Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service

An anonymous reader writes A day after a surprise U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw streaming TV service Aereo, U.S. broadcaster Fox has moved to use the ruling to clamp down on another internet TV service. Fox has cited Wednesday's ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against a service offered by Dish, America's third largest pay TV service, which streams live TV programming over the internet to its subscribers and allows them to copy programmes onto tablet computers for viewing outside the home.

Comments

The Law of Intended Consequences

[xigxag]

Er, UNintended Consequences....that's totally what I meant to say...

Re:The Law of Intended Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news! Fox sucks! They are getting fewer people to watch their station by doing this!

Re:The Law of Intended Consequences

[Catbeller]

Those consequences were quite intended by the broadcast industry which sued Aereo. Only Scalia, amazingly, got it right when he warned they were after this endgame. Blind adherence to the tiny details of the law give us this stinking pile to live with, just as when they ruled that eternal copyright was fine as long as there was *some* time limit mentioned, even if it was a century, even if the limit would be eternally extended, as it just obviously had been.

Re:The Law of Intended Consequences

[ILongForDarkness]

UnNintendo Consequences?

Re:The Law of Intended Consequences

[lucien86]

The problem is that the law is always fallible and with the steadily increasing power of the ultra rich has been gradually manipulated to become increasingly fallible. Today innocence is decided far more by wealth and the power of your legal team (and maybe behind the scenes corruption) than guilt or innocence. This is true in the US the UK and I'm sure many other places.
Just a few days ago Rebekah Brooks was found innocent here in the UK despite being as obviously guilty as a child with its face still covered with stolen cake. Her argument was that she didn't know what was happening in her own editorial offices despite that the law was being broken systematically on a daily basis, not tens of times but thousands of times, at least. These crime was so widely known even at the time (beginning in the 1980's) that there were national jokes about it on TV. The Murdoch's also got away scot free, and really the only people to get punished were the little people who were sacrificed as scapegoats. Heavy (again industrial scale) police corruption is also implicated, as always when they commit crime the British police demonstrate an amazing ability at lying and subverting justice and at protecting each others backs.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

subject says it all

Big Difference

[msobkow]

There's a big difference. Dish pays for broadcast rights. Use of the internet is not a question, legally. It's just a transmission medium.

So as long as Dish is paying their fees, they should be free and clear.

Re:Big Difference

[ThatsMyNick]

They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

And they arent retransmitting.. the box in my house is (the hopper with Sling built in).
Same with thw tablets. If i want to transfer to my tablet, the hopper prosses the dvr'ed video to a mobile format and then copies *or MOVES* the recording to my tablet, based on if the content 'owner' allows there two be two copies, one on the tablet and one on the DVR both playable or just one playable copy.

This is the studio trying to be like the RIAA and not get with the times. If i can watch a show off of your website for free, why in the hell can't I watch it off the device in my house streamed to a device im currently using?

I think fox is still butt hurt over the auto commercial skip you can enable for showa that are recorded using the Primetime Anytime deal

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

Re:Big Difference

[Savage-Rabbit]

They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.

The article says they have the right to 'broadcast' Fox content, however, it also says they are doing what Aereo was doing in violation of 'an express contractual prohibition'. Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

My TiVo does virtually the exact same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if that's next on their list.

Re:Big Difference

[Savage-Rabbit]

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

You mean they are allowed to transmit Fox content live but not record it and then stream it to the user? Doesn't fair use also come into it? Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's in the contract they signed, they have to have re-transmission rights in order to get the broadcasts through the satellites.

Fox can go fux themselves, they've got NO legal leg to stand on in this case.

In other news, the fucking assholes cancelled the only good show they had "Almost Human".

Re:Big Difference

[Richard_at_work]

They have retransmission rights, apparently its the re-retransmission rights that are the problem.

Users have the right to record TV content for personal use.

Then users should record TV content for personal use - which isn't the same as what Dish are doing, as they are retransmitting their own recording of the content. Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

These nonsensical laws shouldn't exist to begin with. They may as well apply to absolutely everything, since they don't make sense to begin with.

Re:Big Difference

[guruevi]

Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.

Aereo rents out the antenna
Dish rents out the satellite dish
Aereo rents out the DVR
Dish rents out the DVR
Aereo allows access over the Internet
Dish allows access over the Internet

Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae
Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae

I don't see a difference.

Re:Big Difference

[Jane Q. Public]

Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.

In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

They are "re-transmitting" the signal obviously, they receive it, send it up to the satellites, which then re-broadcasts it to the Earth stations.

That means they have re-broadcast rights.

The bits that do the convert to mobile and transmit to any computer anywhere is done from the unit in MY house, not from Dish. That is perfectly legal and Fox has no say in the matter. The sling device and service has been around for over a decade, Fox lost any chance to prosecute as they didn't do it when the device was first introduced.

Go fux yourself Fox.

Re:Big Difference

[Opportunist]

You know, I know, but "on the internet" has spawned a whole lot of new rules without rhyme and reason or roots in reality, so it seems that "on the internet" means "normal sanity does not apply".

Re:Big Difference

[whoever57]

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Cablevision would beg to differ.

Re:Big Difference

[viperidaenz]

Fox lost any chance to prosecute as they didn't do it when the device was first introduced.

I thought it was common practise to wait as long as possible so the damages awards/threats can be maximised to either extract the most money possible through the courts or extort the largest out-of-court settlement.

Re:Big Difference

[Jane Q. Public]

Obviously s/Betmax/Betamax

Sony v Universal Studios

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The recent ruling only covers the "smells like a cable operator" (antenna rental) portion of Aereo's business. The Supremes side-stepped the "cloud DVR" issue entirely.

Dish pays retransmission fees (Hint: Look for the "local broadcast fee" on the bill), and thus makes the situation very different from Aereo (which refuses to pay the fees). Dish will likely use the Cablevision DVR case as a legal shield, which Fox would love to have a chance to overturn.

Re:Big Difference

[spire3661]

That needs to change. I am TIRED of one set of rules for the individual and another set for interacting with others. If its legal for me to do, its legal for me to share it with others. Anything less puts a HUGE damper on Information Age societies.

Re:Big Difference

[ArhcAngel]

The difference is the DVR in question. Aero's DVR is in the cloud and Dish's is in the home of the subscriber. It seems the Supreme Court saw a big enough difference in Aero's distribution as to be infringing while Dish's distribution has been covered for decades by fair use rules. Dish's DVR is no different than a VHS or VCR system from a legal standpoint. In fact I can get a modern DVR for Over The Air (ATSC) recording from several different companies. In fact I just found this article discussing Aero alternatives and it mentions all three of the devices I just linked to. The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox is famous for canceling good shit. Case in point: Firefly.

They can go fuck the hell off and die a horrible death.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep drinking the kool-aide.

Re:Big Difference

[AK Marc]

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

So I can fix my own house, but I can't pay anyone to fix it for me without paying 50% of the repair cost to the original builder. Sounds fair.

Re:Big Difference

[nurb432]

The fee will rise to the point they go out of business.

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish isn't. The feed goes right from the sling box built into the Hopper in the customers home right to the device (pc, tablet etc) the end user wants to access the content from.
How do i know? I have the hopper. If i watch my wan traffic or block ports, the remote device cant connect to "Living Room" (in my case) and no remotw viewing can occur.

You should most likely use one and have knowledge of how it works before you spread incorrect info

Re:Big Difference

[mark-t]

The difference is Dish pays broadcast rights. Aereo doesn't.

Re:Big Difference

[thaylin]

Not exactly. Dish does the same that Aereo did - they allow customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet. Aereo allowed customers to access their own DVR where they recorded information using their own antennae over the Internet.

Aereo rents out the antenna Dish rents out the satellite dish Aereo rents out the DVR Dish rents out the DVR Aereo allows access over the Internet Dish allows access over the Internet

Dish pays broadcast rights to send things over their satellites to customers' antennae Local TV stations pay broadcast rights to send things to customers' antennae

I don't see a difference.

Take a look at the bold section, notice that it does not say Aereo. Aereo did not pay for broadcasting rights, Dish does, as even stated in your post.

Re:Big Difference

[wagnerrp]

The users' own Hopper DVR is recording the television, transcoding it, and streaming it across the users' own internet connection to the users' own devices. This is not a service Dish is offering, merely a capability of the physical DVR they are renting to subscribers.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox is famous for canceling good shit. Case in point: Firefly.

You appear to have misspelled "godawful".
Buffy in Space only became a cult following because it was canceled.

