Slashdot Mirror
iCrave TV Loses Battle against U.S. Broadcasters
Doran writes "C|Net has this story about how the Canadian company iCraveTV.com has lost its latest battle in U.S. courts over whether it can rebroadcast TV signals over the Web. The broadcasters say it's theft, while iCraveTV sez it's just doing what's legal for other cable TV companies in Canada (ie. rebroadcasting TV). Of course, by framing the streaming video iCraveTV is doing more than just rebroadcasting, they're also adding more commercial content, which the broadcasters feel dilutes their TV commercials.
"
OTOH, I note that iCraveTV's domain is registered to a US company, William R. Craig Consulting. Perhaps that places them under the jurisdiction of the US courts.
But if they really are a Canadian company and not just a US company that has set up operations in Canada, the broadcasters are going after iCrave in a US court because under Canadian law they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
And the brethren went away edified.
If I'm not mistaken, they were broadcasting raw Canadian TV too. I would kill to watch Canadian TV. While the US doesn't care if Canadians see our stations, for whatever reason no companies are allowed to broadcast Canadian TV down here. Show me CBC and real (not re-packaged-for-US-consumption) MuchMusic and a few other popular stations and I'll be happy :-)
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Superbowl was highlighted makes me suspicious. The only reason for this, IMHO, is that they want their ratings, which don't get counted on ICraveTV's rebroadcast.
Of course they are worried about the ratings, that's how they make money. The higher your ratings are, the more money you charge for commercials. If the Superbowl suddenly dropped hugely in the ratings this year (not saying iCraveTV could have that huge an effect, just a for instance) next year they wouldn't be able to charge nearly as much for advertising time as this year. Ratings==money.
QUOTE:
"...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..."
UNQUOTE
I think the problem here isn't that the Canadian law applies, no one will argue that. it's that they are/were also broadcasting American stations as well. I know they were broadcasting some New York stations, which makes the law VERY muddled. ICraveTV is Canadian, but they are getting American content, so which laws apply? If they had only been broadcasting Canadian content, it would have been a lot more cut and dry.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
QUOTE
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
$5 million? Gee, that's a lot of damage. How does waiting for a new frame of the Super Bowl every 20 minutes while the phrase "Net Congestion, re-buffering" sits at the bottom of the screen translate into $5 million in damages?
My metamoderation cancels your moderation
I know they were broadcasting some New York stations, which makes the law VERY muddled.
By the same token, the New York stations are being recieved in Canada. How would they like to have Canadian broadcast laws applied to them? Perhaps they should be penalized for not having their quota of Canada centric shows?
Or, they could require iCrave to not serve Americans, just as soon as American broadcast stations quit serving Canadians.
In short, it's not all that muddled, if you're a Canadian living/working in Canada, Canadian laws apply, if you're American living/working in America, American law applies. Anything else opens a HUGE can of worms including questions like "Do American companies who employ Canadians in America have to comply with Canadian labor law?" (I think not).
It's quite interesting that the MPAA is involved in this suit too - actually, the complaint itself can be read on *their* website and the article refers to "7 major movie studios". I think those guys in Holywood start to believe that it should be renamed Holywood D.C., capital of the World or something like that. Kocsonya s.k.
'm not knocking, I use it all the time, but let's avoid getting too up-in-arms about this. You all know as well as I do that iCrave has always been a little questionable.
:)
In Canada its not questionable at all, its well within the law.
This isn't about Big Bad Corporate America stifling the global evolution of the net, either. When those networks sell advertising, it's with the understanding from their customers that they will have 30 seconds of captive audience. You can't run a site that sponges off other people's (very very large) investments for your own personal gain without expecting the legitimate owners of that signal to get a little peeved.
I really have no idea why they're so upset, iCraveTV isnt filtering out the ads and placing their own in, the ads are still there, uncut, uncensored, they've left the stream alone, the people who bought the ads are getting a WIDER audience because of iCraveTV, for nothing.
That notwithstanding, how can iCraveTV, a Canadian company, operating within Canadian law, which has disclaimers, and even a area code check to futilely filter out non Canadians from watching it, get sued in a US court where US laws apply? This makes no sense. If they want to sue iCraveTV they should sue them up here.
