Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iCraveTV Sued by Networks

Posted by Roblimo on from the you-knew-it-would-happen dept.

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. "

5 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Re:iCrave doesn't have much of a chance. by BJH · · Score: 5


    As I understand it, it's perfectly legal under Canadian law to rebroadcast anything that was originally broadcast publically as long as you don't make any changes to the signal (e.g., adding advertisements). Whether charging for it makes a difference, I don't know - but the rebroadcasting itself is not a copyright violation.

  2. they may prevail by cebe · · Score: 4

    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).
  3. This is yet another reason Candians are bad... by pipeb0mb · · Score: 4

    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?



  4. How About the Copyright Notice on all NFL Games? by dave_aiello · · Score: 5
    How many of you, if asked, can repeat the copyright notice that is read over the air on every NFL game? Something about any presentation of the:
    ...pictures, descriptions, or accounts of these games without the express permission of {insert home team name here} and the National Football League is expressly prohibited.

    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
  5. TV networks vs. e-commerce by heroine · · Score: 4

    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.