Slashdot Mirror
iCraveTV Sued by Networks
heinzkeinz writes "iCraveTV, the Canadian company broadcasting network television signals over the internet, has been sued for copyright violation. Read the story from CBC here. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
The networks have a good point, but I question the action. Could they be doing this because they themselves have not yet, or have not found a way? I really do feel that we will be seeing much more of this type of technology as well as others, all of which in some way are connected to the Net or incorporated together. I would have loved to see the local news report when I was 5000 miles away in Boston, from the Pacific.. But still, the networks have the right....I just hope they figure out a way to do this soon...
I don't understand what's meant by this
something you might like to read
In my work (technical instutute) we have been experimenting with the Real networks software, that lets you broadcast video stream over IP network. So why the network companies aren't using something like that. I guess that they could easily limit the reception countries, if some legal/corporate thing would demand such...
What a terrific idea! That's the first time I can watch American television. I hope they prevail in the upcoming lawsuit.
what icrave is doing doesn't seem necessarily wrong to me. after all, the television signals are out in the public, right? and as icrave re-broadcasts the signals, they are *not* editing out the commercials that are paying for the radio signal distribution in the first place? icrave merely adds a banner to to the redistribution? further, if the signals are re-broadcast over the net in real-time, what do the networks care if they are viewed on a tv set or a computer monitor? in fact, it would make sense for the networks to contract icrave to make the signal available to people who would otherwise be not home to watch tv. if icrave has already invested in the infrastructure to carry the bandwidth load, it would save the networks some money, i would think...
just my 2cents.
First, I have a hard time seeing how broadcasting over IP is any much different than broadcasting over some other protocol (that being a physical protocol over a dedicated cable or whatever).
;)
In fact, with the extended usage of IP-over-the-TV-cable and in the not-so-distant future when the bandwidth reaches the point where it is not going to be a limitation, it may even make sense to do just what they're doing. Imagine, all programs available to choose from at any time - and being able to cut the crap? Imagine watching Ally McBeal all day long
A further bonus is, that with the development of secure, electronic transactions etc, it may make pay-per-view and different viewer-statistics much easier to obtain than today. Downside is, of course, that it makes viewer-statistics much easier to obtain than today (here we go on the privacy-issue again.....)
That said......I am thinking in terms of a TV-station using this model for distributing their programs. It's completely different from unauthorized relaying of other peoples programs....IANAL, but my common sense tells me that yeah, a lawsuit is in place here. If canadian law disagrees, then - to me - canadian law contradicts common sense.....
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
One would also think that network TV would lobby the FCC to decree this ... but instead, they're suing someone handing them a present.
Probably the only reason they're suing is because they want to do it themselves, and make even more money. =)
a violation of the broadcasters copyright. iCraveTV is adding their banners which makes them money, which is a violation IIRC of the Canadian copyright laws regarding broadcasting. The broadcasters are also not getting the advertisement money since it is not a registered broadcast. If I were the broadcast companies I would be pretty pissed off myself. I think one of the major reasons broadcasters like ABC et cetera haven't begun massive netcasting is the fact that the quality of video that can be broadcast over a 28.8 or 56.6 modem is crap. It's crap on a 512k cable modem for the most part. Quicktime does a decent job of delivering video at higher bandwidths but it's a joke at lower ones. Until we all have T1s or xDSLs idiot boxes will still be required.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
More often than not, I side with the defendant. Not so in this case. They take another companys broadcast, and rebroadcasts without their prior permission. In my book, that is a bad thing.
:-)
I don't know if they are doing something legally wrong, but I seriously think it is morally wrong. Less users watch the original broadcasters, and some watch the new one. The originals loses advertisement money, and the rebroadcaster earns them -- by theft.
Therefore I think iCrave should be severly spanked by the canadian law system
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
I think the real shame here is that the cable company haven't viewed this as an opportunity to further their broadcast technology. iCrave have come up with a cool way to broadcast to people over the web, but have unfortunately broken copyright laws in order to do it. Mr Corporate Cable guy has then jumped in with both feet and decided to sue. Surely there could be a collaboration of some sort here that would allow people to get better access to these channels?
It's a bit like the MP3 argument all over again - excellent distribution medium, excellent quality product - but unfortunately against copyright and therefore illegal.
from the the "Terms of Use" document you have to agree to:
.RAM, .ra, .rm, .asf or .asx files and you should not attempt to "pass off" any of the material on the Site as your own. Modification of material on the Site or use of such material for any other purpose is a violation of the copyright in such material and other proprietary rights.
All copyright material on this Site, include, but not limited to, images, illustrations, audio and video (but excluding the broadcast signals transmitted though the Site and any content contained in such signals) is protected by copyright which is owned and controlled by iCraveTV or by parties that have licensed their material to iCraveTV. No material from the Site may be copied, reporduced, republished, uploaded, downloaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Specifically, you may not link directly to iCraveTV's audio or video
So they don't claim copyright on the signal they're rebroadcasting, but it's not legal for me to turn around and re-rebroadcast it? Which is it going to be?