Let's not let the overwhelming trend of attacking people for defending their IP extend into areas it doesn't belong. When someone tries to patent "One-click shopping", I understand the community getting irate. But iCrave is not the good guy here, they're the leech. And I say that as a loyal customer of theirs.
They arent leeching, they're providing the stream uncut, INCLUDING all the ads, they're just rebroadcasting the ENTIRE stream online, which is totally legal here, possibly to people (like me) who cant even get cable in his area.
-- iCEBaLM
Icrave, by wrapping their own banners around the outside of the signal (sort of shrinking the original signal).. well.. that seems to constitute 'modifying' the content of the signal.
Thats rediculous! rofl! With this logic, you're going to now ban any TV with more pixels then the NTSC specifies? They aren't modifying the signal in any way, with or without the ads on the bottom and the right, the signal would HAVE to be rastered smaller to be useful to anyone who doesn't have an OC3. Not to mention, I can click "Double Size" or "Full Screen" in real player, clicking that am I also modifying the content?
-- iCEBaLM
Actually it is covered by the C anadian Copyright Act. S ection 31 covers Retransmission. This is half out of the jurisdiction of the CRTC. I say half because they have influence over the Broadcasting Act.
The Globe and Mail has a number of articles on iCraveTV that give a better explanation of the court date and give a thorough background on Mr. Craig.
The information I have read is conflicting over whether this is a Canadian company or a company based out of Pittsburgh.
Checking with NSI it looks like their domain is registered in Pittsburgh.
It is not so absurd when the activity being carried on in another country is by an American. William R. Craig Consulting owns the iCraveTV domain name. William R. Craig Consulting appears to be registered in Pittsburgh. Last time I knew Pittsburgh is in PA. :)
"key Court battle" was merely an ex parte injunction, made without even an appearance filed on behalf of ICrave
Due to matters relating to his divorce, Mr. Craig would be arrested as soon as he stepped foot in PA. Hence he did not appear in person. Instead he gave a deposition in Ontario on Thursday.
End result: Our LLB friend had better do a little more research into the specifics of the case before slamming the CNET reporter.
I believe iCrave has an office in Plattsburgh. I think it's their marketing office, but it doesn't really matter. They are doing business in the US, and that's why they sued the US office, not the Canadian office.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Couldn't the argument be made that Slashdot sponges off of other sites which people have invested money in? I've read an article on Feedmag.com that claimed as much. I can understand Big Bad Corporate America's point of view in wanting to stop iCrave. But really, it doesn't make any sense. Why don't they do what Corporations normally do when someone beats them at their own game, why don't they buy out iCrave?
I can also understand iCraves position, the shows have been broadcast, plenty of cable companies insert their own advertisements into the stream, why shouldn't they be able to do the same thing except on the internet? It makes sense. I think the TV industry is just scared of the internet. They have pretty strict regulations about mentioning the internet on TV. There was a recent series of Nike commercials that told people to go look at a Nike web page to choose their own ending to the commercial they just watched. The Corporations that control TV refused to play it. They made Nike change the commercials around so that they didn't tell people not to watch TV. The people who run the TV industry are terrified that the Internet will destroy their industry.
Noo... sorry.
When the broadcast is licensed in a certain way, you consent to the terms of that license.
When the copyright holders (say, the NFL), *license* a canadian broadcaster to broadcast over the air, they are agreeing to abide by all the legal implications of that broadcasting right. This means it can be rebroadcast.
Now, on an *intent* issue, I believe the way the original law is worded ist hat the signal may not be time-shifted (ie: to a different time slot.. propagation delays are okay...), and may not be modified as to content. If you are going to rebroadcast, you must rebroadcast *only* that signal, as the original broadcaster intended.
Now.. the video stream that comes over RealVideo from Icrave has the original video content *framed* by other banners... (not html banners.. they are in the video stream, or at least, it looks that way in the player). So as to *intent*, they are using someone elses video stream to insert their own advertising. This is exactly what the original law was meant to protect.
You say, 'even if it was initially broadcast'.
