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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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".)

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

[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).

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

[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.

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.

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.