I'm sure they're just trying to cover their liability for the only-available-in-Canada thing, but this is a more than a little hypocritical in light of the suit.
I don't think there is any way the defendant can not loose this case. Until the Freedom of information is practiced by our governments, they are going to continue to fuck around with a patchwork of futile laws about how one is allowed use the signals one picks up from the air, copy the permutations of bits on ones harddisks, or write programs.
Personally I think its pretty scary, the TV signals are in the air all around us, how the fuck can they not be public domain?
If people were looking at the Internet the way they should be looking at it, they would see that this is no different than having a bigscreen TV in bar, which I understand is compeletly legal. But no: the Internet has be the great medium for corporate prostitution of the 21st century, not a place where people like to hang out, so we might as well forget it...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
I think that icrave is awesome. It gets in my bookmark list, at least until it goes out of commission (IF it goes out of commission) but I suppose I'll have to get realplayer working now. Darn, it always segfaults on me. Anyways, finally, something to do in a boring computer class! :)
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
They do use Real Software to broadcast the video over an IP network (namely the Internet). I don't really get what you're missing.
.com, .net and .org. And since close to nobody uses .us, you can't check for that either... (OK, .ca might help, but I guess Canadians use .com/.net/.org as well.)
Besides, it isn't always easy to determine physical location by IP address. In some simple cases, you can use host resolving, but more and more non-US companies and sites use
/* Steinr */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Does no one read the articles associated with slashdot news stories anymore? They're distributing it for free.
(And I do mean elitist, not 3l337)
Okay, guys, in order to keep your argument up, you have to start watching this channel ASAP.
You see, you wouldn't normally watch these television channels anyway, right? So you wouldn't be paying for a TV in Canada, nor buying the products that are advertised, nor supporting the politicians with their public service announcements. So, since you weren't going to pay for it anyway, it's okay for you to take; it won't make any difference.
-Chris
I don't get how the above post is "funny". As someone who doesn't live in America, I thought the same thing when I visited icravetv. Unfortunately, they say you have to live in Canada to watch, which kind of sucks.
Specifically, you may not link directly to iCraveTV's audio or video .RAM, .ra, .rm, .asf or .asx files
Surely under Canadian Law, anyone is allowed to rebroadcast these files, and this is a lie. therefore anyone in Canada may have a web site that just shows the programmes with no advertising. Maybe the studios should set up sites that do this rather than try to sue.
How is it hurting the stations anyway?
From Yahoo:
403 Alberta (all locations)
604 British Columbia (lower mainland)
250 British Columbia (all other locations)
204 Manitoba (all locations)
506 New Brunswick (all locations)
709 Newfoundland (all locations)
902 Nova Scotia (all locations)
905 Ontario (Hamilton, Mississauga, Niagara Falls)
519 Ontario (London)
705 Ontario (North Bay, Sault-Ste-Marie)
613 Ontario (Ottawa)
807 Ontario (Thunder Bay)
416 Ontario (Toronto (metropolitan))
902 Prince Edward Island (all locations)
514 Quebec (Montreal)
418 Quebec (Quebec City)
819 Quebec (all other locations)
306 Saskatchewan (all locations)
403 Northwest Territories (MacKenzie, Victoria, Banks)
819 Northwest Territories (Keewatin, Baffin)
403 Yukon Territories (all locations)
How is it hurting the stations anyway?
Well, there would have to be some percentage of people using it instead of regular TV; then, if iCraveTV can change the original ads for others, or just wipe them, there's lost revenue. The damage doesn't have to occur now: they react now because if they wait it'll be too late.
I think they might just find a loop out of this one. I havent cancelled my cable service just yet (altho it has crossed my mind.. all the channels I watch are right on there anyway.. plus any reason not to support cable companies is a plus)
But seriously... I think somewhere in that copyright it probably forgets to mention a very specific word. Internet broadcasting. (In fact it probably says something quite specific... and therefor, wont apply to the site)
Do you really think this guy would have shelled out the capital to start this site without consulting a couple lawyers first. I'm sure they went through the copyright papers carefully.. and planned their loopholes in advance.
Furthermore... the networks had to have seen this coming. They should have amended their copyright 3 years ago when it was clear this internet thing wasnt a passing phase.
I personally hope icravetv.com wins... the networks should have forseen this... and protected themselves. When they lose the lawsuit, they should then proceed to jump on the IP bandwagon. I'm sure they could find a way to secure their profits.
You have paid for a total of 0 pages and so far 0 have been used up (0 today).
OK. This one is simple, and I can break it down with one short hypothetical.
I am going to start a website that is an EXACT duplicate of SlashDot.org. I'm going to show their ads, but, I'm also going to have MY banners everywhere. I'm not going to ask SlashDot, or Andover.net for permission.
How long will I last?
Not too long my friends.
I am STEALING. I am stealing their copyrighted information, and displaying it to their intended audience without their permission. And that, like it or not, is wrong.
These television stations have paid an enormous amount of money for these programs, these station identifiers and the syndication rights to other broadcasts. They have to recoup these costs by advertising, and being able to PROVE to their advertisers that the viewer saw the advertisement on THAT station. This incident is taking away their way of life, and is wrong.