Realize, please, that Icrave is not trying to claim some bizarre exemption under canadian law that says any broadcast singal is free game... there is explicit law dealing whith TV Broadcasting over publicly owned airwaves, and that law says that those broadcasts may be picked up and rebroadcast by anyone, so long as they are rebroadcast live, and the content is not modified.
Yes. An dlocal TV operators are *allowed* to do this. They pay license fees for these priveleges.
iCrave TV operates under a different section of law... that, in Canada, a TV signal broadcast over public airwaves may be rebroadcast, without payment to anyone, so long as it is rebroadcast in realtime, and without modification (effectively, the only thing this accomplishes is extending the viewer count for that particular channel.).
Icrave, by wrapping their own banners around the outside of the signal (sort of shrinking the original signal).. well.. that seems to constitute 'modifying' the content of the signal.
{I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.]
While the cable rebroadcast makes for a nice analogy, there's a serous problem--It is a very specific legal exception. Not only *can* the cable companies use these signals wihtout compensation, but they *must* carry them without compensation. Satellite, etc., can't do this, and must negotiate terms in order to rebroadcast.
Come to think of it, it seems to be that local stations have a choice between "must carry" and "negotiate," but it's been a while.
Anyone other than cable who grabs the signal and redistributes it (save for personal use such as time-shifting with a vcr) is stealing it and in violation of the copyright. It's that simple. It doesn't matter whether you're a competitor rebroadcasting a quarter second later, a satellite company, an internet broadcaster, or someone who tapes things to resell.
In the US, Cable Companies must get permission* to rebroadcast network transmissions. On January 1, WTTG Fox 5 denied Cox cable permission to rebroadcast Fox in Fairfax County unless Cox also carried some other Fox-owned cable channels. Cox didn't want to carry those other channels, so Fox withheld rebroadcast permission and Fox 5 went off the air for a week until the two came to some secret agreement...
This is a fairly recent law (6 years). It's stupid, because there's no reason a broadcast channel would NOT want to reach a wider audience. The Canadians have it right. If you broadcast a signal, everyone should assume that you'd be happy to reach more viewers.
* What's realy stupid is that if the cable company doesn't want to carry a broadcast station, the broadcast station can force them to. If the broadcast station makes any demands, the cable company can drop them, but if they ask for nothing in return, they can be forced to carry them. That was also part of the 6-year old law. At the time it was passed, my cable company had to drop a couple of decent channels (no room) to carry a couple of home shopping channels and a PBS affiliate that only broadcast 8 hours a day.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Yeah, but you get a tax credit for taxes paid in the UK, so it should have been pretty much a wash.
I'm canadian, and I don't find this strange. For several reasons.
1) The US has prosecuted people, in foreign countries, and for acts performed in foreign countries, under US law. They feel that if it touches the US in any way, US law applies.
2) The US court can give whatever verdict they like. This does not change the fact that they have no jurisdiction in Canada. They may have ruled that iCrave is violating American law (that sure was a speedy trial.. btw... but that's because this is so clearcut under american law)... but they have no jurisdiction here in canada.. so they can't ENFORCE Their ruling.
Can a canadian court issue a ruling against an american company? Sure.. can they enforce it? Doubtful.
The main issue here is "fair use" of airwaves.
For decades now, Mexico has transmitted radio broadcasts within levels which they have considered appropriate, to the ire of the U.S. on as the signals have jammed out the stateside broadcasts. This involved not only the statioms along the borders of Texas & Louisianna, but even as far as Baltimore, and the Eastern Seaboard.
iCrave's taken the spill of signals from U.S. broadcasts along the border (while in levels negotiated via free trade accords, etc.) and has used it for their own business purposes. One would think by now (as the FCC and even Congress have been sucking up to Rupert Murdoch and his ilk) the main brunt of legal action regards the distribution and control of a commodity (con$umer) resource.
Unlike the radio broder wars, this is a money issue, as any city which watches content from U.S. interests is "market share" regardless of country. Without revenue to studios, networks, or advertisers, the only free TV might as well be static.
