Slashdot Mirror
Deal Reached in iCraveTV Case
Anonymous Coward writes "According to the Associated Press and Altavista News, iCraveTV agreed yesterday not to rebroadcast American TV programming. See the full story here. Of particular interest is that 'The plaintiffs -- including Disney, MGM, Paramount and ABC, CBS and Fox -- accused iCraveTV of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition.'"
Its funny when you do your impression of a weasel.
Are you planning on attending Law School after you graduate from college (and after you graduate from High School, of course)?
Its funny when you do your impression of a weasel.
Are you planning on attending Law School after you graduate from college (and after you graduate from High School, of course)?
Are you planning on attending public school after you get out of preschool?
Technologican innovation?
You're just kidding around with us, aren't you?
I wouldn't be able to say why, but the NFL definitely cares which games are broadcast. The Oakland Raiders haven't had a televised home game since I've lived out here, because they don't sell out any of their games (okay, I think the Monday night games were on.) I guess the NFL thinks that not showing the game will make people go to it live, but in reality it just makes me not care much about the Raiders.
I love this attitude: "Treat me like a thief and maybe I'll just become one." Yeah, that'll show 'em! Are all of your actions motivated by desire for establishment approval?
Industry was right in this case, too. Fuck those ICrave losers. Canadians can suck my dick. Fucking retard Canucks.
Your local cable company does just that, actually.
Whats the big deal with Monty Python? I heard he is a nazi.
Excellent point. I watched a "bootleg" realvideo version of the Buffy season finale from last May that had been postponed in the US due to Columbine. The Canadian licensee played it as originally scheduled and someone in Canada converted a tape of the show to realvideo.
WB was very irked by this, but I can't see how it hurt them. No one that can recieve programming over the airways in full NTSC quality would bother with watching the same show in RealVideo on a 2"x3" inset screen. When WB finally did put on the show, I watched it again so I could fully experience the action.
Not really. What matters to the TV stations and networks is the number of eyeballs that fall upon their ads. Whether those eyeballs are using a television or computer monitor doesn't matter, except for the fact that there are mechanisms in place to track TV viewers (and thus charge advertisers for delivering their eyeballs), and probably none for iCraveTV viewers.
iCrave is located in canada thus meaning they *don't* have to following the ruling of a US court. why they are is beyond me.. however it is against the law in canada (to my knowledge) to rebroadcast with extra advertisements (i.e. the banners around the broadcast). simply put, if they removed the banners or had it on a seperate browser window or something, then they could have easily gotten away with anything. I am seriously thinking of moving to canada and rebroadcasting US tv stations just to piss off the tv stations. A DSS satelite dish, a few receivers, a few capture cards and a fat pipe is all i need.
-K.
Why? Because we're not all thieves.
Although, being treated as such certainly encourages many of us to drop any pretense of civilization.
This argument would be better framed for the novice in these terms: "Jack Valenti declares the average American consumer to be thieving bastards." or "Chairmain of Geffen Records declares that Music consumers simply can't be trusted".
Canadians are some of the dumbest people in the world. Look at who the take after! The disgusting French! All a bunch of fags and bitches and whores.
But corporate America still must be bound by the laws of the other countries they do business in. If network affiliates in Buffalo are going to use the airwaves in Canada by letting their signals pass over the border, then they should expect those signals to no longer be under their control. If the NFL or TV Networks have a problem, they should have sued the Canadian government, not a company that was simply operating within the bounds of Canadian law.
Given this as a precedent, a company could establish a huge transmitter on some small Caribean island, or on Cuba and broadcast static accross the whole VHF and UHF spectra making any TV reception in the Southern US impossible.
And I don't get why this post has been moderated "Offtopic". Copyright industry astroturfers?
Plagarism.....? I always wondered about that term, it seems like a term to frighten or intimidate High-school and college kids from doing research and learning. Yeah so maybe they won't have to work as hard...who cares! It just seems so uptight (elitist) to think one can't learn by reviewing others work instead of coming up with original content.
Think of it this way...
If a person goes into a public square or mall and puts a sign with their manifesto on it. Or they spout off on a certain subject. That content or information is now considered free for anyone to reproduce, distort, or claim as their own.
The net is no different than any other public area. Were people come together and spout off on any number of inane topics.
Now imagine an author who read his entire book in public. If I recorded that, i can replay that anywhere i want for my personal use.
Whether u agree with my assertions or not...the reallity is this is happening (MP3s, MP2s etc...)
Instead of debating whether this should be or not. It would be more productive to find original ways to capitalize on this new culture. It is so old-fashioned and backward to complain about change. Successful people and companies know how to adapt and benefit from a new environment.
"survival of the fittest"
In response to ur analogy...let me ask u this...did the author write that book so others can view it? If so did he only want those to view it that had direct access to a book dealer or could afford it...
Makers of content have to think about themselves now in light of the net...They should as themselves this...Do i want as many people to enjoy and get the message i am trying to give to people...or am i solely out there to make as much money as possible and Fuk anyone who cant afford or cant get it where i sell it...
I say every author should have their complete works on line for easy download and viewing...isn't that the purpose of teaching to spread ur knowledge?
"think and ye will learn"
Those sports contracts cost BILLIONS
Imagine the billions lost when unauthorized viewers "pirate" all those cool superbowl commercials without viewing them on the native channel.
Who's the pirate? Big media or consumers?
Well, first off. Monty Python is not a person, it's a comedy troupe. Not only that but, they only like burning witches, not "inferior" races.
Monopolies can only come about through free competition. The principle of rational self-interest proves this. Where monopolies are outlawed, free competition is impossible and the consumer loses.
Take your homolesbian eurosocialism back to Canada, you pathetic creep.
A government monopoly is no monopoly at all, but rather simple tyranny.
Chaotic, anarchic markets are inefficient. They must be controlled by a central authority. Government is obviously totally incompetent at this task. Businesses are naturally suited to it by definition. It's easy to construct an airtight logical proof of the fact that they'll do a good job.
If we let competition determine the best business for the job of administering each area of the market, we end up with great efficiencies and high-quality administration of the market, from which everyone benefits.
Cheap name-calling will get you nowhere. Canada is a socialist dictatorship. England is a socialist dictatorship. You seem to be in denial about this. Of course, it's only natural: If the left were to admit its own crimes, it would have to start apologizing. I despise you, but in a way I do understand your motives.
Dude, it has taken forever to locate you.
e-mail: Shane.Isbell@dresdnerrcm.com
Ya but did you click the link? ;) mwahahahaha!!!!
no one pays for network tv. when you copy a novel onto your webpage it's the same as pirating software, but rebroastcasting tv is like pirating freeware.
heh, pirating freeware. i'll have to remember that one...
These were televisions they did not own either ... people were standing around in front of a mall display watching TV that Radio Shack was rebroadcasting - for free right there in the mall.
...
Sometimes just for a thrill I watch TV on televisions I don't own. Now I phone IP laywers and taunt them about it regularly
Ayn Rand is irrelevant here or any philosphies on content distribution or Intellectual property...especially those as old and archaic as her's...
The old world is dead...A new one has started...This new world is based on freely disseminated information...
Smart people won't fight this but instead adapt and thrive in a new environment...That's why the younger generation are so computer savvy compared to the older...
The idea That articles or posessions in my house are similar to content or Intellectual property that someone puts on the public for the purpose of distribution to gain profits...os grossly inadequate and quite distorted...
For one, things in my home are not being offered to the general public at a price...Secondly i dont assume that anything i own cannot be gotten by some other means, besides entering my home...
So called Intellectual property or copyrighted content that might be sought after due to a price tag, popular interest or personal desires...has a way of isolating others...now u don't want that do u?
The point of the new world...spearheaded by the Net...is unification, the sharing of different ideas and collaboration...It is in fact a "marketplace of Ideas" and therefore free from traditional Copyright laws...That is why it is a losing battle for anyone trying to restrict what is presented on the web...The people wont have it...It's like kids in a candy store...running towards the most colorful candies first...
"sharing is caring"
They still "broadcast" those waves into the air ... until they deliver all content on their own privately owned wires they can go screw themselves I say ....
... which is why I where a tin foil hat and feel no guilt wathcing TV for free.
They're polluting our atmosphere with their wave pulses
Yeah Right! .com while living in the U.S. they'd have probably been laughed out of court in Canada (then again we have our share of moronic judges :( too). It's perfectly legal here to rebroadcast an antenna signal, so long as the signal is rebroadcast unaltered (Berne convention not withstanding). Meaning with commercials intact. I can find no mention of it being illegal to add to that signal(i.e. banner ads).
Only under American Law! We're not American up here (Yet!!).
If ICraveTV's owner hadn't made the mistake of registering his
Besides, does anyone really thing a piddly little square on a monitor will replace a T.V.? Hah! I can just see all the boys crowding around the monitor a cracking a few brews, while squinting to see who just sacked the QB. Ridiculous. We're still many years away from wide-spread high bandwidth where a full screen quality signal could be broadcast, and by then you'll probably be able to get a digital signal from the source instead of a rebroadcast analog signal. Just another case of big boys with a big stick pushing the little guy out of the playground so they can have the park for themselves.
I bet we see a similar service from one of the plaintiffs by this time next year.
JME.L.
"The problem with communication is the illusion it has occurred."
The bar had this sign out front "watch the super bowl on large screen TV here" (I didn't know what the super bowl was but it was on TV and lots of people liked it). When I went home it was on TV in my house too so it must've been free.
Personally I think the bar was USING the content of the TV station to trick patrons into staying there and buying beer. I phoned a lawyer about it (I hate that bar) but nothing happened.
If you paid attention to the media like you say you do you'd notice how all the older people think "the Net" (that's what they call it) is special, different, educational, dangerous, (good|bad) for kids, is feeding an ecnomomic boom, blah blah blah. Basically they think it's disconnected form the normal world and is SPECIAL. So things you do in the "normal" world if you do them on the "Net" are bad, a violation of this or that ancient principle of law etc.
These guys also know that there is no "real" economic boom (once you get beyond required goods food and basic increases in productivity that come from manufacturing etc nothing is "real" it's jut acceleration of the velocity of money exchange) - that all this fluff and giant megacorp Disney media crap is like a house of cards it could fall down at any moment so they FIGHT to keep it up. what did you expect?
Mark your maps folks, we have a new line to
Flint.
It's just like setting up an amplifier so people on boats at sea can watch TV ... why *on earth* would these dumb stations & companies want to stop this?
As much as I love to beat up on the MPAA and media companies in general, I think it's appropriate to play Devil's Advocate for a moment and point out why they're upset about having their content rebroadcast -- intact, but with added advertising banners surrounding it. If only because knowing how your enemy thinks makes it easier to defeat it.
Basically, you can only pay attention to one thing at a time. You might be aware of multiple things, but you can't read two things simultaneously. If one of their commercials is showing, and an iCrave ad banner is being shown above it, there's a good chance that an iCrave viewer might pay attention to the surrounding banner instead of the advertisement being rebroadcast, if only because he can click on it if it looks interesting right there on the spot.
Where things are REALLY going to get shitty is when the US government gets involved to stop iCrave (or future companies like them) from negotiating directly with Fox, ABC, MTV, etc. for rebroadcasting rights just like any other affiliate.... or for that matter, to stop companies like Time-Warner from using its gobs of bandwidth to let DSL subscribers (in their non-cable markets) who subscribe to AOL (can we say "value added service") watch live time-warner programming straight from their internet connection.
Just look at the grief the FCC & Congress have caused people with satellite dishes...
Also, whats the big deal if people kick your nads? As long as it's live and not recorded, I don't understand what they're all up in arms about... all their gettig is more nad-kickers= more friends.
As a side note, i plan to start kicking your nads as son as i get a faster boot so BRUNES69 WATCH OUT! IM KICKING YOUR NADS! :o),/p>
What really doesn't make sense is that this is a Canadian company being sued in US court for something done in Canada. Do they not get that it's simply not feasible to make every company everywhere in the world subject to every country's law simultaneously? It seems to me obeying Chinese law could be a problem.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you're a rather tedious and stupid pedant.
networks get their money from advertisements, right? the more viewers they get the more money they get from advertisers. iCrave's rebroadcasts showed commercials, so the networks are getting millions of new viewers, and millions of more dollars. therefore, they do see a penny of it. quite a few, actually.
maybe the problem is networks can't count the number of internet users watching their shows through iCrave, so they can't adjust their rates to advertisers to make that additional money. this seems like it could be solved very easily, a simple collaboration between iCrave and the big networks to share viewing logs, etc.
also, you pay for CD's and music. you don't pay for tv
Why would it matter to the NFL if many people see the broadcasts? Ok, there are more than 6 billion people on the planet, but each football stadium holds only about 60-70,000. And there are only 30 or so teams. Tack on to that many of the popular teams have waiting lists of years just to get tickets. In some places it is all but impossible to see a game live. So why would they care?