Now, my prediction:
icravetv.com will be bought out by either:
AOL
Real
Microsoft,
and will be launched as a branded 'broadcast' site, and everyone will be rich, bceause icravetv is now going to be an, um, not household but perhaps, desktop word.
Can anyone say IPO?
Well somehow I think that you should be able to create information for a profit, just as you can build a car for profit. If a car is unlocked in the street, that doesn't make it public domain, does it? Neither is an uncoded (or too-weak coded) radio signal "public domain".
If I steal a car or copy copyrighted material, you (or rather the insurance company) could argue that the owner ought to have locked the car/encrypt the data, but that doesn't make my action any more legal.
This is not a "company vs the web" issue it is "company A vs company B" where company B is freeriding.
C'mon. Sure information wants to be free, but few of us wants *all* our information s to be free. (unless you are Jenni)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Now, IANACL (I am not a Canadian Lawyer), but I can see how this could be a copyright violation. And I doubt that they could stand up against some heavy hitting networks with lots of cash to feed the legal machine.
;) There, that was easy wasn't it? You can even set up cron jobs to record your favorite shows. No messy lawyers to deal with.
And, in my opinion, it is still probably too early for this kind of service anyway. A simple rebroadcasting doesn't take advantage of the new medium. How about making it searchable (gee, I remember this great quote, but not who said it or what it was in), and on demand (I want to watch show X now!).
I don't know much about Canadian network TV, but if it is anything like network TV here, I don't think I would miss iCravetv a whole lot. Yeah, sure, there are a few jems in there every now and then, but most of it is garbage. I would much rather get transmition of a select group of Cable channels (and only the ones I want, no Food stations, Religious stations, (non)music stations, and all of that other cruft).
Here is a easier solution: get basic cable (gotta have it with the cable modem service anyway) and a tv card for your computer.
This sig is false.
Who gave the goverment the right to sell the airwaves inside my house to some giant corporations?
If you don't want me to look at it don't beam it at me. And just because I have banks of Rockwell International 95 ELF/VLF/HF/VHF/UHF Receivers in my bunker don't call me paranoid....someone has to watch the watchers.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
and they are scrambling to discover how to harness the internet so that they can still make money. So, iCrave is too cutting edge right now, because it's making money the way the television stations should be making it now. Or planning on making it. I'm looking forward to the day when we can just pick and choose when and what we want to watch WITHOUT programming a VCR or someother device. TV is filled with oldtimers and naysayers who don't want to recognize new media because it makes them obsolete. It makes their jobs obsolete. I know, because I made the leap from television engineering to IT just about a year ago. And a lot of my friends are training to get out of it as well.
Here's another answer: if I was network TV brass, I would snatch this company (iCravetv) up. Have them broadcast my programming only. Sounds like a good way to get more advertising money to me.
But of course, everyone's reaction these days is to bring out the legal guns. *sigh*
Just a thought anyway.
This sig is false.
Well anyway, you get the idea. What did icravetv.com think was going to happen, if the NFL goes to such great lengths to warn you not to rebroadcast their games? And, this is only one of the major copyright holders that has been infringed upon.
For those of you who might want to flame me, I am in favor of OpenSource, but only if the developer of the product in question grants those rights of his/her own free will. Icrave's CEO's comments indicate that they have no such agreements with anyone.
I don't think there's any question that the Canadian justice system's response will be swift and that they will side with the broadcasters on this one.
I also agree with the technology analyst that is quoted in the CBC piece when he says that the TV networks and cable channels themselves should be putting their own content on-line using one or more multimedia formats like RealMedia, QuickTime, or Windows Media Player (yuck).
Most of the major network affiliates in radio are on-line already through Yahoo! Broadcast or Go Radio. That seems like a good solution for everybody so far.
--
Dave Aiello
-- Dave Aiello
.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
"I am STEALING. I am stealing their copyrighted information, and displaying it to their intended audience without their permission. And that, like it or not, is wrong.
And all the disclaimers in the world will not change the fact that they are hijacking without permission.
I think that AT&T will be the buyer on this one, with their ever expanding cable plant and cable influence they would be a very good partner to the networks. I can't see the broadcast TV advertisers or production companies making too much noise, the net-net of this is that they will get a larger audience for their product.
HTD: Laborer, Gambler, Womanizer, Drunkard.
Don't tell me what to do.
I remember visiting another site a year or so ago that also broadcasted tv. ACtually, I dont think it actually producasted tv, but it had links to the actuall websites of the tv companies that were broadcasting the TV. It had a huge huge selection, which stations in tons of countrys, from England to Iraq. I used to watch some german television on it from school. It didnt have its own url, I think it was probably on a free webhost somewhere, like tripod, yes, I am sure it was tripod. I wonder if its still around, I dont suppose anyone knows what I am talking about do they? I have misplaced the url and would like to find it again.
Jeff Knox
Upon seeing the box was too small, Schrodinger's Elephant breathed a sigh of relief.
If the NFL is not registered in Canada, then they are the ones that will be fighting the uphill battle. A recent court descision said that satalite descramblers used on certain satilites TV companies were legal because the companies were not registered in Canada.