One of my first jobs was outside the United States, in a part of the UK. I was surprised to learn that both the federal and state government expected me to pay income taxes on money earned outside the United States, even though I was a legal resident of the UK.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is not a court ruling. There has been no trial. The judge granted a Preliminary Injunction, ordering ICrave to cease broadcasting these programmes into the USA, until the trial is over.
The NFL is full of it.. they already allowed the programs to be *broadcast* over *RF*, which is broadcasting in the true sense of the word.
If iCrave had, instead of an internet RealVideo server, simply had some kind of legal-but-wierd radio receiver that allowed anyone in the world to pick up VHF TV from Ontario.... nobody would be suing them.
The quick answer is this: the PPIttsburgh judge didn't use American law or Canadian law either.
A mandatory order in respect of any activity in another jurisdiction is without foundation in law.
I assume this was obtained on an ex parte motion, done simply to make ICrave file an appearance later on to fight it on a forum non conveniens basis. This will increase legal costs for ICrave or leave ICrave with an order outstanding against if and when the matter comes before The Superior Court of Ontario.
US Counsel should have stuck to an action for damages instead of an injunction. Speaking from experience, an Ontario judge will not even pay *lip service* to judicial comity if he/she sees an American court purport to make a mandatory order to have effect in Ontario. Quite the opposite - an Ontario judge will be pissed off as all hell at the mere existence of such an Order. You'll have any judge in Toronto simply *antagonized* the instant he reads the motion record.
You want to start a motion with the judge unloading on you before you even open your mouth? Not in my "top ten tips" book for how to win at motions court at 130 Queen.
Very bad strategy on part of US counsel if you ask me.
Robert Trifts
Barrister & Solicitor, ON.
.Robert
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: IANAL, nor a Canadian.
For those who think simple rebroadcasting of content available over the airwaves in Canada is legal for anybody, show me the section of the CRTC's laws that make it so.
I read through the information the CRTC has on its Web site. They explicitly mention that they will not regulate the Internet, even though some content may be considered broadcasting.
If iCraveTV used cable, or a larger antenna, or some other telecommunications device to rebroadcast, I believe that they could do it, but they would need a license from the CRTC first.
Now, this is rebroadcasting, but it's over the Internet. The CRTC does not, and claims it never will, regulate the Internet. So what does that mean? Can companies rebroadcast freely over the Internet without a license, or does that mean that they do not have that right at all seperate from the CRTC granting it?
What if iCrave were to apply for a license to rebroadcast? That would force the CRTC to make a decision one way or the other.
Oh wait, this is being prosecuted in the US, where the matter is more clear-cut! I really don't understand why. This is supposedly a Canadian company, right? Unless...
Interesting... I can't find information on TVRadio Now Corporation, who owns the copyright on the web page. And there's nothing to do there either except click on ad banners.
You can get to the nav bar by going to http://www.icravetv.com/nav.html. Interestingly, there's no physical address located anywhere. Didn't check the feed to see if it was still up -- I don't know any Toronto area codes anyway.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
"...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..."
:-)
Interesting you should quote that. The local cable monoply shows advertisements for local services over top of, for example, whatever advertisements were on A&E this afternoon, among other things. All the US channels they carry, they edit at some point. Would it be possible to prosecute them? iCraveTV.com is even more in compliance than they are, and I agree that nothing should happen to them.. There's no other way I can watch Voyager currenly
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I'm not saying that the 'size' change is the modification in question.. in that respect, the signal is fine.
But what if, instead of realvideo, they were actually broadcasting on VHF (normal TV). And they took another stations signal, shrunk it a bit, and put their own video around the outside of it. *NOW* the *signal* they are presenting to other viewers has had it's content modified. THey are *NOT* simply extending the range.
The RealVideo stream contains *MORE* than just the original content, it contains extra advertsing infromation present at the side and bottom of the video signal, and this is what they will be prosectued over.
Because even the canadian channels rebroadcast americna programming, and because iCrave does not have a mechanism that allows them to comply with this court order. (no way to effectively prevent americans from watching their channels.) The easiest way for them to comply with the court order (as they seem to have decided to comply), would be to turn the site off, until such time as they find a better method of identifying viewers as canadian.
The whole idea (I believe) could be traced to extradition treaties and the like, which are usually used for grabbing a murderer who skipped the country.
