Dish Network: Distant Networks

[waltinvt]

If we don't understand the problem, our chances of solving it rely on sh*t luck.

First off, if "D" had no connection with Fox and it's affiliates, Fox would have likely settled a long time ago, just like the other networks and this whole thing would probably have gone away.

Is it possible a case could be made here that "D" is violating (at least in spirit) the terms of it's take over by Murdoch)?

Secondly, since when are laws writen where the only allowable consequence for breaking that law is to punish innocent consumers? Apparently there is no discretion allowed either. Who would write a law in this fashion? THE SAME IDIOTS HOPING TO GET RE-ELECTED IN A FEW MONTHS, that's who.

The last thing they want to see is any publicity about innocent consumers loosing tv networks. If the right national media could get this out to the public - that congress is somehow responsible, you can bet there'd be some scrambling to get some action.

Thirdly, (and this one really puzzles me) it appears, from what I've heard that Dish didn't even try to defend itself in court. Surely the majority or at least a big chunk of their subs that receive DNS were / are entitled to them, yet Dish didn't come up with the records to substantiate them. What about subs that provided Dish false information; it just seems "E" could have done a lot more to argue that.

It just doesn't make any sense that Dish couldn't better defend against the "willful patterns & practice" part of the court opinion. I seriously doubt they lost their records, so it almost looks like either Charles thumbed his nose at the court or was looking for the exact ruling he got - which means he's got something up his sleeve.

 

[waltinvt]

Yup the chat for today was postponed until August 16th.

No word on whats happening to the savemychannels.com site.

No way that's not an indication of something going on. Hmmmmm, anyone heard any more about the "merger" rumor?

 

[lou_do]

I remember the good old early days of C-Band satellite programing. You could subscribe to any Network package you wanted. There was also a superstation package if a bunch of independent station from all over the country (Boston, New York, Dallas, LA, Denver) that you could subscribe to. Sure would be nice to have that back. I kinda miss my BUD.

 

[riffjim4069]

Some folks are confusing the law with justice and common sense...there is no such correlation. The courts should apply the letter of the law and not legislation from the bench. Any arguments that the customers will suffer is certainly a mitigating factor, but how else is E* going to be punished?

Example: let's say I repeated steal cars and rob liquor stores in order to support my addiction of subscribing to all Dish Network channels (PPV, XXX, Internationals, etc.). I imagine I could steal Dish Network services just like out beloved hackers, but there are just some deplorable acts an honest thief won't do. Anyway, I get busted a few times and found guilty each time as well. The judge just doesn't buy my argument that stealing cars is a bad law because it violates my civil rights to thievery. Although I'm guilty as sin, the judge looks over at Little Jimmy I through VII sitting in the court room in dirty diapers, while trying to force a smile with their bad teeth, and sentences me to probation on each occasion. I am also admonished and ordered to cease my unlawful ways or face the wrath of the court upon further violation.

One day after being dragged in front of the court for yet another car hijacking, the judge finally throws my arse in Prison. According to some, I should not be thrown in prison because innocent parties, Little Jimmy I through VII, will be harmed by this court imposed action. Well, that's just too bad because life is not fair and it's the courts job to enforce the law. Plus, as in both the above cases, the courts gave the parties several opportunities to correct their past behavior prior to imposing a harsh sentence. Seriously, how many of you honestly believe that E* wasn't warned about their non-compliance for many years? E* has nobody to blame but E*! Dish Network customers should be outraged, but their outrage should be directed at those responsible...Mr. Charlie Ergen and crew!

Anyway, perhaps Little Jimmy I-VII can find a new and improved father figure (Pappa D* or Pappa Dolan) or maybe not having a criminal father figure is the best medicine for all concerned. The same can be said for E* customers too. If you feel that E* is violating a bad law, then work to get the laws changed...just don't ask the courts and legislators to look the other way again, and again, and again, and again.

