say??
You mean that RealPlayer can manage 30-frames-per-second full-motion video over a 56k modem line? Really?
legal or not, please don't call this stealing. EG. I would say copying your wardrobe would be a hell of a lot different than stealing it. Duh
At the end of the game, it places retransmission restrictions. Well, since it is being retransmitted real-time, no one can possibly even know about those restrictions until the end. So, even if that restriction is valid (which it probably is not, due to the Canadian laws posted earlier about real-time retransmissions), the only thing that could be done is to stop the transmission of that telecast from that point through to the end.
If you don't think "theft" to that one, then at least you're much more consistent than many.
But please do get the law changed so that you do own the stuff you receive. The day after that law passes, my new closed-source Linux kernel will make me millions. (Hey, I own the Red Hat CD!)
The only people who are happy with iCrave on the business end are large national advertisers, who now have that much less need to buy TV time in markets outside Toronto.
Fuck you, you piece of shit
which part, the intellectual part, or the property part. both are blatently dishonest descriptions!!
We have iCraveTV and you don't - so fuck off and die loser
Does anyone else find it amusing when media barons refer to TV and movies as "intellectual property"?
if you want to call this illegal, then fine. but please don't lay out some fake morality about the wrongs of copying something that flows through my living room free of cost anyway. sheesh, if it bothers you that much - go to confession or something.
If i recall correctly ( at least in NJ ) it was the other way around. the cable companies said, "it's our cable and we will carry what we want". The implied threat was reported as : we are going to charge every broadcaster that want's a specific market 5 cents per viewer per month if they want that market. they both came to the table and settled there disputes within a very short time frame ever notice that your cable company cut's into certain station and place the local advertisement. just me
copyright infringement, perhaps... but when they broadcast this crap through my living room walls - don't go spouting off like they have a right to micromanage what I do with it. their free broadcasts are rebroadcasted - poor babies.
And who is going to pay the mega millins of dollars for your sports stars? Who is going to pay Jim Carrey his trillion dollars?
if no one owned the rights, or profited off of that fact, then they wouldn't be able to pay the actors, performers, etc.
Having one person own the rights is the only way to pay the bills. Communism doesn't work. You can't get something for nothing.
The only reason why Open Source Software developers eat, is that they have day jobs. Everybody needs to eat, and if the only thing you can produce is intellectual property, than that is what you need to sell.
Free speech, not beer.
You cannot reasonably expect your content to be protected by US law if you knowingly let someone broadcast it to an area US law doesn't govern.
No, iCraveTV is *not* following the rules. They are allowed to rebroadcast, which is not what they're doing. They are not just rebroadcasting it but converting it into a different format for the Internet. Also, they're adding their own banner ads, so this is an additional change. Also, since this can now be seen by anyone in the world, not just in or near Canada, I suspect that other countries might legally object, because Canadian law has an effect beyond their borders.
I poped up ICRAVETV.com as I occasionally do so that I could watch a Television show while I worked only to find they are no longer broadcasting on the net. Anyone know if the MPAA won any part of the case? maybe an injunction or something?
iCrave frames the broadcast with ad frames, so yes, they're making money.
They stream advertising under the picture ... so yes, they are making money at it.
Now, selling it is another matter, but if it's mine, shouldn't I be able to show it to people? It shouldn't be a perfect copy anyhow. And if they're willing to pay for it, isn't that just a transaction between us, they get my property, etc.?
I hope you're 10 years old because if you're older you need to open your eyes. Your argument is so specious it's almost laughable.
If I am to understand your ludicrous reasoning, you feel that if you stream an NBA game that the inherent degredation of the quality absolves you from adhering to IP laws? Are you for real? Regardless of the fact whether you agree or disagree with a company looking at the internet as a cash cow, that doesn't mean that we are free to coopt their content rights.
Grow up kid.
Aparently you aren't aware of Canadian Law.. But you are allowed to retransmit something unaltered, and with no time delay.
Did you post your little rant so you could advertise your $45 service?
I thought you were talking completely out of your ass until i got to your last two sentences.
Imagine that, other AC's, Signal 11 has a brain afterall!
shut the fuck up, retard.
2000-01-20 20:55:51 Kevin Mitnick to be on 60 Min. this Sunday (articles,news)(rejected)
Maybe we can get some more repeated articles, patent crap and JonKatz "someone said boo and made me cry" stories before the day is done.
Remember, Kevin will be released tomorrow at 6:30 AM Pacific and is on 60. Min Sunday night.
For all the simpletons out there that try to relate this to inviting neighbors over, or what not, you are being ridiculous.
They are charging admission. They are using someone elses IP to make money. They aren't adding value, yet they are selling their own advertisement space.
This is theft for profit, and should be treated as such. Totally inexcusable. As a previous poster pointed out, if you don't like the fact they are copyrighted, make your own TV shows, sports events, and movies, and release them to the public domain.
647 is definitely not Toronto. I've never heard of it. The actual city of Toronto is area code 416, and the surrounding areas are 905, 519, and 705.
I'm concerned about this trend to consume bandwidth for such trivial things as re-transmitting TV and Radio signals. Couldn't we use the bandwidth for more important things that actually _need_ the medium. Like playing Quake? :-)
that's why Canada will always be a welfare state. their laws don't give their citizens any reason to create anything for themselves. Canadians are almost like parasites.
Canadians are some dumb fucks.
this must have been said big a big fat and ugly american
This isn't the 1950's. If you think it is the 1950's you had better start lubricating the wheels and gears on your 50-baud Teletype machine before you try to reconnect to Slashdot and ramble on with your idiocy.
Oh, make sure you check the vaccum tubes in your computer. And keep a ready supply of paper tape on hand in case you see any code you want to download.
It is very interesting how large media companies can purchase "markets" to broadcast information to. The Internet is completely changing this, and will continue to do so. On the Internet the whole world is the "market", there is no exclusivity. Even if ICraveTV loses, the Internet is going to change the current concepts of demographics and markets. It is my opinion that Broadcasters would be wise to start to take advantage of this power. I am sure that advertisers would be more than happy to see their ads being broadcast in cyberspace for all the world to see.
he's still a cocksucker.
Spoken like a true moron/idiot that doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Do the world a favour, and go kill yourself.
ha!
They changed the background. They had no moral or ethical obligation to show every bilboard on that street. No one paid them for that, and no one should have expected that. Every network has used this technology. Almost every televised outdoor sporting event has this technology in use. No content was changed from another boradcast, they just "blacked out" background.
I knew Canada was cold, but that's a new level of uncomfortable for this Florida boy, if it's how it sounds...
they didn't modify anyones broadcast or copyrighted material.
If anything they err'd on the side of copyright law, by not showing something they didn't have the rights to show.
This is nothing similar. You would have to be a sniveling imbicile to believe otherwise. Why don't you go pay for something you consume instead of whining that someone didn't give you somethig for free.
They didn't have any reasonable expectationt hat that billboard was going to be broadcast. They had reasonable expectationt hat 2 million people in time square would see it.
That is what they paid for, and that is what they got.
There is no corolation. If they would have just avoided the billboard, the same thing would have been accomplished. They had no moral obligation to faithfully represent the entire background. They had no ethical obligation either.
The subject says it all. I think it is legal Canada to rebroadcast a public broadcasting. However I don't know it this is still valid if you intend to do this for profit.
? Just because *they* have ads doesn't mean they're making money. Who is going to click on it when they're watching TV? (and who is going to use Junkbuster, heh, heh, heh...)
You know it's going to be a bad day when you see Slashdot stories containing two stupid lawsuits in a row.
look. property is a way of dealing with finite resources. it is a very natural way for people to peacefully deal with conflicts of interest on how to use these resources. in this way airwaves should be respected as property (especially by the FCC) and copyrights should not be. you just got things bass ackwards.
Ok buddy boy,
"Init "Steal My Content and Die" Zero" ok, it's been mirrored, tar'd and archived, which would you like to see your content rebroadcast on? Geocites or Anglefire?
I will of course have to make a few "changes" to the wedding pages... Sam I am.
You're partly right. Airwaves are free. That's why you have local stations broadcasting. But the broadcasting costs money. What these people are doing is free broadcasting. But what makes it illegal is that they're broadcasting content that someone else payed for. Content costs money to make. Broadcasters pay for this content and broadcast it with commercials, which pay for the broadcast. You get the content for free.
They do have simple checking on their site to see if you are from Canada. :-) It asks you for the Toronto area code, which is: 416 Enjoy! ICube
I think WBBM AM Chicago simulcasts 60 Min. also, just in case you are stuck in your car when the interview happens.
If you know of other radio stations that play 60 Min, please post them here.
NEWS-FLASH!!
infamous slashdot troller, open source man, announced today he is planning on suing natalie portman for copyright infringement. open source man claims he holds a valid copyright on "hot young actresses" in the united states.
open source man stated, "i have no problem with natalie portman being a hot young actress. in fact, she was the inspiration behind my copyrighted undistributable open source natalie portman and open source drew barrymore project. all i'm saying is, i want my just dues."
when asked precisely what he meant by "just dues", open source man nebulously responded, "i want my handsome rewards."
natalie portman was not available for comment.
jon katz flamed this post during editing.
thank you.
this troll's magic karma number (tm) is: -4!
If I see one more article on Slashdot about some company sueing another company for some ridiculous, insignificant piece of technology... I swear I will...
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
"Get your domain name for only $45"
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
This is a blatant case of copyright violation. This is no different than a company violating the GPL or any other licensing agreement.
And if you have a moral disagreement with copyrights, please just go make your own tv shows and movies and distribute it under the GPL. Don't complain about how current TV shows are copy protected, make GPL tv and movies and show everyone that GPL tv is better. The power of the community can overcome all financial obstacles.