...
But Canada and the USA (and the UK, etc.) tend to cooperate a lot on some laws (like International Copyright acts, etc.) and when legal issues come up that reference those international treaties, we tend to cooperate and allow the pursuing of a person or corporation
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You want a good one? Check out the Government of Canada vs. the US tobacco firms.
:-)
Good case
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Not that I am personally intertested in watching TV over the net, but this deserves some attention. Contrary what many may think, the U.S. is NOT the centre of the universe. My understanding of this issue is that iCraveTV is rebroadcasting without modifying content that it has legally accessed. In Canada, this type of rebroadcasting legal. My question is this: By what authority can a Judge in Pennsylvania stop a foreign company in a foreign country from what it is doing..LEGALLY. Much like the DeCSS fiasco, where U.S. lobby groups somehow successfully pressured the Norwegian authorities to detain, interrogate and confiscate from a Norwegian national. I'm sorry this sounds like rambling, but it pisses me off when the U.S. tries to influence outside it's jurisdiction. Please get your own house in order before trying to change others. I'm fully aware and prepared for the flaming that will be forthcoming. I didn't have much time to completely articulate my point.
Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
And boycott watching the superbowl. For someone like me, this will not be a problem, as I don't care about sports (;-)), but for some of you this may be hard.
I suggest you also write a letter or email to one of the people invovled, and mention why you won't be watching the super bowl. Considering the "Golden Goose" status that the super bowl has achieved in advertisers' eyes, you might just be able to shock them into realising how downright mean (and quasi-legal, if you squint at it just right and ignore Canada's sovereignty from the US) way they shut down an innocent company, a company that let people like me watch some TV when they wouldn't have otherwise.
Then again, their hearts might just be blackened and their minds recognising only money, kinda like the MPAA ilk who had a minor unfairly arrested (can you say Kevin Mitnick '00?). Shadowrun's future is starting to seem optimistic.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The point is not whether or not it will be missed; the point is whether or not they should be able to do what they are doing. If they want to provide a service that nobody wants, they still have the right to provide that service (unless doing so breaks laws or violates someone else's rights).
I don't see how rebroadcasting anyone's local signal to a global audience is a Bad Thing©. The stations' "very very large" investment goes even farther for free. Most people at computers with broadband access to get a decent stream are (ahem) at work, and wouldn't be at a television otherwise, so this is simply expanding their audience.
I think the stations' primary gripe with that wider audience is that they don't get a ratings boost from it. They have no way of knowing that tens of thousands of people in Germany are getting their taste of "Verheiratet mit Kindern" in the original English "Married... with Children".
If iCrave was willing to share some of that blank space to those stations for advertising and/or provided (detailed?) viewer statistics, perhaps the broadcasters would cooperate and collaborate instead of fighting.
Mind you, this is just one point along the circle, but I hate it when long winded comments like mine get slightly larger.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
They pay in order to be allowed to run the shows with some of their ads replacing the less expensive ads on the original broadcast. That's how the rebroadcasters make their money.
Some networks place queue-tones or have specific spots in the broadcasts for an advertiser to stick local spots into the broadcast.
It works by overlaying promo spots. In the early 80s, I worked on an Apple ][ based product that would detect queue-tones, pick the most profitable commercial that could be played, queue up the VCR (one of 8 1-inch professional units) switch from the network feed, pump out the advertisement, then switch back to network feed. This all was located on at the head-end (where they have the Satelite downlink, usually a remote location).
Fight Spammers!
Oh that was a good point - I was thinking you were going to make it - rats!
Okay, the Americans' robotic agents expire when they reach the Vat o' Goodness - they last thing they do is say, "Please iCraveToxicWaste, please send one of your robotic agents with some waste to the following location." iCraveToxicWaste then does just that. Now, iCraveToxicWaste shouldn't have to comply with the laws of every country on Earth. Everything is illegal somewhere. But they get requests from all over the world. They just fulfil the requests as they come in. If the Americans don't like redistribution of toxic waste but Canada allows it. It becomes the Americans problem either when one of their citizens requests the waste (make that illegal a la the 18-19th entury Catholic Church) or when the toxic waste enters their territory (block the waste at the border a la Australia).