Nice Flame. It *almost* annoyed me.
:)
Just so you can get your facts striaght in the next one. Canadians take after the British, not French. We do have a minor French population that whines a lot and keeps threating to leave, but they are a minority.
Man, and you call us dumb.
Try harder next time.
He's a bratty damn 'youth' on Slashdot. What did you think he was?
Yes, turn this into another opportunity to beg for money for the fscking EFF, why don't you?
I'd say give them ALL your money, and kill yourself.
Do it, because it's "for the hackers." It's "for freedom."
Lame libbertardians.
I am going to make a site hosted in canada where people can go to my site and use my canadian IP so they can get TV from ICraveTV and I am going to patent it.
I think that's a point many here seem to miss.
This iCrave place is dime-a-dozen. What did they do? Roll in some equipment and take it online.
Anybody can do that, and the Networks don't have to knuckle under to the first clown who starts doing something.
Although, being treated as such certainly encourages many of us to drop any pretense of civilization.
It's unusual for one of you little 'net hoodlums to admit openly that you only pretend at being civilized.
And it's truly sad that your value system is such that you consider anything you can get away with as morally proper.
Anyhow, you'll grow up. We have patience.
You've been posting rather stupid ill thought out comments all night.
Here's your cookie.
Money talks, people. If you don't believe that look at the financial markets. MONEY, literally makes this world go round and round.
:)
Now where my martini?
Who are you to judge what is art and what isn't?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I don't, either.
The more viewers, the better the ad rate card, and the more likely you'll get sponsors to begin with.
Our local TV station ran into something like this. The cable carrier MUST carry their signal, and the satellite dishes are NEVER allowed to carry the signal, that is, satellite subscribers are never given a waiver.
Well, the local cable guys messed with the basic package, moved the popular channels into the very expensive premium packages, and told customers to pay up or else.
Now a third of the potential viewership has a dish, and never sees the local station programming. The sales people keep quitting because they're no commissions for them anymore, the local business owners won't even talk to them.
The station lost half a million last year, looks like fold city.
Answer me this one more time, "Why do network stations want to limit their viewership?"
Let me preface this by saying I do NOT support the rights of huge American Companies (especially the NFL and NBA) to strong-arm the industry into pandering to their profit-centric desires. However, discussion seems to have universally missed one point: Michael McCabe, president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, said, "Today's settlement signals that the rights of copyright holders and creators cannot be ignored.'' The Canadian broadcasters who sued iCraveTV included the government-financed Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Global TV and TVOntario, the provincial education broadcaster. The point is, this was not America vs. the World, Canadian companies were suing ICTV as well. Also, when it comes to distrubtion... the point was made a few posts back about Al's Auto Barn of Buffalo... local network affiliates pay the major networks to allow them to rebroadcast their signals (i.e. content) to a local market with local advertising. These advertising dollars flow into the affiliate and from there into the conglomerate (NBC, CBS, etc.) If people decide to watch TV via ICTV then Al's Auto Barn of Buffalo is getting extra eyes watching his commerical, but Bob's Auto Barn of Des Moines (or whereever) loses eyes, so for him there is no benefit, and he begins to wonder about his advertising dollars. This whole thing boils down to return on investment and who controls the content which draws that investment.
Article I
Section 8
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
I think the lack of codec's would be first problem. We could use patent free publicly available codecs, but I don't think we'll find anything near as good as Real, MS or Apple have.
The second problem is the server. Even a napster style arrangement needs a server to allow clients and servers to find one another. The lawers would probably go after the person running the server. This could work with a distributed server arrangement like DNS plus some sort of dynamic root server setup plus public codecs, or dynamically linking to closed source codec libraries. Maybe we could use IRC servers as a difficult to shut down way of distributing dynamic server addresses. There are options... I'm not going to stop thinking about this any time soon. Anyone interested in participating in such a project can email me at vic@zymsys.com. I may not be able to participate in the long run, but I can at least help us start.
You dont see the point, watching TV is Free.... If CD were free and there were ads in them, they would have no problems if you copied them.
The thing here is that TV is paid for by advertisers and they want eyeballs, as many eyeballs as possible. And dont say "targeted marketting" because there is nothing targeted in the superbowl.
And it is only a violation of a government granted monopoly, they have no rights. The people has rights, companies have privileges.
"To the execs here however the idea behind iCrave is deplorable and seeks to destroy the corporations they have built. They view this as an afront to their life's work"
I have no sympathy for these execs. They've spent their lifetimes trying to build a monopoly (if it weren't for exclusive television rights in sports I would be able to choose where I watched them... I wouldn't have to put up with their sub-standard broadcast quality and presenters with a collective IQ below 10. Right now, the small choice I get is because I live by the American-Canadian border). These guys need to be more flexible and be prepared for change rather than stagnating things for the consumers. Yes, I understand they want to protect what they've built, it's lining their pockets, which doesn't benefit me as a consumer.
You're using a specific example of something that is very graphically enhanced. Do you think Bob's Couch-o-Rama cares that if the commercial was a lower quality when you learned that Loveseats were half off?
Not all commercials have fine details that will be missed by a lower quality signal. I got the gist of the Mountain Dew commercial with the Cheetah when I saw an online version of it.
You also have to realise that people who are watching things online like this are going to realise that the quality would be sub-par, and would not hold it against the advertisor.
If they did, I'm sure advertisers would have found a way to block anybody with bad reception on their television by now.
The TV networks irradiate us all with their TV signals then get their panties in a bunch when someone merely redirects and repurposes the signal. If they are going to sue people for using their content we (US citizens) sould extract a far greater price for their private use of the airwaves.
Bad argument actually. It's just a matter of time before you get great quality on the net too.
-- 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.
Perhaps I'm being too cynical here, but I believe the day a media conglomorate exec overcomes his fear of the Internet and does something sensible with it is the day a genetically engineered flying pig crashes through his penthouse window and hits him on the head.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
The whole thing falls apart because local affiliates get screwed out of local time in network programming. If everyone's watching iCraveTV, nobody's watching WPXI in Pittsburgh.* Outside big markets like New York and Los Angeles, most affiliates run on tight budgets, particularly if the network is small, like The WB or UPN. If small affiliates like those go under, the network loses impressions (RealPlayer on a 56K dialup is a poor substitute), the network loses money, and the already below-average programming gets worse.
* I chose WPXI as an example only because I can see their studio outside my office window. If I was on the other side of the building, it would be KDKA. No commentary is expressed or implied. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. See dealer for lease terms.
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
This sig intentionally left blank.
The networks may have been interested in the idea of allowing iCrave to do this if the company had come to them first and said, "Hey, let us open up whole new audiences for you."
No, the Networks would not have been interested. I've talked with them, it's pretty much 100% "NO TV ON THE INTERNET" with the exception of the Networks' own small experiments. Actually, they will license the shows to you for a few million per episode...
What, so the VBC's with VB$'s can hire pro-baseball players while the little guy still has to content with the accounting department's weekend softball team? Sounds fair.
Feh.
--
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
A good first attempt would have been to peer to something like TorIX.
You could then get lists from all the peers of subnets that contained local ports, then only serve to those IP's.
A side benefit of this "Killer Application" could be the encouragement of more local peering and perhaps even implimentation of Multicast.
Oh Well, back to dreaming,
Tom
The problem the networks have with the rebroadcast of their signals is that icravetv plans to sell advertising, which they place over the content which isn't there's to begin with.
-lj 'Oh I'm a Lumberjack and I'm OK!
Copyright promotes "Science" and patents promote "useful Arts." Seems like Congress has gotten a little carried away with copyright, eh?
why this issue ended up in a US court? I don't care about whether the rebroadcast is moral/ethical or legal in the US.
How did it end up in a US court, if iCrave is a Canadian company, and rebroadcasting is legal in Canada?
'sapientia potestas est'
Really. I don't see it pushing the planet around on its axis, do you? Or around the sun for that matter. I learned in school that this was all happening before humans were walking on the Earth. Obviously this was all a conspiracy by those nasty teachers.
Either that, or you have a non-literal interpretation of 'literally'.
(cue Monty Python)
You can keep your Marxist ways
For it's only just a phase
Accountancy makes the world go 'round.
--
--
The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge. You get it in the end.
I got into college using that as the topic of my essay.
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
What people don't seem to nderstand about mp3's are the following:
1. For most of the population, $12 is just not alot of money to spend for a CD, so instead of having to waste multiple hours ripping songs from someone else's CD, or downloading MP3's, then having the technical knowledge to turn those songs into a CD, people will buy the CD, because IT IS EASIER.
2. Companies declare their losses based on how many pirated copies they estimate exist - they seem to think that just because a person has downloaded a copy of some song that if it were not avlaible to them via a pirated channel, that of COURSE they would purchase it. This is wrong - everyone who has MP3s knows that half of the music they download they only kinda like, and so wouldn't pay for - and the other half they prolly have on CD.
So - that being a response to your MP3 comment, now I'll look at the iCrave comment - iCrave posts banners, but they keep the advertisement in place that existed - so as a result - the advertisers get a WIDER audience, so therefore the advertising slots are worth MORE money - because the commercial is playied on the standard TV channel, AND over the web. So because of this - the TV stations could justify charging MORE for a slot.
Keep in mind - people are not PURELY driven by money - many are driven by ease of use, and CD's are easier to aquire (accept for perhaps rare titles) then making an MP3 cd. Internet TV is similar - why watch a small crappy TV window that uses your bandwith, and shows a banner unless you just can't get the show you want to see? And who cares if you do - when the same commercials are being played?
just some thoughts on a misguided industry
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
No... What they're saying is that because it's their content, they expect to be paid for it, just like they are from regular cable stations. I'd bet if someone showed up at their door with a real business plan, capital of their own, they could arrange to acquire rebroadcasting rights to some of the networks content. But they'ed have to pay for it, just like every other channel does.
Right now, iCraveTV was overlaying their own ads, so they were profiting from the networks investment without actually reimbursing them. further, it's not apparent that they were giving the networks the numbers of eyeballs that were actually viewing the shows, who was seeing what ads, etc, so the increased viewership means nothing to them when they have no data on it. They can't go to their advertisers and ask for an extra $5,000 per ad because there's an unknown amount of people viewing their content on the internet.
The net is not and should not be a "safe haven" where people and companies don't have to obey the same rules and laws that conventional companies have to endure.
Rebroadcasting Television content on the web may and probably does benefit advertisers... The problem lies in the fact that the networks can accurately gauge their audience anymore and therefore can't give relevant numbers to their advertisers.
A medium could have been reached, if iCrave had decided to go the safe route rather than the "well, i can do it, so therefore i should do it" route.
I'm being redundant to myself here, but once again, one of the problems was that though the size of their audience was growing, the networks had no way to gauge exactly how much it was growing... They couldn't get any viewship information like they can through Neilsen and the cable companies. So the extra eyeballs essentially mean zip to them in terms of raising their advertising rates, unless they can get full access to log files etc...
Even with access to those logs, it'd take a while before they could realistically integrate netcasting with broadcasting... There'd be a significant amount of reprogramming theye'd need to do in order to integrate the two data sets.
Small company gave us grief so we refuse to deal with them regardless of potential gain?
Maybe if small company had asked first, things would be different. In this case, they took first, and didn't stop taking until the networks got their lawyers into the act... And you expect the networks to want to work with this company? There's plenty of other ones out there, either today, tomrrow or next week, that can do the same exact thing, but in a manner that's more agreeable to the networks.
That's irrelevant to my primary point.
Let's walk through another example.
I'm hungry. I don't have any money. Since I don't have any money, I can't buy a McDonalds burger. My neighbor (Bob) has a rancid, three-day old burger that he's not using and offers it to me. You would say that because I'm not going to buy a burger anyway, it should be okay with McDonalds corporate office if Bob gives me his burger.
I say that even though McDonalds doesn't make any money in either transaction, McDonalds has reason not to let me eat Bob's rancid burger. The reason: quality. If I eat the rancid burger, McDonalds may lose future business.
If I watch Star Wars: Episode One in a three-inch window on my 19-inch computer monitor with $40 computer speakers because the local movie theater isn't showing it, can you understand why I may be turned off by the experience and not want to see Episode Two in the theater when it is released?
Sometimes, in an advertiser's eyes, it's better to have a few eyeballs miss the message than to see the message under less than great circumstances. That's the point that folks here are missing.
InitZero
Canadian law (or atleast the providence that icrave is located in) states that anyone can rebroadcast broadcast TV signals.