The networks only make up half of the advertising. Local stations make up the other half. they also pay dearly for the right to broadcast netowrk shows. ABC affiliate's pay for the right to broadcast ABC shows. They pay this, so they can sell local advertisments. This is where the network itslef really makes the money. the local stations make the money off of the advertising.
If I can sit in Los Angles, and watch a Canadian station, then I won't see any LA ads. If I am not watching LA ads, then the LA station loses revenue. If the LA station loses revenue, they will pay less for the opportunity to carry ABC programming. If they pay ABC less money, then ABC loses. All because living in LA, I could care less who is sellig cars in Toronto.
This is the same reason the satelite TV's can't broadcast network feeds. No one would watch the local network feeds.
Is it that hard for you people to understand that just having more people see an ad isn't worthwhile. You have to have more people see the ad that will buy the product.
647 is definitely not Toronto. I've never heard of it. The actual city of Toronto is area code 416, and the surrounding areas are 905, 519, and 705.
I work for iCraveTV's ISP, and am involved in the project. The antanas are on our roof, in Canada. No signals are captured anywhere else.
>>
There are more people watching--tell the adveritisers that--make more money
>>
But the networks just can't quantify to the advertisers how many more people (and more importantly, their age and median income) will watch iCrave, since they have no control over it. So they have nothing on which to base their ad rate hikes.
I think you at least partially understand my ludicrous reasoning.
:)
What scares people about digital technology is that they are able to make very good to perfect copies that don't degrade and can last for a long time, cheaply. That's also why analog tape players and VCRs degrade copies from the originals. Some of this is by design, when they were created.
Since streaming technology is inherently flawed in this respect, it is more like analog technology. Copying it right now would be silly. Therefore, this is more like TV over the internet than it would be if I, say, made a high-quality movie file of "Dawson's Creek" or yesterday's NBA game or whatever, and put it up for download. (of course, that would also be expensive or time-consuming to copy for most people)
Anyhow, my point is, this stuff isn't easy to redistribute on the internet. And the people paying for this service are essentially paying for watching Canadian TV. It's about as dangerous as streaming a RealAudio radio station from England. (My favorite is Virgin Radio)
Feel free to reply, without the silly age comments that make you sound so young.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Um OK first: they're rebroadcasting public airwaves. The content is absolutely unedited by iCrave. People do not say "hey, did you see what was on iCrave last night?!" anymore than they say "hey, did you see what was on the airwaves last night?!"
Secondly, this has a direct analogy to cable companies. AFAIK, cable companies in Canada do not pay anyone to rebroadcast publically available signals. Once again, people do not say "hey, did you see what was on Shaw last night?!" (Shaw is a Canadian cable company). They would instead say "hey, did you see what was on CTV last night?!"
At least part of the original broadcasts were from Pittsburgh area TV stations. The video capture was done there, and forwarded to Canada. So the original theft was in the United States.
First of all, the iCrave situation is very different from early cable TV, since early cable TV systems didn't insert advertising at the bottom of the screen while you were watching Ed Sullivan.
Later, when cable took off, they made financial arrangements with the TV stations to buy air time on those channels (by inserting commercials for the cable system).
iCrave, on the other hand, slapped ads on the screen when those shows were running.
The iCrave folks make a big deal about how this is supposed to be okay under Canadian law, when that's almost certainly not the case, due to Canada's participation in several international copyright treaties.
Heh! If this is the worst you can come up with, I'd have to say the Canadian government is doing pretty well. Look across your southern border for some really screwed up government...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Exactly. Like I said, no real way to count viewers...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Actually, it's a lot easier to count Internet viewers than broadcast viewers.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Umm, yes. That's absolutely true. Cable operators should be able to rebroadcast anything from the airwaves. Whether that can or not in your country does not alter the fact that they should be able to. If they can't, that's a bug in your laws.
This is of course absurd.
In what way?
Cable operators have to negotiate fees with broadcast operators to redistribute their content. Why should internet operators be held to a different standard?
They shouldn't be held to different standards. Neither cable operators nor internet operators should need permission to stream out what's currently available on the public airwaves, which belong to the people, and we only license to TV stations to make use of our air.
If it weren't something out in public, I would agree with you, but the public airwaves are, after all, public. If a singer decides to sing a song in the Capitol Mall or some other public park, anyone ought to be able to point a camera at them and broadcast it for free. It's occuring in a public area, on public property. Same should apply to the publicly owned airwaves. Whether it does or not is a matter of local law, so depends on what country you're in, but regardless of where you are, I maintain that it should apply.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I find it humorous that you're calling the Canadian system over-regulated while arguing that it is in fact under-regulated, and needs additional regulation. (You're saying Canadian broadcasters are currently allowed to do something they shouldn't be able to do and recommending they be denied to ability to do this. By definition, that's an increase in regulation, not a decrease.)
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Not anyone can get onto the public roads and drive on them, only licensed drivers may do that; anyone else will have the highway patrol on their asses. Likewise, not anyone can get onto the public airwaves and broadcast on them, only licensed broadcasters can do that; anyone else will have the FCC on their asses. These cases are in fact identical, the only difference being that due to bandwidth limitations, we grant far fewer broadcast licenses than drivers licenses. But your rights to both are roughly the same, and they are both examples of public property. (Incidently, the fact that you pay taxes for them has nothing to do with it.)
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
You're wrong. The airwaves aren't paid for by the television stations, TV stations pay for licenses to broadcast on them. This is much like how you pay for licenses to drive on public roads. The roads remain public, despite the fact that you're paying for the license.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
There's no real way to do this for broadcast television, either. This changes nothing...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
What about CB radio operators? Although banned from some frequencies, they need no licenses elsewhere.
Besides, licensing for the roads is about safety and ensuring that others don't get hurt.
Licensing for the public airwares is to ensure two stations don't broadcast too close to one another or otherwise interfere with other broadcaster's rights.
Ok, I'm sorry, I'm just taking this discussion further into irrelevance.
Actually, no, these are valid questions that deserve answers. And the issue at hand is quite relevant. As another poster pointed out, too many people want you to forget that YOU, the public, own the airwaves, not them.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
The only problem is that, indeed, here in Canada, at least, you can do just that. A TV station -can- take any publicly avialable broadcast and simply rebroadcast it, as long as they do not alter the content of said broadcast... I guess, most importantly, not remove original brodcaster's logo and such, and even more critical, not remove the commercials and sponsors announcements.
This is where you only fall unto sementics. Is ICraveTV rebroadcasting? Surely, although the method is adapted to the digital medium, that is what they are doing.
Claude Angers
They are not runnig a signal on a line they own to a TV they own. They are re-broadcasting (with IP) a signal produced by a local TV station. The TV station payed royalties on the content to the copyright owners. If iCraveTV wants to do the same thing they must pay the royalties also.
If they would redistribute a movie by recording it on a VCR tape and the sell copies that would be illegal redistribution also.
This is so obvilouly illegal it is hard to believe that they thought they would be allowed to continue for any length of time.
Man!
With all the IP lawsuit news - it's now
"Slashdot -News about alleged IP theft..."
Sheesh!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
So long as the content isn't altered, like another broadcasting company did on new years, I have no objections. Infact, I'd say it's fair use - I can tape the evening news broadcast, right? Why can't I show it to other people? It's not like I altered it or sold it for a profit. And therein lies the problem - iCrave is a commercial entity. Just imagine if somebody grabbed your web content, slapped a banner ad across the top, and redistributed it. I'd be pissed, wouldn't you?
Most cable networks allow local cable companies to cover up their commercials at specific times with crappy local advertising. This is to make those national commercials, like the one featuring www.hampsterdance.com, look like high-quality stuff in comparison.
Seriously now - those are known in the cable biz as 'local avails' and make networks attractive to cable companies because the cable co. can bring in some advertising revenue from the local bait shops, who otherwise could not afford to be on TV.
The cable company is NOT allowed to cover up ads from the local broadcast TV stations, who have their own crappy ads for furniture stores and used cars.
My metamoderation cancels your moderation
I think you need to touch up your facts, Soc...
So you own these programs?
Yes. ( No. I have a license to show them in my own area, but only here)
And you broadcast them for free?
Yes. (got one right)
And companies pay you to get ad time on the programs?
Yes. (that's two right)
And I can buy a television from ANYONE, and watch one of these programs?
Yes. (3 , you're on a roll!)
So, let's say you have a big enough transmitting antenna to reach 100,000 viewers, and I came to you with an antenna that lets you reach 10 million viewers. Would you pay me a lot for that antenna?
You bet. And my advertisers would pay me more in turn. (Um, no! The height of the antenna and how far it can send a signal are part of the station's license that limit the station to my local area. If I buy a better antenna, I have to reduce the power I put into it so that I still reach the same viewers)
A typical program producer pays his rent by selling his program in several cities under an exclusive agreement in each. The web threatens the producer and the station's exclusive agreement.
This is not to say I agree that webcasting is damaging to them; I think its free publicity. If I saw a good program on real player, I'd check to see if it was on TV and watch it there instead of 1/4 screen with motion artifacts. If it was on a Toronto station, I'd email my local station and tell them they ought to get it on the air in my town too.
My metamoderation cancels your moderation
Come on, can we fill the article space on index.pl completely with stories about people suing each other 8-)?
ObTopic: Doesn't Canada have some sort of rebroadcast law that makes this alright?
Yeah, Kevin is being released soon.
Hopefully the 60 mins interview will help clear up the misconception that he stole credit card numbers and commited malicous acts.
Even if you have a negative opinion of Mitnick, the abuses that the media and government and prison officals made against him make this an important case.
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
Well it's young. But as bandwidth increases, and they start carrying more channels, people will just go to iCrave, or a copycat site. The broadcasters are trying to make sure that doens't happen. Because once they're carrying more than one channel, no one has any assurance as to how many eyes are watching their shows.