Besides its a tried and true method of making some scratch up here. Find an area in which the "Land of the Free" is not quite as free and make some quick bucks pissing off the powers that be in the USA by "sharing the freedom" so to speak.
One of our biggest multi-nationals got it's start by supplying booze across the border when alcohol was illegal in the States but not in Canada - Seagrams. Ask any bar owner on the Canadian side of the border how many customers are deprived underaged Americans. If America really believed in those laws Canada should be denounced regularily for "supplying" alcohol to underage kids - corrupting them!
Anyway don't worry iCraveTV obviously wants to be a player in the US. That's why they've followed the injunction.
America has 10x more people whose money we want and now = time to bend over again, um not liking this, this, um, really, sucks - ah christ!
Anyway, less talk - more beer! yay!
bye
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
I'm not knocking, I use it all the time, but let's avoid getting too up-in-arms about this. You all know as well as I do that iCrave has always been a little questionable.
:)
This isn't about Big Bad Corporate America stifling the global evolution of the net, either. When those networks sell advertising, it's with the understanding from their customers that they will have 30 seconds of captive audience. You can't run a site that sponges off other people's (very very large) investments for your own personal gain without expecting the legitimate owners of that signal to get a little peeved.
Let's not let the overwhelming trend of attacking people for defending their IP extend into areas it doesn't belong. When someone tries to patent "One-click shopping", I understand the community getting irate. But iCrave is not the good guy here, they're the leech. And I say that as a loyal customer of theirs.
JMHO, as always,
Johnath
I don't get it. This is a Canadian company, operating in Canada, subject to Canadian law. Why should they give a shit about the opinion of a United States court?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is the point where the non-lawyers - especially the non-Canadian lawyers, are assuming they know the law when - in fact - they don't.
Actually, the story which reported on this is totally fraught with innacuracy and misunderstanding.
First - do NOT presume to apply the law of American broadcasting or copyright to Canada. Our copyright laws, particularly with respect to rebroadcast rights are different - and the laws of Canada and England do NOT recognize the tort of unfair competition or ANY exclusive right to broadcast an event (such as the Superbowl). (That is why Canadian "live" events are technically tape delayed).
The tort of unfair competition is the key to understanding this case. Canada does not recoginize it. The legal conclusions which flow from this split in the common law are potentially VERY large in this case.
Second - this was an interim injunction without foundation in law or jurisidiction. It is ABSURD to suggest that ANY American judge has jurisdiction to make a mandatory order in respect of an activity carried on in another country. There is simply no jurisdiction to make any such order. The order is so *laughable* in this regard as to stretch my belief that such was ever made in the first place.
The story is unclear in the actual facts, but I would assume that the so-called "key Court battle" was merely an ex parte injunction, made without even an appearance filed on behalf of ICrave, as to file such an appearance for any purpose (other than to oppose on grounds of forum non conveniens) would attorn to the jurisdiction of the American court - which Icrave clearly will not do.
To sum up:
The story's author obviously does not know what he/she is talking about and probably wrote this story based on a press release;
There *are* substantial differences in Canadian and American law regarding re-broadcast rights and copyright and it is Canadian law - not American law which applies;
Canadian law does not recognize the tort of unfair competition;
An American court has no jursidiction to make a mandatory order of any kind regarding an activity carried on in another jurisidiction - and there is not even a *scintilla* of legal doubt regarding that statement.
End result: whoever writes this stuff for C/Net doesn't have a clue as to the topic matter of what they presume to be writing about.
Consequently, most of the posters in this thread don't either...
Robert Trifts
LLB, (Ontario)
.Robert
52nd State? Counting Norway as 51? ;-)
Seriously though, who is number 51 then?
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
I have a TV - I use it for a DVD viewing station as my reception is horrible. I don't want to pay $50 a month for basic cable, when I can pay about that much for a DSL line that gets a lot more use that my cable ever did.
