SatelliteGuys Makes The Court Case

[SmityWhity]

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.

Yea, it looks like Greg has taken a beaten since yesterday, but when you stop and think about it, he's having all the fun throwing the punches and watching the blood pressure rise in a lot of people.

He's doing a good job as a legal analyst here, if SatelliteGuys.US don't watch out, Fox might hire him tonight.

 

[bacchus101]

I only post about Greg because I await his witty response.....


Oh....and it is fun to call out Fanboys

 

[downriver]

Here's an argument from another forum, when the comparison was made to the ability to purchase an out of area newspaper as opposed to a local paper. What do ya'll think??



OK, I'll bite. Let's turn this example into a real example of what legal, capitalistic processes are at work in the Echostar case.

In order to be similar, what you have to have happen, is that your local paper owns the copyright to a significant piece of artistic work. You have them make the decision that the only one who can publish it is themselves.

Then, the New York Times publishes it anyway.

How do you think our courts would rule, and who would be riding high on the proceeds?

Remember, it's not the paper, it's the content. With Dish, it's not the signal, it's the content. All owned and controlled by parties who have the legal capitalistic right, with only the tightly-worded DNS rules as an exception, to say when and where that content can be broadcast.

You may not like it, but that is indeed the way our county handles the ownership of intellectual property, not just physical property.

 

[bacchus101]

Here's an argument from another forum, when the comparison was made to the ability to purchase an out of area newspaper as opposed to a local paper. What do ya'll think??



OK, I'll bite. Let's turn this example into a real example of what legal, capitalistic processes are at work in the Echostar case.

In order to be similar, what you have to have happen, is that your local paper owns the copyright to a significant piece of artistic work. You have them make the decision that the only one who can publish it is themselves.

Then, the New York Times publishes it anyway.

How do you think our courts would rule, and who would be riding high on the proceeds?

Remember, it's not the paper, it's the content. With Dish, it's not the signal, it's the content. All owned and controlled by parties who have the legal capitalistic right, with only the tightly-worded DNS rules as an exception, to say when and where that content can be broadcast.

You may not like it, but that is indeed the way our county handles the ownership of intellectual property, not just physical property.

This is a bogus argument in that it is not the content. It is how you get the content that is in contention here and D* and E* is not the same argument as local vs national.

Furthermore.....If you don't have a local "paper" then you would not see the content in the first place thus you wish you could get the national paper but you can not in this case because the court has ruled against it.

 

[digiblur]

I'll turn your paper theory around too.....

If I wanted I can call my hometown newspaper more then 2 hours away, and also in another DMA, and read their paper every morning instead of my current city newspaper. I'm not seeing my local papers advertising anymore, I'm seeing out of market advertising. How come you can do this with newspapers and not TV? Hmmmm..... makes you think doesn't it?

 

[Hall]

I would think by you calling up and wanting to give them you information would give them permission to do a lookup on your info.

The point is, what info ?? Why do they have access to Dish's information ?? Geez, is Dish helping NPS in this whole matter ?? Nah.... not at all !

I admit, Dish and NPS could have done all of this much more discretely, but they didn't and it will come back to bite them in the ass. They are making a mockery of the judge's ruling and I suspect he won't take it lightly.

 

[SmityWhity]

I only post about Greg because I await his witty response.....


Oh....and it is fun to call out Fanboys

Or mirror salesman, because we know he has plenty of mirrors at home.

 

[grydlok]

You know if Greg is proving to be right again will it be a thread of people apologizing to him?

 

[navychop]

Even if this judge bows to the NAB, the appeals court probably won't. And Congress will presumably stop this nonsense.

 

[dfergie]

I stayed up with dfergie in the chat room doing the uplink reports by the minute as they rolled down...JohnH was also hanging out with us too and few other fellas. I'm mad they didn't put my uplink reports in the court docs!! LOL!!

I'm at work, about to herd some cats no telling what they got.. selectivly of course

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'm sure the plaintiffs are quite dismayed that the judge did not make a declaratory ruling today especially after they brought to his attention that Charlie plays poker to win.

Yes, but with the delay on a declaratory ruling, this means one of two things:

1) the entire agreement needs to be analyzed (a win for Echostar); or,
2) the judge is getting ready to rain fire and brimstone upon Echostar.

 

[Tower Guy]

I'm sure the plaintiffs are quite dismayed that the judge did not make a declaratory ruling today especially after they brought to his attention that Charlie plays poker to win. Talk about grasping at straws !

The filing by the plaintiffs suggests that Echostar be given one business day to show why they should not be held in contempt.

If I were the plaitiffs lawyers I'd be amazed if the judge moved faster than I had asked for.

 

[waltinvt]

Yes, but with the delay on a declaratory ruling, this means one of two things:

1) the entire agreement needs to be analyzed (a win for Echostar); or,
2) the judge is getting ready to rain fire and brimstone upon Echostar.

Maybe he's actually considering criminal proceedings?

I mean if he believes that the NPS deal constitutes "in concert with", then wouldn't this clearly be a case of contempt?

Is contempt of a civil ruling considered criminal?

Since Charlie clearly implicates himself on the NPS deal on camera, could he actually now be charged with a crime?

 

[Voyager6]

Maybe he's actually considering criminal proceedings?

I mean if he believes that the NPS deal constitutes "in concert with", then wouldn't this clearly be a case of contempt?

