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.
"
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 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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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
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
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.
Reason is because they registered their domain name using Pennsylvania as the address. Oversight?
Registrant:
WILLIAM R. CRAIG CONSULTING (ICRAVETV-DOM)
904 Beaver St
SEWICKLEY, PA 15143
US
Domain Name: ICRAVETV.COM
Pork is not a verb
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: