DNS NEWS: Murdoch Seeks EchoStar Injunction

[jimboeau]

Took the words out of my mouth. I am out of this thread. Too much liberal (bs)ranting for me. One guy even say's we (Americans) believed Saddam was responsible for 9-11 because of the media. Yeah right ! He must be watching too much sci-fi.
Outta here !

It's unbelieveable isn't it.... Too much Al Franken aka Stewart Smalley

 

[ThomasRz]

Well, it would be permanent and final unless Congress or SCOTUS does something about it. Neither one is very likely to do so theefore I would say that this is going to be the last word.

No one has said that an injunction will not be issued at the end of the 45 day period. But you seem to think that this means that even if the parties have settled (which could happen) or if echostar can show some reason why the injunction should not be issued (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) that things won't change.

I have no idea where this will end up. Until FOX filed I would probably have said that a settlement will happen. Now I just don't know. I think that you are putting just a little too much stock in that statement in the FOX request for an immediate injunction. A mandatory injunction is called that because it mandates that someone perform a specific act---or in some cases forbids them from doing it. It is not a FINAL injunction and is not necessarily the last word.

But the end result may well be that echostar has to shut off the distant nets.

 

[Sapient]

It's unbelieveable isn't it.... Too much Al Franken aka Stewart Smalley

Uh, the fact that a significant number of Americans believed, and still believe, that Hussein was involved with 9/11 is not some Franken joke. Poll after poll show it. Further, these beliefs are concentrated among those who state that FoxNews is their primary source of info.

Yes, yes, I know that polls use numbers, which makes it kind of like science, which makes it taboo for the right wing. But step into a right wing forum or blog sometime. These beliefs are common place there. Yes, yes, I know that seeing it with your own eyes is kind of like experiencing a factual reality, which is taboo for the right wing.

Oh well.

Some polls showing publc beliefs from various times since the war "ended":

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

A study examing these beliefs and comparing new preferences among respondants (warning, pdf):
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf#search="PIPA pbs"

 

[jimboeau]

Uh, the fact that a significant number of Americans believed, and still believe, that Hussein was involved with 9/11 is not some Franken joke. Poll after poll show it. Further, these beliefs are concentrated among those who state that FoxNews is their primary source of info.

Yes, yes, I know that polls use numbers, which makes it kind of like science, which makes it taboo for the right wing. But step into a right wing forum or blog sometime. These beliefs are common place there. Yes, yes, I know that seeing it with your own eyes is kind of like experiencing a factual reality, which is taboo for the right wing.

Oh well.

Would that be the same kind of science that gave us evolution and global warming

 

[Sapient]

Would that be the same kind of science that gave us evolution and global warming

You bet. And the polio vaccine. And computers. And the internal combustion engine. And satellites.

Such scary liberal stuff. But don't worry. If univeral agreement among the people who actually look at the data contradicts stone age myths from your preacher, you always have FoxNews to perpetuate your ignorance.

(And don't forget to tell your doctor to limit your medical options to treatments developed through creation based biology. Surely after 8000 years of study, the people on the cutting edge of creation science will finally find one instance where their "theories" produce a useful application. Right?)

 

[mruk69]

I feel sorry for some of you Liberals who support, Howard Dean, Hilary Clinton or John Kerry. If A lefty comes in as president you won't have to worry about boycotting Fox News as you will be watching Al Jazeera instead.
I am sorry but i use to support the Dems at one point but now it is impossible to do so. Everyone knows we have to fight the terrorists.
Here is a classic Dems line "we should pull out of Iraq immediatly" and "We do not have enough troops in Iraq" now explain that.
And about Murdoch, well now all Americans will see his true colours like we already did in England.

God Bless.

 

[Sapient]

The greatest terrorist attack we have ever had came when Republicans controlled all three branches of government. And the terrorists were no fools to wait until a Republicans was in the White House. According to the State Department, Bush's bungled war on terrorism has more than tripled global terrorism. We've had "lefties" as Presidents. It took a real right winger to help his ethical counterparts to really kill a lot of Americans.

We all saw how well the war in Iraq protected you in England.

Here is a classic Dems line "we should pull out of Iraq immediatly" and "We do not have enough troops in Iraq" now explain that.

I guess Democrats see mindless agreement based on the say-so of an intellectually incurious business failure to be a weakness, and as such have a variety of opinions. The Republicans, on the other hand, have insisted their plan would fix the problems in Iraq in a matter of weeks for years now. Surely trying to fix a failled policy is better than continuing to make things worse.

Notice that we don't talk about protecting ourselves from Iraq's weapons anymore. We don't talk about Iraq and terrorism. We don't talk about liberation. We don't talk about Democracy. We debate what exit strategy will best minimize the damage Bush's invasion has caused. Will pulling out in 5 years create a bigger or smaller civil war than pulling out in 20? How much terrorism against the US will sectarian violence create?