Re:Big Difference

[Kagato]

Before making such bold statements I'd do a little more research on the hopper and how it functions. There's no cloud storage here. All the functionality is on the customers DVR and iPad.

Re:Big Difference

[The New Guy 2.0]

They seem to need more rights than they have in the current contracts at Dish Network... Dish is always the service getting into trouble, DirecTV always gets its contracts right.

Re: Big Difference

[Darinbob]

Yup, the content providers are mortal enemies of DVRs (or at least DVRs that they do not control themselves). They don't like time shifting and they don't like skipping of advertisements.

Re:Big Difference

[The New Guy 2.0]

VCRs always needed to use "analog hole" methods and unencrypted signals.... DVRs were not allowed to move programs without permission. "Default allow" is common in the world right now, but there are some things you can watch through a TiVo that you can't record.

Re: Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

Legally, that's a long way from being banned. There will most likely be some content provider that permits DVRs (even if it's PBS), so DVRs will probably not be going away. The content providers are probably not going to sue individuals: too expensive for too little return. That leaves the content providers suing the bigger players (retransmitters like Dish), which is what we're seeing now.

Re:Big Difference

[Ichijo]

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Is it one of those things, like sex and human organs, that you can give away for free but you can't charge money for it?

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference. Dish pays for broadcast rights.

Big difference to whom? Clearly Fox doesn't actually care one way or another and everything about the Aereo decision seems to only care about broadcast rights in so far as the original broadcasters deem that said broadcasts are sufficiently paid for. Here's a helpful hint: we the people GIVE Fox, et al a privilege to broadcast their TV signal in exchange for being able to receive and view its contents along with a slew of provisions (educational programming, censorship rules, etc). Yet this has all degenerated into a discussion about copyright law and broadcast "rights".

Use of the internet is not a question, legally. It's just a transmission medium.

Really? Because everything about Aereo stinks of precisely that. If Aereo had been a set of antennas and really, really long wires then "broadcast" or "re-broadcast" wouldn't even enter into the discussion. The very fact that the internet functions by copying has translated into a perverse and technical distinction that's, I'd say, being abused because a computer is involved. Hence, the whole legally of it is in question and honestly already settled a long time ago*.

So as long as Dish is paying their fees, they should be free and clear.

The beauty of that statement is the absurdity that presumes that if Aereo had been paying some fee they wouldn't have been sued. Well, hey, Dish is being sued. That they may be "free and clear" in that the courts may eventually side with them changes little of the fact that they'll spend millions to defend themselves and plenty of other companies would just fold under the pressure. But, yea, whatever.

*The essential step defense was established decades ago precisely to deal with the issue that computer software needs to be copied into RAM to function and hence the act of using was spelled out as protected in regards to copyright. Now, obviously, the language itself speaks of just software, but until the Aereo case it was effectively established that it really applied to ALL copyrighted material because obviously otherwise every digital mp3, video, etc player would infringe copyright as there's invariable a step of decoding a frame of digital input back to the decompressed analogy output. The overriding rule has seemingly always been that as long as personal, non-commercial** use was involved that the per say content was irrelevant and the actual location of all the various equipment was equally irrelevant. Honestly, no matter the language of the Supreme Court ruling over the Aereo case of the limited scope, it's clear that there's no way to take the ruling but a very overly broad and inconsistent interpretation of what has come before. So, it's little wonder Fox might want to further wedge the issue for more money.

**In this case, the issue of non-commercial does not mean that you own the equipment (or basically all 3rd party servers would run afoul of the law) or that someone isn't making money off your use (or Google, MS, etc and their e-mail services would be up shit creek). It merely means that the person in question doing the use isn't themselves trying to gain commercially from their use directly in that use. They could still indirectly be gaining commercially (a 3rd party server running massive compiles of anything where the compiler is proprietary). Of course this whole mess is heavily due to the fact that copyright law breaks down at a logistical level severely once you do start talking in terms of a situation where parts of a program may be running on multiple continents simultaneously with multiple people. No amount of licensing, even a site license, necessary protects you if said copyright holder argues, well, whatever the fuck he wants.

And that's the fundamental issue with the whole problem. Because copyright is fundamentally a civ

Re:Big Difference

[Jane Q. Public]

The Court's 5-4 ruling ... in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.

The majority opinion:

[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses...

Nothing about an "analog hole" anywhere in there. And tablets are clearly capable of non-infringing uses.

Indeed, devices already exist (such as Slingbox) that allow you to view content from your DVR from not just outside the home, but from anywhere on Earth that has a decent internet connection. And so far nobody has tried to say they are anything but perfectly legal.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The users' own Hopper DVR is recording the television, transcoding it, and streaming it across the users' own internet connection to the users' own devices. This is not a service Dish is offering, merely a capability of the physical DVR they are renting to subscribers.

How, exactly, is it different for a device you rent to stream content from your home across the internet than for a device you rent to stream content from a data warehouse across the internet? The only difference between Aereo and Hopper seems to be the physical location of the device. Based on the "looks like cable TV" standard that SCOTUS used to evaluate Aereo, it seems like Hopper will look like On-Demand. Fox is claiming that Dish can retransmit the live broadcast, but not create a library for any-time viewing.

Yes, it's ridiculous, but it is a logical conclusion from the Aereo decision.

Re:Big Difference

[tburkhol]

The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.

But, don't you see that that is exactly the value that Aereo was offering? Space for me to put an antenna that would reliably receive the digital broadcasts that were supposed to be so much better than analog, even in the middle of a forest of concrete and steel. How fondly I remember the pre-digital days, when I could get (slightly staticky) broadcasts from 30 miles away. With great anticipation, I waited on the new digital signals that claimed to provide clearer pictures over even greater distances. Imag.....y dis......nt.......it turns out.....digit....sts don......fully.

Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, it was 2005 when the first Slingbox was introduced. It's only been 9 years that the product has been doing the same thing it's doing now.

Gee Fox - it was illegal 9 years ago, it's not illegal now.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.

In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.

Ahhh, but you're missing the bigger picture here. A DVR... ALREADY has the content on it. It's been transmitted & stored. A tablet DOESN'T have the content on it. It's being streamed to it & this is the argument FOX has.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference is that the recordings and the "source" for internet viewing is all from the box in your house - not somewhere else on the internet.

That solid piece of information completely isolates it from "smells like a cable operator" decision.

Had Aereo done the same thing, and installed both the antenna and the box in your home, rather than in a centralized location, it would never have failed to defend itself. Even now, that decision is questioned, and the Judge's family and friends are all being audited, as the DA smells something fishy in the court room.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Aereo is *not* a broacaster. they are a cloud dvr provider. If they are a *broadcaster* then so is your home dvr (which might go over a WiFi network) and so (definitely) is any cloud backup/retrievel system (e.g. Dropbox, iDrive, etc... all of which allow you to move copyrighted material to the cloud and retrieve it later for use... which in the courts terms means *broadcast*).

Re:Big Difference

[ArhcAngel]

Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.

Not exactly. The way I understood how the SC ruled was the device would need to get the signal directly from the broadcaster and be located in the consumer's residence. So a consumer would need to have the DVR located on the premises and receive the signal directly from broadcasters via a local antenna. The Tablo is basically the same as the Aero service except you own the device and set it up at home. The Tablo doesn't even have a video out port. It's tuners are only accessible through streaming clients. It doesn't solve the concrete/metal interference problem that Aero did and perhaps they should pursue that argument on their appeal. I disagree with the SC finding as Aero was not altering in any way the content being delivered whereas the cable/satellite companies actually inject extra content/advertising into their rebroadcasts. Ultimately the networks want Aero to have to pay for retransmission and are lobbying even the courts to make that a reality.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish pays local tv stations to rebroadcast their programming as well - fully covered.

Box in house of consumer - all the difference in the world. Sorry charlie

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. "Buffy in Space"? If you want to criticize something how about learning something about it first.

Firefly became popular after it was cancelled because it was cancelled but because it was good. The cancelled part was because while it was on the air it was in a time slot that kept getting preempted, and a lot of people simply didn't have the opportunity to watch it. You don't have to like it, but you're not entitled to make up crap and present it as fact.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

All good and well, you've explained exactly why the Dish equipment is fine.

Dish subscibers get the equipment, it sits in their house, it stores the video in their house, it converts and sends data from their house to their devices.

All perfectly legal and legit. Fox can go suck 30 days in 90 degree F weather rotten eggs.

