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.
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)
No, no: you've missed the point. If you're in LA then you're not supposed to be watching iCraveTV! ;)
"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.
As someone pointed out, it's legal to 'rebroadcast' the signal. Sending the live video over the net will not necessarily qualify as 'broadcasting'.
Hunh?
I doubt they are that stupid.
They are probably picking it up in Toronto, or whever their receiving station is.
Hell.. if you don't want us to pick it up, don't broadcast it into our sovreign airspace!
There is no way for them to tell how many people are watching when they broadcast over the airwaves *either*.
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).
Is it? What if your local laws said "Anyone who wants to may re-publish their own copies of your paper, so long as it is reproduced in it's entirety, and is placed on the shelf at rougly the same time as your own paper, and pulled also at the same time?"
The issue here isn't *stealing* anyone's content. It's rebroadcasting.. which is explicitly covered by our wonderful Canadian law. And unfortunately for those who are bitching (notice how none are the canadian companies who's broadcasts are actually being copied verbatim?), our courts and our laws tend to favour the individual over the bullshitting huge companies.
No. I cannot copy it. I *can* AMPLIFY THE HELL out of it so that everyone for 100 miles can hear what you are saying. As Canadian law goes, one may not use a listening/amplification device to hear a conversation that they could otherwise not hear, but they *can* use such devices to amplify/aid in listening conversations they *can* already hear.
Also, as you said it loud enough for me to hear it, I can repeat it as often as I like, to whomever I like. I cannot, of course, claim it to be my original work, as it isn't, and I know it.
And we mean RF, not 'vibrating air' when we say airwaves.. though, of course, I would say that sound is most definately an 'air wave'....
But whether or not they make money is not an issue, the issue is whether or not they modify the broadcast.
Running a line from an antenna toa TV is also 'rebroadcasting' even if you don't think of it thwat way.
You are converting a signal from radio to electricity for the last leg of it's journey.
Also.. as for royalties, the issue is clearly covered in Candian law. It is permissible to rebroadcast any TV signal you can receive over public transmission (ie: the entire RF spectrum), so long as you rebroadcast it in realtime, and do not modify it. (modify is defined, simply causing a change in signal quality or some such thing does not constitutemodification.. they mean modifying the broadcast with advertisements, your own video, etc...)
So.. the reason they even *started* it is because canadian law very explicitly makes what they are doing *completely legal*
Yes. Except.. it was *already* broadcast ona *public* medium where *anyone* could watch it... they just devised a method to extend that range.
Had they simply developed an Uber-antenna that would let anyone in canada watch the station... nobody would have a problem.
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.
Of course they are. 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.
Of course not, they're Yanks. They're like the Flatworlders of the 16 and 17th century. The world stops at the Mexican and Canadian borders :) *dons flameproof vest* :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
So if I compose out loud a poem and you hear it, you can copy it because the airwaves were vibrating anyway?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Take this with a grain of salt because it's word of mouth, but....
I believe in Canada it's legal to re-broadcast signals as long as the "signals" are unmodified.
What if someone offered to print millions of copies of your whole paper and distribute it for free? Even if they included a flyer in the middle advertising some local record store, I still image you'd be happy at inreasing your reader base by an order of magnitude - as should your advertising base.
That's what really boggles my mind about complaints on the part of broadcast TV companies - it's like someone is giving them a giant transmitter with worldwide reach.
Now the content providers, who were only paid for rebroadcast in a small market, I can understand the issue they have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
The BBC puts these programs on their Web page
All the channels broadcast by Icrave are freely available over a (Big enough) antenna in Toronto.
Except the stations and content producers _aren't_ getting any extra money from these. What the advertisers get is more advertising than they paid for; but there's no real way for the content producers and distributors to tell how many people are watching their shows on icravetv, and adjust their rates accordingly.
Put another way, it's like if you mirrored a yahoo.com page, including the ads, but didn't link the ads back to them. Then the advertisers get more advertising, but yahoo dosen't get any more money, because the impressions are not generated by them.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that icravetv is not licensed to redistribute the TV signals. So the content producers have every right (under current law) to refuse to sell icravetv their content.
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.
nielsen.
MPAA movie ratings are displayed at the end of the film. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law.
Here's why:
broadcasters want to make money off advertising revenue. the more people that watch their stations, the more their advertising is worth. if 50% of their audience is suddenly bootlegging their telecast, the value of their advertising drops sharply even though the same number of people are watching.
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.
If you had a TV antenna in Canada and a few thousand miles of antenna cable, and hooked it up to a TV set in Arizona, to watch the Canadian freely-available public TV stream, ads and all, would that be 'theft'?
No. Of course not. That's exactly what iCraveTV is doing -- they're not charging for it (except in the form of a frame with banner ads), and they're not modifying the content or even removing the TV ads. All it does is let you watch Canadian TV wherever you are. The signal is freely available. The MPAA is doing stupid things again, just as it has throughout its existence. IP doesn't even really enter into it.
gomi
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.