As somebody who works for a local television broadcaster, maybe I can provide a different perspective on this.
First off, you should know that even as a broadcaster, we are prevented from transmitting Major League Baseball video on the 'net. We Webcast all of our weekday evening newscasts, and we have to cut them off before the sports segment because of a cease-and-desist order filed by MLB.
Personally, I think their policy sucks. Who's going to not watch baseball on TV because they saw a highlight clip in 120x90, 10fps RealVideo on our Web site? "Oh, I've had my fill of baseball for today after watching that jerky clip where I could n't even see the ball... guess I don't need to watch the World Series..." Please.
But what MLB is probably doing is just staking their claim to their intellectual property. Someday, with broadband to the home, online video may seriously compete with broadcast television. If MLB didn't fight for the right to control their property now (as silly as it seems today), they'd be screwed down the line.
As for anybody who thinks that it's OK to rebroadcast a television station's content just because you're not editing out the commercials, what do you think about framing a Web site and slapping your own banners up top? Is that OK just because you didn't take the banners out of the content-providing site?
iCraveTV is nothing more than a little parasite that will be squashed soon enough. International legal issues may slow the process a bit, but the idiots who dreamed up this get-rich-with-a-dot-com scheme will not even be a footnote in the history of the 'net.
The day that iCraveTV.com was launched, CITY TV (Independant station here in Toronto, channel 57 in area code 416) gave it a review & a recommendation on their breakfast show.
I'm truly surprised that a comment with an obvious flamebait title like "This is yet another reason Candians are bad..." was moderated up and marked "insightful."
I think iCraveTV was just opening themselves up for a lawsuit. But really...! "Canadians are bad"? Are Americans "good"? I suppose Corel (a Canadian company) is bad because they're promoting Linux. I suppose we're "bad" for many other reasons. Is there any other nationality of people that is "bad," too?
Ha ha ha... Have you ever heard an American from the deep south talk?
Seriously, we all speak one way, and to people who speak another way, it sounds different and strange. I'm curious... To any British or Australian people: how do the Canadians and Americans sound to you?
P.S. That wasn't flamebait; that was funny...!
According to their website:
If you have trouble getting a station, call your Internet Service Provider(ISP) about "multicasting." Multicasting will provide you with greatly increased reliability of reception and will provide you with greater potential clarity with DSL, ISDN, cable or satellite connections. Your ISP is the company that you pay to get access to the internet. Look at your monthly bill for their phone number and address. Call them now!
Wow. Multicast is pretty much impossible for most small ISP's to support. They almost make it sound like you're getting ripped off if you're not on a multicast compatible ISP.
Legal questions about rebroadcasting aside for a moment, that's a kinda scary precedent to set. Multicast has never really caught on, for several reasons. If people like this create an artifical demand for something that can be done other (perhaps better?) ways, this could have bigger effects on the net than just a lawsuit.
"We've had 5 people call in today asking us for multicast."
"What do they want with it?"
"They didn't know, they just knew that they needed it."
:)
You don't check by using the .com or .org, etc. You check the IP address and what company or organization it belongs to. You can look up IP address registration at rs.arin.net. It may not be foolproof, but it would at least show a reasonable effort on the part of the network.
What idiots!!!! Here you have iCraveTV rebroadcasting a station programming, including it's commercials!!! The networks are only getting an INCREASE in their audience. Why are they complaining? iCraveTV makes money on adding banners and doesn't charge the user anything. Why don't the networks work with iCraveTV to work on getting this to work better in the future?
This goes along with the previous article on Fox television banning Linux from its website. The TV networks don't like the internet. They want to use it as a brochure but want e-commerce to die. No matter what you use it for, RedHat, VA Linux, SGI, IBM and all the others define Linux as an e-commerce server and we saw the effect of that when Fox banned Linux users. Any other company is certainly going to battle the internet as hard as they can.
It is possible to determine physical location by IP (up to a point). Netscape does some domain checking when you try and download the 128 bit version of their browser. I was never able to download it at work in Denver because they didn't recognise my IP as being within N. America.
So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
Well anyway, you get the idea. What did icravetv.com think was going to happen, if the NFL goes to such great lengths to warn you not to rebroadcast their games? And, this is only one of the major copyright holders that has been infringed upon.
Just because you say something doesn't make it true. I could state that nobody is legally allowed to reply to this comment, but that wouldn't be legal, now would it. Most of the legalspeak you see (tv, shrinkwrap license) is fluff and scare tactics, and does not properly represent all laws.
(Technically the article states that the NFL is still in the threatening phase, not the doing phase, at this time).
Canadian law allows you to rebroadcast public domain signals real-time without modification, to your hearts content. Since all signals put onto the VHF/UHF TV channel spectrum are free for all in Canada, they fall into this category.
Now, I don't know about the surrounding advertising the site uses, but I'm sure the court will have a bit of difficulty deciding that one as well. After all, it's not modifying the signal, just surrounding it.
How do cable companies (in Canada) deal with this? Anyone?
Other then the really stupid subject line, good post. You demonstrate the problem rather clearly.
