Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service

Posted by timothy on from the crossing-the-streams dept.

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.

4 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Big Difference by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Big Difference by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Big Difference by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Good-bye
  2. Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ???