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.
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.