The fight for bandwith will continue and I fear that "we" will lose when the Big Corporations step in for real. You dont think that fast connections will come for free, do you? It will be deals like "really fast downloads from CBS, some interactibility from you" sort of a http-remote control.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Well, so much for those useless "wiretap laws" and all that whining about "government surveillance" and "invasion of privacy"! Why did I ever think that maybe it was fair to think that the government wouldn't eavesdrop on me anyway?
"Enter your Canadian area code" the site says. Ah, this is rock solid security. How many slashdotters don't know where to find a list of area codes on the web. Ah, there's one. I think I'll use 604.
Then comes the surprise. Now I have to "certify", which consists of anonymously clicking a button, that I'm actually in Canada! Oh, this is ripe. It wouldn't terribly difficult for them to make a good solid guess based on my IP address -- then they could have dismissed me early on. Does this remind anybody of a "Yes I've over 18" button on a porn site? not that I've ever seen a porn site, mind you... but I've heard about them :)
What the hell! I went ahead and clicked the "I'm in Canada" button... what's the worst that could happen, right? Then the Terms & Conditions, blah, blah, blah... agree, agree, agree...
Then I get a friggin' link to a RealAudio stream, which is pretty funny because the crappy firewall at my work doesn't let RealAudio get through. So there you have it. Game over :(
RP
So people should only have a right to privacy if they have strong enough encryption? And they should be willing to cede that right if their encryption is broken?
First of, your *RIGHT* to privacy is a complete bullshit phrase. If I really want to spy on you, do you think I give a damn about your rights? C'mon. Everyone has the right to privacy. But you gotta protect your rights, or someone else will take them away from you.
To protect your right to privacy, you gotta make sure no one else can hear you. If I went into the park, and yelled my credit card info at passers-by, could I bitch about my right to privacy being violated? I don't think so. So stop bitching about your lack of privacy when you use devices that spew unencrypted data into the radio waves for any passers-by to hear.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
A Fish a Barrel and the Smoken Gun !
Just like TVRO (Big Dish), The Networks Get The Upper Hand.
Btw I DON'T Have cable...
Cable companies have a natural advantage. Canada is big, with a low enough population density to limit the number of stations. In Stratford Ont., where I used to live, you could get 3-5 channels (on rabbit ears) depending on the weather. Stratford Ont. is in south western Ontario, one of the places with the highest population densities in Canada.
Lets see you could get Global, TVO (sometimes), City, Buffalo(sometimes), one US PBS station (forget where + sometimes) and one very small time channel out of Kitchener Ontario.
There is one *major* difference between radio TV and the Internet: Radio TV signals are not accessible around the globe. The Internet is. I fully admit that this really makes no legal difference, but maybe the TV stations ought to be a grateful that more people can watch, at no extra cost to themselves?
People will be watching, and whether it's on a computer monitor or a TV screen doesn't really make a difference. The local advertisers have their ads broadcast to even more people, the stations get more viewers, and viewers can watch from almost anywhere on Earth. The only people I see losing out are manufacturers of radio transmitters, and cable providers.
Being a Canadian, I really, really hate cable companies' monopolistic business practises, so I say screw 'em. They've gotten a free ride for far too long. Let's see how well they do when there's some real competition a few years from now, when bandwidth is plentiful and real video doesn't suck so much.
... mainly because they looked at the wrong precedents and loopholes. Since returning to Canada from Europe a few months ago, I've missed the quality programming that's been available in countries like the UK and the Netherlands. Both iCraveTV & the lawsuit appellants miss the point of having a service like this in the first place - that you can extend your reach beyond what is geographically possible using stereotypical analogue broadcast media.
Ideally it would be that people could just get on the Net and watch/listen (in **some** form) most of the world's television and radio stations - there would be cacophony, but there'd be at least some chance that people would really start to open their eyes a bit.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Yes of course. The last thing we want is a bunch of pretend laws and rights that can't be enforced.
You only have a right to privacy to the extent that it is possible to guarantee that privacy. And no law, only cryptography, can do that.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
The networks have one thing to sell, that's us, the viewers. The advertisers pay the network for the privilege of attracting our attention.
cheers,
Um, if iCraveTV is stealing their copyrighted content, isn't that blatently illegal? I mean, can you legally record cable TV in Canada?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I said they'd get sued and I also predicted why. (check out my post News From January 2001?)
They want have complete control over who accesses their content, and the internet is proving to make that impossible, especially for non-cable/pay-per content.
I also stated (in an off sorta way) that part of their reason for suing will be because they paid for the content and iCraveTV didn't. Take note that they did say they are putting profits aside for the sake of compensating the people whose feeds they rebroadcast. I think this will seriously damage any case these companies have against iCraveTV in Canada and in the eyes of the CRTC.
I knew this was gonna happen. heh.
By the way does Canada have anti-SLAPP laws like we do in California, and would it apply to this situation?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
While it's not exactly what you're talking about, I just thought it was odd that I got the email seconds after reading this post.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
They take another companys broadcast, and rebroadcasts without their prior permission. In my book, that is a bad thing.
