Letting go of cable

[toucan-man]

I'll wait for the gurus of this forum to comment:

'Highly disruptive' startup offers live TV on the Internet for $5 a month - FierceIPTV

This did catch my eye:

...At the moment, the company has no contracts with any broadcasters, but ivi claims it doesn't need to, since it's an online cable system and, as long as it pays fees to the U.S. Copyright Office--which get disbursed to the broadcasters--it's covered. Although Weaver says it's not inconceivable that the company will face some legal challenges....

 

[SpiffWilkie]

That's very intriguing. Seems like they're trying the "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" approach.

 

[Cadsulfide]

Could very likely change the way we watch TV, AT&T and Verizon own most of the BIG DATA PIPES, they would profit handsomely.

 

[stanleyjohn]

What slows down internet streaming now is copyright laws.Used to watch RTV online till RTV shut them down due to copy right laws.

 

[FaT Air]

>>as long as it pays fees to the U.S. Copyright Office<< I didn't know that office disburses copyright fees. Thought they were only the "Grantors" or "Registrar" of copyright. I'd think to use someones material, you'd have to negotiate directly with the copyright holder. I don't see them being around long.

 

[Larry1]

I think their channels will disappear shortly as the owners find out they are re-broadcasting/streaming them.

 

[Larry1]

A not quite similar situation in Canada was protested recently by the broadcasters. Their signals were picked up by the cable companies and re-broadcasted with no reinbursement paid back to the broadcasters. The broadcasters patitioned the CRTC for payment for use of their signals.

 

[FaT Air]

Unless, they're based in Cuba, or some other country where we (the U.S.)have no copyright agreements.

 

[toucan-man]

As y'all predicted, something hit the fan:

Startup ivi TV goes on offense against broadcasters looking to shut it down - FierceIPTV






.

 

[DRCars]

Here's a link to the request for Declaration of Non-infringement of Copyright:

http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_media/pdf/ivi-complaint.pdf?site=techflash.com

Having read thru the Copyright Act:

United States Code: Title 17,111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions | LII / Legal Information Institute

it appears they (ivi) have something here. However, that will probably be ignored or interpreted or eventually changed to suit the needs of the networks involved.

DRCars

 

[Wescopc]

This is going to be fun to watch - why wouldn't Dish and DirecTV have gone this way rather then having to sign a contract with each local station? Maybe these guys (ivi) have found a way to beat back the fees that Satellite and Cable companies have to pay these stations!
Bob

 

[toucan-man]

Right on cue the lawyers have arrived on the scene. But PBS, too? Why, oh why?

Startup 'online cable' firm ivi TV sued by broadcasters - FierceOnlineVideo

 

[DRCars]

This is going to be fun to watch - why wouldn't Dish and DirecTV have gone this way rather then having to sign a contract with each local station? ... snip ....
Bob

Because satellite retransmission is treated differently in the US code and is not treated the same as a cable company retransmission.

DRCars

 

[toucan-man]

Brief update,

Web cable firm ivi TV announcing content deals soon - FierceIPTV

 

[toucan-man]

...Rumor is that subscribers are cancelling with Cablevision by the boatload. And that, one reader tells me, is causing call center waits of up to 30 minutes...

Fox-Cablevision spat feeding web-based cable company growth spurt - FierceOnlineVideo

 

[Greg Bimson]

it appears they (ivi) have something here. However, that will probably be ignored or interpreted or eventually changed to suit the needs of the networks involved.

It's because ivi is only using a section that fits their argument. If ivi is claiming they are a cable company, there are more rules they must follow, such as signing a carriage agreement with the stations involved.

In other words, ivi is only using this one section of US Code regarding copyrights as their basis for their rights to retransmit. However, by claiming they are a cable company so they can use this section, there are countless other sections of US Code that now apply. And having a carriage contract with the stations involved is one such requirement.

 

[toucan-man]

It's because ivi is only using a section that fits their argument. If ivi is claiming they are a cable company, there are more rules they must follow, such as signing a carriage agreement with the stations involved.

See if their arguments here are persuasive,

Copyright vs. FCC vs. The Industry: ivi.TV slices through a Gordian Knot - FierceIPTV

They go on,

...The largest impediment to content acquisition, however, is fear of cable operator reprisal. The threat of dropping a tier for a channel, lowering a subscription rate, or adjusting terms could cripple even the largest content owners. We found we were up against nearly insurmountable odds entering the market, despite what we believed were good intentions and innovative network...

They conclude,

"...By answering the ills of an antiquated industry and listening to consumer's needs, we have quickly established ivi as a force that is here to stay..."

 

[toucan-man]

Internet cable company ivi TV suffers setback in court; can it survive? - FierceIPTV