I Crave also is making money from their efforts. It takes many eyeballs to sign up with Doubleclick.net. So, they are directly profitting from other people's broadcasts.
i think that the "adding content" thing doesn't imply-- the banner ads are more a totally seperate content stream than something actually being added to the tv signal itself.
as to the deradation-through-streaming thing.. well, that's an _extremely_ good point, and we can only hope the courts will decide to view realvideo as legally no different than a really bad television set.
on the other hand, if having the signal degrade in quality is "changing" the signal, then _any_ usage of the canadian law is illegal. after all, due to the very nature of analog signals, it is literally impossible to make a pristine copy-- there will _always_ be some degradation of quality. _always_. It may be possible for that degradation to be so small as to be indetectable to humans, but it will be there. So really any system where you capture and rebroadcast the signal is not going to be putting out exactly the same signal-- it's just the signal will appear the same to any human watching for all practical purposes.
i'm not sure the courts will take a different view of the icravetv situation just because the difference in "signal" is rather extreme.
but it's hard to tell.
-mcc-baka
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS THEFT
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Don't let technology blind you to the fact that this is a simply copyright violation.
I was Managing Editor of my college newspaper. We distributed a few thousand copies of the newspaper for free every week. That didn't change the fact that all the information in the paper was copyrighted.
Should someone have taken the content of our newspaper and republished it, I would have had our lawyer on the war path. Just because the newspaper is distributed for free does not mean that you can do anything you want with the content.
Fast forward to the television programs in question.
Yes, the television stations are sending the signal out for free. But, that content is copyrighted and therefore protected. One can't just take that content and do with it as he pleases.
It all comes down something my father told me years ago. "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." If you create the content you can do whatever the heck you want with it. But you can't steal someone else's content for your personal advantage.
Duh.
Init "Steal My Content and Die" Zero
(assuming, of course, the broadcast is carried in its entirety)... ...and it is. ICrave picks up the stations off air, converts them to realvideo and adds thier own advertisements around the edge of the realplayer screen, outside of the original image. The thing that upsets the originating networks is not so much that he's rebroadcasting the off air signal, but that he's attaching his own ads (albeit in addition to their ads) to their signals. Just straight re-broadcasting he would probably get away with, but instead of charging a subscription fee like a cable co would he added his own advertisements and that is what triggered the reaction. He has a good chance of winning this as this is very close to what canadian cable co.s do already for local stations, but the networks are keen to test the boundries if it means that they can keep tight control of the use of their programs.
I though Toronto was in Ontario. Oh, what do I know -- none of us Americans were ever taught anything about geography. :)
_______
2B1ASK1
You need a Canadian area code to watch the streams. You can use 647, which Toronto, Ontario.
:)
Wouldn't it be funny if I got slapped with a restraining order (ala the DVD CCA fiasco) for the above text!
_______
2B1ASK1
But how do they know who's watching? And how does this change that? Of course, they can say "there are 6 million people that can receive this broadcast" but how many of those even have TV's, let alone watch that particular station?
The funny thing is, that happens with cable too - I distinctly remember watching something at a friends house that regularly had ads for some detroit lawyer (the good, smart lawyer! - cracks me up everytime...) even though we were in Fredericton, New Brunswick (Canada) at the time.
If this is illegal (and I'm quite certain it isn't), perhaps someone should give tucows a little talking to?
How DO tv channels know how many people are seeing their ads? It seems to me a HUGE amount of guesswork would necessarily be involved in any case.
Also, for now, you can get a much better picture quality by using a real tv, so if you're watching tv on the net, you're probably there on top of any estimate they might make.
Won't the Nielsen ratings apply just as much to shows watched online?
Perhaps they'd need to change the format of some of the questions, but I don't know - I've never been polled for that sort of thing, and it's been almost a year since I watched any tv at all! (and I don't miss it one bit... Slashdot's better than any soap!)
"as it is they are just signal stealing"
Last time I checked...the air waves are PUBLIC. You can't steal that which is free. Canadian Broadcast law is kinda like the GPL. This is like taking the Apache Source code and putting it on your ftp server. We don't call this theft we call it mirroring. Also, here, in Canada, the cable companies get many of their signals this way and don't pay the broadcasters a cent. Usually they only buy broadcasts from Cable/Satelite only broadcasters.
Because iCrave could start charging for use, could sneak a little commercial in when ABC wasn't looking, or even compete with other local network affiliates.
Ooh. Convicted felon released from prison. Idol to wannabe script kiddies everywhere. Hip Hip Hoorah.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
>>By your naive argument, cable operators
>>should be able to rebroadcast anything
>>from the airwaves that we normally get >>on "free" tv
This isn't 'naive' - it's the law in canada and perfectly legal. If it's freely available over the air you can rebroadcast it. Tee hee.
material. But, are they in some way making money from it? It's sort of like inviting neighbors over to watch your TV. If you charge admission, then you are guilty, but if it's free then you are not doing anything wrong. They are just doing it on a slightly bigger scale.
BTW, NFL == IP? Shouldn't there be some sort of exception in this case?
Matt Drudge story with quotes here:
/. but I guess they are too busy posting patent cases to mess with this.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Kevin is to be released Friday 21 Jan 00. He will be on 60 Min. (CBS TV, simulcast clear channel on WCBS AM New York) Sun. 23 Jan 00.
Story was submitted to
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
You'd think the television networks would be happy about these people, after all, it means their advertising can reach even more people./I.
But the networks can't count those netcasts when they figure in how many people are watching the show and the ads, so they can't charge more to the advertisers.
In fact, they would probably lose audience as people prefer to watch the shows on their computer instead of being force fed it through the network.
George
Under Canadian law it is legal to rebroadcast TV signals that are in the air. I think this is to allow some cable companies to pick up some american stations for free and include them in their package (although I could have no idea what I'm talking about).
As long as they don't broadcast to the States (which I guess they're doing), it isn't illegal. They are making it the viewer's responsibility whether the law is broken or not. I'm not sure if that holds up though.
AFAIK, if they only rebroadcast within Canada, it's legal. Hope this clarifies things.
The hostility comes from the fact that the networks sell their ad space based on demographics and location. You could be watching FOX on iCrave with ads for stores in Toronto, Ontario. What good does this do the advertiser?
's called Nielson ratings.
According to Canadian law, any television station may be rebroadcast freely. What difference does it make whether it is through a digital or an analouge medium?
I cannot type today.
According to Canadian law, any television or radio station may be rebroadcast. Why does the type of broadcast (i.e., digital, analogue, etc.) matter?
see nothing wrong with rebroadcasting over the internet what's already on the airwaves
By your naive argument, cable operators should be able to rebroadcast anything from the airwaves that we normally get on "free" tv. This is of course absurd. Cable operators have to negotiate fees with broadcast operators to redistribute their content. Why should internet operators be held to a different standard?
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Let's see, you take someone else's broadcast material and then you stick it up on the web.
What did they think would happen?
Pitty it didn't cause someone's death so it could
be nominated for a Darwin.
This is one of those Too Stupid To Live things.
-mu
When you can't find your jello don't come screaming at me to remove the weasle from your headgear.
You're paying for the right to watch it, not re-broadcast it.
Same thing as buying a DVD. You've not buying the rights to show the movie in a theater, you're buying the rights to play it in your home.
Don't believe me, read the licensing agreement on your movies before clicking the "ACCEPT" button.
-chaos
When you can't find your jello don't come screaming at me to remove the weasle from your headgear.
But they're not broadcasting to the States. They have a service on Canadian based (I'm guessing here) servers. IIRC, you need to enter a valid Canadian postal code (to validate your Canadian nationality) to be able to watch it. It doesn't stop anyone from watching it, but if you're in the US and you enter a valid Canadian postal code, then it's you that's commiting fraud. iCrave can't do much about people who commit fraud in order to use their service.
Although they could ban people who aren't in a particular IP address range, so technically they could be done for negligence because there is available technology to help prevent them from "breaking the law".
P.S. IANALNDIPOOTV
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
I actually wouldn't have a clue, having not used this. I'm only relaying what a friend of mine from work told me. She hopped on to watch Star Trek on NBC or whoever...
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
Not only do we legally get to rebroadcast cell phone calls over the internet (because as we all know according to the CRTC the Internet is not a broadcast medium, which by the way is a ruling that puts power strongly in the hands of the people, not large companies), but now we can watch TV that is broadcast over it. And of course soon we'll be able to posses all the child porn we can get our hands on. Unless of course the Canadian Supreme Court decides to circumvene our equivilant to the first amendment (Charter of Rights and Freedoms). I believe they have done it before though, in regards to making hate literature illegal. Or was it that they upheld a schoolteachers right to tell his class the holocaust didn't exist. Dave, my mind is going dave.
Seriously though, Canada is pretty messed in a few ways. We've crippled our public broadcasting by cutting all of its funding, then we make regulations that it can't have nearly as many ads (nice double way to make sure it goes belly up), then we mismanage 3 billion dollars in government human resources programs. And yet out of all of these things people are most offended by the fact that out government is thinking of giving hockey teams 3 million each. Ohhhh nooo. Not $3 Million. That'll be what busts the bank. Not the 108 senetors for 27 million people, each of whom (the senetors) has to be a rubber stamp, work a MINIMUM of 7 days a year (this is actually flexible) and make upwards of $100,000 a year.
And that being said, Canada is a great country that I love living in.
Got Contradiction?
(footnote: I am actually Canadian. You can tell because I know something about the Canadian gov't, barely)
(additional footnote: just because I think people are making too big a deal of it, doesn't mean I want hockey teams to get any gov't money)
it's kind of funny to hear someone stand in canada and call the US "backwater", but I guess I have no choice but to let that slide.
however, you might want to think about why exactly it is that you are watching _amaerican_ television if you dislike our country so much. I'm sure theres some quality hockey or lumberjacking shows on your local tv. Or I suppose you could watch a lot of Red Green.
besides, we do have rights here: we have the right to develop intellectual property that is protected by our laws, among other rights.