Re:Big Difference

[baronvonj5561]

Fox aired the episodes out of order, and changed both the schedule (both day of week and time of day) multiple times before settling on a time slot with historically low viewership (no matter what show was in the time slot) and didn't air all the episodes that had been produced.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

All perfectly legal and legit.

And everything about what Aereo subscribers were doing seemed perfectly legitimate and legit. The equipment was rented. The space it sat on was rented. The video was stored in rented space. And it converted and sent from rented space to their devices. Given all the above can be true with a Dish subscriber setup (the DVR equipment is rented and where you live may well be rented space), I don't see it changing much. After all, if there was any real complaint to be had, it should have been with Aereo/Dish subscribers and questioning whether *they* were making illegitimate copies. That the Supreme Court decided, through argument by copyright holders, that it was Aereo that was even involved may well spell doom for Dish.

That's the real crux of the issue, as I say. The Courts let copyright holders go after Napster and Aereo. They tried to go after Sony with Betamax. The courts should have long ago ruled that it be required to go after actual infringing use and not merely possible facilitators unless it clear they conspire to willfully infringe--and it's not enough that they merely seek to reward those who spawn a lot of premium accounts or ad revenue since that's precisely how Youtube operates without any willful nfringing*. And all the talk of "pirates ruin it for the rest of us"...well, Aereo just proves the point of how far off that is because nothing about Aereo has even begun to be suggested to be about piracy and neither has this case with Dish. It's all about copyright holders wanting more control and more money. Greedy fucks.

*And it's despicable that Youtube has basically had to bend over for "content providers" to avoid a stacked court that sees "content providers" as the only true copyright holders and hence mass copying MUST be of their content and hence violate their copyrights and hence must be willful infringement of their copyrights.

Re:Big Difference

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, but *your* VCR/DVR is very different than a service doing this; that is the nuance that lead to the recent Aero ruling.

I don't think the service is doing it. It is allowing YOU to do it. That might seem like nitpicking but it's actually a pretty big difference.

If cable companies and the RIAA could not legally stop people from doing it, how could Dish stop people from doing it? Would they be breaking the law?

I don't know. There are a lot of nuances here, and though I have been a Dish customer before, I'm not right now so I don't know much about how this particular thing works.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.

Cablevision would beg to differ.

They can differ all they want, the Supreme Court decision ONLY covers Aereo. www.xconomy.com/national/2014/06/27/calm-down-aereos-supreme-court-loss-isnt-chaos-for-cloud-tech/

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

It's legal to walk around naked in the privacy of your own home. It's not legal to share this with young children, nor should it be. Some rules make sense for individuals vs sharing, you can't just make a blanket statement like that.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice attempt to deliberately conceal the main difference between the two. Dish pays for retransmission rights. Aereo didn't and was found by the supreme court to be infringing copyright.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about Fox losing their cut of the ad money from streaming when people use Dish's streaming capability instead of Fox's. That's all it is about.

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Information Age" as you call it (how quaint) is almost over, the Surveillance and Obedience Age is upon us. Your precious computer is a tool for oppression and yet you cannot live without it. How does it feel, knowing that freedom is now lost forever?

Re:Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

If that's your situation, then it's because you don't own the house free and clear. For most of the content you receive, you don't own it. You don't even own the content when you buy a copy of it. If you don't like the deal you're getting, go somewhere else. (That's under something called the "free market".)

Re:Big Difference

[AK Marc]

So where can I go buy a copy of "Game of Thrones" where I own it?

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Under a real free market, you wouldn't be able to control what data people share with others off of their own equipment. Then again, 'free market' sort of has an answer already: The various websites where you can (likely illegally in many places) download this content for free.

Re:Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

When you buy software, you buy the single copy and the right to use that copy (as in install it on one computer, typically). You don't buy the copyrights to the software itself.

Re:Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

Oh, really? Well the makers of vacuum cleaner bags, automotive oil filters, and a whole host of other parts that only work in one manufacturer's equipment would disagree. If you don't like having to buy parts or data from specialized sources, then stop buying the equipment or subscriptions that require that. That is how you exercise your part in the "real free market".

Re:Big Difference

[AK Marc]

So you were recommending an impossible course of action, as if it's possible. Why?

Or was your point that the "free market" can't exist when patents and copyrights do?

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the deal you're getting, go somewhere else. (That's under something called the "free market".)

You do realize that "free market" applies to commodities and not items whose supply is limited to a single vendor, don't you?

There is no "somewhere else" when you are talking about legal copies of "Game of Thrones". Only places licensed by the copyright holders.

Re:Big Difference

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What I'm curious about is how the system is implemented and will that matter?

If they're using Slingbox style implementation and using the customer's own outbound connection to stream, then things are way less murky for Dish.

If they're using their own infrastructure to serve out shows, then things are less clear about retransmission rights. Given the vast amount of storage needed, I don't think they are.

I suspect this will be a home run for Dish. They ARE paying the piper, and they're handing customers what is essentially a slingbox with a satellite STB. Unlike Aereo, I think Dish has it's ducks in a row.

Re:Big Difference

[LDAPMAN]

It's not "Slingbox style",it IS Slingbox. Dish owns sling and has built it into their DVRs.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fix it yourself in your house, or pay someone to fix it in your house. Once the "ownership" changes or the location at which the fix is at, that is when it becomes more complicated.

Re:Big Difference

[Catbeller]

"Fair Use"? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! That was FUNNY! "Fair Use"!! Why, grampa here just peed in his Depends when he heard you mention that dead fish. Fair Use indeed. Whoo. Whee.

Re:Big Difference

[Catbeller]

Um, Scalia tried that with Bush V. Gore. "Only applies to this one election." Bull.
No, it doesn't work like that, unless someone is crookedly applying law. Law is law, and they don't get to choose what the consequences of their STUPID decision is.

Re:Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

You can buy another game that runs on your preferred platform that plays with swords, armies, battles and territories (or whatever that game looks like). If you can't, then you can find the same game on another platform. If that's not possible, then you can get a knockoff of the game within 2-6 months of the original game's release. If that's not possible, then you can write your own game that plays the same way.

Same thing for videos. Can't get your desired movie with lots of action or romance having star A produced by X? Wait 6 months and you'll be able to get the same thing having essentially the same plot having star B produced by Y.

You're walking into the supermarket, seeing a particular watermelon, not liking the price it's offered for, and whining that you can't have it for what you want. Pick out another watermelon. Go to another supermarket.

All free market examples. Got it?

Re:Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it. You typically own a single copy of it and licensed rights necessary to use that single copy.

What happened to the days when we used to talk about software licenses around here? Have all of the open source people gone? I didn't think I'd have to explain so many times...

Re:Big Difference

[Catbeller]

"Is it one of those things, like sex and human organs, that you can give away for free but you can't charge money for it?"

You can't charge, either. You must remain a virgin until they license you to have sex, er, watch TV.

Re:Big Difference

[Catbeller]

This is ME saying this, but in Betamax decision, the SCOTUS said that *even though* VCR sometimes infringed on copyrights, that the non-infringing uses outweighed the "bad" use. Yes, that makes little sense, but blame copyright laws for that. Change the laws, change the decisions.

Re:Big Difference

[bws111]

From HBO. Of course, it will cost many millions of dollars, but then you own it and can do whatever you want with it.

Re:Big Difference

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I know they had Sling branding on the box, didn't know if the delivery mechanism was the same.

Still, Fox is shooting themselves in the feet here.

Re: Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget the RIAA mass lawsuits.

So, yes, content providers have in the past sued individuals, and if they see profit in it in the future they certainly will again.

Re: Big Difference

[dfeifer]

You can't. Been this way for years in relationship to entertainment media. What you are purchasing is a license to listen or watch the media and that is all. Just be thankful that they aren't as sue happy as they could be. That new cd/mp3 your playing in your car or porch? If other people can hear it besides you then it is considered an infraction and they could fine or sue you for it.

Re:Big Difference

[TangoMargarine]

By that logic, only one copy of any given movie or album would ever be sold, because the person would promptly throw it up on the torrents. And that "should be" legal.

Not that that doesn't already happen to some degree.

Re:Big Difference

[TangoMargarine]

My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it. You typically own a single copy of it and licensed rights necessary to use that single copy.

You're being pointlessly pedantic. That was obviously what AK Marc was talking about.

Re:Big Difference

[organgtool]

This is hilarious. You cite the "free market" when referring to a copyrighted work. The very copyright that protects this work is a government-granted monopoly allowing entities to create artificial scarcity. In a free market, there would be no government interference, the monopoly would not exist, and we wouldn't have all of the nonsense we're currently debating. I'm not saying abolishing copyrights is the way to go, but copyrighted works do NOT fall under the umbrella of the free market.