'Fraid iCrave isn't located in a providence. It'd be located in a province, as Canada is split up into 10 of them, as well as 3 territories. Sorry if that was just a typo.
StylishPants.Org - Home of everything that's interesting, and nothing that's not.
Re-read your copy of the Berne Convention. You don't know what you are talking about.
l
www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.htm
Article 9:
"Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. It shall be a matter for legislation in the countroes if the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this convention."
Looks to me like the author of the television show has exclusive right to authorize broadcast, except in special cases explicitly authorized by legislation.
no one pays for network tv. when you copy a novel onto your webpage it's the same as pirating software, but rebroastcasting tv is like pirating freeware.
The television program is owned by whoever is considered it's author, and that entity has the exclusive right to authorize its broadcast.
The difference is that the author of the freeware has authorized its use as such; the author of the programs being rebroadcast by iCraveTV has, in most cases,not done so.
If ICraveTV's owner hadn't made the mistake of registering his .com while living in the U.S. they'd have probably been laughed out of court in Canada
Only if Canada does not adhere to international treaties which it has signed. See www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/9.html.
Why iCraveTV chose to show up in that PA court I will never know, I sure wouldn't have as it has no jurisdiction
iCraveTV was incorporated in PA by an American citizen. That puts them firmly in the juristiction of the PA courts. If you're going to try and avoid federal laws, do it properly like paradisepoker.com does, in Costa Rica.
-B
So are you saying that copyright holders don't have the right to say what is done with their property?
If iCrave is allowed to operate, and I am say, a local FOX affiliate, what is to stop me from "borrowing" NBC's feed, and showing "ER" instead of "Who wants to Marry My Dog" or whatever?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
To the execs here however the idea behind iCrave is deplorable and seeks to destroy the corporations they have built.
Please tell the execs that they should spend 15 minutes online with their 15-year old sons (like the iCrave guy did) and see how neat the Internet is.
They view this as an afront to their life's work.
So they're scared and hurt. Hmmm, what do most animals do in that situation...oh yeah, lash out at anything that passes near-by.
It's unfortunate that having enough money gives you the power to stop technological progress. I guess it's not surprising since it lets you get away with murder too.
--
+&x
You're missing the fact that the networks could account for the new viewing patterns statistically (Nielsen ratings, etc.) and thus adjust the cost of the advertising.
More viewers = higher ad rates.
A problem with iCraveTV is that the advertisers are getting more viewers for free, which means the broadcasters are losing money.
In theory, iCraveTV might have cut a deal where they would monitor what people watched, collecting statistics, and then the networks could use that to raise ad rates.
However, the networks would probably make more money by licensing their programs to local stations in Canada, and allowing iCraveTV to broadcast shows could mess this up.
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
I was thinking what I would do if I had a colossal salary and no conscience.
jpowers
-jpowers
-jpowers
Also, remember that "basic cable" used to include all the ad-supported channels; but this changed, not because of corporate greed (or not exclusively because of corporate greed, anyway), but because of the regulatory changes which mandated (a) a low price for basic services, and (b) "must-carry" rules for broadcast channels. Perhaps it's different elsewhere, but there was no "tiered" service in my area (Houston) until after these new regulations were enacted.
(Granted that these rules didn't apply to satellite TV, but the satellite providers had to compete with this new pricing structure offered by cable, so they went to a tiered system as well.)
Actually, I never looked at the ad portion when I watched. I was thankful that they chose the lower and right sides to place the banners, because this is where Real Player 'snaps' when placed in minimal mode. Just drag to the lower right corner of your desktop, do a little test placing, and boom, no banner border.
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
My understanding of the case is that under Canadian Law (where iCraveTV is based) one is *allowed* to re-broadcast a transmission in its entirety. What iCraveTV was trying to do was claim that they are akin to a Cable Television station (as the transmissions go over wire). The problem was that Americans could see the shows. And, as we all know, anytime an American is involved (in any situation) then American Law applies.
And thank you for pointing it out - I have known about this, but I was concentrating so much on North America (USA in particular), that I didn't mention this. Are there any other countries that do this?
Personally I think the license sucks, in todays market. IIRC, isn't Britain allowing for private broadcasters to compete? If they are, I am wondering what will happen to the licensing fee - whether it will stay, go away, or be reduced? It made sense for the early days of TV (when there were few stations), but in today's market, you shouldn't have to be forced to have a license - especially if you never watch that particular broadcaster!
What if you don't even use the TV as a TV? From what I understand, you still have to pay the license fee, correct? Now, some may ask "Why would you buy a TV if you aren't going to use it as a TV?", to which I would reply "Well, what if I was building a VR HMD from Casio pocket TV's?"...
I tell ya, they got you coming and going, all the way to the grave!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You are correct - you can sometimes get more, and with a big enough antenna, you can get a LOT more (my dad had a friend once who used to regularly pick up stations in Los Angeles on his rig - at the time we lived in Bakersfield!).
But with standard rabbit ears, at least where I am now (Phoenix, Arizona - Cave Creek area), 3-4 channels is about it (ok, on a good day when the wind is blowing right and the rabbits are in their holes, maybe 6 channels). Those channels are pretty clear. Of those, one is the religious channel - which I steer clear of, except when I need to laugh (pagan comedy, anyone?).
When I spoke about satellite dishes, I tried to make the distinction between them (the big 8-12 foot K-Band things) and a DSS/DirectTV dish - I may have not been clear enough...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Do you pay a license on a per-TV basis, per year, or do you pay it once a year, no matter how many TV's your household has?
If it's the latter, this is more fair - though if you don't watch TV, but you do buy a TV for non-TV watching purposes (maybe it serves as a monitor for an old C=64, eh?), should you really have to subsidize other people's watching habits?
I would say it's fair if you do watch TV for entertainment's sake - I do know that the few BBC produced programs I have watched were of excellent quality - much better in terms of entertainment value than much of the crap on American TV...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Watch them do exactly that - I would be willing to bet within 6 months we will see this, and force iCrave to go under. That, or one of the biggies will BUY iCrave TV...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Maybe its also about control which areas of the world get to watch what. Say iCrave broadcasts a local/Canadian tv show/sports event. Why should I pay x dollars on cable/pay-per-view down here in Texas when I just log on and get it for free?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Ah! but Sony isn't making money from the quality of the programming. they are making money from the quality of the TV. iCave is taking someone elses work and selling advertising space around it while at the same time not rewarding the actual owners of the material. As someone else has mentioned, this is the same thing as putting someone else's webpage in a fram and then selling banner adds around it. Its wrong and if its not technicly illegal, it should be. How would slashdot like it if CNN put slashdot.org in a frame and put adds around it??
If i were a broadcast network. i would want to be pretty sure that the only company making any money off of my $5million prime time drama is me or possibly the people who make it for me. if someone else tapes its and sends it out again, with more ads, even if they don't put the ads in the actualy tv picture, i expect compensation above and beyond what i already got for the orginal ads. Why should i expect it? because I created the content. Period. I own it, i have allowed it to be publicly distributed in a manner that i chose. People can buy descramblers to try to get past any protections i have set up. i don't like that, but air is air and if i'm sending a signal thru that cable that comes into your house then thats my problem. But what you can't do it record MY programming and then send it out in another medium. especialy if you are making money from it. If you are, then you are no better than someone who sells bootleg tapes. That is what iCave is trying to do. Make money from someone else's work. Sounds alot like what big companies do, try to screw over the little guy. But when the little guy tries to screw over the big companies, is that any better? of course not! What if you are not making money from redisributing someone elses content? If its just to a couple of friends, no one cares, if its to half a million people? well you better get ready to pay. those network affiliates pay and awfull large amount of money to the networks for the right to show their programming.
"What is preventing some other company creating the same thing in a different country that doesn't have US restrictions?"
:)
Like, Canada, perhaps?
I'm frightened by the implication that Canada is subject to US retrictions... Who exactly in the US were those stations after anyways?
You also have to realize that Canadian rebroadcast of American shows on Canadian channels have ALL CANADIAN Commercials. So there would be lost revenue dollars, and hundred of thousands of Americans craving real Canadian Beer that they couldn't get. ("Strange Brew" comes to mind... Global Conquest through Canadian Beer. Great movie.)
:)
This is why we Canadians never get to see all those fancy Superbowl commercials the Yanks keep talking about...
If the purpose of copyright is to promote the arts, then I see no reason why a copyright holder should be allowed to vindictively deny others the right to use that copyright holder's work to make money, unless in doing so that second party in some way lowered the copyright holder's income. Unfortunately, I doubt this is the way the copyright system in the U.S. is set up right now....
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
AOL's building set-top boxes. They've got Time-Warner under their wing. I bet 10 years from now, most cable will be video-on-demand in MPEG-2 fed over IP. We can see the groundwork being laid already.
Don't question the motivation of the networks to get their product out. iCraveTV drew fire from them because if successful, it would have prevented the networks from drawing a premium for TV content partnerships, both domestic and international. Additionally, they'd have no control over the advertising: who's going to shop Al's Auto Barn in Buffalo over the net from a 30-second spot? The networks will want much more control of their content, and they sure as hell don't want an intermediary such as iCraveTV stealing their thunder.
And anyway, the quality was terrible. Let's track it. Network, to station, over the air, and then served up on Real? I'd have sued them just on general principle. It's like pumping out a tape I recorded from an AM radio station using a microphone. The only way this stuff happens is via a reliable broadband connection. Think about it: the cable goes out for five minutes and everybody loses their mind. You're going to put that content on low-bandwidth, low-quality (see: AOL) connections and hope to derive a userbase from it? Bah!
Exactly. Canada explicitly excepts real-time transmission of broadcast as long as the advertising remains intact, because they believe this does not reasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. Ken
I wonder how long it will take before convergence actually happens. If the networks had behaved like this 50 years ago, TV as we know it would have never happened.
Ken
Re-read your copy of the Berne Convention. You don't know what you are talking about.
Ken
coming directly from iCraveTV's site:
"Indeed, the settlement agreements in both Canada and the U.S. specifically recognize that iCraveTV can again start retransmitting broadcast signals in Canada once Canadian law is clarified"
Actually you CAN rebroadcast under certain conditions.
Of course the broadcasters will try to convince you otherwise.
I think they should be allowed to transmit anything they can pick up (what I feel is the spirit of the law)
Are the damn americans going to stop transmitting things that invade our airwaves? I saw if you can pick it up them its yours.
I'm sick of them trying to tell the world what they think is right.
(Moderators: Please do not moderate this up or down)
hehehe, that's gotta be the funniest thing I've herd on slashdot for a LONG time.
404 File Not Found The requested
Some slight critiques
/dev/scd0 -X -Y -Z -B)
$12 is just not alot of money to spend for a CD
Sure $12 isn't a lot. Unfortunatly, $12 won't buy you a CD. Please, go into a mainstream music store and look at the prices! Do you know they still want $35 USD for the White Album? Britney Spears, $19. The only thing I've seen at that price are twenty year old Simon & Garfunkel albums.
so instead of having to waste multiple hours ripping songs from someone else's CD
Perhaps you should invest in a newer CDROM drive. The last time I saw it take that long was on a two-speed Teac, and with all of cdparanoia's error-correction on. On this here 40x IBM, I can rip an entire CD in about six minutes. (cdparanoia
having the technical knowledge to turn those songs into a CD
Have you checked out the state of CD burning programs, especially for Win32? Most of them will decompress MP3's on the fly for you as they are burned! AOL lusers couldn't possibly ask for more than that!
Otherwise, dead on. It's all about control, baby!
.sig: Now legally binding!
You can't just re-broadcast stuff. Isn't that obvious?
Still, you would think that the networks would start doing this themselves. It would be cheap, and they could stick new ads in every week. I know a lot of soap fans that would LOVE to be able to watch old episodes.
i crave is a Canadian company, and in Canada what they are doing is pefectly legal. here if its in the air, its fare game to capture. I Crave has a big antenna in Toronto, capture the signal, and send it out over the net... they are not rebroadcasting just changing the transmission media.
the acctual signal goes unaltered, therefor under Canadian law is legal...
im not a lawer, an imho thos yank corps are a bunch of whiners...
btw if and when i crave comes back, check out the cbc monday at 8 for This Hour Has 22 Minutes. much better then friends..
If I understand the iCrave thing correctly, they re-broadcast the TV signal, commericals and all.
I never saw this; if they are sending the entire, unfilitered TV signal, then you are correct about the eyeballs.
There are other issues involved here (broadcasting rights, the moral questions), but in the end, this is still a problem.
What came before the Big Bang? Hum, it must have outside of time...