I wonder if this will get blown out of proportion enough that the american networks will simply cut their feeds to canada.
Your right, under current IP law this is theft. However, that only points to the ridiculous way in which IP rights are currently being interpreted.
Consider, these are images that are being transmitted through the public air waves which anyone with a television can legally recieve and view. Yet the TV broadcasters refuse to broadcast this information over the Internet and when a smart company comes along and rebroadcasts the unedited signal they get slapped with a lawsuit.
If the TV broadcasters are transmiting the information over the public airwaves without charge to the vast majority of people in this country, it just defies common sense that they have any complaints about those same signals being transmitted over the Internet. The real issue here is that the broadcasters and the MPAA have some very nasty plans for how to handle streaming over the Internet and want to snip any expectation of free public viewing in the bud.
Increasingly, television companies are relying on licensing fees. For instance, part of the money you pay to the cable companies goes straight to the broadcasters pockets. Cable companies have to py for the "right" to show you television you can get for free over the airwaves, and Hollywood would like to make sure they can extend this monopoly tax to the Internet. Eventually, traditional broadcast will probably be stopped and the only way to get television will be through pay-for-service packages over cable or the net.
I wonder how they justify their suit against iCraveTV when they themselves repackage and modify other broadcasters' content?
I refer, of course, to the TV media practice of adding and modifying the billboards that get into the scenes they broadcast.
Zing! I sure hope ICraveTV's lawyer brings up this point. What CBS did was completely analogous - and, unlike ICrave's actions, both unethical and resulting in actual monetary harm.
If I was a broadcaster, I'd be pissing all over myself with joy that more people were getting an opportunity to see my broadcast and the advertisements contained therein. I'd then charge the advertisers more because I'm now reaching a larger demographic. Isn't it in the best interest of a broadcast network to reach as many people as possible since their revenue is based on advertising?
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
I would agree with you if ICrave was rebroadcasting the signal sans advertisements or any network branding. As it is, they are sending a completely unedited signal. I highly doubt anyone is going to watch the latest dorky NBC miniseries and then tell his friends "guess what I saw on ICrave last night?" They are going to identify the show as an NBC show. Same thing for news. No one is going to start calling "Dateline NBC," "Dateline ICrave."
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
I find it humorous that you're calling the Canadian system over-regulated while arguing that it is in fact under-regulated, and needs additional regulation. (You're saying Canadian broadcasters are currently allowed to do something they shouldn't be able to do and recommending they be denied to ability to do this. By definition, that's an increase in regulation, not a decrease.)
Not at all! The Broadcast Act which I mentions overrides what would be valid property rights in broadcast frequencies or the ability to provide a cable alternative.
Scrap that regulation (which allows some broadcasters to get a freebie and restricts the rights of other broadcasters) and return to the valid property rights which have been obscured by it, and voila! We return to a system of just protecting property rights, rather than trying to build a tower of conflicting public-policy commandments.
Steve
I think iCraveTV should go the legitimit (sic) route and pay broadcasters the same way your local cable company does.
But, in Canada, the local cable company does not pay the networks. IANAL, but I read a little about this: the Canadian Broadcasting Act lets you rebroadcast (simultaneously) network air broadcasts without permission.
This clause was written for the cable companies in Canada! The regulation is, of course, crap which will cause all kinds of problems.
I find it funny that the NFL do not sue any cable companies in Canada (who can rebroadcast the network broadcasts of NFL games without permission as well) but are willing to sue ICraveTV. I'm not convinced that ICrave is in a materially distinct position than the cable companies in this regard.
Steve
I say scrap the over-regulated Canadian 'cultural protectionist' bull regulation and re-establish property rights properly!
Uh... but you're not allowed to tape shows off TV and redistribute them either!
Which means that by the same logic you used you're not allowed to do this...
True, but since iCrave is in Canada, and it's perfectly legal to rebroadcast TV in Canada at the same time the original broadcast is taking place iCrave should be in no trouble at all. This has been repeated quite a number of times throughout all these discussions.
"and they are thus allocated to television stations to serve the public"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these airwaves are auctioned off and PAID FOR by the networks, not "allocated to television stations to serve the public". If they are allocated "to serve the public" then I'll never watch network television ever again.
Esperandi
"If I captured jpegs from my TV capture card and posted them on my homepage (as I've seen many people do), is that illegal? I'm paying for the signal, the TV card, the internet connection... aren't I paying for the content, too? "
It would probably not be illegal because what you posted was such a small amount (and amount matters in copyright issues)... but if you posted a TV show, it would be very illegal. And no, you're not paying for the content. Advertisers are paying for the content. You are paying for access to the things which the advertisers fund. The advertisers fund the things because you pay to watch them and show with big ratings that their commercials will get watched by a bunch of people.
You can tape shows for your own personal use. You can tape shows in order to "time-shift" programs and watch them at your convenience. You CANNOT re-broadcast those tapes, even if you do it for free. Its against the law. Just like I can't run a book through a Xerox machine, OCR it, and put it on the Internet because I paid a buck fifty and got a library card. You're not buying the content. The fact that you THINK you're paying for the content truly is wholly irrelevant.
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse.
The line between fair use and theft is pretty gray, but its basically this: If you use something in such a way that it would result in the original author losing money, its theft.
For example, let's say you record, encode, and serve out, the television show The Simpsons. Theoretically for free. Now, if people can get The Simpsons online, there is a good chance people will view it online and not watch the re-runs on TV. That means the advertisers won't be filling the ad spots during the re-runs (or at least not paying as much) and the loss of revenue flows uphill to the creator who stands on top and just got his legs cut off by someone who thought they owned The Simpsons because they paid $25/mo to get 50 channels.
Esperandi
Thank God he's finally out, when do you think he'll steal my credit card number, hijack my online account, and reprogram a cell phone to get his calls billed to me?
I don't see why anyone who wants to defend REAL hackers (read Steven Levy's book "Hackers" for a slew of them, real stories too, not kiddie crap) would stand behind Kevin, he's just a boldfaced criminal.
Esperandi
Do these same people stand behind store clerks who steal credit card numbers?
You mean its like taking the Apache source code, putting it on your FTP, and making people view ads to make you money before they can get in...
Esperandi
What would the GPL think of that? I need to read it again, but I think they'd disallow it...
True. But where does Canadian Law stop and U.S. Law begin? Also it depends on what you call public. Technically cable channels are not public, they are for the private audiences of Cable TV subscribers. that's why you sign a contract describing your rights as a subscriber with you cable company. The only thing they would (probably) be able to broadcast then is Public Access, channels with both channel and broadcaster approval, and anything they receive via antenna TV. Possibly old-style (non Direct-TVish) satelite TV too (i'm not sure how that works)
I think anyone trying to rebroadcast in the US on this level will be stopped. However, while it is illegel to rebroadcast, I don't think you could stop internet broadcasting if you _are_ the cable provider (i.e. you bought broadcast rights to all the various channels, etc.) The medium at this point is your choice. If you use existing coaxial cable, fine. If you stream it over the internet, fine (unless the channel makes you explicitly sign it out). If you send it up to be distributed by digital satelite, fine. Shouldn't make a difference.
It will though, because this breaks other cable companies monopolies by using their coaxial medium to deliver TV. They will sue, legitimately or not, because it is a threat.
You definately can broadcast over the internet if it is your own channel. You own it and do what you want with it. In the end, it may reach this level but that is highly doubtful except with localized small channels.
Just my 2 cents
- Sig
As a consumer, *I* think I'm paying for the content. *They*, the people selling it to me, think I'm paying for a license to watch it, and forget about it forever after until I want to pay for it again. If I can tape shows off of TV, I should be able to do this.
Uh... but you're not allowed to tape shows off TV and redistribute them either!
Which means that by the same logic you used you're not allowed to do this...
Ner lbh sebz gur HFN? Gura lbh'ir whfg ivbyngrq gur QZPN!
To hell with the current attitude of "Sue anyone for anything, anytime you want" and "Submit any stupid patent and hope you'll meet a lazy patent clerk".
The problem is, when people start having the idea of "just do it, we have nothing to lose", what they intend to do becomes a gamble. And any stupid gambler will carry on if it is known that "I cannot lose".
Yeah, they cannot lose - because the taxpayers of America lose for them. Go figure...how much taxpayer money is wasted on thrown-out lawsuits? On stupid patent claims?
I've been always wondering if there is any punishment system to, say, fine the patent/lawsuit filer if the patent/suit is plain invalid. Save taxpayer's money and make the lawsuit-hungry companies think twice before doing anything retarded.
In a word, these companies aren't losing money on this, period.
In addition, I've got a legal question for any lawyers in the crowd. The article says "The complaint filed today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania charges that the defendants, which operate an Internet Web site, are responsible for "one of the largest and most brazen thefts of 'intellectual property ever committed in the United States.'"
I mean, so what? If I'm in Toronto, and you file in D.C., what's going to make me pay attention to that? In a more extreme case, if I'm in the Yukon, can I be forced to haul my ass down to southern Florida to appear in court?
--
Mike Hoye
You are absolutely correct. Now, if a US company tried to do the same, they would be doing something illegal.
However, the company is CANADIAN, and is broadcasing to CANADIANS. And therefore it is under CANADIAN law. The US laws don't apply. They're not even doing business in the US!
For example, suppose chewing gum is illegal in Uruguay. You're not in Uruguay, but they decide to prosecute you because you're breaking one of their laws. Get my point?