Is contempt of a civil ruling considered criminal?

Since Charlie clearly implicates himself on the NPS deal on camera, could he actually now be charged with a crime?

Do you honestly think that E* didn't give this a full review of the possible consequences? This deal with NPS should go through as long as the Judge is convinced that this is not a sham or shell game. A legitimate third-party should be able to provide DNS to legal and qualified subscribers. The Judge should see that this deal is a reasonable way to provide DNS to legal subscribers without E* providing the DNS signal or profitting from DNS. Also, this may be the only way to receive DNS on an E* receiver. If the Judge expands the injunction, he would be preventing legal DNS subscribers from receiving DNS only because they use E* receivers. He would be imposing a penalty on legal DNS subscribers not E* itself.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Do you honestly think that E* didn't give this a full review of the possible consequences?

Let's see.

The "death penalty" was in the law from the get-go. Dish Network appealed in every single way, shape and form, to stop cut-offs, thinking that somehow they'd win in the end. Dish Network never believed they'd lose the ability to retransmit distant networks.

Oops. I believe that qualifies as a full review.

The Judge should see that this deal is a reasonable way to provide DNS to legal subscribers without E* providing the DNS signal or profitting from DNS.

Dish Network is receiving rent on the transponder. That is enough to be in active concert. However, let's not forget that Dish Network is the company that will authorize a receiver for distant networks.

I'll repeat. Dish Network is the company that will authorize a receiver for distant networks.

 

[Bulldog]

Legally entitled to receive East coast CBS HD “Free of charge

Based on both Dish and Direct TV’s formula, I was legally entitled to receive East Coast CBS HD “Free of charge”, and I was. Therefore these companies were not receiving any revenues for providing this to me. This qualifying formula was based on a FCC ruling.

Dish should have at least kept this service on, and let the Judge rule against the FCC!!

Dish network’s decision despite having an FCC ruling to support its practice, decided never the less to cut me off and others; and blames the Judge’s ruling for this.

This is using these legal subscribers as pawns.

My two cents.

 

[Tower Guy]

Dish should have at least kept this service on, and let the Judge rule against the FCC!!
Dish network’s decision despite having an FCC ruling to support its practice, decided never the less to cut me off and others; and blames the Judge’s ruling for this.

Echostar was found by the courts to have violated Copyright law section 119, not an FCC regulation. This is the same law that E* would like revised to partially eliminate the injunction. Copyright laws are passed directly by Congress. I doubt many Congressmen would think kindly of such actions by Echostar.

 

[ThomasRz]

Don't be stuck on stupid.

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.

What is interesting is that all three judges are wrong.

Thus spake kstuart, SatelliteGuys Junior Member....

A friend of mine had her drivers license suspended for six months. So, according to these three judges, every time her friends drove her to the supermarket to buy groceries, they were violating the law ! They were doing the "physical performance" of the forbidden conduct - driving her in her car !

I don't know why this is required but.....the suspension forbids HER from driving, not being a passenger, not going to supermarket. There was no "forbidden conduct" of "driving her in her car!" - No matter how many !'s you put after it.


Similarly, someone who is under house arrest is forbidden to leave to do anything. So, if anyone living in the house does it for them - they are breaking the law ! You can't bring groceries to someone under house arrest !

Apply same analysis.

The concept is ludicrous, yet three judges cited it.

The driver's license suspension applies to a single individual. The E* injunction is broader. This isn't rocket science. Do you get it now?

Sometimes the idea of the punishment is merely to prevent the perpetrator from personally having the priveledge of performing an action themselves (such as driving). Sometimes the idea of the punishment is to prevent the action from being performed, regardless of who does it. It is certainly not a "principle" than can be cited in all case.

And clearly you do not understand the difference.

The morale:

Authority figures go to incredible lengths to give you the false impression that they are more competent and knowledgeable than you.

And sometimes posters try to use ridiculous analogies to (dis)prove a point of law to which they have no relevance.

 

[JohnH]

Let's see.

The "death penalty" was in the law from the get-go. Dish Network appealed in every single way, shape and form, to stop cut-offs, thinking that somehow they'd win in the end. Dish Network never believed they'd lose the ability to retransmit distant networks.

Oops. I believe that qualifies as a full review.Dish Network is receiving rent on the transponder. That is enough to be in active concert. However, let's not forget that Dish Network is the company that will authorize a receiver for distant networks.

I'll repeat. Dish Network is the company that will authorize a receiver for distant networks.

Yeah, that is all somewhat correct. Will E* not lose money by carrying out the cutoffs? Do you think this new service will deliver Distant Networks to unqualified subscribers?

 

[ThomasRz]

I'll turn your paper theory around too.....

If I wanted I can call my hometown newspaper more then 2 hours away, and also in another DMA, and read their paper every morning instead of my current city newspaper. I'm not seeing my local papers advertising anymore, I'm seeing out of market advertising. How come you can do this with newspapers and not TV? Hmmmm..... makes you think doesn't it?

Yes, it does make me think but apparently not you. The content owners of a newspaper offer the product to anybody willing to buy it. The content owners of satellite TV do NOT, repeat, do NOT offer it to anybody willing to buy it. In fact, the only reason that some non-local subscribers can receive the content (DNS) is because of an exception provided in law. This silly argument has been raised and refuted numerous times. Give it up.