If this is such a slam dunk for the NAB, why haven't we heard about a new and improved injunction and Charlie & Co going to jail for contempt?
Probably because the judge hasn't held the emergency hearing yet!

If this is such a slam dunk for the NAB, why haven't we heard about a new and improved injunction and Charlie & Co going to jail for contempt?
I am the counselor that all of you will lean on when your distant network addiction ends.
The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem. Because all non-believers will be in shock and awe once this is complete.
I am the counselor that all of you will lean on when your distant network addiction ends.
The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem. Because all non-believers will be in shock and awe once this is complete.
They can serve anyone apparently. The lady I spoke to today asked me who I had service through when I called.
Nope. Don't work with anything resembling copyrights at all. I'll only give you this much: I am in sales.bacchus101 said:RIAA/MPAA spokeman?
Nope. Don't work with anything resembling copyrights at all. I'll only give you this much: I am in sales.
Nope. Don't work with anything resembling copyrights at all. I'll only give you this much: I am in sales.
Nope. Don't work with anything resembling copyrights at all. I'll only give you this much: I am in sales.
I know, a Direct TV retailer from Maryland. How close is that!
Who handles your legal situations? Wouldn't it be nice to have and use an attorney and not worry about the cost! Ask me how.
Actually, this part of the document was fascinating to me - they gave three different legal decisions by judges that stated this in three different ways.If I may contribute something, I have just read the emergency injunction, and although I'm not a lawyer, these are the two legal points they are trying to make:
"Defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding"
"An instigator of contemptuous conduct may not absolve himself of contempt liability by leaving the physical performance of the forbidden conduct to others."
Jeez, I go to bed at midnight, turn on the TV, see the chat going on and immeditatly started recording, stay up till 3 doing the recap... get maybe 5 hours sleep and wake up to this... I wouldn't have done it if I had thought the NAB was going to use...
IMHO, I think that it's good that Greg is posting his take on this subject. I don't know that he personally wants to see the Echostar satellites fall from the sky, but he is obviously reading the materials that have been filed and bringing us back to Earth in regards to the possibility that the NPS deal gets shot down.
As a DishNetwork customer, my personal stake in all of this is that Echostar does not: a) go out of business because of questionable activities; b) raise all of our rates to pay for fines and legal fees resulting from those activities; and c) lose the licenses for the transponders that they currently have and have applied for, reducing their ability to provide me, self-confessed HD addict and TV junkie, with my fix.
I'm rooting for Charlie & Co., but Echostar may have gone too far this time.
Back to topic, I guess I should feel honored that the new SatGuys logo is forever a part of the US Legal System... My Uncle would be proud!
BTW I was just showing my wife the court document and just notice they quoted me in the document with my line about Charlie being a great poker player and how he pulled a royal flush at the last moment.