It is obviously due to the fact that to the US, US Law supercedes all other laws, and they have the economic and military might to shove their decisions down the throats of anyone who disagrees. For some incomprehensible reason, the Canadian Government and legal system just goes along with any decision made in the states and never has the balls to challenge them. I can only assume our government is the best that money can buy - and was bought with US dollars.
The US Empire is only beginning to flex its muscles....
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
That's an excellent point--if Canwest Global may be rebroadcast, that gives us more or less the cream of American TV. (i.e. Simpsons)
Even if iCraveTV can't braodcast american TV, this could be a good thing. Without american content, ICTV will draw more from the pool of Canadian content.
Some of that programming (for example, discovey and the learning channel,) is excellent--better (imho) than most of the pop garbage they were formerly braodcasting. This might cause a shift from pop programming to intellectual content that otherwise might have been passed over.
I'd love to see that happen--I'll take David Suzuki over Disney any day of the week.
Excellent point!! Moderate this guy up...just one issue tho - can iCrave claim a patent in the US Patent office if it is a Canadian company?
Having grown up in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) and then migrated to the US, I was happier than most when iCraveTv started broadcasting. Finally I could watch city tv again with all the local commercials. I enjoyed this so much I even watch an entire hourlong program over the web. This from someone with the amazing talent of being able to concentrate on things that are really annoying for hours on end. Fact is, even with kick ass content, broadcasting over the web is currently an annoying experience due to the low quality of image.
e wmedia_02292000_icrave.phtml
These law suits were not about losing money now but to protect the future interests of the media companies when the web will be able to deliver high quality streaming video (a few years from now IMO).
iCraveTv was not breaking any canadian laws but got sucked into a US court due to the stupiditiy of registering their domain in the states before moving shop to Canada. They quit fighting the law suits for lack of money. They also agreed not to broadcast any Canadian content (this was missed by many posters above)
see http://www.infoculture.cbc.ca/archives/newmedia/n
I think the media companies do not like IP broadcasting because they cannot sell their marketing locally. They want to be able to sell local ads in every market they touch and this is currently impossible to do with the internet. Funnily this was what I liked most about watching iCrave..I watch as much for the commercials that were local to Toronto (Badboy Nooooooobody!!! etc).
I'm no network guru but it seem to me that the solution to this problem should be made at the router level. If we had routers that could roughly determine a person location on the internet by ping times the routers could tell the content provider which commercials to insert into their internet broadcast. Can routers be set up to do a ping whenever they get a packet requesting streaming video and attach their ping info to the packet before sending it on or is this a big waste of bandwidth? Could reverse DNS lookups do a good enough job to identify region?
Anyway, I think the local advertising problem is a major issue here
my cent
no sig.
Because there wasn't any way for the broadcaster to know who picked up the signal, they couldn't charge the owners of the receivers to watch the signal.
Except in the UK, where the government owned the TV station (the BBC) and so could pass a law requiring everyone owning a TV to pay for a "license", to fund the BBC. The license still exists today, at about $165 per year...
$19 for a cd, we must live in different parts of the country. I don't buy CDs like I used to, but I typically pay $12 to $14 for CDs. I recently bought a Metallica two disc live set (S&M - Symphony and Metallica) for around $24.
On a side note, Metallica S&M as well as Apocalyptica really show off the musicality of Metallica. I know many people probably have a knee jerk reaction to Metallica, but if you don't: get your hands on some Apocalyptica. It's a string quintet performing metallica, no vocals. Some truly amazing stuff, beautiful.
Will the net ever spawn a true internet television network? 24 hours a day, each with different 'programs' and set up for different time zones? With some live shows, some recorded...
And of course, unlike regular TV, have some REAL gaming and computing shows... not like Dotto's Cafe or Gamespot TV, ugh.
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
Excuse me, but what a ridiculous arguement! Name branding is different than advertisement space. iCraveTV was selling adspace, not advertising it's OWN SERVICE! There is obviously a difference! If iCraveTV had a banner saying "Hey, We're iCraveTV. Thanks for watching!", and wasn't selling any banners, I doubt there would be such a big fuss made.
So, if this is correct, I should be able to copy my daily newspaper, sell advertisements around the border, and give it away for free (exactly what iCraveTV did). I'm sure that's perfectly reasonable. Your correct that my cd analogy is wrong, but I'm sure that most free newspapers would be pissed if you were using their content and making money off it. That's still technically stealing.
As an artist myself, I don't mind people using my scripts and performing them, if they like them, as long as I get credit. I do have a problem if someone takes some of my work, and decides to make a buck off it, without giving me due credit or compensation.
As for a SONY or RCA Tv, that's a brand name on a product, like the Gateway or Sony on top of your monitor. They aren't making money off that title for something they didn't do. If all iCraveTV had was a banner saying "Hey, we're iCraveTV", then there shouldn't have been a problem.
So what if someone mirrored your website, and started selling banner spaces at the top and making mucho bucks. What about your free underground zine? Your band's free demo tape? Yeah, it's public domain, but that doesn't not give anyone an excuse to steal it and make money of it.
As for cable television, at least in the states, you PAY for that service, and they pay for the content and right to re-broadcast it. Your not really paying for cable access to see the public stations, and that's not what they are making they're money off of. They are providing the service of the OTHER stations that aren't public. The public stations are just a bonus, so you don't have to switch between cable and the antenna. If iCraveTV was MAINLY offering other services, and making their money off that, and just offering the PUBLIC broadcasts as a bonus, then it'd be a different issue.
Money, money, money...
Controlled viewing implies that all the advertising is coming from that broadcaster. Furthermore, if no one else can re-broadcast it, then they can promote their own site, or affiliates site, which re-broadcasts all the shows. Once again, a case of focusing eyeballs...
Visit uMoo - http://www.uMoo.com/ Talk About Bull...
About time the tables were turned.
It's kinda funny tho, this is happening everywhere now. Software cracking. DVD encryption decoding. Domain wars. Very intresting stuff...
I think a lot of companies are *just* figuring out that the interent is a totally different communication beast then they've ever expirienced. Companies like eToys are shocked and apalled when they get a letter from some grandpa saying that he's not shopping at thier site ever again because he was the moron that typed the name wrong. A large number of the DVD encryption keys are cracked because some company didn't hide thier key properly. So instead of trying to fix the problems, they decide to do what they do best: point the finger. It's easy enough to do that but until you actually FIX the problem, they're just gonna keep coming and coming. It'll happen even if you do fix it.
Time to wake up and smell the silicon, uncle money bags.
...after all, we're all alike.
More eyes, larger audiences, more revenue right? Not if you can't accurately track it. Audience demographics are the bread and butter of selling advertising and setting rates. If you lose the accuracy of your demographic, you loose the appeal and high rates of your ad time. Rebroadcasting on the net not only makes demographics tracking impossible, it also diffuses geographic and "time slot" demographics that the industry has been built around. Crossover into other demographics would also create problems for the guarentees given to advertisers.
It is about control and it is sad.
Anybody up for creating a hit counter for broadcast television?
D.
it seems to make sense to me, I mean, even for non-NFL type shows, they have to pay a chunk of change for them, right? It seems if they had to pay to be able to broadcast it, they should be able to control that? I think, or maybe I'm just hung-over....(Frankly, I need another drink)
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
OK, so Disney et. al. pay to produce programs, not knowing whether they are going to be popular or not. Then when a program is popular iCrave comes along and rebroadcasts it with their own ads, not having assumed any of the risks involved with producing the program.
In other words, Wah Wah Wah, smallest violin, etc. etc. Mommy, I can't steal for a living, will you wipe my tears?
This was a no brainer ruling in favor of Disney et. al.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Just as long as I still can watch those BBC (British, non-American) broadcasts of Monty Python, who cares?
kwsNI
Actually, if someone did that to my site, I'd be flattered. They aren't passing it off as their own, just putting their stuff around someone elses and giving them credit.
kwsNI
CNet has an interesting interview with iCraveTV's Bill Craig.
iCraveTV.com exec discusses his start-up's short life
It turns out they had intended to pay for their content through the copyright board of Canada. There is also a mention of plans to "sell a subscription-based service in partnership with pay channels like CNN and MTV." It almost sounds like he's planning to start it up again if they can find a way to reliably block people from outside of Canada, or if someone with more money takes the networks to court over the same thing. (The article mentions Yahoo and AOL.)
Oh, the old "who are you" argument. You earned your score on this one.
1) For any statement X, you can stupidly challenge it: "who are you to say X?" For instance: "Who are you to question whether I am a judge of art?"
2) The question wasn't "is television programming art?", it was, "is this law promoting the progress of the 'useful art' of television programming?"
3) Who am I? I'm Skald. I make judgements about what is art and what isn't, as, I imagine, do you.
4) Who are these people to limit my freedom?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Actually, I'm a bratty older fellow on Slashdot. :-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
This brings up an interesting point, as some shows are "US shows", but are produced in Canada. How would Highlander repeats fare in this?"
Those Canadian channels pay for the right to broadcast those American shows either as a feed from the network or re-broadcast of syndicated programs. Likewise, the Canadian production crews receive their fees from the producers and on down the food chain the broadcasters pay for the rights to air them.
If Web broadcasters wanted to pay the fees to become an affiliate 'station' and abide by the rules governing affiliates I'm certain the Networks would have no problem.
The affiliate situation brings up an additional thought here and an off-topic point as well.
Part of a Network's revenue stream depends on making available local spots for the affiliate stations to sell time for ads that they produce and/or sell as a major part of their revenue stream.
The off-topic thought is that perhaps the Networks will go after Amazon for trying to patent affiliate programs. Now that would be a more productive use for their corporate lawyers, bullying a bully.
carlos carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
carlos carlos
It appears I'm just beside myself over this issue.... (Just use one of those above)
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
deCSS is a challenge to the lawmakers in that there is an intrinsic claim that "fair use" should include the ability for a person to decrypt and generally "play with" the data on a DVD which that person owns. It is a challenge to the lawyers because the letter of the law says this is illegal - there is a need to prove that the deCSS case is against the spirit of the law. Let's hope the spirit of the law can stand up in court.
But this iCraveTV nonsense is no such beast. It is copyright infringment, plain and simple, and not only does it clearly violate the letter of the law but it also violates the spirit in which those laws were made. It is simply not OK to just take intellectual property and rebroadcast it wholesale. The whole QuakeWorld GPL issue is exactly the same thing - IP owners standing up for their rights.
If you believe in the concept of IP at all, you must accept that IP owners have a right - perhaps even a responsibility - to protect their IP in the courts.
If you don't believe in IP at all then you have to agree with QuakeWorld's "right" to make a closed-source derivation from GPL'd code. I assume very few people fall into this category.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Just as a side note: Depending on the situation, copyright and trademark holders are required under US law to defend their rights. Failing to do so, means that they can lose them. I don't know enough of the specifics, but a quick read of the code told me that I'd have to see a real lawyer. Sadly, the corps may not be acting deliberately malicous on this, they might be complelled to take the action. I'd appreciate if someone with some real legal knowledge would comment on this aspect of the situation. This might make a good Ask Slashdot feature too.
Your local TV station, that's who. They've negotiated exclusive rights to broadcast the network TV signal in your area, and they get cut out if you watch the network from another source.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the major networks were under pressure from the local stations to pursue this. It seems very similar to the battles fought the last couple years over DSS companies providing network signals to their subscribers & cutting out the local stations. Unfortunately, the solution they came up with for DSS doesn't seems as workable on the internet - how can you tell where the viewers are?
The problem with this discussion is that everybody is looking at the issue from the point of view of economics and advertisement. The real issue is intellectual property. The network created, and in some cases, purchased the content they broadcast. They own the programs they send out. By rebroadcasting the content without consent, iCrave is, in effect, stealing the content. And while Canadian law is inappropriately lax on this subject, this is an international law suit, and must be considered as such.
To make the situation more understandable, consider this analogy. If an author has published a book, and you subsequently photocopy the book and distribute the photocopies you have made, you are violating the intellectual property rights of the author and publisher of the book. This is the same situation.
>There are(were) no mechanisms in place to prevent someone from the united states from viewing iCraveTV other than having a Canadian postal code.
:-)
There are no mechanisms to prevent you lying on your tax return, other than you signing your name to it (and the agreement listed).
You signed your tax return, you agreed to the rules stated on it.
You clicked "I agree". You entered your phone number. You watched the station. You agreed to the rules stated on the license.
If you don't beleive that is enough - go ahead and violate a "don't break this seal without reading the license agreement" or a "click I accept if you accept the agreement" license. I bet you'll find the license is upheld and that you have broken the law, if the law applies to you in your country.
