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.

Comments

Not another one!

[pb]

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.

But it _IS_ IP Theft

[Hubec]

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.

Re:But it _IS_ IP Theft

[eyeball]

But in this case what iCrave is doing is clearly illegal.

But not in Canada... From the Original CNET Article

Under Canadian law, any company is allowed to retransmit public television signals, as long as it is a live stream and the signal is not changed in any way. iCraveTV fulfills both of these conditions, transmitting commercials and programs without cutting or adding any new content.

To view the programming, you have to be a Canadian resident. Of course you can lie.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Canadian. /grin/

Socratic contradiction time.

[re-geeked]

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 ;-)

Not Stealing

[smack.addict]

When I first saw this, my initial thought was "thieving bastards". But when I looked closer, rebroadcasting PUBLIC airwaves should be a right, not something that sends you to jail. Canada has this one right.

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.