 

[mdonnelly]

...If you feel that E* is violating a bad law, then work to get the laws changed...just don't ask the courts and legislators to look the other way again, and again, and again, and again.

Jim, that's just how you do challenge a bad law. In the courts, in the legislature, at the ballot box, and in the court of public opinion.

 

[Greg Bimson]

...If you feel that E* is violating a bad law, then work to get the laws changed...just don't ask the courts and legislators to look the other way again, and again, and again, and again.

Jim, that's just how you do challenge a bad law. In the courts, in the legislature, at the ballot box, and in the court of public opinion.

But here is where we get into semantics.

Challenge the law? Everyone here realizes that there is no contract between Dish Network and the distant network channels, right? The law for distant service allows Dish Network (and DirecTV) to pick up WABC and deliver it to the unserved. All Dish Network needs to do is pay a few dimes to the Library of Congress copyright fund. If you then get rid of this law, there are no distant networks.

Just so we are clear, copyright law forbids the ability to deliver channels without an agreement or a contract. It is why every time there is a carriage dispute, the channels are pulled.

The difference with distant networks is that the "agreement" is codified as an exception to copyright law. It is a very narrow exception as it allows a distributor to deliver distant network programming to those that are unserved. There is never going to be a way to create a law that is so broad that it would allow anyone, anywhere to receive a distant network.

So, if you challenge a bad law by going into court, thumbing your nose at everyone, and lose every Constitutional argument, your business will be under scrutiny.

The courts are still doing the due dilligence. The question is whether or not there is some kind of appeal that will allow Dish Network some breathing room. Better yet, because the network boards have the upper hand, maybe Dish Network will finally capitulate and actually negotiate so that everyone isn't cut-off.

 

[BigFella]

There is never going to be a way to create a law that is so broad that it would allow anyone, anywhere to receive a distant network.

Thinking out loud here... Radio stations are able to play recorded music because they pay a fee to BMI/ASCAP ( I believe those are the organizations). The collected funds are then distributed amongst individual copyright holders. Couldn't a similar situation be worked out where a satellite/cable/fios company pays a fee to... dare I say it, the NAB to deliver it to whomever wants to subscribe to any network station?

 

[BobMurdoch]

Then they would give up control, which isn't going to happen unless someone puts a gun to their head....

Good plan, probably work well too......

But it won't happen.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Ok, but now realize the example. A radio station plays music that is published under the BMI/ASCAP/CAPAC banner. The agreement allows for any station to play any content under that banner. It is about licensing the content.

The TV networks are responsible for contracting first-run programming and distributing it amongst their distribution network. The programming is not published under a banner for anyone to license.

 

[BigFella]

Ok, but now realize the example. A radio station plays music that is published under the BMI/ASCAP/CAPAC banner. The agreement allows for any station to play any content under that banner. It is about licensing the content.

The TV networks are responsible for contracting first-run programming and distributing it amongst their distribution network. The programming is not published under a banner for anyone to license.

ARRRGH... I'm really trying to understand this, and hopefully I will before my head explodes. OK the NAB and the TV networks aside for a moment - The radio station in my example equates to the individual network TV station (KABC, WABC, etc.) and I define "content" to music in radio and individual programs in TV. I guess I'm not getting your second paragraph - could you please expand? Thanks Greg for your patience...

 

[dfergie]

Removed hack post, and banned user , thanks to juan for reporting post...

 

[Greg Bimson]

ARRRGH... I'm really trying to understand this, and hopefully I will before my head explodes. OK the NAB and the TV networks aside for a moment - The radio station in my example equates to the individual network TV station (KABC, WABC, etc.) and I define "content" to music in radio and individual programs in TV. I guess I'm not getting your second paragraph - could you please expand? Thanks Greg for your patience...

I'll try to make this one a bit easier...

You're definition is incorrect, to a point. The content in radio is not only music, but the entire program. Think Howard Stern...