:-)
If I tape a bunch of shows, then take them with me and a scout troop that are camping -- is that rebroadcasting w/o prior permission? What about a tower that strengthens or repeats the signal to a local rural area? Once you start putting stuff out into the public (ie: broadcasting the waves, putting up posters, etc), you have to accept the fact that people can come along and take a copy. It's in the public domain.
Less users watch the original broadcasters, and some watch the new one. The originals loses advertisement money, and the rebroadcaster earns them -- by theft.
Uh, what?! Are you familiar at all with how television works? It's a completely passive medium! Advertiser pays Johnny Network to put advertisements about some product in with some program. As long as the adds reach eyes, the advertiser will continue to pay Johhnny Network. It doesn't matter if Johhny Network personally hands out copies of the tapes, broadcasts it, or subcontracts the rebroadcasting to other people. ABC, et all, are still getting mega-dollars for commercial during sporting events, etc, and iCraveTV is not getting on red cent from them. All their profits come from putting ads around the TV signal, thus recouping their rebroadcasting costs.
Therefore I think iCrave should be severly spanked by the canadian law system
Canadian laws support them. TV signals are very like GPLed programs -- I'm allowed to tape them, view them privately, maybe show proper clips of them. I'm also allowed to send them, unmodified, through whatever medium I wish -- so long as I have met the FCC requirements (which are NULL in the case of the internet). iCraveTV sends out unmodified signals, so I don't see a legal problem at all. I'm also horrified at how against this company people seem.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Actually Canadians _are_ bad, and Americans _are_ good. This is basically because America has vast natural supplies of goodness and during the 30's and 40's we established a strategic reserve supply of goodness in case of emergency.
While many countries recieve exports of our goodness, we would be foolish to expend it all.
At any rate, Canada unfortunately sits on top of one of the largest naturally occuring masses of badness in the world (the only larger ones are Russia, which we all knew, and Madagascar which is kind of strange). If Canada had not shipped the bulk of it's good supply to Britain in the early part of this century it would not be as big a deal as it is.
And it still wouldn't be a problem given the healthy trade relationship between the naturally very good US and naturally very bad Canada but due to an oversight good imports/exports were not covered under NAFTA.
At the moment good exports to Canada from the US are constrained and so Canada has reverted to badness. Hopefully this will be resolved soon and Canada can once again join the ranks of good nations, even though it has to do so artificially.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
My apologies on the subject line...I was going for that whole 'South Park/Celine Dion' thing.
Some of my best 'net pals are Canadian, and, oddly enough, they think it's funny when I tease their sorry, too-whitebread country.
:-)
Yours in perpetual sarcasm...
Funny, I though you did too... Hey, now that makes two of us >;-)
Ummm, like iCrave transmits the advertisements. I, for one thing, would be happy if more people were seeing my station, and therefore my advertisements. The only thing iCrave has missed is sending statistics of how long each station is watched to the broadcasters - Then they could see how much more people are seeing their advertising, and charge more for this even more valuable resource.
You see, they are not creating more stations, they are just letting more people watch the stations they transmit. That means MORE people watching your station - Only a NUT would say that is bad.
If iCrave removed them, or delayed the shows, then it would be stealing, since you cannot get advertising dollars for this.
Sure, they add a small ad to the bottom of the show, but that is just "added value" since they do not remove the original broadcast in ANY way.
So iCrave is right, and the broadcasters will look funny in court explaining how iCrave hurt them because they (the broadcasters) could make either the same, or more money with them broadcasting.
HELP! HELP! HELP! He's giving money to me officer! Stop that theif! That's your argument? Well, sorry, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! =8-|
Umm, what is an anti-SLAPP law? Don't live in the US, so I guess I've never heard of it.
>one very small time channel out of Kitchener
Hey! Quit insulting our beloved lucky number channel 13, CKCO, the (once) red-jacketed reporters. They're now affiliated with CTV, although they still refer to themselves as CKCO. Heh, At _least_ 5 people work there (I sometimes wonder if the anchor man becomes a camera man when he's not on screen).
Too bad, living in Maryhill (yeah, it is a hill that gets us better TV, its 5 Minutes away from Kitchener) I could get on our 40 foot outdoor antenna channels 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12(not well),13,17,19,23,25,28,29,31,35,41,45,47,56,57,69 . Some took some work, and were snowy, but a usable signal was possible if the weather was good. Some of the stations, such as channel 41 and 6, and 31 and 57 are identical in all ways. 41 is delayed from 6 by 2 or three seconds. I don't know why, it's just like that.
This includes:
- ABC
- NBC
- FOX
- CBS
- PBS
- TVO
- CTS
- Global
- CTV
- CBC
- CITY-TV
- SRC
The CRTC has taken a pretty bold position by keeping their hands off the Net. It might be that Fox and the NFL win this round (and its not clear to me that they will), this is a short term problem.
As Net bandwidth increases, they will just move these sites to another country -- Russia, Mexico, Taiwan, wherever. That's already the case with online Casinos.