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
I saw the interview. Kevin seemed rather reserved despite the comments he read upon his release (www.freekevin.com for the transcript). I wonder if he had a chance to speak out against Markoff and Shinomura and it just got edited...? Either way its good to see him free. For those of you that down-play his release as some misguided rally for a "script-kiddie" idol, you need to reread the story. I'm not going to argue morals, I simply want to state that, like him or not- Kevin's rights as an American citizen were trampled in the worst of ways. Repeatedly he has recieved less than fair treatment at the hands of the Government and its law-enforcing bodies.It really is a shame when those that are supposed to uphold the law are the ones that rape lady liberty the worst. Where is it all going, when will it all end? If we will not closely watch those who watch us, who will? I fear American apathy.
"Experience the door to your mind, no matter how bizzare. You create your own brave new world."
iCrave can legally show any unaltered live public broadcast to anyone in Canada over the internet. It's perfectly legal under Canadian law and is not copyright infringement.
Question, how do they pay for this? If its only ads on their website then they're fine, everything is still legal. What if they send the TV signal with some ads on the side, in addition to the normal TV signal but not obstructing it in any way, like an additional window? Haven't they altered the broadcast? Yes and what they are doing is illegal even under Canadian law.
I do not know if this is the case and since I live in Delaware, I would rather not lie to find out. Any Canadians out there know whether they are doing this?
I'm betting a lot of networks start airing RealMedia versions of their programs after this is all over, though. Think of the cheap source of revenue.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Notice their TOU allows them to monitor your IP, email address, any personal information they get about you, etc. in order to check whether you are actually in Canada. They are also allowed to bring about legal action if they so choose.
Its practically impossible for them to track you down, but you should still be aware that they can legally do so and you have let them.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
It'd be nice to see some more people question clogging the net with TV. Adverts are so prevalent that I have not even bothered to plug the cable I got for my modem into my TV. Daytime TV is good at keeping convicted fellons calm in their cells. Who wants all of those gigabytes streaming around their email, or some other usefull resource?
Want to watch a movie? Go to the theater, or rent it.
Want a life? Save yourself, go outside, play with your friends, do something! Damn this snow! Damn it to hell, I say! Oh yeah sorry, I live in Louisiana and there is no snow.
I think it's interesting that this is the second article in a week that has Jack Valenti flexing his muscles. Looks to me like the MPAA is trying to say "we're more than a ratings board, really we are!" while trying to get some of the respect (ahem) of the RIAA.
------
WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??
This sig intentionally left justified.
iCraveTV is doing something that is illegal IMO. They are basically redistributing TV programs without any permissions what-so-ever. It may not be fashionable to support big business but in this case I think the little guy deserves to lose.
TV signals are still copyrighted. They are not to be rebroadcasted. Just because TV is free doesn't mean it's right to rebroadcast it without the broadcasters permission.
If iCraveTV is smart they will try to make a deal with the broadcasters. If they are dumb they will fight a lawsuit they have no chance of winning. Be smart, make a deal.
It would appear they cover both, from the Broadcasting Act:
Also of note is that when I agreed to the license agreement they made it sound like I was asking them to by my agent. Likely this is largely weasel words for the lawyers.
It is incorrect to compare the license agreement on a DVD or the trailer to a move to broadcast television. The broadcaster makes a contractual agreement with the producers that cannot be compared to your contract for buying/renting a movie. Additionally the broadcaster has a contractual agreement with the FCC/CRTC.
The press release in question is basically a statement of intent. The CRTC does not want to pursue the power to regulate entities on the internet. Right now the internet is essentially unregulated by the Canadian government.
The Broadcasting Act is currently law and so without question overrules any statements of intent from the CRTC.
Currently Law vs. Desire (or lack of) to create new law. Current Law wins.
Hence the internet does fall in the catchall of the Broadcasting act and even if the CRTC does not want to create new rules to govern the internet, ones that already exist must be followed (or rescinded by parliament).
Now this is news! I almost totally forgot that Kevin gets released tomorrow. (Don't tell anyone at 2600 that I almost forgot!)
....
Well, this deserves to be a headline, not patent crap over and over and over and over and
You are missing the point here. Rebroadcast of signals is PERFECTLY LEGAL in Canada so long as the transmission is not altered in any way.
To insert your own ads into a retransmission would make iCraveTV ILLEGAL. The people that they are re-transmitting will not have their brand diluted.
Sorta reminds me of the H2k Mailing list, lots of off topic posts, but when something That really belongs here comes along it just gets passed by.
It's a Shame, Really.
~Farlox
You have completely misunderstood the concept. I did not suggest the public owns the content. In fact, my post is very clear that I am not suggesting the public owns the content. I am suggesting that the public should have special rights with respect to content over broadcast media that they do not have over other media.
As a condition of an FCC license, you have to serve the public interest. That is why you see nudie pics on cable and not on TV. That is why TV and radio are required to broadcast public service announcements. And if a station does not serve the public interest, it can have its license revoked.
- By sending content over public airwaves, an author should not have to give up their rights to their intellectual property.
- How do you handle yahoos with a policy of free public broadcasting for politics?
To the first issue, I am not suggesting people give up their rights. If I rebroadcast channel 2 on channel 5, it is very unlikely I am going to gain anything unless I actually have something to offer the public by doing so. It would be hard to imagine such a broadcast that would not alter the transmission, and thus in accordance with my post, be a violation of channel 2's IP. If I fail to alter channel 2's content, then they are not harmed at all and, in fact, it is hard to see what I get out of even doing the broadcast. Furthermore, Channel 2 is actually helped out by this.Now, of course, what constitutes altering? Surrounding the picture in my custom advertising? I think not. Furthermore, it would be absurd to think someone would choose to watch channel 5 in a corner of a screen otherwise filled with advertising over watching channel 2 without the ads. What about if it were on the Internet? Well, this brings the original broadcast to a wider audience and can only be seen to help channel 2.
On the political issue, I don't have the answer right now. I am saying that if the people actually discussed this openly, we could create a solution that is certainly better than giving George Bush the presidency because he has the cash.
They don't replace product logos in broadcasts, but they play their own commercials over the cable channel's. AT&T (formerly Jones Intercable) plays ads for their digital cable service, or for local businesses. They even advertise that you can buy ads on large cable channels (MTV! USA! TNT!) for very low cost. I can't remember the exact wording, but that's the jist of it. So some company that paid big bucks to advertise on MTV gets preempted by "Barry's Figurines, Collectibles, and Hot Grits." I always wondered if this practice is legal.
When DirecTV offered network broadcasts ( ABC, NBC, CBS ) within the broadcast area of local stations, they were forced to stop. Now, DirectTV is starting to offer the local stations; not the same as before, when you could receive Seattle and NY versions, even if you live in Miami.
Streaming network broadcasts to compete with the local station is the same thing. The local stations have a contract that they will have rights to carry CBS broadcasts within a market area.
It doesn't matter whether the stream comes from outside the US; agreements to honor each other's copyrights are quite common between civilized nations; would you expect Canadian copyrights to be disregarded in the US?
If streaming broadcasts are allowed, then why not DirectTV broadcasts? This is just piracy; television is not open-source; the programs are the property of the companies that produce them.
The iCraveTV.com "domain name" is owned by Defendant William R. Craig Consulting of Sewickley, Pennsylvania
iCraveTV _does_ add content by sending its ads out as well as the video. Whether they pop up in the same window is not relevant.
I hope I'm not the only person out there who read this and thought I'd see a story about address hijacking...
Ever since Transformers and the A-Team went off the air, TV has sucked pretty bad anyway. What's the point of ICraveTV when you can have the same stuff on a TV next to your computer!!
A decent Network is finally here.
It is pefectly legal for any Canadian to receiv these stations over the air. If u actually go to the site they make you give an area code to prove your Candian. So all i need is a Canadian area code to watch it. Deos anyone have one?
Put simply, in the US it is illegal to rebroadcast someone elses signal, it's that simple. You can rationalize it all you want, but the law is very clear on this point.
Both countries are screwed in their own little ways...it's pointless to start a pissing match over that one, besides, it's been done to death on many lists and newsgroups. ;)
I wonder if this will get blown out of proportion enough that the american networks will simply cut their feeds to canada.
I highly doubt that would ever happen, at least in the Toronto area (where icravetv gets it's signals from).
If you happen to watch the Buffalo network stations, you will notice that a lot of the ads on them are bought by Canadian business.[1]The government eliminated tax breaks for foreign advertising years ago, but Canadian accounts are still the bread and butter of many of those stations, and during certain programming blocks, you may be confused into thinking you're watching a Canadian channel (until you see a station ID, of course).
Why? NUMBERS. There are about 4 to 5 times the number of people on this side of the border that are within broadcast range of Grand Island, NY (the main xmitter site for the Buffalo outlets)[2]. (And that's just in terrestrial broadcasting range -- this doesn't take into account the millions of cable and thousands of DBS viewers from all over the country.) The PBS station, for example, brands themself as a "Buffalo-Toronto" station and openly solicits -- and programs -- to Canadians, complete with a toll free number dialable in Canada that they key up during those annoying pledge breaks.
Back to the subject at hand: I think that icravetv is doing is very important to the future of media simply because they are forcing the issue here. Frankly, I think the law is clearly on their side and they will win...eventually. This is going to the Supreme Court folks, no doubt about it, and it's going to be costly. But the free publicity they've got (not to mention oodles of clandestine viewers they have -- I have expat friends in NYC that think this service is a godsend) is well worth the price of their legal team.
Finally, in all the talk of fairness, AFAIK no one has brought up the fact that these stations -- at least the ones in Toronto -- are using very powerful xmitters located in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in North America. I don't ask CTV to put RF into my head, I don't ask Global to shut down because their harmonics make my tape walkman useless when walking around Queen's Quay, just south of the xmitter site. They're getting a pretty good deal, having had free use of the airwaves -- for many, many years in some cases -- and I think that having someone distribute a low quality version of their publically-transmitted signal isn't a travesty of justice.
[1] I'm not talking about broadcasts during times of "simultaneous substitution" either. This practice mandates that cable companies replace a foreign signal with a domestic one that channel position when they are running identical programming for which the network has paid the rights for.
[2] Trivia time: if you've ever seen that phallic structure that's associated with this town, you may wonder about the reasoning behind why it was built, and positioned where it is. The CN Tower just happens to be directly in the path of the many, many antennas that were erected from 1948 on when the only TV available here was American (CBC-TV only signed on in 9/52).
-Duketor (tim.meehan@utoronto.ca)
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
647 is going to be an overlay, not a split. Permissive dialing begins January 8, 2001, with mandatory 10 digit dialing in both 647 and 416 starting March 5, 2001.
You can read more about it here.
obIcraveTV: 250, 604, 867, 403, 780, 306, 204, 807, 519, 905, 416, 705, 613, 514, 450, 819, 418, 506, 902 and 709 are all valid Canadian area codes. :)
-Duketor (tim.meehan@utoronto.ca)
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
I agree. I CraveTV simply is stealing copyright information and redistributing it with the goal of collecting their own advertising dollars. With the internet not being regulated, it does not make actions like iCraveTV, Napster, etc. legal. If business cannot make money and prevent blatent copyright infringement they will continue to lobby goverments for regulations. And we all know how that system works!!!!
Exactly. It boggles the mind to imagine why on earth a broadcaster, whose sole purpose of being is to sell advertising space, would sue someone for bringing in more viewers (assuming, of course, the broadcast is carried in its entirety)...
I mean, if I ran a TV Station, I would embrace streaming of my broadcast - more viewers = more $ you can charge to advertise. It's not as if you can't tell exactly how many people view from the net.
Hmmmm... IMHO once a broadcaster freely releases their signal to the world over the airwaves, available to anyone with a TV and a set of rabbit ears, their ability to restrict the rebroadcast (or simulcast) should end.
Does anyone remember the big stink brought up by MediaOne vs local TV channels over this very same subject? The TV stations wanted to charge the cable companies for the honor of carrying their stations, but why should cable companies have to pay for someting the TV stations make available for free? It's all rather silly, to me.
Am I the only one thinking that even the MPAA realizes their case has everything to do with iCraveTV selling surrogate advertising? What case would the MPAA have against someone rebroadcasting network TV as long as the network's own commercials were also being rebroacast. Now that might be an interesting case... But as it stands, iCraveTV should have negotiated with the networks to share some of the ad profits from the side banners and should not have preempted network commercials in any way. There are no issues here, IMO.
So...--------------------------------------- Explain to me how gravity fits in. **BD**
The simple concept is that if you "broadcast" material then someone can "extend the range" of your broadcast. As long as it is done at the same time as your broadcast, not copied and broadcast at a different time, and not modified, there should be no problem and indeed the networks should be tickled pink, the increase in the number of "impressions" should allow them to increase ad revenues.
Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, the spritual forces of evil
The real issue here is that the broadcasters and the MPAA have some very nasty plans for how to handl streaming over the Internet and want to snip any expectation of free public viewing in the bud.
This is very similar to the networks sueing DirecTV for rebroadcasting a chosen local affiliate nationally. Ultimatly, DirecTV was forced to stop that practice and carry many local area broadcasts and allow them to be recieved ONLY by people who could also recieve the signals conventionally. Thus I may subscribe to the Atlanta stations, but not the LA stations.
I find that annoying personally, before the suit having an east and west coast channel, I could resolve scheduling conflicts easily. Now, I'm SOL.
I can only conclude that the networks must make some of their profit by charging some sort of affiliation fee to the local affiliates. That or they quietly own the affiliate stations.
How much responsibility is it of theirs to make sure only people in Canada access their servers?
Unless the Canadian law specifies that they must prevent access from outside of Canada, I argue that they have no responsability at all for that. The alternative is to claim that all laws from everywhere apply everywhere. That's simply not reasonable.
If anything, the plaintiffs would need to take action against the people in the US that recieve the broadcasts, except that the US has no law against that (that I'm aware of), so I guess they can either quit sending their signals into Canadian airspace or live with it.
Once they've started (stealing) drawing sizable portions of the broadcasters audiences, what's to stop them from inserting their own ads?
THEN sue them. You can't (in theory anyway) sue someone for damages they could cause in the future Otherwise I could sue everyone who drives a car because "what's to stop them from running me down one day"? Thus, you can only sue for damages resulting from something that was done or that is being done.
We also talk to the glue manufacturer who hopes to make a deal with Microsoft, if it gets split into teensy little pieces.
And finally, how to make an entire high-performance, multi-platform Operating System for every architecture under the sun (and several that aren't) out of cardboard and squeezy lemonade bottles.
(P.S. If you're American, and have never seen Blue Peter, you've missed a large chunk of reality. :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Or does the public own your car, because you used it on public roads? "
You could say that I own a percentage of the public roads because I pay taxes for them. They're public in the sense that anybody can use them, but in reality that's because we all jointly own them. The airwaves are not owned by anybody otherwise I would have the right to broadcast what I want (if I did this in the US, the FCC would be after me) - so what if the broadcasts leak elsewhere, why should I do anything about it until the TV/Radio/etc companies stop their transmissions leaking into my space.
What about cyclists? Although banned from some roads for safety reasons, they need no licenses elsewhere. Besides, licensing for the roads is about safety and ensuring that others don't get hurt. Ok, I'm sorry, I'm just taking this discussion further into irrelevance.
"On Thursday, 10 film and three broadcast organizations filed a complaint in a U.S. district court in Pennsylvania, accusing iCraveTV of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. " - From CBC's web site"
How does filing suit in Pennyslyvania help them? The company is based in Ontario! Would somebody more knowlegeable about the law please enlighten me. Perhaps they need a court ruling in the US so that they can use some provision of NAFTA or some other international agreement?
The trick will be: does the law cover 'retransmit' or 'rebroadcast'? They don't presently broadcast, because you have to explicitly request that their server send you the data.
;)
But why should you have to be Canadian to view it? I'm sure Americans near the border can pick up signals from our neighbors to the north and no one cares. As long as the server is in Canada and people outside Canada don't re-retransmit the signal everything should be gravy.
Mmmm.... gravy.
Personally, I don't want to have to stoop to the level of pretending to be a Canadian
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I refer, of course, to the TV media practice of adding and modifying the billboards that get into the scenes they broadcast. (Original slashdot story here.)
They don't compensate the billboard owners when they do this. After all, it's not their job to give the billboard renters free advertising in their medium. How, then can they logically justify going after iCrave, who's offering people who don't live within broadcast range of their stations the ability to watch the TV shows? It's legal to make recordings of television programs, and to share them with others, which is all that iCrave's doing. If they modify the advertising contained in those shows, what of it? It's legal to have a recording device which snips out the commercials, and after all, the networks do it to the billboards all the time!
Of course, the real difference, in this case, is that the networks have lots of money and lawyers at their disposal, unlike the billboard owners. Since might and money makes right in today's world, they'll probably win, too.
If that local station is selling locally targeted advertising (e.g., state lotto, local franchise specific ads, Ritas waterice, etc.), then the advertising is essentially useless out of the region. Of course, if those same out of region viewers choose to watch the internet instead (though doubtfull) of their own local stations, that would have the effect of reducing the fees that the owners/producers of the content (e.g., movies, news, sitcoms, talk shows, etc) can collect. Also, how are the producers/owners/licensors supposed to price the TV station that is getting rebroadcasted? Perhaps the state is regulated differently, and hence can't put certain high paying ads on (e.g., alchohol). Or perhaps that state costs less to do business in, and simply doesn't need to put in as much ad time as others. There are lots of different potential reasons.
In your last sentence, do you mean licensee (local affiliate station) or licenser (The plantiffs: Fox universal, etc)? For the licensor, my argument makes lots of sense. The rebroadcasted licensee (local station) would either not care, or might like it. That is not to say, however, that the other licensees (the rest, who are only being distributed via public TV) would like it, which can, of course, ultimately hurt the licensor.
In either case, I haven't thought of all the issues, but i'm sure there are more. In such a case, i'm inclined to side with the OWNERS of that intellectual property, until I can say I've exhausted all possibilities (reasons why they'd object), and that they're simply being unreasonable and uncharitable (to those who live in the true boondocks). I, as everyone else on slashdot, has yet to hear their arguments. Because they are the owners, I extend them leeway. Clearly, if these studios' interests could only be furthered, they would probably realize it, and they would not be taking this small fry company to court.
The issue here is not the local TV stations, it is the original CREATORS of that content; copyrights are very much at issue here! As it said in the article, "Copyrighted programs and films don't fall from the skies; they evolve from creative artists, supported by considerable financial investments." These sitcoms, movies, talk shows, news, etc. cost money to create; the producers recoup their money by selling/licensing their works to the TV stations to be broadcast. The TV stations in-turn recoup this money by selling advertising space. The mere fact that that content is delivered in a certain format over a public medium does not mean that it is public property. All of the listed plantiffs (e.g., Fox, ABC, NBC, Disney, Orion, Universal, etc) in this case are the CREATORS of the content, who are, evidently trying to protect their work. Besides the fact that it is THEIR intellectual property, in which they should be allowed to determine how it is displayed and sold, allowing ICrave to get away with this DOES pose a possible threat to their profitability. ICrave isn't paying them a dime, yet ICrave is selling their own ads and otherwise profiting.
It would seem as if you believe, that, since it is being rebroadcast over the internet it is OK. Let us imagine for a second that instead of being rebroadcast over the internet, it is rebroadcast on another TV station, only this TV station doesn't have to pay anything (like ICrave). Now how many TV stations do you think are going to pay the producers? Not only does it cost them more to pay for it, but it could also put them at a competetive disadvantage, in that the freeloading/rebroadcasting stations don't have to rely on advertising dollars nearly as much, allowing them to put fewer and fewer ads up. Would you still argue this isn't a threat either? This entire argument is silly to begin with. Being able to view something on public airwaves doesn't give you the right to do anything with it. Just like purchasing a video cassette doesn't give you the right to broadcast it. These are basic intellectual property questions, and they're not nearly as new as you would have us believe.