>This argument makes no sense at all. The fact is, they are exploiting a law that does not work well in the internet age. You can rant and rave about how the law is the law, but it doesn't make it magically an argument that makes sense. iCraveTV would have lost the lawsuit
Yeah, they would have lost the lawsuit in America. Too bad that doesn't mean the US or those companies can do a single thing (of course, America can bar the owner of iCrave from entry into the crounty. Like he would care.).
If the lawsuit were to be held in Canada (where the law applies to him) the law must be UPHELD. There is no choice about this. Unless it was taken to the SUPREME court, there is no choice about this. A law is a law. And the suit would have been lost, as law would dictate. Anything else would mean TOTAL ANARCHY.
Just because _you_ don't think the law makes sense doesn't give _you_ the right to violate it. I don't think the law against me stealing from a bank makes sense either (it keeps me from being $$$rich$$$), but that doesn't give me the right to violate it.
If American law says all cars must be painted black, and If the Canadian law says cars may be any colour, then a car from the US entering Canada can be painted any colour.
If American law says broadcasts cannot be rebroadcast, and If the Canadian law says broadcasts in Canada can be rebroadcast, then a broadcast from the US entering Canada can be rebroadcast.
Does that suit you better?
There should be no argument about this. The law is the law. If you don't like it, tough noogies.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>Last, you were just deflecting the original argument I made about advertising dollars by stating that it was legal in Canada.
Where did you discuss advertising dollars now? I went back three levels in this thread, and I don't see it.
>Excuse me, interpretation on the part of iCraveTV of a law was certainly ambiguous and certainly questionable.
The interpretation of law is black and white. It is either right or wrong. There are no grey areas. If this is legal, then it is. If it isn't, then it isn't. Whether it is or isn't is up to the SUPREME court to decide. I can tell you right now that the first two or three courts they go to in Canada would HAVE to uphold the law, never mind the interpretation. After that, appeals from the American Broadcasters might make it to the Supreme court, where the law can be "circumvented".
A law is a law. It isn't open to interpretation. Are you saying that the Canadian law doesn't allow for rebroadcasting now?
>They would have ultimately lost the case either way - whether them running out of money or them being defeated in court.
How do you know this? A premenition perhaps? Those don't count, you know. You cannot know this because this case hasn't even touched the Canadian legal system yet.
>Secondly, this is not american broadcasting vs. canadian icravetv. There were canadian companies involved in this suit.
Then why are they being sued in the US and not Canada? Why do they have to show up in a US court?
If it were Canadian companies, then they would have to show up in a Canadian court. (I know that there are Canadian companies that aren't happy about iCrave, but I do not beleive they have sued yet).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>coming directly from iCraveTV's site:
:-(
>"Indeed, the settlement agreements in both Canada and the U.S. specifically recognize that iCraveTV can again start retransmitting broadcast signals in Canada once Canadian law is clarified"
If you ask that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
But, if you think that iCrave means exactly what it said in that statement, well, fine. That's valid too.
I guess we aren't going to agree on this.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I shoulda used previews:
Replace
If you ask that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
With:
If you ask ME that's CYA (Cover Your Ass). If a Multibillion dollar set of corporations wants your ass, you need to CYA. And that statement is a "CYA" statement, again, if you ask me.
Sorry...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Hmm, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, etc... should be in big trouble by now.
I mean, their name is right there on the front of many TVs, right below the broadcast. If you ask me, seeing "Sony" framing my commercials all the time is like advertising to me.
I guess if I decide to stick a coupon to the front of the TV I am breaking the law as well.
I guess, also, if I print out a bunch of banner ads, and glue them to the front of the TV, and pay someone to change them all the time, I am breaking the law too?
What if I let someone else watch my now everchanging framed advertising TV? Is that illegal?
No way.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Not that I care, but you were breaking iCraveTV's license agreement by watching it in the US.
;-)
Now, if you watch iCrave legally (ie: In Canada) they are only doing what the law provides for them to do. If some tiny station goes under because everyone is watching the broadcast on the 'net, well, so be it. It obviously shows that the way consumers want their TV is over the internet, not the old way.
Saying anything else would be like saying that rebroadcasting an large FM station on AM radio might cause the tiny local FM station to go out of business because everybody listens to AM. Well, if that is the case, too bad. It is obvious the people don't want FM. They want AM! (Not that people want it that way, just an example.). Give the consumers what they want. Is that too hard for a company to understand? If you are too slow to change in the market, and you are trampled by those better suited to it, that is the "American Way", no?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>a) broadcasters not knowing how much to charge advertisers because some company is rebroadcasting their station all over america
:-)
If you choose to watch iCraveTV in America, you are breaking the law. The License Agreement you agreed to before you watched iCraveTV required you to not only be an American, but abide by local laws. Local laws in America say that watching the iCrave broadcast would be a crime. And you are not a Canadian if you live in America (unless you somehow have dual citizenship, but this is unlikely)
This of course, applies to other countries where a non-rebroadcasting law is in effect.
>b) taking control of IP away from the original owners?
Maybe so, but I wouldn't bust into America and force them to use the Metric system, so why are Americans busting into Canada and forcing their laws onto us?
If you don't want that, the answer is simple: Either use scramblers on the TV stations closest to the Canadian border, and require Americans to use descramblers to pick them up, and prevent the export of these descramblers, or, don't broadcast up north at all.
After all, Microsoft wouldn't get their CDs pressed in China because they would pirate them (And if they DO get them pressed there, wow, such stupidity!). And they wouldn't be breaking the law. So the answer is easy - avoid the problem.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
If it wasn't for broadcast TV, Sony wouldn't be selling many TVs. So yes, they make money directly off the programming, inasmuch that if it didn't exist, they wouldn't make any money at all (from TVs).
Part of the money is made from the quality of picture presented, but then again, the same could be said for iCrave. Not that their picture is better, but that it is useable in a different format.
>How would slashdot like it if CNN put slashdot.org in a frame and put adds around it??
If CNN had a TTY number (a service for deaf people to use the telephone) and offered slashdot (text-mode) with extra (text-mode) ads blasted into it, I'd be tickled pink.
This is what iCrave is doing. They are offering the service in another format. Just as TTY services are not the internet, TV over the internet is not over the airwaves. As long as the broadcasters choose not to employ the internet as a method of providing service, this is how the situation will remain.
And just as TTY is nowhere near as versatile as true phone service, iCrave is nowhere near as good quality as real TV.
If CNN did this to slashdot over the internet (framing ads around it), and slashdot was availiable by other methods, I would still be happy. Because I learned slashdot existed, and because I can break out of the frame and view it the same way.
This is NOT what iCrave is doing. This would be akin to opening up a TV station, and rebroadcasting someone else's airwaves, over the airwaves, with extra ads framed around the site. Annoying, but you can still tell who is broadcasting it, and you can tune into that station. If you can't tune into it locally because it isn't avaliable, then who is being hurt here?
Until the American companies smarten up, iCrave has the moral advantage on this one, I'm afraid.
And the cost of giving the people what they want is a proverbial "drop in the bucket" to the broadcasters. It is simply their lead asses not getting into gear in time that has caused this silly skirmish.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>Even if iCraveTV can't braodcast american TV, this could be a good thing
... where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block ... where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block.
Yeah - less of those crappy American commercial streams where they play the same commercial three times over during the same commercial block
That bothers the heck out of me. Do they think that by me viewing the same 30 second clip three times I'm going to ENJOY it? I wouldn't go to the same movie three times in one day... because it would SUCK.
:-)
(-1, flamebait)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
You didn't read the whole Berne Convention, did you (it is kinda long, so I'll understand):
... to determine the conditions under which the rights ... may be exercised ... but these
Article 11bis:
(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the broadcasting of their works or the communication thereof to the public by any other means of wireless diffusion of signs, sounds or images;
(ii) any communication to the public by wire or by rebroadcasting of the broadcast of the work, when this communication is made by an organization other than the original one;
(iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work.
(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which the rights mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be exercised, but these
conditions shall apply only in the countries where they have been prescribed. They shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the moral rights of the author, nor to his right to obtain
equitable remuneration which, in the absence of agreement, shall be fixed by competent authority.
In the absence of any contrary stipulation, permission granted in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article shall not imply permission to record, by means of instruments recording
sounds or images, the work broadcast. It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the regulations for ephemeral recordings made by a
broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and used for its own broadcasts. The preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional
documentary character, be authorized by such legislation.
Seems like Canada falls well into paragraph 2. Their law says that you may rebroadcast signals. That looks very much to me like:
"A matter for legislation in the countr[y]
conditions shall apply only in the countr[y] [in which] they have been prescribed."
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
just like the moderation system.
>these companies are completely within their rights.
What rights? Ohhhh, you mean AMERICAN rights. Not CANADIAN.
In both Canada and the US, making copies of archived music is illegal (copying Copyrighted MP3s).
In the US rebroadcasting TV is illegal. In Canada it isn't.
In the Canada it is illegal not to have Daytime Running Lights installed on your vehicle. In the US it isn't. So by your argument the US should be forced to comply with Canadian law and install Daytime Running Lights.
Woah... That is a new one on me.
I don't care if adervtisers lose money, hell, I don't care if people go out of business. This is MY LAW (I am a Canadian) and I AM SADDENED TO SEE IT TRAMPLED ON LIKE THIS.
I am damn pissed at American TV right now, who are trying to force THEIR LAWS down OUR THROATS. Angry enough to watch the Simpsons on Global (a Canadian station) rather than on Fox (American).
How would America like it if Canada started telling Americans that if they don't use the Metric system on their road signs from now on, "something bad would happen". I bet Americans would be damn upset too.
To summarize: MP3 != rebroadcasting TV (in this argument), and American Law != Canadian Law (At all. Period.)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>Your Sony logo on the TV is not integral to the signal. With a TV swapout, it might say Panasonic, but the signal is the same on both TV's. The advertising banners were intrinsic to the television feed, and THAT's the point. It's an addition to the signal, which means it is no longer the original signal.
Huh? I had better stop using @Home right now. I mean, they multiplex all this digital internet stuff with the same cable the TV signals are carried on, right? (yes) They are breaking the law, right? (no).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
>You can't just re-broadcast stuff. Isn't that obvious?
(no, I don't understand why you would think this way. I am a Canadian).
Does Canadian law no longer apply in Canada? If you answered yes (if you didn't, gawd, there is no help for you) then you just disproved your own fact. In Canada you may rebroadcast TV legally. There are No Exceptions provided for American stations that can be picked up here.
It is, once again, sour grapes from American companies who don't appreciate our liberal laws.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
after all, isn't that what the trolls really want?
>I'm sorry to have to inform you that you're a rather tedious and stupid pedant.
I can understand tedious (it often is difficult for idiots to read), but what is "and stupid pedant" supposed to mean?
Huh?
If you are going to flame, you had better type up your sentences properly.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
American media producers just sent a clear message: No, they don't want to increase viewership; no, they don't want their advertisements to reach more people; no, they don't want exposure on new media. Is it just me, or does their animosity against iCrave sound like a really stupid long-term business move. I'm very glad I have no investments tied up in these dinosaurs.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
"According to the Associated Press and Altavista News, iCraveTV agreed yesterday not to rebroadcast American TV programming"
This isn't entirely correct. The first paragraph of the actual story reads:
"A Canadian Internet site agreed Monday not to rebroadcast American TV programming to audiences in the United States without permission"
Which to me implies that they can continue broadcasting American content, so long as they ensure it doesn't cross the border into America (as discussed later in the article when they talk about bolstering security on the site).
I'd be interested to see whether iCrave starts broadcasting again before Canadian law is clarified (the site is still inactive).
"The plaintiffs -- including Disney, MGM, Paramount and ABC, CBS and Fox -- accused iCraveTV of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition."
Why is this considered "unfair competition"?
Perhaps the major TV networks are too large, slow-moving, behind-the-times and unimaginative enough to respond fairly to a innovative [up-]start[-up] that challenges their very way of doing business? It makes me sad to see that they won because iCrave couldn't afford to continue battling the lawsuit, not because they were right.
You're missing the point.
First of all, iCraveTV *is* only rebroadcasting content that is being sent over public airwaves, in their entirety. They did not alter any content or take anything that is not being broadcast over the airwaves. This is allowed under Canadian law as long at there is no time delay.
Secondly, this is nowhere equivalent to copying a CD. This is equivalent to copying a free CD that is publically available through the airwaves. A better analogy would be copying a free newspaper. Free newspapers typically make their money from advertisment (duh) just as television stations do. Free newspapers are not sold. Television is not sold. Advertising is sold.