Re: Big Difference

[TangoMargarine]

You don't have to like it, but you're not entitled to make up crap and present it as fact.

Funny, I missed the part where he said anything other than Firefly's cancellation was fact.

"Good" and "famous" are both entirely subjective and thus opinion.

Re:Big Difference

[American Patent Guy]

The free market for copyrightable works includes similar works made by other authors. The government-granted monopoly is not to all works of the kind of a copyrighted work, it is the monopoly to one particular expression within that kind. (I made another comment under this story using watermelons; I'm too lazy to go find it.)

The same kind of monopolies exist in real properties: I can't rent out a particular condo for less than the owner is willing to. Does the owner have a monopoly? Yes, on that particular condo. Does that prevent a free market for condos? No, because there are other condos for rent in the free market.

When there is some desirable or profitable copyrighted work out there, somebody else will create another one similar to it. When there is one distributor of cable-type programming out there, others will compete. If you don't like Dish, then you can get Direct-TV. See?

Re:Big Difference

[geekoid]

Wrong.
The decsion is based on some very specific point in the Aereo case.
Very few cases are as simple as the media makes it seem. The ruled the Aereo is behaving like a cable provider, and not just an equipment provider.

Si yes, if I start a company the grabs broadcasts and then streams them, the law would apply to me. Does that mean it should apply to dish?
I don't know. if Dish is doing the same thing or not. IF the are just time shifting content subscribers shows, then I would think not.

Re:Big Difference

[geekoid]

Actually own it? well you would need to go to HBO and buy it form them. Probably 200 million dollars?

You don't own any movie. You never have.

Re:Big Difference

[Gr8Apes]

I'm pretty sure Aero can get around the antenna issue. The DVR in the cloud is a different issue, and may be fixable by streaming from antenna to home located device to cloud device. The ISPs will scream at the increased load, which could also be solved technically, by having the stream done via multicast. The only problem here are the broadcasters like FOX that don't want you to have this control.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it been adjudicated that someone else can record for you and give you the recording later?

Re:Big Difference

[sglines]

I always thought that the TV channels sell ads by eyeballs. Retransmitting a signal only increases the number of eyeballs. Hell I know Comcast used to demand payment from smaller channels (like the Golf channel) because of that while the majors demanded payment.

I am beginning to think that an ALL Internet business model based on the sale of eyeballs has got to be the future and that, like the recording industry, the major networks will fade into oblivion. I hope.

Re:Big Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't own any movie. You never have.

I own the movies that I make, you insensitive clod. When people realize that great art is out there that is not controlled by the giant media corporations the faster their business model can fail and society can move forward.

Re:Big Difference

[praxis]

Words of art are not commodities, by definition.

Re:Big Difference

[praxis]

Works of art too!

Re:Big Difference

[nabsltd]

VCRs always needed to use "analog hole" methods and unencrypted signals.... DVRs were not allowed to move programs without permission.

Sure they were...I did it all the time with recordings of OTA HDTV using a MyHD card in my PC.

I think you are assuming that "DVR" == "device supplied by cable or satellite company to record encrypted signals".

Re:Big Difference

[omnichad]

The antenna issue is what the ruling against them was based on. It's also how cable companies started. They put the antenna in a place that gets good reception and charge for the service of retransmitting that to you down your cable line. The content industry managed to get the 1992 Cable Act passed, making that illegal without a retransmission license.

The DVR in the cloud issue was a very minimized part of the ruling - hardly the basis of the decision at all. However, retransmission is never perfectly live anyway. Whether it's just delayed by a hardware encoder's buffer, or sits on a hard drive for several days, it's still a retransmission.

Re:Big Difference

[AK Marc]

My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it.

Then what did you mean by:

If you don't like the deal you're getting, go somewhere else.

If there's nowhere else I can go, then your statement is wrong and misleading.

Re:Big Difference

[The New Guy 2.0]

You had an amazing winning streak. You see, there's a "broadcast flag" developed in the DVR software that is really the "can't copy flag" that would take away you ability to move that file around. So far, none of the programs you tried to move did that. Try that with a PPV movie, an HBO/Showtime or similar movie. Try that with HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher... it won't work.

Re:Big Difference

[nabsltd]

You see, there's a "broadcast flag" developed in the DVR software that is really the "can't copy flag" that would take away you ability to move that file around.

The MyHD DVR ignores the setting of the broadcast flag, as does pretty much every other OTA HD recorder. This is primarily because it has never been intentionally set on any program.

Try that with a PPV movie, an HBO/Showtime or similar movie. Try that with HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher... it won't work.

When those are broadcast OTA (over the air, i.e., TV using the same frequencies and antennas as has been used for 50 years) and can be decoded by any ATSC-compliant device, I suspect I'd have no problem moving the program anywhere.

Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

There are people who make money with outdated systems that technology decimates. These horse and buggy people would love to see the Internet removed completely. This is why you see places like NBC not streaming the Olympics to everyone on the Internet, but only to cable subscribers. Sure NBC could make a boat load by putting localized advertisements in. People would have made out too if NBC put the Olympics on the Internet because they could watch the events they want when they want instead of waking up at 2 am. NBC is in bed with Comcast though and just wants more cable subscriptions instead of providing a quality service. And Comcast is afraid that if people stream quality programming, that more people will cord cut. So there's little incentive for Comcast to provide better Upload/Download speed. The RIAA from what I hear is making tons of money suing everyone they can, even local places in the sticks are getting sued for using non licensed music in karaoke. Some people would benefit if the Internet ceased to exist completely. This is the same as people who would have benefited if the automobile never got invented.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you apparently missed it, NBC is Comcast. Now we are reaping the Comcastic service they promised.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[wbr1]

The problem is, they are winning. I have no cable subscription (except business class data, as it is what I need, and all that is available to me).

The more I look, the LESS content is available legally without having a cable sub and piping in valid creds.

Pretty soon (if they haven't already) they will further limit such streaming to IP address known to be the same customers node. To prevent you from using your friends login and not having your own of course, even though it keeps legitimate customers from streaming abroad.

Further, at least with Comcast, business class connections had been exempt from DMCA threat letters. No more. I received my first this month, and it is no mistake as it mentions home or business-class internet in the letter. It apparently does not matter to them that all sorts of random computers connect to my network. In this case, for repair, not as an open WiFi.

Expect things to get worse as they squeeze other players like Netflix out of existence, and splinter different studios, and such into their own separate services. Expect them to get worse as they use their riches to bribe congress/FCC/courts into doing their bidding.

In ye olden times, the buggy whip makers were a weak, splinters force. The media companies of today are the opposite. Financially and politically powerful, with unified goals, and fewer dissonant voices within their ranks (being only a few inbred corporations anymore, this is not hard to achieve).

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, at least with Comcast, business class connections had been exempt from DMCA threat letters. No more. I received my first this month, and it is no mistake as it mentions home or business-class internet in the letter. It apparently does not matter to them that all sorts of random computers connect to my network. In this case, for repair, not as an open WiFi.

Really? Are you able to say whether actual infringement occurred?

Here's an idea. What if Comcast were to charge us an extra few dollars per month? Use this money to provide lawyers to customers who get sued. In the event the individual loses the trial, he or she doesn't need to worry about his own lawyer cost. It's not a perfect solution.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[barfy]

In other words, I want content for free. I bet you run ad block too...

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you run ad block too

And you don't? Don't be such a tool.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[alen]

so after the paid billions of $$$ to get the rights they are supposed to give everyone free access?

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

If you can somehow make money off advertisements, you'd have more viewers.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[jeIlomizer]

In other words, 1 + 1 = 3.

What, that isn't what you said? Well, now you know what it feels like.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[wbr1]

Yes, I use adblock. Not because I am opposed to ads, but because they have become overbearing, in the way of actual content, and oftentimes, infection vectors. I do not want content for free. I want a model where wealth and power are distributed more evenly, a model where I am FREE to choose what I want to watch. I am free no not watch, and that is what I currently do, but that is a false choice.

In the current model, a select few fleece the users and call it the cost of buinsess, because we steal and they have to 'legally license' from EACH OTHER, essentially handing the money they get from us back and forth with a bunch of hand waving and doublespeak. They then use the excess to further monopolize and entrench this model.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[jittles]

NBC is in bed with Comcast though and just wants more cable subscriptions instead of providing a quality service.

NBC is owned by comcast. Comcast is NBC's pimp man. You give it up and pay out your earnings when your pimp comes along.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[Catbeller]

They don't want to eliminate the internet. They want to turn it into a paid cable TV service with data for a fat extra charge. They want to own the internet, turn it into another corporate-owned asset. And they have won.

Re:Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[Samizdata]

And I will admit I use it too. But I use it because some ad networks have been shown to serve malware content, and nothing pisses me off as much as loading a page and not being able to read it because it won't render until some dogging ad network FINALLY throws up an advertisement.

Greedy bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see how useless and annoying we can make TV and still having people paying for it. It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
I don't know any TV provider here these days who doesn't provide a option to see TV programs at least 14 days back and even a month.
That being said, I have given up on cable tv years ago myself.

Re:Greedy bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of a Swedish website that allows you to find other people willing to share parts of their copies or TV shows with no ads and no DRM.

Something like TheBuccaneerAlcove?

Re:Greedy bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the best thing since sliced bread. It's not like the 1% needs more money.

Re:Greedy bastards

[TangoMargarine]

It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).

I love all these comments that equate to, "Well, you Americans should just stop doing that. Duh!" It's not like there's an entrenched multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to preventing that exact eventuality or anything.

 

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

http://principiadiscordia.com/...

New person in the distribution, new fee required

[American Patent Guy]

This is not legal advice, but it seems pretty clear:

A subscriber/owner of copyrighted material has the right to time-shift their viewing and to make (backup) copies, but they don't have the right to give a copy to a non-subscriber/owner of the material. What Aereo was doing diminishes the ability of the copyright holder to control how the copyrighted material is marketed/copied. Here we have Fox (copyright holder) controlling how its material is distributed/copied. Dish is not just a "medium", they are redistributing the material and diminishing the market of Fox.

Fox will probably win this out of trial, and they'll probably be collecting a lot of money from Dish in past royalties due.

So it is all about the fees and royalites?

[Trachman]

Except that there are much more smaller and independent channels who would love to get included in the big company's, such as dish TV, programming schedule. I can bet that this will accelerate and will spur more independent producers of the content. Internet was supposed to be a communication medium, delivering a cost effective and convenient way to to share data. One way or another, Aereo ruling will strike back legacy companies in the ways that they have not anticipated.

Re:So it is all about the fees and royalites?

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is always about money. Now, what was the question?

Fox

[PPH]

No longer available. And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish, had it, got rid of it, they have lot's of duplicate channels and total garbage shows filling many channels that they push in ads as "more for your money".
Fox shows are mind rot programming targeted to fill the hours of brain-dead zombies.
Agreed, nothing of value lost.

 

Re:Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

if it wasn't for their crazy overpaying for nfl football rights, fox would be totally irrelevant in television instead of just mostly so.

cancel my firefly, i quit watching fox ages ago. fuck you, fox.

Is this anything like TVcatchup?

[Anonymous Coward]

TVcatchup is a service available in the UK which streams a selection of free-to-air channels (including the main five) and which tacks an obligatory (you have to do more than simply install ABP if you want to avoid watching it) advertisement to the beginning of each stream. Fort

The people who run it are obnoxious money-grubbers who are blatantly profiting off others' hard work - the sort of leeching capitalists who get very rich from doing very little that the current British government champions. But the statute which exists to allow cable TV providers to retransmit the main terrestrial channels is sufficiently broad as to allow TVcatchup to operate for those channels. For remaining free-to-air channels, some OK it, and some do it - though they started by retransmitting all without obtaining permission, and in their very first incarnation included a recording service.

Re:Is this anything like TVcatchup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds okay to me. That you don't like how they make money is irrelevant, since all they're doing is transmitting channels.

Re:Is this anything like TVcatchup?

[Anonymous Coward]

That you don't like how they make money is irrelevant, since all they're doing is transmitting channels.

Holy non sequitur, AC!

Unethical behaviour is always relevant, especially if I have to pay into the system that protects it.

Re:Is this anything like TVcatchup?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a non sequitur at all.

Unethical behaviour is always relevant, especially if I have to pay into the system that protects it.

There's nothing unethical about merely broadcasting data, even if you modify it to include an advertisement. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[jeIlomizer]

What Aereo was doing diminishes the ability of the copyright holder to control how the copyrighted material is marketed/copied.

Wow, how terrible. Can't have copyright thugs not being able to control what everyone else does with the data on their own equipment, now can we?

Here we go

[nurb432]

The beginning of the end for streaming services.

I'm a cordcutter and won't pay retransmission fees

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is free over the air, I don't see why I'd even begin to pay retransmission fees. The last thing I watched over the air was the Super Bowl, and I had the streaming set up in case the Mohu antenna didn't do what it needed to do.

I don't think I'm alone.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requir

[Anonymous Coward]

No they arent. You have to be a dish subscriber and the dvr box that has sling in (where your remote stream comes from) can only sling the channels and content you're paying for.

The only stufd you can remotely stream or move to a tablet is the exact same content you can watch or record on the dvr within *youe house* as thats exactly where the stream content is pulled from

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

You and the corporation thugs need to learn that copyrights are NOT property. You don't own a copyright.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

Actually, copyrights are well understood to be "intellectual" property, and I assure you (as an IP attorney) that copyrights can be owned, assigned (sold) and licensed (rented).

straws.....

[Anonymous Coward]

just ... out ... of ... reach

try again, fox. try, try again. and fuck off while you're at it.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

Hey: I'm just giving you my view on the law as it stands today. If you think it should be changed, write your congressman...

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requir

[American Patent Guy]

I don't remember whether or not Dish has subscribed to receive the Fox material: if memory serves, they were redistributing it much the same way as Aereo (as in assuming the Fox material to be broadcasted content). If Dish does not have a subscription for the Fox material, then it doesn't matter what the subscription agreement between you and Dish contains.

Redistribution without an agreement with Fox is now, as of the Aereo decision, copyright infringement and subject to damages.

Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been numerous cases where a ruling from a court of a certain country (whether it be US or Europe or Timbuktu) regarding the Net has altered the way the Net operates

For example, a Canadian company was found to be "breaching the law" of the USA when its online poker operation was available in the USA and had to pay hundreds of millions in fine to the Uncle Sam

Well ... it's the Net, the operation is in the Net, the company is in Canada, and how come a court inside USA can fine a company in Canada any money in the first place ?

I mean, if USA does not want online poker to run inside its territory, the REAL JURISDICTION of that US court supposed to be limited to ordering that company to shut off the operation to IPs that originate from USA - and nothing else, really

Similar case here ...

A US court find that an online streaming service which streams TV programming (including those from the US teevee channels) has violated some laws INSIDE THE USA, and by jurisdiction, that US court can only order that company to shut off its operation to all IPs which are originated from USA, but no, that company had to shut off ALL OPERATION

What I want to know is, WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS TO LEGAL JURISDICTION ???

And it is not only for online thing only

A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !

What the fuck is going on, people ?

How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???

Re:Jurisdiction

[American Patent Guy]

The answer to your question is not simple. Most industrialized countries have treaties with each other that permit legal actions to be taken under any applicable jurisdiction. Even the jurisdiction of a single country can be broad: usually U.S. jurisdiction goes to any person or entity "doing business" on U.S. soil or by any infrastructure located on U.S. soil. European countries will enforce U.S. copyrights, and the U.S. will enforce european copyrights.

Can a U.S. court order a Canadian company to discontinue offering gambling over the Internet? It depends upon the treaties it has with the U.S.

Re:Jurisdiction

[fafalone]

The problem is you're hung up on the idea of what's legal and/or right. Think of it more along the lines of the mafia. The family running the corner bodega has nothing to do with the mafia, but they're forced to pay for the mafia's "protection services" not because of the mafia's legal right to enforce their policies, but because they have people willing to use coercion to enforce it. The only option is to get someone with more power/force behind them who is willing to stand up; for the bodega owner, that's the police. But there's no one with the power to stand up and force the United States to back down. So the US enforces global jurisdiction because IT CAN. It even prosecutes its own citizens who break US laws in countries where the activity that occurred is legal.
Now I know your first thought might be, well we're not going to use our military against Canada/France, but we have many other forms of coercion. We can and will forbid a particular financial institution to do business with US-based businesses and individuals, so that is the force that keeps them in line.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm.. Timbuktu isn't a country :-P it's a city.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to the USA, the course that will make the most money is taken. The country is run and defined by legal outfits. If a US citizen is using a US connection to gamble, they are breaking the law in their own land. That's where the issue should stop. If they travel elsewhere and place a bet, they're no longer in the US and US laws shouldn't apply. But seeing as the legal people make more money from chasing large corporations than the law seeking to stop the locals, it's obvious what's going to happen.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ummm.. Timbuktu isn't a country :-P it's a city."

Ummm... Neither is Europe. It's a continent.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Catbeller]

"How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???"

Empire. Rules of an empire. We've thousands of nukes, hundreds of military bases in a hundred+ counties, and we create every single "treaty" that governs our actions. You are either a vassal, or a cooperating and subordinate power.

Americans are fine with this idea. They never leave home much, and even if they did, they would not mind the hate. We are the fhining City on the Hill, the Nation Favoured by Providence, the people chosen by God Almighty to lead the world to a perfect age, so that Jesuf can come back, deftroy the world, hurl the unbelieverf and the wicked into the Pit of Fire for ever and ever and build a new Fhining City of Gold for uf, the chofen, to live with Jefus forever, along with perhaps a few foreigners who listened to the Holy Word of America.

If you don't understand the news coming from America, the above is THE explanation. You need no others; it is not hyperbole. And it will get so much worse.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Catbeller]

The US writes all the treaties. Amazing how that works.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, they let industry representatives write the treaty.

And then they use extreme pressure to force countries to sign up for it.

The US has been exporting their laws for decades, and in many cases laws they couldn't even get at home.

Because America is full of assholes who only care about maximizing corporate profits, and protecting the large players right to squash competition.

Re:Jurisdiction

[American Patent Guy]

That's how it worked around WWII. Now it's the European Union that writes most of the recent treaties that relate to IP (at least for countries that seem to matter now). If you file an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, you get to file it using size "A4" paper, not the "letter" size used in the U.S. The regulations are published in English, French, Spanish and German (if memory serves). The U.S. ain't the industrial powerhouse of the world like it used to be...

Re:Jurisdiction

[mhollis]

And, certainly such a treaty does exist, else no court in the USA would have had jurisdiction to demand the payments. And, from the standpoint of operating websites, it is pretty easy to block whole countries from seeing your website. All it takes is editing a .htaccess file.

As to the banking issue, France is a signatory of a treaty within the European Community of Nations as well as the United States to sanction Iran regarding their development of atomic weapons. This is an agreement between the United States government, France and all like-minded governments that have decided that the sanctions are appropriate in view of the non-proliferation agreement signed by Iran (that's right, Iran under the Shah, but Iran, nonetheless).

Now, I am not an attorney and I do not play one on television, but my work takes me, quite frequently, into this area of international law, usually set up by treaties. In the United States, treaties are negotiated and signed by the Administration (the Executive) and ratified by the United States Senate. Many other countries also have a separate ratification process that follows a negotiation and signature. These treaties give the various courts in the various countries jurisdictionÃ"even though the violation did not occur within the borders of that court's country.

That is how international law works.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Catbeller]

Copyright, as in "intellectual property", is a notion that exploded from The Shining City on the Hill, namely Jesus's country, America. We've rammed each and every treaty down the world's throat for almost thirty years. Now that it's established, of course European copyright lords are helping seal us in with our cask of Amontlliado. But it is American in origin.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, if USA does not want online poker to run inside its territory, the REAL JURISDICTION of that US court supposed to be limited to asking the government of Canada to do something.

FTFY. Or do you think the government of, say, China, should have the authority to tell an American company, operating in the USA, that they must do something, just because some Chinese citizens are accessing their service?

(I am well aware that you are not advocating for China to be able to tell the American company to stop offering services to people in America. Not the point. China has absolutely no authority to tell the American company what to do, just as America has no authority to tell the Canadian company what to do.)

Re:Jurisdiction

[American Patent Guy]

Actually, copyrights started in Britain in the early 1700's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Re:Jurisdiction

[geekoid]

Did you even stop for a moment to think:"Hmm, this seem odd that the US can do this, why do those countries let them?"
That question alone should lead you to the answer.

But no. Posting in bolded caps is easier then actually learning something.

Re:Jurisdiction

[geekoid]

That's not true, and the other country does have to agree to it in any case.

Re:Jurisdiction

[geekoid]

Copyright comes from the British empire.

Re:Jurisdiction

[ILongForDarkness]

My understanding is Aereo uses antennas inside of the US to capture the content. This has been found to violate US copyright laws. I'd agree with you if they were using attennas located in Canada/Mexico to pickup signals originating in the US and then only selling in those countries. Still there probably is reciprocal agreements between those countries to respect each others copyrights. Its a similar thing with any large industry. For example healthcare: you don't need FDA approval in Canada but Health Canada almost always waits until something is legal in the US before allowing it in Canada even if it originates from a 3rd country. Similar airport security etc. Lots of industries the US is either the dominant customer or a bully that will force you to obey their rules even in your country or be punished.

Re:Jurisdiction

[ILongForDarkness]

Creative works are one of the few remaining products where the US leads. Any wonder they are crazily protective of them?

Re:Jurisdiction

[rochrist]

Yeah, I'm sure France is really easy to bring into line.

Re:Jurisdiction

[greenbird]

The US writes all the treaties.

And ignores them when they're not convenient. Amazing how that works.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Just Some Guy]

Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards. Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country. And every single one of those groups write laws and UN proposals that - if adopted - would enshrine their ideals and apply them globally.

The US gets slagged on because it's more successful than many others at doing so, but don't for a moment thing it'd be any different if France or Russia or Egypt or China was at the helm.

Re: Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Ireland.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Grishnakh]

>Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards.

>Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country.

These aren't all the same. A worldwide Muslim theocracy would affect everyone, including people who don't want it. Whereas Europeans being isolationist doesn't affect anyone except Europeans. Similarly, Asians pushing duties to country really only affects Asians in the concerned countries.

Yes, everyone (nations and individuals alike) think that their ways are the correct ways, and everyone else should be more like them. However, if you're not actively pushing yourself and your ways on other people, there's no ethical problem. If a bunch of European nations say "we want to keep to ourselves except maybe for some trade", that isn't hurting anyone else. Other places are free to run their nations as they please; they can establish theocracies if they want, or not. However, nations that have foreign policies which emphasize interventionism and pushing their ways on others are in a different boat. Some Muslim nations do try to push their ways, but they don't really have much power to back up those desires (if they ever got that power, that would be rather scary). However the US and Russia (moreso the US these days) and also China not only have the power to be bullies, but they actively engage in bullying behavior on the international level.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Just Some Guy]

As a side note: I despise a lot of the laws we've been pushing out and don't mean to defend them. I just get weary of the idea I hear too often that the US is uniquely and historically bad about this.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Grishnakh]

That's certainly not the case. Look at all the horrible things the European nations did back during their colonial days. Most nations, when sufficiently powerful, do pretty awful things to other nations just because they can and because it benefits them (or certain members of their population).

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is going on, people ? ...

The answer to your question is not simple.

The answer to your question is simple.

In ethics terms, when determining the limits of jurisdiction or when extending the scope of a particular jurisdiction, legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest (as we find in so many other law-related topics discussed in this forum).

On the one hand, by increasing the jurisdiction any particular government has, the legal profession can increase the amount of law that a person in any given place must know to avoid violating the sum total of all the laws applicable to them. Commonly this is combined with a principle that ignorance of the law is not a defence. The result is to massively increase the dependence people have upon the legal profession (both locally and remotely), since nobody outside the profession has time to learn all the laws applicable to them (especially when those laws - and the precedents standing behind them - are riddled with non-obvious language and real or apparent contradictions).

On the other hand, limiting the law as much as possible creates a government that governs best, since it governs least. The result is to decrease the dependence of people on the legal profession.

Which of those two do you suppose the legal professions of the world prefer?

What you are seeing here is no different than California lawyers trying to control everybody else, it's the sample principle applied on an international scale.

In general, this isn't a conspiracy, and it isn't some US-specific evil. Amoral people do bad things, and can recognize mutual interest without prior agreement. Just as slavery was practised by people from many different countries, without the need for these people to get together and decide they were all going to do something morally wrong, so too does unethical practice of law cross national boundaries without the need for conspiracy.

If you study the law from an ethics perspective, you'll find that lots of clever stuff gets done with the object of artificially increasing the scope of law, or the size and complexity of the law. For example, many people want better health care in the USA. In the guise of providing that, the legal profession managed to get over two thousand pages of new law written (which, for better or for worse, won't give US citizens the kind of health care system that most developed nations have).

The key in most of these cases seems to be to hide what is really going on behind a smokescreen, creating the illusion of doing good while doing evil.

The current business is simply yet another example of something that is very common and that has been going on for a long, long time.

Law is too important to trust to the legal profession.

Re:Jurisdiction

[lucien86]

If we are honest neither is the USA it is also pretty much a continent.. : )

Re:Jurisdiction

[OffTheWallSoccer]

A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !

What the fuck is going on, people ?

How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???

Simple, if your business wants to do business in the U.S.A., you'll need to mind the rules. That bank knew the rules and actively falsified documents to make it appear that it was abiding by those rules. They got caught and severely smacked. The fact that they are willing to pay that ginormous fine means they want to make amends with Uncle Sam and *continue* to do business in the U.S.A.

Re:Jurisdiction

[fuzzy2k]

Because America is full of assholes who only care about maximizing corporate profits, and protecting the large players right to squash competition.

America is also partly filled with assholes like me, who actually do care about other things that have nada to do with maximizing profits or protecting huge multinational corporations from any sort of actual competition, but who are powerless to stop those other assholes.

Some people would like to outlaw the Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't in bed, they are the same corporation.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requi

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Dish is already paying Fox to transmit, or else the local broadcast fee on my bill is a scam. Aero's issue is that they were not paying fees to the rights holders.

Welcome to Amerikkka

[Anonymous Coward]

Where business and law are the same thing.

Re: Welcome to Amerikkka

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't settle. It might be better than some other situations but it's still far from ideal and we should never relent until the system works the way that it should

Re:Welcome to Amerikkka

[Anonymous Coward]

why your laws are allready made by 3 out of those 4 - the communists have enough sense to stay away.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requi

[American Patent Guy]

Is Dish paying Fox for a general license to rebroadcast, or is it a specific license limited to certain circumstances? I'll bet it's the latter. Fox gets to say how its content will be distributed, much like you get to say who gets to pick which apples from an orchard that you own.

Loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I love the idea of Aereo they were simply using a loophole. Sorry but they don't have the rights to rebroadcast someone elses product and be making money off of it.

If Aereo were free except you pay for the antenna in each city and the internet cost there to retransmit it, then you can claim it's for personal use only. But Aereo is making money directly off other people's content without their permission.

It makes perfect sense to me that should not be allowed.

Re:Loophole

[jeIlomizer]

It makes perfect sense to me that should not be allowed.

It doesn't make sense to me, since all they're doing is transmitting data from their own equipment, and people voluntarily deal with them. That it's illegal just means our laws are terrible.

Re:Loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

If Aereo were free except you pay for the antenna in each city and the internet cost there to retransmit it, then you can claim it's for personal use only.

I'm confused. What else were people paying Aereo for?

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey: I'm just giving you my view on the law as it stands today. If you think it should be changed, write your congressman...

I would, but I'm afraid my well-articulated argument won't fit on my current supply of officially recognized congressional stationery, and the bank won't let me have any more right now.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently if one is referring to "Get Off My Lawn", IP means its a Property...

But in the case of Property Tax, IP means its just imaginary.

To me, this is just something the waggers-of-the-pen came up with to privatize the profit and socialize the enforcement cost. Let the taxpayer pay for the guns used to enforce the business model of the profit-taker. All one has to do is buy a politician.

Can we just have a la carte internet TV already

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, the internet would let us literally build our own TV packages if we want. Why be limited to what's broadcast over here? How about a global gateway where you can pick and choose any TV channel you want, pay a fee per channel and you've got your own customised package showing exactly what you want.

There is literally no technical reason why we can't have this - it's just draconian territory TV licensing that's stopping this from happening. We already can do it with radio, TV should be next!

Re:Can we just have a la carte internet TV already

[TangoMargarine]

Probably because if we could pick and choose which channels we wanted and there were no barriers in the way, several dozen better channels than the big ones would immediately pop up and "steal" all the money. Can't have them destroying the big guys' market.

When you spend all your effort on legally quashing competition instead of trying to offer a good product is when you lose any sort of ethical standing. Fortunately, money is a decent substitute for ethical standing these days.

I bet the current entrenched entertainment industry would have loved it if all these restrictions were around when *they* were first getting off the ground. C'est la vie.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

When thinking of property, people often confuse the "thing" with the right to exclusively use the thing.

If I own a piece of land or a "chattle" like a pocketwatch, then my ownership in the "property" gives me the right to keep everyone else from "trespassing" or taking it in an act of theft. Property doesn't actually give the owner the right to use the thing: in two examples, I can't build a mine or a dam next to the public highway, and I can't carry a loaded gun that I own into a courthouse.

Intellectual property is the right to exclude others from using things that are not physical. For patents, the owner gets to keep others from using an invention (without a license). For trademarks, the owner gets to exclude others from using the mark with goods or services other than his. For copyrights, the owner gets to keep others from copying his "work of authorship", hence it is a "copy"-"right". Like physical property, the owner of intellectual property gets to have his right enforced in the courts.

I don't claim to be fully educated as to the taxes involved with distributing Fox's material, but I would think that it includes taxes related to infrastructure (fees for having fiber under the public street) and income taxes. We all pay for the court system with our taxes, including the media sources.

The price of any mode of media distribution should reflect fair market value. If you think you're paying to much for something, then go get its equivalent somewhere else for less...

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some similarities between "IP" and real property, but too many fundamental differences to call it property. Then there's the fact that the term "intellectual property" is an umbrella term that could refer to trademarks, copyrights, patents, or some combination of those. It's a propaganda term designed to trick people into believing that these things are real property, and to confuse them as to exactly what's being talked about.

then go get its equivalent somewhere else for less...

Like TPB.

It's All Leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Charlie used AutoHop to get the price down on ABC channels, now he'll use Sling to get the price down on FOX.

Wow, I wish you were right.

[Slartibartfast]

But you're not. (For the record, I work for $MAJORCABLECOMPANY as an engineer in the group... well, under discussion. So I'm somewhat informed.) Case in point: the ability to use a song in a movie for theatric release is not the same as the ability to use the song when released on DVD. Likewise, songs played on the radio cannot (unless, of course, specified) be willy-nilly copied for downloads in podcats. The biggie, of course, is region-enforced blackouts for sporting events.

I could give more pertinent examples, but I also like my job, so I guess I'll have to take a pass. But trust me: it ain't as easy as you'd like to make it out.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox isn't going to win a damned thing, in fact, they'll be paying Dish's court costs.

Here's why.

Dish isn't doing anything, and I mean ANYTHING like Aereo did.

Dish has a license to rebroadcast - everything they transmit, they have a right for.

Dish customers have the Antenna on their house.
Dish customers have the DVR in their house.
Dish customers stream their own local copies to their own devices from their house.

Dish is only responsible for transmitting from their facilities to their customer's house. Which they are fully licensed to do.

So, Fox - you're gonna fuck yourself over with this one dumbshits - but please go ahead, as it will be nice to see you paying out the legal fees on this nuisance lawsuit that you KNOW is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

That article was authored (or co-authored) by Prof. Levine, who is a well-known economist. In my view (as an attorney) it is badly thought out and written:

It starts out in the first paragraph claiming that IP covers "ideas". That's just ridiculous. IP has never excluded anyone from thinking, for Pete's sake! That article marches along, criticizing the fictitious "intellectual property" created in someone's imagination and is not persuasive.

It even goes so far as to equate IP with contracts. Contracts originate between two or more parties. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are grants from the government that don't need anyone's permission to create. A contract in a song or other creative work would not be possible if there were not first a property right to convey between the contracting parties: you wouldn't have anyone creating anything beyond back-yard entertainment and technology without IP.

If Prof. Levine and his co-author Michele Boldrin want to criticize how IP is being used from an economic standpoint, I'm fine with that. They should have first, however, discussed this with someone who is a legal expert in the field they wished to be a critic of.

"Intellectual Property" is no more a term of propoganda than are other legal terms such as "perjury" or "sub-lease". It's a term that the legal community has adopted to represent a frequently-discussed subject. Give me a friggin break!

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

Given the timing that this lawsuit was filed (right after the Aereo decision), I think Fox's lawyers have this very well thought out.

If everything you say is correct, then Fox may not win anything. But, Mr. Anonymous, I don't see anything persuasive in your recitation of alleged facts. I'm not eager to bet on your horse...

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requi

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter, as all Dish is doing, is re-broadcasting to subscribers boxes.

Dish isn't broadcasting to tablets, computers, etc.