Regarding political airtime, I agree with you to a degree, however, your view is again overly simplistic. The first point i'll make is that in most every city, I believe, there are more than enough channels available for the public to use. Secondly, politicians aren't just paying for their ads to be broadcast to people who'd like to tune in. Quite the contrary, the politicians are putting them IN FRONT of viewers who'd otherwise not tune in. In otherwords, they're putting them between shows during prime time, and what not, on heavily watched stations. These stations aren't heavily watched just merely because they are licensed to broadcast on station X; they're watched because they have CONTENT there (not just once, but on a regular basis. They've bought that userbase's eyeballs, in a way). Which brings me to my next point. It costs money to create that content, and it costs money to broadcast it. Mandating the insertion of any political ads takes away the industry's opportunity to recoup their costs. I'm not sure exactly how much they can afford, but please understand that it doesn't come for free.
Additionally, as you mentioned, how do we keep the screwballs off (such as Buchananon) to prevent an utter crowding out? Should only the "most popular" should be allowed? Many pay before they're "popular". Based on polling results? Based on some stuffed shirts that decide who's electable? How? I don't see any sterile way to handle it. This market based system of purchasing ad slots does serve as an equalizer of sorts, it prevents both gluts and shortages. We can atleast be sure that those who can buy a significant # of ad slots have their act together to a degree (a sort of natural selection) The question is, is it desirable that society makes it a necessity for politicians to raise millions of dollars? It would appear that that is how lobbyists turn political ears these days. I'd be half tempted to ban all privately political ads (despite the constitution). Instead, force all such ads to be paid for by a select FEW government grants, and create a giant government (megabandwidth) website of sorts...call it election.gov, or something. Allow each politician to put as much material as he needs up there, for as many people wish to see it. If they just want to "speak" to the people, that seems to be to be the ideal way to do it anyways....relatively cheap, accurate, it would force more meaningful discussion (better than most all political TV ads that are mere soundbites), etc etc etc....
Referring to your top 5 lines, sure both that local broadcaster and the advertizer aren't hurt. But they're not the plantiffs in this case, the movie studios are. They are hurt, as I've made relatively clear. If viewer's are to watch this ICrave instead of their local TV stations, and they watch ads that are ineffective, that would have to effect of reducing the number of licensing fees that the creators can collect....
Oh... whoops. Took the wrong tack on my previous posts. May I point out that... Public owns airwaves -> Public owns content implies AT&T owns phone lines -> AT&T owns phone conversations Slashdot owns servers -> Slashdot owns your comments University owns dorm rooms -> University owns content of dorm rooms Medium !=== content.
Billions of dollars of Internet infrastructure, and I'm using it to watch Oprah in a 1-by-1 inch window on my screen.
_______
2B1ASK1
Good point. As for 'iCrave should lose'.. well.. I don't know. I think all parties have to own up to it. .. MAKE SENSE! that's been happening more and more over the past few years.... I like it)
.the internet is a media that would complement, not simply replace the programming. And they are right....
I, for one, feel that none of our current laws specifically dealing with 'broadcasting' should apply to the internet, it's just such a totally different medium. The CRTC seems to see this as well (gee. they kind of
IT is logical.
Originally, the law allowing rebroadcasting was to allow others to take over... with things such as radio repeaters, when they felt like it, without fear of penalty. You could hop Toronto TV across the country if you had the technology... or bring it in on cable to a remote location.. and charge for it.. but you could not modify the programming. This was beneficial to all... the network got more coverage, and people got to see more TV when they otherwise couldn't.
Now.. this is different. Though.. I must say....
If I look at this in a true geek hacker way (which is not how the courts work...)
Technically, they *could* put repeaters all over the country, and broadcast to everyone in the country, and nobody could say shit.. they are doing it legally... so how is that so different than sending it over the net? Well.. the CRTC says it right..
Well.. I believe how it works is this.
Either the US copany files charges in a Canadian court, or vice-versa.
Presuming it is filed in a US court, the reason the execs would show up is....
if they don't, they could be declared guilty in absentia, and could never enter the US again, under penalty of arrest.
And as some have said, this doesn't imply we own the material *on* the airwaves.. but it does imply something similar.
We take for granted, in Canada, that something broadcast publicly, using standard modulation, over public airwaves was *meant* for everyone to see and hear, and we reserve the right to extend those broadcasts as we see fit. Now.. we may not *modify* them to our own ends.. and we can't *steal* them for profit.. we don't own the work... we can't record it(well, we can, but we can't then broadcast it at a later time).
Actually.. here in Canada.. there *are* laws stating that we may not receive american movie programming off satellite. It is *technically* illegal in Canada to subscribe to HBO.
This happened during the 80's satellite TV craze.
See.. for a while, it was perfectly legal to descramble american programming off satellite without paying. You were allowed to receive it.. you could descramble it, as the american channels technically did not have license to sell you that programming... and at some point, it became illegal to *watch* it.
This is why so many canadians have US P.O Boxes where they send their satellite dish payments to, and have their codes/cards/whatever mailed back to.
When you are named in a lawsuit with this list at the top:
The plaintiffs filing the complaint are the Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Columbia TriStar Television, Inc.; Columbia Pictures Television Inc.; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Studios Inc.; Orion Pictures Corp.; Paramount Pictures Corp.; Universal City Studios, Inc.; Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. (Warner Bros.); ABC Inc.; CBS Broadcasting Inc. and Fox Broadcasting Co.
it's about time to get some plastic surgery and move to Venezuela.
-B
I'm not so naive as to thing that's the end of it. It's a control thing, the same way the MPAA/DeCSS issue is.
What I don't see here is the economic loss. For DeCSS, a monopoly is lost and revenues go down. With iCrave, so what? There are more people watching--tell the adveritisers that--make more money.
Greg
I agree, the people who are running this thing have the common sense of a large carrot if they didn't think they were going to get the hell sued out of the them post haste.
Maybe if they weren't trying to make money off ads on their pages they would have more of a case but as it is they are just signal stealing and trying to make a buck.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
But that wouldn't stop them surrounding the 'set' in their own banner ads...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
... because it is. It's theft of property. Whether it's the original film, or stealing the transmission, it's still theft. By your analogy, jacking into the power or phone network wouldn't be stealing, because no-one actually loses the power supply.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Maybe you misunderstood. The question was, "Or does the public own your car?" _not_ "Or does the public own the roads?" - you simply argued that you own some of the roads, which is tangential to everything under the sun.
You just made his case for him. You suggest that roads and airwaves are in the same category. I'll buy that. By the same token, your car on the road is owned by you, and the content on the airwaves is owned by its respective publisher.
Don't worry about nit-picking his arguments (e.g. "if you think about it backwards and upside down, I sort of own the tires that touch the road", etc.) It's really simple: if I make a movie and put it on TV, that doesn't give anyone else permission to redistribute it in another format (i.e. VHS, streaming video, etc.).. or does it?
That's the question. I, for one, don't think it's necessarily cut-and-dry.
This is a real threat to the networks. As it is right now, they charge the cable companies to rebroadcast their content and get to brag to their advertisers about how many more people the ads are getting to.
If iCraveTV wins, it could really change things. You might start seeing extra channels on your cable box with little Coke and Nike logos and slogans scrolling along the edges. Or you might see local stations showing popular prime time programming, then cutting to some owned/licenced broadcast, hoping people are too lazy to change the channel.
It would seem as if you believe, that, since it is being rebroadcast over the internet it is OK. Let us imagine for a second that instead of being rebroadcast over the internet, it is rebroadcast on another TV station, only this TV station doesn't have to pay anything (like ICrave). Now how many TV stations do you think are going to pay the producers?
Maybe you were caught up in your point, that or you do not understand the station's revenue model. The viewer is not the customer, the advertiser is (discounting for the moment non-commercial broadcasters). By doing what you say the real effect on the broadcaster is that more people see the commercials. That's a Good Thing. If I were an advertiser it would make me particularly want to broadcast ads via Buffalo etc) stations. particularly if I want to target the geekish early adopter type that has a high speed net connections at this point in time.
From their own selfish point of view I can't understand why every radio/tv station does not simulcast over the net. Eyeballs are eyeballs. the NY CBS affiliate probably has agreements not to compete with the LA CBS affiliate in the LA market or they all would. None the less if someone like icrave does it for me it's my (the NY affiliate) best interest to let them get away with it and sell it to my customer as an additional reason to place ads with me.
you argument makes sense (though I still don't agree) from the point of view of the content licensee. If I sell the NY affiliate the right to broadcast my movie I don't want it showing up in France where it's still int he theatres.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
However, despite this announcement, they actually have no control over your TV or you.
Similarly, in Canada, they have no rights to prevent retransmittion. We're Canadians. We're not from that backwater country where it's citizens have no useful rights.
Here's my view (correct me if I'm wrong or your point differs):
Advertisers get more bang for their buck. Networks get nothing. I think that allowing this company to freely rebroadcast is a slippery slope. If anyone can rebroadcast, they have no internal method of determining how much to charge advertisers -- and they therefore lose money.
MPAA movie ratings are displayed at the end of the film. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.
You can read more about this at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's news service here. There is a bit more information here then at the yahoo article referenced in the original posting. Along with some related site links.
The people who are angry at iCraveTV should realize that they represent a paradigm shift in cable/broadcasting and should help it along. As we all know, advertising is the real player behind TV today and one goal of ads is to get to as many people as possible. Why blow against the wind?
I've tried iCraveTV and I've found the quality to be pretty good. Since I have a TV next to my computer, I don't really need it and I realized that the iCraveTV feed is about 22 seconds delayed. :)
Canadian copyright law ALLOWS icravetv.com to do its live rebroadcasting. These companies should be suing the Canadian government if they think somethings wrong with this (harmless) approach, not http://www.icravetv.com.