And as you said, "Nothing is stopping anyone from streaming PUBLIC television", which is exactly what they're doing. If it wasn't legal, there would be no cable companies in Canada. All Canadian cable companies do (besides licencing crappy channels like golf channels, etc.) is rebroadcast publically available content in its entirety. This is no different from what iCraveTV does (except, of course, iCraveTV has no crappy golf channels).
As for making money off it, I don't think they should be treated any differently from cable companies or TV manufacturers. Shaw, Rogers (Canadian cable companies), Sony, RCA, etc. all give you advertisements when you're watching TV, but they don't intrude on NBC's or CBC's or anyone else's ads (without licencing). If you have a Sony TV, most likely it has a Sony logo just below the screen. If you're watching iCraveTV, most likely it has banner ads just around or behind the "screen". BFD.
Online eyeballs aren't worth as much as television eyeballs and online pulls people away from television."
This assumes that the people who are watching online would have watched on TV otherwise. This clearly would not be the case if the person watching is outside the broadcasting range of the television station, and not even definite if the person is within range. Not everyone has a television by their computer, and if they're at the computer watching television, chances are there is something that they're working on that requires them to be on the PC.
I think they they have reasons to want to restrict this, but it's not due to the advertisers losing eyeballs.
And as for moral questions - well, what moral questions? Copyright is not inalienable. It exists purely as an enticement for people to create content, ...
I was over at a friend's house last night and watching the little kids learn about property rights. One of her little girls has learned that everything "belongs" to her and if the other baby takes it, she takes it back. "Mine!" She does it to adults too. Actually, its kind of funny. Its behavior like that which reminds me of the broadcast industry, which is not so funny.
The law basically sides with iCrave. Call me crazy, but I think that rule by law is a lot better than rule by corporate goals. (and who wanted that law passed - corporations. who's been responsible for increasingly unjust uses of copyright - corporations. let 'em be hoist by their own petard)
-- 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.
Well, Canadian law grants them the rebroadcasting rights.
And as for moral questions - well, what moral questions? Copyright is not inalienable. It exists purely as an enticement for people to create content, with the understanding that it will pass into the public domain (where it becomes useful for everyone and not just the author).
So there is no moral component. It is *not* immoral to redistribute content, and unless there is a law against it (in this case there isn't) it's not illegal either.
You're just being misled by people who are greedy and lazy.
-- 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.
This business of mega corporates assembling high powered legal teams and forcing their way simply because they have bigger guns (and pockets) than the little guy ....
It makes me think that they would react favourably to the commmunity blatting them out of existence on the net with a combined bouquette of DDoS attacks until they back down. After all, it's conceptually the same mechanism that they use, so they'd welcome a peer agency I'm sure.
:-)
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
> By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money
Please explain this. Were advertisers annoyed that too many people were seeing their ads?
You do understand that *all* the original content was being rebroadcast? Commercials were not removed, muted, or altered in any way. Additional ads were *added*, but nothing was removed.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
This might actually work. According to this web page, Trial by Combat is still a valid part of the common law in Maryland, and perhaps other states in the USA. I can just see it, Bill Gates and Ray Noorda in an arena, hacking at each other with battle axes.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
What if I installed a broadband VHF/UHF antenna in downtown Toronto and connected it to an Internet server through a high speed analog to digital converter (ADC). Assuming the Internet backbone was several orders of magnitude faster, anyone could take the packets from the Toronto server, feed them into a digital to analog converter (DAC), and plug the DAC output into a TV set. You could watch any Toronto broadcast station, just as if you were physically in Toronto. The server created an RF wormhole between Toronto and your location. Do wormholes violate copyright law?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Are you sure about that? My understanding of the television business is that the television networks pay their affiliates to carry network programming. The networks get to sell most of the advertising slots in network provided programming. The affiliates get a limited number of slots for local advertising plus they get fees from the network. The affiliates also agree to carry all of the network's prime time programming.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
iCrave should patent "streaming television broadcasts over the internet" in pretty much the same way that Amazon had their one click shopping patent. Then when these companies try to stream their broadcasts, SMACK THEM with a patent infringement lawsuit.
That's what I'd do.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
they get upset because they feel they're being cheated. They paid their money to create the shows in the first place, receieve some money from their advertisers, and then saw someone else was extracting more money from more advertisers and not giving them a dime for it. It seems understandable.
As usual (flaimbait, probably) it seems someone with an idea jumped forward with it without really thinking about how anyone else would feel. Ultimately, TV will be on the internet. It could have been sooner if they had decided to walk up to the networks and ask rather than just take what they pleased.
s/illgeal/illegal/g and repeat after me:
I couldn't care less if some company is losing megabucks because of the legal actions of other companies and/or consumers. It's fine with me if companies go after people who really are breaking the law - for example, distribution of mp3 for which you do not have the copyright is illegal in the U.S. What iCraveTV was doing was not illegal in Canada, and it's too bad that they didn't have enough money to buy justice. Corporations are happy to hold consumers to the strict letter of the law; I see no reason that the same standards should not apply to them as well.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
You are missing an important factor: Some eyeballs are worth more than others.
Which advertisement do you think would be more effective, one on a 25-inch color TV or one in a jittery 3-inch by 3-inch window on a 19-inch monitor?
Which interstate billboard do you think makes more money, the one downtown where traffic crawls and folks have minutes to read the message or the one on the outskirts of town where traffic whips by at 85 miles an hour? Both get seen by the same nubmer of eyes but the billboard downtown rents for far more money.
One more example. Star Wars: Episode One could only be shown in certain theaters meeting a high visual and sound quality. You would state that more eyeballs and tickets sold would be prime and that Lucas should have shown the movie in all theaters where a ticket could be sold. But that would have been the wrong approach to take. Lucas had to consider quality of projection as well.
Online eyeballs aren't worth as much as television eyeballs and online pulls people away from television.
Those of you who think eyeballs and nothing else are missing two points. First, copyright is golden. And, second, quality counts; not all eyeballs are equal.
Init 'Never More Than +2' Zero/P
Seperate===seperable. Seperate is exactly equivalent to seperable. They were not seperable, therefore they were not seperate.
Adding advertisements that can't be removed is every bit as much a modification to the signal as deleting the advertisements off of the original signal (which they don't do). If they could be seperated by the average Joe (by adding a button to turn them totally off), then you might be able to claim that the signal truly is the original signal... but if you can't seperate the two, then they are not two entities, they are one.
Your Sony logo on the TV is not integral to the signal. With a TV swapout, it might say Panasonic, but the signal is the same on both TV's. The advertising banners were intrinsic to the television feed, and THAT's the point. It's an addition to the signal, which means it is no longer the original signal.
As much as I might like to be able to watch television shows over the net, this case is a pretty clear example of copyright violation.
...
...]
It would be illegal for me to post the full text of the latest Peter Hamilton novel on my web page. Excerpts of it would be legal (under the fair use doctrine), but the full thing would not be; I would expect to have lawyers for the publisher harassing me as soon as they noticed it.
It's just as illegal for iCraveTV to rebroadcast television programs. Two-minute long excerpts would probably be ok under fair use, but
None of this means that television will never be viewable over the net --- but it will have to be something the producers of programming choose to do, or that the networks choose to do (and they're often distinctly different); it can't just randomly be done by someone who does not have any legal rights to the programming whatsoever.
[Note --- these copyright issues are governed by international treaty, not by national law; they are binding in Canada, the US, and any other country which has signed the Berne convention
Thanks for correcting me. I meant province, thought it was pronounced providence.
iCraveTV did a very wise thing here.
Fighting the Good Fight would have consumed a huge amount of their resources, resources they could put towards expanding the market. Once the market is large enough, the large TV networks will have no choice but to adopt the new medium.
The reasons MPAA/RIA are fighting a losing battle against MP3 is because MP3 is already too much a part of our lives. iCraveTV is making the right move doing the same, even if it means humbily backing away from a challenge.
This is exactly like framing another site in yours. I'd be upset if someone wrapped my site (unlikely, since it sucks, but that's not important) and passed it off as their own.
--jeff
The thing about it is (and correct me if I'm wrong) the Canadian law about rebroadcasting requires using the full broadcast, so the people watching online STILL saw all of WZZZ's commercials. The added cost of retransmitting is paid for by the other banner ads. So to watch online you have more ads and less quality, balanced by convenience. Seems fair to me, but then again the Internet doesn't scare me.
Like I said it my other post, media execs are scared, hurt, and unable to think rationally.
--
+&x
They pay to reach some number of viewers, estimated according to typical ratings for a program.
If iCraveTV rebroadcasts the show, the advertisers are getting a free ride for the additional views, and iCraveTV gets ad revenue of their own, but the network gets nada for the additional viewers.
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
They could just be shutting down iCrave to give them a chance to start net broadcasting their own stuff. That way they either get to sell all the ad time themselves or, if they use a third party, they'd be able to offer exclusivity, which would allow them to enter negotiations from a postion of strength. Just because they're not playing along right now doesn't mean they have no long-term plans.
jpowers
-jpowers
-jpowers
Of course, you completely miss the point.
Just like a "click wrap" license agreement cannot take away a norwegians right to reverse engineer software for interoperability, the same is true of a statement like that on a broadcast IN CANADA for someone to rebroadcast that transmission in its entirety, unedited.
Under Canadian law this is legal, as long as it gets rebroadcast in real time, all original content in place (commercials, etc), then its quite legal in Canada, and no little disclamer can take that away.
Why iCraveTV chose to show up in that PA court I will never know, I sure wouldn't have as it has no jurisdiction.
-- iCEBaLM
Adding advertisements that can't be removed is every bit as much a modification to the signal as deleting the advertisements off of the original signal (which they don't do). If they could be seperated by the average Joe (by adding a button to turn them totally off), then you might be able to claim that the signal truly is the original signal... but if you can't seperate the two, then they are not two entities, they are one.
The banners are seperate streams, the actual TV signal is one stream, the bottom banner is a seperate stream, and the right side banner is also a seperate stream. You CAN separate them (by only loading the one stream), but the way they did it in real player is obscure enough that the average joe would not figure out how.
Again, this is irrelevant as they are not adding banners to the actual TV stream, they are adding banners AROUND the stream from seperate streams. Canadian law is very specific, the TV signal must be broadcast in its entirety in real time, and thats what was happening.
-- iCEBaLM
iCraveTV was incorporated in PA by an American citizen. That puts them firmly in the juristiction of the PA courts. If you're going to try and avoid federal laws, do it properly like paradisepoker.com does, in Costa Rica.
I'm sorry but it doesnt. Their actions were in Canada, which makes their actions in jurisdiction of Canadian law, not US law, where they were incorporated has little relevance. Thats like saying I'm born in botswana, but when I travel to another country and do stuff there, I am still under botwaana law.
-- iCEBaLM
This is so not true on many levels, and your complete arrogance is quite unsettling.
You go into a Toronto courtroom with a PA court decision on a Canadian company where Canadian laws are in jurisdiction, and say "Look here judge, this PA judge said iCraveTV is stealing our content according to US law!" That judge is going to throw you right out of court and not hear your case at all.
-- iCEBaLM
I reiterate...
You CAN separate them
-- iCEBaLM
Many countries (most 'Western' ones anyway) have reciprocal copyright agreements. This stuff is clearly the copyright of the broadcaster, or they have licensed it from someone who holds the copyright. Si it's a bit of a non-starter really.
On a slightly different point, if someone negotiates a licence to do the web broadcast of something, and someone else then mirrors that broadcast, possibly stripping out advertisong and stuff, does the licensee have the right to be pissed off and do something about it? Some laws have a purpose.
>As a side note, i plan to start streaming TV as son as i get a faster Internet connection so NBC WATCH OUT! IM STEALING VIEWERS! :o),/p>
It's easier than you think. When I was messing around with Microsoft Netmeeting(which doesn't even come close to working at all), I was able to pipe in my TV card instead of my webcam. People I chatted with were watching the Drew Carey show instead of my ugly mug. Pretty fun actually.
Incidentally, the same thing seems to be happening to satellite TV. See, I'm not sure how many people here have an old-fashioned satellite dish (i.e. not those satellite-pay TV rigs that have become popular recently) but you used to be able to get network broadcasts on wildfeeds, but that seems to be more difficult now. Oh, for those of you who don't know a wild feed is when the networks are beaming their programs to their affiliates, with big black spaces where the local commercials would be. It used to be a way for us to get Babylon 5 a few days early, when they were beaming the show out. This was legal. Rich people in Canada who could afford satellite dishes like my parents' could do this too. Because, you see, no one owns the air! If you can pick up the signal, you are allowed to watch it.