Also, the networks (even Fox) will eventually have to join the Net anyway. Say they win this case. CITY TV and CBC give iCrave permission to rebroadcast anyway. Since the CBC is paid for by Canadian taxpayers, I can hardly see them not giving iCrave permission to rebroadcast to Canadians. Now CITY/CBC get all the Net viewers and Fox looses out. I can't see how that helps Fox's bottom line.
Ken
Errors using IP for citizenship:
- Canadians can have vacations to other countries (and should be allowed to watch Canadian TV there)
- The Anonymizer (I'm bored, so I won't explain it)
- Poisoning of IP databases, such as whois, through the purchase of a Canadian PO box. BTW: No, if you exclude PO boxes, you exclude about 40% of Canadians, since many Canadians have a PO box assigned to them as well as an address (I'm PO box 67, although I always have my stuff sent to me by my street address. The people at the post office write on the mail the correct PO box, and stuff it in box 67).
Something more concrete, such as a Canadian citizenship number and password would be required to make something like this viable.
In Canada, where the poster was talking about, you MUST include broadcast stations on cable. It is the law. It is also the law that if you want to watch the specialty channels, such as the movie channel, you MUST purchase the broadcast signals as well, wether you want them or not.
I run a small ISP. I called our upstream,
and asked. "Mbone isn't available."
"What if I really want it? What
if my customers demand it?"
"You'll have to pay for all engineering
expenses involved, as well as agree that
we have no liability if it doesn't work."
That's easy. Change your upstream provider.
Look; if enough end users demand multicast, then ISPs will provide it because the end users will change their ISP to someone that does. And if enough ISPs want to provide multicast to their end users, then upstream providers will have to provide it to keep their ISPs.
Things like iCraveTV might just be the killer app that multicast needs to take off. If I go over to some neighbor that has ADSL and flawless TV because of multicast, what do you think I am going to do as a consumer?
Ken
So you are telling me I have the right to sue the makers of Squid for their proxy software? It does EXACTLY the same thing... "ReBroadcasts" the same pages to someone. And, yes, you could have a copy of Squid running that can be publically accessible over the internet.
CopyRight ONLY covers things that are recorded. This is LIVE rebroadcasting, so your analogy is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong because a COPY is STORED on ANOTHER computer. iCraveTV does NOT STORE anything, they simply REBROADCAST it. VERY different than your analogy.
Basically, it shows how misguided society is as a whole with regard to copyright laws (and probably most laws for that matter.) I am equally guilty of this, of course, as my initial reaction was "that must be illegal"... but upon further investigation, in Canada anyway, it seems to be legal (of course, I am no lawyer, so enterpret my enterpretation as you see fit) and like most people posting to /., I have not given you any URL's to back this up. :)
-dr
ICravetv is just rebroadcasting the signal with the advertising intact. You reach more viewers sell more products what's the problem?
I agree there is some content such as pro sports where the local stadium would be competing with an internet broadcast. These rare conflicts are easy enough to overcome by excluding the content from the internet. Also advertisers often tailer content to local tastes so they may feel that "their dog" is getting the wrong message. Since this is broadcasting on a one-way street (network TV is not interactive like slashdot) it is really just helping to expand the viewing area.
These are real issues but over time a lot of them will be worked out. It might even be better if we had more global oriented advertising..
I cant see it getting anywhere, half the channels arnt available...
:(
expect too much bandwidth and some of them have absolutely shocking picture quality, and no sound...
And I was hoping to watch Buffy..
Something I just don't understand here. Why should the networks care about the rebroadcast? They make money off of advertising; as a result, if their viewer base increases (and they have some way to monitor it), then their ad revenues should increase. If they could get iCraveTV to send them viewership numbers (to forward to their advertisers), then it seems to me this would be a good deal.
This reminds me of something my hometown radio station did... they started webcasting a few months ago, but introduced a 45 second delay so that people wouldn't be able to call in on the contests. Why not? Isn't the purpose of the contest to get more people to listen in? And since they know how many people are listening to the webcast (and can pass it on to their advertisers, same story as above), isn't that all good for them?
``This, too, shall pass.'' ---Eastern proverb
Canada trades a lot of goodness with Cuba, which is a pretty good source after you get past Castro. The US would have access to this goodness if it weren't for the badness mine known as the Senate.
>They are not acting as a proxy. They are simply acquiring the signal, and then throwing the signal into a (really bad) RealVideo presentation, resplendent with their tacky banners.
/. theft idea, let's say that I did what some joker did a few years ago, and made a frame heavy page that displayed ONLY the real content from /., the NY Times and CNN, WITHOUT their banners.
Ummmm, like, what you need is an explanation of what a proxy does:
(A). A client requests something through the proxy.
(B). The proxy fetches that something.
(C). The proxy returns that something to the client, and if required, reformats it so the client can understand it. (eg. Junkbuster).
>And to expand on my
That is NOT what iCraveTV does. They leave the ads in, unaltered. Why do you want to confuse the issue?
>For now, icravetv is showing the networks commercials, but, I'll betcha their gonna offer a 'premium' service soon that will be time lagged, and will insert THEIR ads instead of good old Tide or McDonalds.
