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?"
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.
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.
Does no one read the articles associated with slashdot news stories anymore? They're distributing it for free.
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.
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
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.
514 Quebec (Montreal island)
450 Quebec (Greater Montreal region)
Basically everyone who was 514 is now 450 except for the island of Montreal.
---
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.
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?
:-)
Key difference: They're not broadcasting.
Internet broadcasting has not yet been defined as "broadcasting" under the laws in question. The laws are well-defined for stuff that goes on the airwaves, but the internet is not the airwaves.
Also, since they're adding their Advertising, which is copyrighted by them, directly to the stream, you probably would get nailed there too.
---
- 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.
"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.
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?
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.
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)