Of course, I don't see my parents as often as I used to, so I don't have as much access to their dish. So it may just be when I call my Dad and say, "Hey, I missed the Simpsons, see if you can catch it on a West Coast wild feed," he just doesn't feel like hunting through Orbit to try to find it, so he says, "Sorry, we don't seem to be getting that wild feed anymore." Any satellite-dish enthusiasts out there who can verify this?
Oh, incidentally, everyone does know that they've been steadily increasing the ratio of Ads-to-show, right? One of the reasons why I don't bother paying for cable is that most of the cable channels with commercials show far too many. I'm guessing that eventually I will no longer be capable of watching network TV either for the same reason. Already, I have a hard time "watching" TV unless I'm doing something else at the same time. (Like playing games on my PC, for instance.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I can see why the NFL would be into restricting internet access to broadcasts, since it would be all but impossible to blackout internet access to games in order to ensure high ticket sales, but it seems the networks are shooting themselves in the foot. Since they essentially sell the size of their audience to advertisers, anything that increases potential audience size would be profitable.
Of course, Foot Locker advertisements wouldn't do much for your average European viewer, but there are definitely advertisers out there who could benefit from an international audience.
Excuse me, interpretation on the part of iCraveTV of a law was certainly ambiguous and certainly questionable. They would have ultimately lost the case either way - whether them running out of money or them being defeated in court. Secondly, this is not american broadcasting vs. canadian icravetv. There were canadian companies involved in this suit. Last, you were just deflecting the original argument I made about advertising dollars by stating that it was legal in Canada.
The law that they claimed allowed them to do so was ambiguous and certainly not framed in relation to the possibilities that the internet gives rebroadcasters such as iCraveTV.
Would you dismiss problems such as:
a) broadcasters not knowing how much to charge advertisers because some company is rebroadcasting their station all over america
b) taking control of IP away from the original owners?
Stating that it's canadian law is dogma at best. The companies involved in this case definitely have a good argument regarding this law and the practices of iCraveTV and when future cases come where there is not a settlement there will surely be a precedent set in favor of these companies.
"If you choose to watch iCraveTV in America, you are breaking the law"
That wasn't the point. There are(were) no mechanisms in place to prevent someone from the united states from viewing iCraveTV other than having a Canadian postal code.
"Maybe so, but I wouldn't bust into America and force them to use the Metric system, so why are Americans busting into Canada and forcing their laws onto us? "
This argument makes no sense at all. The fact is, they are exploiting a law that does not work well in the internet age. You can rant and rave about how the law is the law, but it doesn't make it magically an argument that makes sense. iCraveTV would have lost the lawsuit.
The US used to do just that, and to the Cubans no less. Now we try to shove 'Radio Free Marti' down their throats; I'd prefer the static myself. It would serve us right if the Cubans returned the favor!
.sig: Now legally binding!
... these companies are completely within their rights. Yes, you heard me right. I applaud the TV companies for standing up and declaring that they are not going to let us (used in a general sense) rip them off.
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This exists the same way with MP3s. Who cares if it isn't "technically illgeal"? (FYI, I am not a lawyer). When you can get all the mp3's to make a CD, why would you buy CD? For CD players? Don't you or one of your friends have a CD burner? We ultimately hurt ourselves when we download & distribute illegal mp3s.
Regarding the earlier story about the music industry making more money and selling more CD's this year: Haven't you noticed, in the US, that we're in the longest sustained poistive enconmic growth in the nation's history? EVERYBODY is doing better. Hell, on my campus, the dining halls are suffer from lack of staff; everyone is taking more professional and/or higher paying jobs.
.mp3 and digital movies are not harmful; illegal (read obtained without permission from the author and/or distrubitor) mp3's are.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
What came before the Big Bang? Hum, it must have outside of time...
this story has been on Dtheatre.com all day and just now makes it here...
(http://www.dtheatre.com/post.php3?sid=738 )
What has become of the slashdot we used to love?
Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
And no, I'm not trying to troll. What I mean by this is, who cares about seeing reruns of the X-Files and 'sporting contests' that belie the word?
What about getting broadcasts from areas that have no hope of being seen over here? I'm thinking of BBC / C4 from the UK specifically.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
I still can't understand why these companies would be upset at getting MORE viewers. Surely server logs could be monitored, and doing such you could find out accurate numbers of what percentage of the population was watching your program, as opposed to those outdated neilsen ratings.
Also, whats the big deal if people rebroadcast your material? As long as it's live and not recorded, I don't understand what they're all up in arms about... all their gettig is more viewers = more advertising.
As a side note, i plan to start streaming TV as son as i get a faster Internet connection so NBC WATCH OUT! IM STEALING VIEWERS! :o),/p>
Just issue both parties baseball bats and let them slug it out. Get rid of lawyers and discourage frivolous lawsuits in one swoop...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Nothing preventing you from creating a content company and broadcasting your own streams over the net. Is there?
This would fill a hole on the current internet. Plus it'd be kind of neat if you didn't force the customers to watch at a set time. Just sit down at the computer whenever and click on the show you want to watch.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The deals cost BILLIONS because the networks know they can sell even more BILLIONS in ads. Which really makes this silly. iCrave isn't modifying the data (images) at all, so the ads are exactly the same as what the network is broadcasting.
Networks win out by selling ads all over the place. iCrave TV wins out because they can stick their own ads in and make a small profit. Viewers win because they can watch TV from anywhere. What is the problem here?
The problem is control, just as it is with DeCSS. The network affiliates lose out when I don't watch the super bowl on WZZZ and instead watch iCrave. Perhaps iCrave should set itself up as an affiliate of each network. It costs a lot, and there are probably exclusivity contracts (is that a word?), but gives more ad space to iCrave.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
If anyone is intrested, here are my thoughts:
Media piracy plays right in the hands of the big networks!
That is right. The winners are CBS/FOX/Disney et al.
Why? Because they have the content that "everybody" wants. Therefore enough people will pay for it even in a situation where every show and record is on a thousand pirate web servers.
Smaller networks and independent producers wont stand a chance. If they come up with a product that might generate some income, it will be
a) copied for free everywhere.
b) Hijacked by the big guys.
So what is left? Amateurs, who might be very talented, but lacks the (expensive) technical means of the megacorps.
Media will become just like the software business where microsoft and the other big guys control the market.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Here's an interview with the CEO of iCraveTV on C|Net.
What about the Netscape or I.E. or AOL logo that shows up in a browser window? It is not "integral" to the browser, it has no function other than branding. However, if you point your browser at a pay-to-view website (comparable to selecting a cable channel on a television) the logo doesn't dissapear. Does this mean that Netscape, I.E. AOL and all the other browsers are guilty of the same crime of adding to the signal?
It seems some people are missing the point here, and are very quick to jump on the ol' bandwagon to beat down on big media. Not that I don't think we should (especially concerning DeCSS), but this time, iCraveTV is in the wrong
iCraveTV could of legally rebroadcast PUBLIC television (aka, anything you can get off public airwaves, which obviously, isn't CABLE) as long as they didn't alter any of the content. As far as I understand, they didn't alter the content, but we're forcing users to look at banners, which aren't part of the broadcast, and weren't paying for the right to post those banner ads. This is equivalent to copying a cd and selling it at full price, without ever giving any revenue back to the recording company or artist. "Hey, I'll just take your content, make money off it, and you'll NEVER see a penny of it". That's stealing.
Nothing is stopping anyone from streaming PUBLIC television, so go ahead. Grab that video encoder, run your antenna into it, and start streaming out over those ADSL and cable modems. Just don't expect to make any money off it.
Whatever it means to iCrave intrinsically, this is really bad for deCSS/Livid and that whole case. While it escapes setting any legal precedent (a plus), a lot of the plaintiffs in this case were the same as in deCSS Source in CA and NY and this says to them, "This is just a war of attrition and you guys can have your way if you can just drag this on long enough."
iCrave is a profit entity, so it makes sense for them to back down... but this sets a dangerous real world precedent. They will work to tie us up and beat us into the ground, because they can. Exactly what form it will take (probably an agreement to comply with the cease and desist after most of the defendants are on the brink of bankrupcy) but either we put, and continue to put money behind EFF's efforts (and i'll confess that i have yet to do so but am seriously reconsidering)... or DVD outside MS/Apple disappears.
__
alt.geek
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
...when technological innovation is equated to 'unfair competition'. Everbody stop progressing the establishment doesn't like it!
Since I don't own a TV, that's one pair of eyeballs that won't be seeing ads. I know quite a few university students ran iCraveTV on their computer while they studied; here in residence, very few watch TV otherwise. So add a few hundred more eyeballs to the list of those that won't be seeing commercials.
Is it very common for people to throw away their high-quality television in favour of an internet stream? I would imagine that people mainly watched iCraveTV at times when they would have been unable to watch TV otherwise. So it's almost a sure bet that the number of hours people spent in front of advertising only increased because of iCraveTV. I'd even wager that this increase was not at the expense of time spent watching regular TV. As for the Superbowl, would you watch it over iCraveTV unless there was no possibility of getting to a regular TV?
If there is any question over the number of people watching the stations, iCraveTV would easily be able to come up with viewership statistics that are more accurate than what normal stations have. Would an ordinary TV station or cable company be willing to stream their content over the internet?
"one of the largest and most brazen thefts of intellectual property ever committed."
Now I would hardly call watching television an intellectual activity, I rather like to call it "my personal escape from intelligence."
Now seriously...
Does anyone know if this company was fined or anything? Did they get off with a "well, next time ask first."?
-ShelbyCobra
Living life in the right side of the s-plane
Hang on...
I've read a number of posts about "Hey, it's just more viewers to read see the ads..."
Here's the problem...in many cases, the advertising isn't solely at the network's discretion. Network affiliates get to sell adds as well. In this particular case, only the affiliates being rebroadcast get this priviledge...which may or may not hurt them, but it hurts the network's overall marketability because I now no longer have to watch my local affiliate in order to see...say...ER (big ratings show). Well, the local affiliate in my area (in this case KING TV in Seattle) paid big money to be an affiliate, and now, because I can watch the NY station, they've lost their market.
This is the same reason why there are restrictions on some satellite networks ability to rebroadcast the networks.
The greatest issues at stake are this: It is completely illegal to rebroadcast to US residents, which is what the bulk of the suit(s)covered.
Canadian law allows rebroadcasting, but possibly not for profit (IANAL).
Just a few thoughts
-FP
Unfortunately for them they did not bother to understand every nuance of the law and did not make a lawsuit proof site. (According to the lawyers I talked to.) To the execs here however the idea behind iCrave is deplorable and seeks to destroy the corporations they have built. They view this as an afront to their life's work. I however have enough stored up, and the credentials to work elsewhere in industry so I don't care what happens to the TV networks. I hope iCrave can help increase the demand for bigger pipes and help make my DSL cheaper.
Just take a look at http://www.tvfromhome.com
As much as we like to criticize big media corporations for thier evil acts, they had every reason to beat some ass on this one. At the end of the football game when the play by play guy rattles off that statement, "This broadcast is property of the NFL and cannot be replayed, rebroadcast, or used in any way without the expressed written consent of the NFL.", this is exactly what he's talking about. Those sports contracts cost BILLIONS. They cost so much because the networks get exclusive rights to those sporting events. Corporate America does plenty of other things for us to get upset about. Let this one go.
-B
Is the ruling that they cannot show US content, or that they cannot rebroadcast US channels? For example, a number of Canadian channels show some ammount of US shows, but also a lot of Canadian shows. Will iCrave have to censor these channels when they are showing US-originated shows?
This brings up an interesting point, as some shows are "US shows", but are produced in Canada. How would Highlander repeats fare in this?
...some other company creating the same thing in a different country that doesn't have US restrictions?
The attitude these networks have is really annoying. Okay, iCraveTV is backing off because its threatened by the network's big financial muscles. And maybe, just maybe, the networks have a bit of a point - at the very least they believe they do.
But iCraveTV has indicated it wants to negotiate broadcasting rights from these networks and their intentions have never been to steal anything from the big network guys. Yet, the article quotes one of the Lawyers say that such a deal would not be possible, that "We've had a pretty hard-fought battle.". So is that how it works? Small company gave us grief so we refuse to deal with them regardless of potential gain?
It seems that many people support iCraveTV and the networks should realize this - that their viewers want it. It would also help them to expand - imagine how many more places will be able to view what their networks have to offer if they support iCraveTV.
- My Two Cents.
-My Two Cents
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
How much are such laws actually promoting the progress of the "useful art" of television programming?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Yeah, I totally agree with you.
if someone else tapes its and sends it out again, with more ads, even if they don't put the ads in the actualy tv picture, i expect compensation above and beyond what i already got for the orginal ads. Why should i expect it? because I created the content. Period. I own it, i have allowed it to be publicly distributed in a manner that i chose.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing.
