Tag Archives: TV

Cable Companies = More Than Just $100 and a Computer

Mark it as a victory for broadcast TV.  On February 22, 2011, U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald of New York’s Southern District granted a preliminary injunction against ivi, Inc., blocking its online TV-streaming.  The Seattle-based company started drawing attention last September when it began selling live streaming of TV broadcasts over the internet for $4.99 per month.  After receiving several cease-and-desist letters from broadcasters, ivi filed a lawsuit in Washington District Court, asking for a declaration that its actions did not constitute infringement of network copyrights.  The lawsuit was dismissed, and shortly thereafter the current suit was filed by a number of plaintiffs, including NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, and, yes, even PBS.  They claim that ivi is stealing the networks’ copyrighted material and siphoning viewers away from TV sets (and the associated commercials).  On the other side, some public interest groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have spoken in support of competition created by ivi.

In granting the injunction, Judge Buchwald indicated that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the likelihood of both the success of their claims and the irreparable harm to them that can only be avoided by shutting ivi down.  She rejected the claim by ivi that the company qualifies as a cable system under the Copyright Act.  Cable companies that pay approximately $100 each year to the U.S. Copyright Office are allowed to rebroadcast TV signals without acquiring permission from the networks.

Judge Buchwald’s main problem with this argument seemed to be ivi’s contention that while it is a cable system under the Copyright Act, entitling it to rebroadcast, it is not a cable system in regard to possible regulation by the FCC.  When stated like that, ivi’s position does appear tenuous.  Ivi Chief Executive Todd Weaver responded, saying that the judge mistakenly confused copyright and communication law (update at the bottom of this article).  ivi’s website has acknowledged the injunction and suspended services, but also indicates that the company will appeal the ruling.

Although I can’t claim to be familiar with the TV rebroadcasting laws, it does seem like an exception allowing cable companies to show network programming is designed for local cable providers and not national (or international) streaming on the internet.  Otherwise, as the judge has suggested, anyone with an internet connection can call themselves a cable operator and rebroadcast TV at will.  At the same time, nobody likes having to go through the stupid cable companies to get programming, and more options are almost always a good thing, right?  But Hulu is able to do a pretty good job of offering alternatives without being shut down by court order.  I’m just not convinced that taking someone else’s signal without permission is a practice that we want to endorse.

On a final note, as Dave Taylor points out, the ivi End User License Agreement includes a clause that customers agree to let ivi access users’ computers and bandwidth to transmit to other customers.  Specifically, the EULA authorizes ivi to “utilize the processor, bandwidth and hard drive (or other memory or storage hardware) and/or cache of your computer (or other applicable device) for the limited purpose of facilitating the communication between, and the transmittal of data, content, programming, services or features to, you and other Service users, and to facilitate the operation of the network of computers running instances of the Service.”  Thus, each customer who uses the service is offering their own system to facilitate further transmission of copyrighted material, which is worrisome to say the least.  Even if ivi is eventually found to have infringed the network copyrights, I don’t think it’s likely that anyone is coming after individual ivi customers, but that doesn’t mean I want to unknowingly participate in illegal activity.  If nothing else, this serves as a good example of “user beware,” and a reminder that EULAs should not be ignored.

Where You Gonna Watch the ‘Big Game’ Now?

If you’re fortunate enough to have basic cable, you can spend this Sunday in your favorite chair watching the Packers face the Steelers in a storied matchup culminating what was anything but a typical NFL season. Next door, your neighbor and his buddies will fight over seats on the sectional around his big screen. Down the street, jersey-toting, die-hard fans will raise Tyrannosaurus glasses in glory or defeat at the local sports bar. But this year, there will be a new face (make that faces) at your neighbor’s party and the sports bar. Why? Because they don’t have cable. And yesterday, the Department of Justice and Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) most likely took down the website where they were planning to watch the Big Game, illegally.

Sports-streaming websites atdhe.netfirstrow.netchannelsurfing.net, and rojadirecta.org, just to name a few, were seized February 1st, and have public officials like Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) questioning the operation, specifically with regards to Spanish site rojadirecta.org. Head to any of the sites and you will see the following warning reflecting current U.S. law:

“Willful copyright infringement is a federal crime that carries penalties for first time offenders of up to five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution.” 17 U.S.C. § 506, 18 U.S.C. § 2319.

It should come as no surprise that these sites were shut down just before the Big Kahuna Sunday when the musical chairs match between Pirate Petey and Illegal Download Danny might just rival the action onscreen. After all, the Big Game is the most watched television broadcast in America. Indeed, this year’s sponsors have paid $330 million to the NFL for ad time. What does it take to be an “official” sponsor? Anheuser-Busch has reportedly paid $1.2 billion over the next six years to be the NFL’s “official” beer. The perks? During this time it will be the only sponsor that can use the official NFL imagery and trademarks.

As you can imagine, the bottom line for the NFL can be adversely affected by sites streaming live sports online for free, especially the Championship. It’s in the best interest of the NFL and its sponsors to have “authentic” viewers to keep count of the total. Much like when a TV sitcom is recorded then later watched on Tivo for instance, someone who watches a game online illegally might not count toward the overall viewership. This has been a huge problem for television. Selling advertising without a precise viewer estimate is a tall order. Consider online shopping for comparison.

On November 30, 2010, ICE shut down 82 sites suspect of selling knockoff goods. This came just two days after Black Friday on what is known as Cyber Monday–the busiest online shopping day of the year. (Even I bought something.) Despite all the similarities, the online shopping sites are different in that the sale of counterfeit products (e.g., fake purses, fake shoes) steals the creative work of others. Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed, “Intellectual property crimes are not victimless[.]“

That may be the case here, but more controversy surrounding the seizure of these sites will probably surface, especially with regards to rojadirecta.org, which was twice declared legal by Spanish courts (here and here). The court reasoned that since the site does not host any material itself, it does not infringe. The good people of Spain might not be too happy about this. Nevertheless it is highly unlikely that the site will be back up by game time. The forecast for Sunday, Sunday, Sunday?

Crowded. Plan accordingly.

Weekly PULSE

Look no further for the latest in Entertainment Law news: the Weekly PULSE!

Tell us what you think! We’d love to hear your opinion.

Be sure to check in next Wednesday for the PULSE !!!