ivi got knocked around by the old media in court... where the argument centered around it being or not being a cable system.
I read the Wired post thinking about how they are getting attacked no matter how they defend themselves, but it might be that the rulings are setting up standards for the next try at this.
The networks fought cable.. and we all have cable... they fought satellite too.
When will we be able to watch what we want where we want.. and when we want?
A federal judge in New York has issued a preliminary injunction against internet TV service ivi, in closely-watched case pitting an upstart web video service against some of the most powerful entertainment companies in the world.
The injunction is victory for the major TV networks and a setback for the nascent crop of online video distributors aiming to offer an alternative to the major cable and satellite companies. The case highlights the disharmony between copyright law and FCC regulatory policy at a time of rapid evolution and innovation in the online video space.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright claim,” U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in her decision. “They also have demonstrated irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tip in their favor, and that the public interest will not be disserved by an injunction.”
“ivi streams signals to a nationwide audience, without copyright owners’ consent or compliance with the rules and regulations of the FCC,” the judge added.
That’s not altogether surprising, considering that the company’s business involves pulling down over-the-air TV signals from 55 stations in New York, Los Angleles and Chicago, and rebroadcasting them over the internet to its users, for $5 per month. Needless to say, ivi does not have the originating stations’ permission to rebroadcast the programming.
In its defense, ivi argued that it fits within the statutory definition of a “cable system” under Section 111 of the 1976 Copyright Act, and thus is entitled “to perform plaintiffs’ programming” as long as it makes payments to the Copyright Office.
In her decision, Judge Buchwald concluded that ivi is not, in fact, a cable system.
“To place defendants’ argument in a real world context,” Judge Buchwald wrote, “they assert that for the payment of approximately $100 a year to the Copyright Office (the payment for a Section 111 compulsory license) and without compliance with the strictures of the Communications Act or plaintiffs’ consent, that they are entitled to use and profit from the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.”
“ivi’s architecture bears no resemblance to the cable systems of the 1970s,” the judge added. “Its service retransmits broadcast signals nationwide, rather than to specific local areas.”
No comments:
Post a Comment