First, no one owns publicly distributed content. That's an absurd idea. I distinctly remember Star Wars. Does this mean that my brain is owned by George Lucas? (note that after seeing TPM I may be willing to donate some brains to Lucas, he needs 'em) Of course not. Copyright confers a temporary monopoly on distribution - not ownership. No one owns intangible things. If you have the only copy of something you may de facto own it, but when someone else has a copy they can do as much as you, sometimes excepting redistributing copies.
Second, there are severe practical problems with what you propose. When is an ad considered to be so intimately associated with a particular block of ad-bearing content that it infringes on those ads?
- Can I sell a videotape where the tape is your content but the jacket has my ads on it?
- Can I even mention that my company made this particular tape which contains your content?
- Can I play your content on one TV and play my ads, simultaneously on a TV right next to the first?
I submit that as long as the ads associated with the original content are intact, and are not obscured then it's okay. Otherwise you are proposing that advertisments are not allowed to overshadow other advertisements. Just for starters you'd be wanting to demolish Times Square then, where people constantly fight to attract the eye away from the other guy.People can buy descramblers to try to get past any protections i have set up. i don't like that, but air is air and if i'm sending a signal thru that cable that comes into your house then thats my problem.
At this point you reveal that you are not in the TV industry. It is actually illegal to decode a scrambled signal that enters your property (at least in the US). Why? Because of people who are greedy and overprotective of their monopoly and who are unscrupulous enough to twist the government around to their way of thinking, even though there's an argument to be made that this is unconstitutional.
Personally, I agree with you. If someone's signal invades my property then I have every right to listen in, if I can. They can make it difficult for me (encryption), and I am iffy on whether or not I should be able to interfere with their transmission. Sadly though, the law doesn't agree. (You can't power your house off of induction from nearby high-tension wires either, more's the pity)
But what you can't do it record MY programming and then send it out in another medium. especialy if you are making money from it.
Oh ho! But Canadian law (remember iCrave is in Canada) clearly does not grant copyright (which doesn't exist unless it is explicitly granted) on the matter of rebroadcasting unaltered broadcast tv transmissions. This means that you have no redistribution monopoly in this situation, which is typically limited to cable tv.
Cable, you'll recall, started out when people erected jumugous antannas and wired many people up to them. They've grown quite a bit, but that's the basic idea. iCrave doesn't differ in any significant way, and while I have not looked at the specific law, nor am I a lawyer, or even a Canadian, you could probably rebroadcast the signal in any way you liked as long as you didn't alter it. I would be prone to rebroadcast it as modern dance, myself.
That is what iCave is trying to do. Make money from someone else's work.
Precisely. Which is not only legal, but is the natural order of things. Public Domain content is someone else's work, and people make money off of it all the time. I don't see Shakespeare or Homer (the Greek poet, not the yellow clod) cashing any big checks lately. The light bulb, the radio and the telephone were all patented, yet I don't see GE sending money to Tom Edison, Bose paying royalties to Nikola Tesla, or Nokia giving Alexander Bell big sacks of money.
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are *artificial*. They don't exist unless the government says they do. Nor are they forever. Copyrights expire (this is being unconstitutionally sabotaged by big corporations), trademarks require constant use, and patents also expire.
So yeah, it's a grand old tradition to make money from someone else's work. Authors and inventors only get a monopoly for a while to compensate them for the effort of having come up with something to begin with. But then it's free, so as to help everyone out.
Now, I totally believe that you can't claim credit for things that aren't yours, but I'm perfectly willing to build something from an expired patent, or type up a copy of some public domain work, stick the original creator's name on it (I get credit for some particular implementation, but not the source) and be happy with it. And I'd love nothing more than to extend these same rights to other people regarding my own work.
iCrave found a neat law that worked for them. It doesn't impair the creator one whit. (you are still allowed to watch TV on a TV, you know) So I say, yay iCrave.
Then I complain because too much bandwidth is taken up by crappy tv shows. ;)
-- 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 think one of the arguments used by the networks was that iCraveTV's security (authentication, really) was insufficient at restricting the viewership to Canadians only. But what could they have done?
There is no certain way to reliably determine the general (let alone precise) geographic area of a given computer connected to the Internet. Reverse DNS lookups can give you some idea as to where the person is coming from, but it's pretty much useless when RDNS resolves to AOL.com or some other such monolithic ISP. Proxy servers, dial-up lines, etc. also cloud the picture.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing - a degree of anonymity is a very nice thing to have - but, since I don't have cable (I'm in rural Canada - cable is expensive, don't get many channels, not worth it usually) it sure would have been nice to be able to watch iCraveTV... damn, and I'm not even getting enough of a tax refund this year to buy a dish...
<DireStraits>I want my... I want my... I want iCraveTV...</DireStraits>
________________________
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money that they had paid to put up adervtisement that would be watched on regular TV. When the advertisiment comapines figure this out, they're less willing to pay for advertisement. Result, TV companies lose $$.
This makes no sense. The ad guys are selling eyeballs. Who cares whether those eyballs see "regular TV" or "Internet TV" or what ever. As long as some one sees the ad, who cares? If I understand the iCrave thing correctly, they re-broadcast the TV signal, commericals and all. The companies should be happy they are getting more eyeballs per buck than they normally would have.
But they're not, so this must be about control. And that's what sucks. Everything being controlled by companies, instead of our dollars.
Just watch this get moderated down. =)
It just might be. Maybe 'cause it doen't make much sense. (At least to me...)
Realize this is an issue of conflict between jurisdictions, and not purely one of copyright law.
Under Canadian law, on our Canadian soil, what iCrave is doing is legal. There is some questionability about whether or not they are 'altering' the things they are rebroadcasting, but that was not an issue in this case.
Under U.S. Law, what they are doing is NOT legal.
So, please understand that they were not out to blatantly do something illegal or break the law.. they had every reason to believe they were allowed to do what they did.
The agreement they came to was
a) they would not intercept radio TV broadcast from the US and
b) They would take more thorough measures to ensure that those watching the shows on iCrave were from Canada *ONLY*, and NOT the U.S.
Realize they can still rebroadcast any radio-TV broadcast that originates on Canadian soil.
If those broadcasts happen to include American programming, that's okay... iCrave simply promises not to intercept radio that was BROADCAST FROM the U.S. (which they were doing before, and was somewhat beyond the scope of canadian law.)
It was the entire, unfiltered TV signal.
Here is why commercials exist:
TV was originally broadcast over the air (via UHF and VHF - in fact, it still is), and anybody with a receiver could pick up the broadcast. Because there wasn't any way for the broadcaster to know who picked up the signal, they couldn't charge the owners of the receivers to watch the signal. They had to find a different revenue model, and since radio is where many of the original broadcasters started from, radio ads became TV commercials. These commercials were paid for by advertisers to the broadcaster, to pay for the TV transmission, mostly. Thus, everyone got TV for "free" - they just had to watch the commercials.
Fast forward to the 1960's - commercials and TV are pretty much common items, and everyone has an antenna on their house. But people want more channels, and they want higher quality. Neighbors band together and buy large "neighborhood" TV antennas, centralize the antenna, then split/amplify the signal off of it to feeds that run to each house, allowing these people to see more channels at a better quality. Appliance sellers in the area see this, and think "Hey! I sell TV's - maybe I can set up an attenna for the neighborhood, and charge people $5.00 bucks a month to use it if they buy one of my TVs!". People go for it, because it is cheaper and easier than convincing all the neighbors (notice that there is a laziness factor here - most shit in history that we hate is cause by many people being lazy) to buy a central antenna, the quality is just as good (maybe better!) and thus, the first distributed, monthly-charge "cable" service begins.
Now, what about the advertisers? Well, they don't really care (or they don't notice), because more "eyeballs" are still seeing their advertisements, which is all they want. And the broadcasters? They don't care, either, because they are still being paid by the advertisers to broadcast. Everybody is happy...
Let's move to the 1970's - things are still pretty much the same, except most of the "mom & pop" cable systems are gone, either bought out by other companies, or for other reasons. But the cable system still exists, except for one change: There isn't a central "antenna" anymore, not in the everyday sense. What the cable companies are now doing is using microwave feeds and some are using satellite feeds (ala HBO). These microwave feeds are still "free" - in fact, you could buy microwave "dishes" and get signals out of the air of a very high quality, for a few hundred bucks. Other "free" sources could be gotten via home sattellite dishes - HBO could be picked up, as well as many other stations.
One thing about HBO, though - HBO was a "premium" channel - you were supposed to pay the cable company a fee to see it, and part of that fee went back to HBO to pay for the rebroadcast license the cable company had with HBO. Those with microwave dishes and sattelite dishes, however, didn't pay this fee. HBO got upset (rightly, for HBO's broadcast contained no commercials, so something had to pay for it), and began scrambling the signal. Dish owners fought back with descrambler's, arguing that the signal came onto their property, and that they should be able to see it. Back and forth it has gone (and still does today).
The 1980's came, and decoder boxes were the norm. Why? The national broadcasters were sending out the feeds via satellite and microwaves (in addition to over-the-air). These feeds still contained commercials (some also had spots where the local cable companies could insert commercials), which advertisers paid for. The cable companies, though, had to pay for a license to rebroadcast the broadcaster's signal. Because of this, they had to keep control of the signal, so they began to scramble their broadcasts as well. Now, it was difficult to impossible to see the signals via a satellite or microwave dish.
So, let's see - where are the broadcasters getting their money from? Ah yes, from the cable companies (and indirectly from the viewers) and from advertisers. But is the amount that viewers pay for cable still a "convenience" fee, like it was when cable started...?
At the end of the 1980's, and throughout the 1990's, more and more cable channels were added. Most all of these channels were "private" affairs - in other words, they weren't put out by the original national broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS). Many of these channels you had to pay for (either per-channel, or in a "package, most oftentime the latter), and most of the channels had commercials. We now have a wonderful system where you pay to watch commercials, rather than the commercials supporting the broadcast of the channel. Unfortunately, we don't have any choice about paying, otherwise we are stuck with only 3 to 4 on the air channels (and this will quickly go to 0 on the air channels when HDTV broadcasts are common). I am not arguing for free cable though. I think we should pay the convenience fee (to the cable company), and the premium channel fees to the cable comapny as well. The other channels are supposed to be advertiser supported. If this was the case, then why can't you pick up these supposedly "advertiser supported" channels on a satellite dish (like Lifetime, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E)? Why is Lifetime only available in higher tier packages on DSS, not in the basic tier? How is it that the "convenience fee" that cable companies charge tend to go over $30.00 a month?
I guess one thing would be good about TV over IP, when it gets here: It will allow broadcasters to really compete for eyeballs, by only allowing those who pay-per-hour or whatnot access to the channels, and it will allow the "subscriber" to pick and choose what channels they want to see, rather than get the channels in "packages". The only thing I hate is that they will be able to track viewing habits, as well as control whether you can record a show or not. It will make today's banner ad and DVD problems seem like a sandbox spat...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Here's a link from the Prague Business Journal:
http://www.pbj.cz/pbj/article.asp?id=70386
It looks like the whole iCraveTV.com events played out in the Czech Republic as well. This simply proves that iCrave and their Czech counterparts were fullfilling a market niche (I watched a bit while I was in Japan).
If the MPAA doesn't want to keep repeating this around the globe, they need to sit down with the broadcasters and find some way to get television programming on the web. There simply is no reason, all these years after the first web radiocasts, that streaming television can't be found online.
...is that iCrave was registered as a corporation in the US by a US citizen... hence why the court was in Pennsylvania. If this had been done by a Canadian then the US networks and the NFL would have had to try it under Canadian law.
Present Canadian law says that the airwaves belong to everyone... anything on the airwaves is fair game.
So if I decide to put up a web-site (as I'm a Canadian) that has these channels taken from an antenna - then the US networks and the NFL would have a much tougher battle ahead of them.
Gee, maybe I'll just do that... any venture capitalists out there that want to go for a fun ride?
BlackNova Traders
This explains everything:
"Craig said the company was settling because it could not afford to continue fighting the suit."
The industry promptly postures:
"Today's settlement signals that the rights of copyright holders and creators cannot be ignored.''
What this tells me is who ever has the biggest bat wins. Not who's right or wrong, but who can pound the other into submission.
Seems like this would be the best forum to ask the question. Is it technically possible to create a Napster like software, at least for people with TV inputs on thier PC's?
The idea being that if you had a TV tuner on your PC, you would run the software to act as a server, for maybe 3-4 users. With a network of at least 2500 people running this software, you'd pretty much get wide coverage across the continent.
Illegal, most likely, but is it possible?