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Ok, maybe I'm missing something.....but what jurisdiction does a US Federal court have over a Canadian company?
Did the US anex Canada while I was sleeping?
Why would ICrave executives even bother to show up?
I think the following quote sums up MPAA's small mindness and ego-cenetric thinking.
"this kind of cyberspace stealing must be stopped, wherever it occurs, because it violates the principles of US copyright law." said Jack Valenti, president and chief executive office of the Motion Picture Association of America in a statement.
Maybe someone should show Jack a map of the USA and then show him a globe.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
SueDot. Lawsuits for Nerds. Stuff no one cares about.
"Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, accused the Canadian Internet service of "one of the largest and most brazen thefts of intellectual property ever committed in the United States." " - From CBC's web site
Is this guy on crack or something? It's quite obvious that he's talking out of his arse! Canada is still an independent soverign state - nothing has happened within the United States: what is Valenti talking about?
Yes, in the short term, rebroadcasting a broadcasters signal could potentially reach more viewers. But then the broadcaster, which paid millions of dollars for the exclusive right to air such and such, suffers from Brand dilution. People may not necessarily look to them the next time one of their exclusive shows is aired, as they will suspect they can watch from iCrave instead. Once they've started (stealing) drawing sizable portions of the broadcasters audiences, what's to stop them from inserting their own ads?
That would ultimately be very damaging for the people whom they are rebroadcasting, as it'd turn out to create a smaller audience for themselves and their advertisers.
The airwaves may be owned by the public; and if you could somehow re-broadcast "airwaves", maybe you'd be right.
But sorry, ICraveTV isn't rebroadcasting "airwaves"... they're broadcasting "movies", "shows", and "advertisements", none of which "belong" to the public just for the use of a public communications vehicle. (Or does the public own your car, because you used it on public roads?)
And they do offer advertising arrangements... sounds like alteration to me if you're adding ads, even if they're not "in the program"... I sure don't see banner ads on TV when I watch it.
#define IANAL
#define IANAC
Since this is an Internet enterprise, the CRTC is not regulating it. There is an entire news release on the subject, but here is the important bit:
Broadcasting
Regarding whether content on the Internet is broadcasting as defined by the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC has made the following points:
1.Everything transmitted over the Internet that is predominantly alphanumeric text is by definition not broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act.
2.Material transmitted over the Internet, which is significantly "customizable" or capable of being uniquely tailored by the individual user, does not involve the transmission of programs for reception by the public and is, therefore, not broadcasting.
3.The remaining material would fall within the definition of broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act, but will be exempt from regulation for the following reasons:
(in part) The new media complement, rather than substitute for traditional broadcasting. Before the new media could substitute for traditional media, key technological and other developments would have to take place.
This case may force the CRTC to reexamine its position, however, since iCrave's business is doing just that!
The bottom line is that standard copyright law should take over, and iCrave should lose IMHO.
In any event, even if the CRTC did have control, iCrave would need to get a license before it could distribute those TV programs.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
iCraveTV is a great idea that someone had the guts to implement.
Great thing is, because of Canadian law, it's perfectly legal.
How much responsibility is it of theirs to make sure only people in Canada access their servers? I'd argue that they're doing enough, but does anyone know for sure? Certainly an interesting question. Another one would be if Canada should change its laws to outlaw this sort of thing.
ok, you know how when you watch baseball, at the end of the game it says:
"This telecast is the exclusive property of Major League Baseball. Any retransmission or rebroadcast without the express written consent of TV38, Major League Baseball, and the Red Sox is prohibited."
That pretty much says it all. The entities involved own the television broadcast and you are not allowed to retransmit it. I dunno about movies and tv programs, but I know the NFL's issues with iCrave are based on this.
Upon hearing this, AOL lawyers also filed a complaint saying "ME TOO!!!"
This sounds like a discussion we've had before on slashdot. As a consumer, *I* think I'm paying for the content. *They*, the people selling it to me, think I'm paying for a license to watch it, and forget about it forever after until I want to pay for it again. If I can tape shows off of TV, I should be able to do this.
Such useage is covered by fair use provisions. Fair use doesn't apply to corporations trying to make a buck through ad revenues, even if those corporations are small.
iCraveTV is trying to make money by giving viewers access to TV that they normally wouldn't be able to watch. This isn't your Mom taping shows you loved in your homeland. This is a company trying to make a buck. There is a big differnce between small-scale distribution and the massive distribution iCraveTV provides.
I think iCraveTV should go the legitimit route and pay broadcasters the same way your local cable company does.
First off lets get some definitions straight.
Patents and copyrights are two very different things. Patents apply to a specific method of doing some task. They need to be applied for in order to receive one. Copyrights apply to artistic/creative works. Somehow source code is covered as an artistic work. So here, movies and TV shows are covered by copyright. Copyright is much easier to obtain than a Patent. Any discussion of patents with regard to iCraveTV is probably irrelevant.
In general copyrighted material is completely controlled by the holder. The copyright holder can allow anything they want. A license is just another contract.
In the case of an average TV program, the producer sells a license to the station or network allowing the network to broadcast the show. The network pays for this privilege and in return hopes to get ad revenue.
Now the broadcaster must follow the rules of the regulator. In the case of Canada this is the CRTC. In the US it is the FCC. I don't know how conflicts between the broadcaster's governmental license and the copyright license are resolved. I guess that would be the interesting part of these law suits. When the broadcaster transmits a signal under license of the CRTC, they are agreeing to play by the rules of the CRTC. This is another key point.
Under Canadian Broadcasting rules people are allowed to rebroadcast other transmissions in their entirety. Unfortunately I have not been able to find the exact regulations that permit this however I am yet to see anything contrary. This is the single most important part of this lawsuit so don't forget it!
So what do we have? An agreement between the producer and the original broadcaster. An agreement between the CRTC and the broadcaster and rules published by the CRTC that allow iCraveTV to rebroadcast. Strictly speaking iCraveTV is following the rules.
It is also very important to note that the President of iCraveTV is no slouch. From the iCraveTV original Press Release it states how the leadership of iCraveTV is well experienced in the TV broadcast industry, including Government (CRTC?) experience.
What I don't understand is why the US objectioners filed the lawsuits in Pennsylvania. AFAIK Pennsylvania has no jurisdiction over iCraveTV. If anyone can answer this I would be interested.
Bottom line is that we have a Canadian company following legal Canadian actions that conflict with the copyright licenses of traditional broadcasters. The interesting part will be how this conflict will be resolved.
Ryan
It says on ICraveTV's site that the programming "are those freely available to Toronto, Canada", and there's a comment about that in the previous slashdot thread, too.
I see nothing wrong with rebroadcasting over the internet what's already on the airwaves. If I captured jpegs from my TV capture card and posted them on my homepage (as I've seen many people do), is that illegal? I'm paying for the signal, the TV card, the internet connection... aren't I paying for the content, too?
This sounds like a discussion we've had before on slashdot. As a consumer, *I* think I'm paying for the content. *They*, the people selling it to me, think I'm paying for a license to watch it, and forget about it forever after until I want to pay for it again. If I can tape shows off of TV, I should be able to do this.
Now, selling it is another matter, but if it's mine, shouldn't I be able to show it to people? It shouldn't be a perfect copy anyhow. And if they're willing to pay for it, isn't that just a transaction between us, they get my property, etc.?
On the internet, if I view a copyrighted image, I guarantee you many copies of it have just been made in various places due to the technology at work. Are you going to sue me, Netscape, Microsoft, or the routers in between?
Of course, I also am not a lawyer, but I'd be happy if one of those could enlighten us about where this falls between "fair use" and "theft", because the line is pretty gray.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm all for dissing multinationals who stomp on an innovative new comer. But in this case what iCrave is doing is clearly illegal. Everyone know that you can't redistribute copyrighted material without permission. What the heck did they expect to happen?
Maybe they figured they'd broadcast for a short time to boost hits, then drop it when the lawyers begin to take notice.
Anyway, it's not very ethical in my opinion.
So you own these programs?
;-)
Yes.
And you broadcast them for free?
Yes.
And companies pay you to get ad time on the programs?
Yes.
And I can buy a television from ANYONE, and watch one of these programs?
Yes.
So, let's say you have a big enough transmitting antenna to reach 100,000 viewers, and I came to you with an antenna that lets you reach 10 million viewers. Would you pay me a lot for that antenna?
You bet. And my advertisers would pay me more in turn.
And if I made a television that could pick up your signal from 1000 miles away, could I charge you?
Of course not.
But I could sell it, right?
Yes. And I would likely charge my advertisers more.
So why are you suing iCraveTV?
Oh, that's simple. Because I'd like to sue the TV makers and control that market, too, but I'd never get away with it.
Oh, well, I guess you can't catch everyone on the horns of a logical dilemma
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
People have to keep in mind that broadcast television is not the same as going to a movie in a movie theatre or watching something on cable. The airwaves have a finite bandwidth, and they are thus allocated to television stations to serve the public. Unfortunately, broadcast media in the US have convinced nearly everyone that they own the airwaves. They do not. The airwaves are owned by the public and we grant the TV stations the privilege to use that bandwidth. They seriously abuse this privilege.
Consider, for example, politics. It is absurd that TV stations charge money to candidates to run campaign ads. IMHO, they have absolutely no right to do so. While they need to have a solution that prevents any dork from getting in front of the camera, they need to realize the people own the airwaves and we need to use those airwaves for events such as elections.
In the case under consideration here, I believe that broadcasting an unaltered, real time transmission enables the public (in this case, ICrave), to benefit from its airwaves without damaging the people who have been granted the privilege of its use. To hide behind copyright law here is to use the absurd power of the entertainment industry to squash anything which might challenge its non-broadcast plans.