For me, iCrave offered a superior picture to my normal TV. Not to mention getting channels from Canada I couldn't get here by any means. What if I was learning Japanese and I could get a few broadcast channels from Japan over the inetrnet? It could all be so useful...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real problem with this lawsuit is that they are companies and associations from the United States suing a canadian company. The article doesn't give out a lot of information about what kind of law they used, but it seems pretty strange that american companies would be able to get an injuction so easily against a canadian company... After all, the canadian law does permit rebroadcasting, and that's what they're doing. The US law doesn't, and they're invoking a US law to ban a canadian company from doing business ?
How can a judge in Plattsburgh, Pa, order a canadian company to provide logs and shut down its service ? That's the thing I can't understand.. Would anybody care to explain me a little international law ? I'm canadian. Could I sue an american company, and have a canadian judge decide the outcome ? What if I win, and I get a court order saying that I can seize property from the american company. Then what happens ? Who makes sure that the court order is respected ?
Thanks.
He He. They may be framing the streams, but you can get them without the ads. All you need to do is get the .smil files and edit the appropriate streams out. Problem is that .smil files given by RealPlayer don't have DNS addresses of .rm streams. Those have to be found. I found them when I tried to connect to the server and RealPlayer said: Can't access (...) file. So it's all legal for me :P
Dealtime.com was quite helpful this christmas season. I found an Olympus D-450z for $380 while the list was $499. In Times Square in Manhattan, a few days before new year's, I went to several camera shops to see the prices. One guy had the 450z for $450 (the store's so-called "blowout price") and a guy across the street had it for $550. At that moment I realized how stupid the masses must be, because if that guy could get away with selling things for $100 more than the guy across the street, then people are obviously willing to pay the extra money rather than take a few minutes to shop around -- even when surrounded by options!
So in a way, this is related to the topic, because I think ads probably do work on the majority -- the people who would shell out that extra $100 for no reason. The only ads I pay attention to are those that introduce a new product or provide some kind of information as to why a product is better than one I already use. But unsubstantiated crap like "Duracell lasts 6 times longer than Energizer," then contradicted on the next channel by "Energizer outlasts Duracell 3 to 1," I don't pay any attention to that. But if I have to buy corn flakes, then why not buy Total corn flakes, which have 100% of vitamins and minerals (this is an example, I dont eat corn flakes).
Sometimes I click on banner ads. Like, "Oh, I want to buy some blank CDs at outpost.com. Let me go to go2mac.com and click on their banner ad so that they share in the wealth." I don't click on ads otherwise, and I make it a point to only click on ads that go directly to the site I want (ie, not involving doubleclick or imgis or whatever the other banner ad servers are); that's just a personal thing though.
And as for free internet, the banner ad there feels like someone is nailing me in the brain, so there they're inflicting pain on me so it's like they're charging me... or something... but it's easy to ditch the banner ad on a lot of the clients. NetZero's was so easy...
___________________
rooooar
This is ridiculous. I'm all for intellectual property, and copyright. I firmly believe in being paid for the fruit of you labor. That said, this is ridiculous. Lets look at details:
QUOTE
"The National Football League... is asking for more than $5 million in damages, was particularly focused on shutting down iCraveTV this weekend, when the Super Bowl championship game will be broadcast. "
UNQUOTE
The fact that the Superbowl was highlighted makes me suspicious. The only reason for this, IMHO, is that they want their ratings, which don't get counted on ICraveTV's rebroadcast.
QUOTE:
"...that Canada's laws give it the right to retransmit broadcast television signals, in the same way that cable companies and satellite companies do. As long as the company doesn't cut or insert its own commercials into the programming, and ultimately pays copyright holders for their work, iCraveTV's action is completely legal..."
UNQUOTE
When you consider that Canadian law allows for this, so long as they pay the copyright holders, their only motivation can be the ratings.
Finally, how many people have the bandwidth for this? They aren't even touching a signifigant segment of the market. In fact, by rebroadcasting content, they are probably EXTENDING the market by getting people who ordinarily wouldn't be watching television to view the webcast
This is just a case of a small company getting slapped for daring to do something useful/cool.
--Ruhk
404 Error:
Actually, I quite agree. As opposed to the DVD thing, this actually has some basis in law.
But how is a US judge going to shut down a canadian company?? Couldn't they just pull out of America? This has been raised in other comments and is a good question.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com