Not unless they want to go to jail. That is SPECIFICALLY forbidden by Canadian law (their rebroadcasting isn't). You again ASS U ME something will happen that you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to back up. Quit it with the insinuation and innuendo!
>It's really an exercise in futility arguing the point, as they are simply another form of pirate, looking for that click-thru and impression rate.
(sarcasm) Too true, I mean, look at all the people who work on Squid, I bet they are all ex-cons. (/sarcasm). Sure they want to make money - how else would they be able to stay in business and offer their service to the public. What you are saying is EXACTLY the same as:
The FSF is just like any other business, they are just looking for that GNU user base, and free coder rate.
So, you are trying to say that this is bad? For a company to attempt to reach its goals? How did you ever pass school with that kind of defeatist attitude?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if Rob doesn't get paid from the ads (like things used to be) there never was any benefit to him from slashdot except the enjoyment of running it, and the chance to try his hand out on some wickedass coding. So how does providing an exact duplicate of slashdot with even more banner ads take away from this? He still gets to enjoy running slashdot, and still gets money from his ads, and still gets to do wickedass coding.
I fail to see his loss...
Whether or not it violates the copyright laws I think it is the networks fault for not already offering the service to the internet. Also assuming the channels will get more viewship over the internet than they would normally get then they would have a greater viewership for there ads and therefore that'd make them more money. Times are changing and the copyright laws of the past are not keeping up with the times. I think the laws of the past are going to have to be totally re-written to make the laws more relavent to the internet, or better yet get rid of copyright altogether! ;)
Yeah, but a book is VERY different from slashdot, and is EXTREMELY different from iCrave TV.
:-(
Ok, first the difference between the book and slashdot:
- An author and the publishing company get money from book sales. Copies of the book that do not provide royalties to the author and publishing company cause them to lose money (I assume that's what you meant).
- Slashdot, however, gets no money from a physical sale. They get their money by eyeballs on ads, and the occasional person buying a CD from CDNow. Slashdot gets their money wether you view it directly, or you read a livem non-static copy of a copy of it (a static copy of it is nothing like iCraveTV. that's copying, and is stealing). So books and slashdot are quite different.
- iCraveTV is also nothing like a book because they rebroadcast LIVE a non-static copy of the broadcasters TV stations. If the TV stations were nice enough to ask, rather than sue, iCraveTV for copies of how many hits they get per station, and how long people watched the station and at what times (they have logs like that, I'm sure) then no money is lost, as the TV stations can offer this proof as "eyeballs" watching their ads. This means they can ask the advertisers for more money because more people are watching their program... Nothing like a book indeed.
Ummm, btw, if I had to sign a EULA just to look at a book, I'd steal static copies of every one. Why? Look at the inconvenience of signing a EULA just to look at the quality of each book in a bookstore! Imagine, I'd have to sign 50 EULAs each time I enter a bookstore... Copyright still exists nowadays because it is VERY convenient for the companies, and individuals accessing a companies' services, and it gets them big $$$ on sales (and lawsuits). It seems quite deviant from what its intended purpose is...
You MAY wanna join the 1990's, and take a look at the numerous articles regarding the transfer of ownership from Rob to Andover.net, and the brand spanking new IPO.
/. for the 'joy of working on the wickedass code'...
Andover didn't pay good $$$ to
To paraphrase weird al and puffedup daddy:
'It's all about the ad rates baby'
Just because a Canadian company did something like this doesn't make Canadians bad, does it? Or are you just being bigoted?
At any rate, some Canadian Slashdotters happen to have already stated that they doubt icravetv will win this case.
I don't side with icravetv (as a Canadian) because they are violating Copyright. There are specific laws in Canada (visit the CRTC) protecting broadcasters, etc. This is also fairly well covered by International Copyright Law.
The networks have to get rights to distribute the content. The cable companies often state that you can't resell their content. It would seem to me that presenting content with revenue from the hits would be at least profiting off of the content.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Gotta love those Canadian Content laws huh? It's now illegal to have a "grey-market" satellite dish, like the Hughes DirectTV one here in Canada. Why? Because it's american programming and the CRTC has no control over it, that's why. Control freaks. If I wanna watch Canadian content, I'll turn to CBC, thanks.
Altavista and other free ISP's show their banner ads while they copy web sites for you (the process of transmission involves creating many copies in the process). Since the copying is done at the direction of the user, and is required for the user to view the content, it's considered fair use.
The legality of this rebroadcasting web site depends on a lot of factors. Are they acting as an agent of the user, following the users instructions to make form-shifting or time-shifting copies of the broadcast media so that it can be viewed (similar to what an ISP and the free ISP's do - considered fair use), or are they copying the material under their own direction and then reselling the copies?
Remember, it's legal for a copy shop like Kinkos to charge a sight-impaired person money to make 150% enlargements of every page in a book at the sight impaired person's direction so that the person can read the book. It's not legal for the copy shop to make 150% enlargements of books and then resell them to sight-impaired persons.
The two acts are very similar, yet one is fair use and the other is copyright infringement. It's going to be tough to determine which one iCraveTV is similar to, and if their business is legal or not.