He gets a show on a New York radio station, and then the radio station syndicates it across the country. His show plays some music, which is paid for by royalties to ASCAP/BMI/CAPAC. However, his show is copyrighted. No one can take the show and distribute it elsewhere without consent. Only the music is licensed. Of course, now his show is on Sirius, and Sirius pays royalties to the composers' groups. If the show is sublicensed, Sirius will receive money from the licensee, and will also have to pay the composers' groups again for rebroadcasting the music.

Network TV is a much different animal. Unlike albums or CD's, which artists, composers and record companies want played on a variety of stations, the programming on network TV is produced to be sold as an exclusive. It is the same reason why you'll find one ABC station in a market (generally), or one station in a market carrying Jeopardy! or Wheel of Fortune. The program producers and distributors do not want to license to many groups, because exclusivity pays more. That would be the reason why you don't see the Super Bowl on every network: the NFL makes an entirely obscene amount of money limiting the Super Bowl to one network per year, making it an exclusive.

Also, think about the newer wave of recent shows. I recall recent episodes of Medium, Las Vegas and Without a Trace "pimping" out new music from acts. The license used by radio stations to play a song is not used to integrate the music into these programs. These performances are licensed in a manner the same as commercials. Remember the Nike "Revolution" ads? Nike had to pay unnatural amounts of money to the publishing holder of the Beatles catalogue, one Mr. Michael Jackson.

The point I am making is that everything is licensed in some form or another. The issue here is that Dish Network used the license incorrectly, and must pay the piper for their gross misuse, or as the court put it, willful infringement.

And it is also why network programming will not be licensed. Licensing interferes with the distribution model.

 

[JerseyGuy]

Superstations: Are they effected?

What about superstations will dish be banned from broadcasting those?

 

[Foxbat]

Yup the chat for today was postponed until August 16th.

No word on whats happening to the savemychannels.com site.

Scott, you might want to post an update to the first page indicating the site is no longer live. I tried the link and it returns IIS's standard "Under Construction" message.

 

[JP Threw]

My opinion. Dish should negotiate the following:

Allow DNS, but only under certain situation.
#1, Only if the local DMA does not provide that network
#2, Only allow a DNS station from the subscribers time zone (New York, Chicago, Denver, or Los Angeles)

That would satisfy all white area subscribers, and likely the NAB as well.

What about the "truckers" and "RV ers" who have wavers now?

 

[Greg Bimson]

If the court permantently injuncts Dish Network from using the distant network license, then the truckers and RVers will no longer have distant networks.

In short, if the injunction comes to pass, distant networks on Dish Network are done.

 

[lou_do]

If I am reading the articles about yesterday's ruling, it is against the "methodology by which it is established whether an individual household can receive distant network signals." I don't see anywhere in the ruling that says they are trying to Stop E* from selling Distant Networks, just how they establish who legally qualifies for them. Their may be more besides the articles from yesterday, but I don't see anything other than the way they are determined as an issue.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Yesterday's ruling is Dish Network trying to overturn the FCC's ILLR method of qualification. The courts reaffirmed the ILLR maps.

That is separate from the lawsuit which has been ongoing for 8+ years, where the threat of a permanent injunction on the retransmission of distant networks still hangs over the heads of Dish Network.

 

[lou_do]

Yesterday's ruling is Dish Network trying to overturn the FCC's ILLR method of qualification. The courts reaffirmed the ILLR maps.

That is separate from the lawsuit which has been ongoing for 8+ years, where the threat of a permanent injunction on the retransmission of distant networks still hangs over the heads of Dish Network.

Thanks for clearing that up. Thought it was the same issue.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I am thinking that Dish Network thought it was the same issue. I think Dish Network thought the appeal to have the entire 11th Circuit Court rehear the injunction case was to be handed down, when it was a separate appeal regarding the ILLR maps.

Dish Network was in full fight mode regarding distant network cut-offs for Tuesday, then stopped. This ruling appeared Tuesday, instead.