That's all done by the equipment in the subscriber's house, under the subscriber's control.

Dish has "NOTHING" to do with it after they transmit to the satellites.

Sheesh people, think first before you lay out ridiculous claims.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

In my view (as an attorney) it is badly thought out and written:

Of course you think that way.

It starts out in the first paragraph claiming that IP covers "ideas".

A series of steps can be considered an idea. As can a specific implementation of a piece of software. It's quite an ambiguous term.

IP has never excluded anyone from thinking, for Pete's sake!

I don't see where it says that.

That article marches along, criticizing the fictitious "intellectual property" created in someone's imagination and is not persuasive.

You seem to be assuming that everyone has a perfect understanding of copyrights and patents. Most people do not, and many people do equate these things with the ownership of ideas.

It even goes so far as to equate IP with contracts.

Many people talk about contracts when they talk about these concepts. "You're violating the social contract." "You implicitly agreed to not violate people's copyrights!" Etc. I've heard it numerous times, so don't pretend that it doesn't exist. There are many ways you could consider it as some form of a contract, legally correct or not.

you wouldn't have anyone creating anything beyond back-yard entertainment and technology without IP.

Another unproven statement you people like to trot out. Care to offer some overwhelming scientific evidence for that? It has to be enough to show that the null hypothesis is very likely incorrect. Of course, when it comes to law, there are sadly almost zero standards.

"Intellectual Property" is no more a term of propoganda than are other legal terms such as "perjury" or "sub-lease".

It's a propaganda term for exactly the reasons I described, which you made no attempt to debunk. That the legal community accepts the term reflects poorly on them, as usual.

Re: New person in the distribution, new fee requi

[American Patent Guy]

And what if Fox's agreement with Dish doesn't permit for re-broadcasting between boxes in a subscriber's equipment, and requires Dish to maintain control over its subscribers to have a license to Fox's copyrighted material? Then Dish would be in breach of the license with Fox, giving Fox cause to sue.

I don't know what the situation really is between Fox and Dish, but I assure you that your subscriber agreement with Dish does not control whether Fox has standing to sue.

Sony Betamax

[JeffElkins]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

There's no doubt in my mind that if the Sony case were being heard today, the VCR would be ruled an infringing device.

Re:Sony Betamax

[Catbeller]

Well done, madam or sir. Exactly so.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead. Ignore what the legal community considers Intellectual Property and continue embracing psuedolegal theories of copyright. In the end, you are just a delusional as one of those sovereign citizens who think that no debts or taxes can levied against them because the person listed on their birth certificate only exists as legal strawman created by the government.

Your steadfast denial of the existence of intellectual property isn't going to make it go away, nor is it going to get you off the hook should you get caught violating someone else's intellectual property rights.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

Anonymous:

You don't seem to understand the concepts. Ideas cannot exist outside of a person's mind. Expressions of ideas can, and sometimes those expressions can be copyrighted. The performance of a series of steps can be patented, if they are novel, non-obvious and fall under "statutory subject matter", but no one can prohibit the transference of a description of those steps. IP has never been about what's in a person's mind, hence IP is not about ideas as Prof. Levine suggests.

You are correct that common people do not understand many legal subjects. That doesn't mean we should all adopt a common understanding.

Social contracts (as everyone should already know) are not enforceable in court. Speaking of them is just a veiled attempt at placing the rest of us under your version of morality.

"Intellectual Property" is not propaganda to the legal community. Patents have existed since before the U.S. Constitution was signed, and copyrights and trademark rights have been around longer than you or I have been breathing. You and your associates, however, may be trying to make "intellectual property" a term of derision for your propoganda. Your audience is, as you implicitly admit, people who do not understand the concepts.

If you haven't yet figured it out, you are speaking to a Doctor of Law, registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and practicing law in the subject for many years. I assure you: I understand the concepts far better than you or the Doctor of Economics that you claim for your support. Now, what exactly are your credentials?

And the World Collectively "Woke Up"

[Anonymous Coward]

.. from the stupifying dream of watching life vicariously. This is the Nuclear age.. and I think the Broadcasters and Content producers are going to find out rather "Fast" that human life does not depend on them.

People will open their door to their home and step out for a breath of fresh air.. children will go out an play.

Re:And the World Collectively "Woke Up"

[MitchDev]

Be nice if that happened, but I don't think you live in the same world as most of humanity...

or Slingbox...

[worldthinker]

n/a

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you sure showed me. Except that you didn't debunk a single one of my arguments.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideas cannot exist outside of a person's mind. Expressions of ideas can, and sometimes those expressions can be copyrighted.

I was already aware of that. What exactly is your point, but to nitpick at the use of such a simple term? It does not cause any confusion, so I don't see why you're so focused on such trivial nonsense.

The performance of a series of steps can be patented, if they are novel, non-obvious and fall under "statutory subject matter", but no one can prohibit the transference of a description of those steps. IP has never been about what's in a person's mind, hence IP is not about ideas as Prof. Levine suggests.

I think you're too busy focusing on trivialities to understand his larger point. Being a lawyer must often be fatal for people's brains. I can't see why you'd misinterpret what he's saying otherwise.

Social contracts (as everyone should already know) are not enforceable in court. Speaking of them is just a veiled attempt at placing the rest of us under your version of morality.

No, it was an attempt to summarize the arguments I've seen that copyright is similar to a contract. I've heard all sorts of arguments. I didn't even say they were enforceable in court. Learn to read.

"Intellectual Property" is not propaganda to the legal community.

Which, again, I accept as reality, but I say is foolish on their part. Do you not understand what it means to say that something shouldn't be the way it is?

Patents have existed since before the U.S. Constitution was signed, and copyrights and trademark rights have been around longer than you or I have been breathing.

I was aware of all of that. Where did you get the idea that I wasn't?

You and your associates, however, may be trying to make "intellectual property" a term of derision for your propoganda.

Indeed, I cringe whenever I hear or read that term. The pro-"IP" side seems to have far more propaganda and unsupported assertions, though. So much so that they've bribed government thugs into getting ever more draconian laws passed. Sorry, "lobbied."

Your audience is, as you implicitly admit, people who do not understand the concepts.

Implicitly? I was quite explicit. Though, it's not just my audience, but yours and everyone else's. This is the ignorant general public.

Now, what exactly are your credentials?

Why do you need to know, Mr. Ad Hominem? Do you lack the ability to formulate a logical counterargument? I saw that you were at least trying to do so above, but have you given up?

Your problem is that you don't seem to be able to differentiate between someone saying "This is the way the world works." and "This is how the world should work." Please work on that. I for one don't give a fuck what the law says, or rather, I disagree with many laws and find them unjust.

Re:New person in the distribution, new fee require

[American Patent Guy]

Mr. Anonymous: You're very practiced at belittlement, with no apparent practical skill to explain your views. You've made your credentials known here quite well. I am satisfied with your answer...

What about

[sabbede]

the other two? Don't they offer the same service? I know Comcast does. Why aren't they getting sued?

Actually, I guess I know the answer. The third largest provider probably has fewer lawyers than the top two.

Because we all know...

[mitcheli]

that shutting down Napster totally killed the mp3.

When in Rome...

[c4t3l]

Well I'm not very surprised about Fox doing this. Every good idea gets thrown into the shredder in this country.

--
Rupert is a sunnuvabitch. A rich sunnuvabitch.

Interesting choice of companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that Comcast advertises all over that you can stream their shows over the internet I'm curious as to why they were left out of the lawsuit.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you sticking up for Dish?

Why are you sticking up for Fox?

I smell a rat. Anyone who sticks up for a big corp is under suspicion. Period.

You realize that Fox is a "big corp" as well, right?

Sir, I think you are a liar - that's what it boils down to because big business is a bunch of liars and its up to YOU to prove otherwise.

Period.

End of story.

Don't like it? Too fucking bad.

And yet you seem to think the same does not apply to you. How curious...

Good ol fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another oldster that has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the money.
Like with audio cassette tapes beta and vhs tape cd dvd the list goes on and on of things that were an end to the business but were instead its only salvation.

Fox To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

So here comes the collateral damage. Here comes the move based on greed but disguised as being based on a court decision.

We can only hope!

[CHIT2ME]

Hopefully Fox will succeed in stopping the horrible distribution of their signals! I'm all for it, as long as Faux News channel is included. Otherwise, Fux you Fox!

defamebel

[defamebel]

http://takgawekonteswae.blogsp... SayaPokercom Agen Judi Poker dan Domino Online Terpercaya Indonesia