No one is against fighting terrorism. Some of us just want to fight effectively.

 

[Foxbat]

Hey folks, please take this to the Pit...

 

[dfergie]

Yeah, take it to the pit before we send these posts there!

 

[foghorn2]

Yeah, take it to the pit before we send these posts there!

The lesson is that if you mention Murd Doc, you gotta take it to the pit!

 

[Greg Bimson]

I have no idea where this will end up. Until FOX filed I would probably have said that a settlement will happen. Now I just don't know. I think that you are putting just a little too much stock in that statement in the FOX request for an immediate injunction. A mandatory injunction is called that because it mandates that someone perform a specific act---or in some cases forbids them from doing it. It is not a FINAL injunction and is not necessarily the last word.

Let me get this back on track...

Once the settlement by the affiliate boards was made public, a NewsCorp spokesperson said something to the effect that winners don't settle. So after the settlement was reached, but without Fox, it has become apparent that Fox wants no part in settling. Then, we get the brief on Thursday from Fox which restates the Appeals Court directions to the District Court.

The mandatory sentence for a guilty verdict along with willful infringement on this specific license is a permanent injunction of the license.

For that reason, there may be no room nor reason to negotiate. The only aveune left after the District Court's sentence is to go to SCOTUS. Or Congress. Everyone is winding down a nine-year suit that has already gone through the appeals process.

 

[Sapient]

Sorry, everyone, for going so far off track.

 

[foghorn2]

Sapient, its ok, I actually agreed with your comments! Maybe we will meet again in the pit.

Murd Doc has gone to far. The tides are turning and now is the time to isolate him and his - only in his mind - dynasty.

Die Nasty I say.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

You can't blame Murdoch. If he has a legal opening to deal a significant blow to a competitor, then he is going to take it. Why would he do anything else?

You don't build a highly successful business by being merciful to your competitors.

You might say it's a kind of survival-of-the-fittest form of evolution! The companies who take advantage of their environment eat the companies who are weakened.

 

[foghorn2]

You can't blame Murdoch. If he has a legal opening to deal a significant blow to a competitor, then he is going to take it. Why would he do anything else?

You don't build a highly successful business by being merciful to your competitors.

You might say it's a kind of survival-of-the-fittest form of evolution! The companies who take advantage of their environment eat the companies who are weakened.

He did not "build highly successful business". He let others build them and then bought them out. And now he is acting like a monopolist which to me is in the same category as socialists.

This is the Bobby Ewing vs. J.R. Ewing debate. In the end Bobby was the better businessman and kept honor in the family name and the company alive.

Capitolism is wonderful and rewarding when it is done with ethics and decency.

 

[Jim5506]

That's Ayn Rand.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Well, Charlie has hardly been ethical here. He is the one that has been operating illegally for several years. Now that the legal system has come down on him, Murdoch is using his leverage to go for the kill.

Ethics are a slippery slope in business. It is ethical for D*'s stockholders for Murdoch to not press his advantage over E*? Particularly given that E* has been breaking the law while competing against him.

Likewise on the TIVO situation. D* has paid for their licenses, E* is the one found in violation of patent laws.

As much as I dislike Murdoch, and want Charlie to win out, frankly it looks like Rupert has the higher ethical ground in these disputes.

 

[dishcomm]

Uh guys.......you're all shooting yourself in the foot here with this useless political bickering. This isn't a political thing, it's about abuse of power. If the situation was reversed and Charlie was doing this to "D", it would have the same implications.

I say nothing to do with politics but the solution may be rest in the arena of politics. Between now and the November elections we might have a window of opportunity to get some congressional action.

Every single member of this board, regardless of their position on distants and whether or not Dish broke the law, should be deluging congress, the FCC and the FTC with phone calls and emails.

Murdoch may not be technically breaking any of the terms of his agreement (that allowed him to take over Direct TV) but he's certainly abusing the spirit of it. If this is allowed to go through, it will be the beginning of very bad times for satellite subs.

Whether we want to accept the premise or not, EVERYTHING is political...
I don't agree with it but that's just the way it is.

 

[dishcomm]

Last quick comment on this.

Ten?, my goodness, I could produce thousands in my home town. If all you want is ten, then I could met that requirement using just the people on the floor of the building I work in.

If you think it is only a very tiny number, then that only illustrates how you aren't aware of the liberal/progressive perspective. I barely know any liberals who are satisfied that the MSM are liberal. Decrying the overly conservative reporting bias out of the MSM is a common theme at any progressive gathering.

You could look at this from the magazine "The Nation":
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

If you are interested in reading a professional (non-blog) progressive perspective, try:
http://progressive.org/
Now, let's get back to how Murdoch is putting the screws to E*.

If you work with people who think the MSM is conservative then they must be card carrying memebrs of moveon.org..

People who consider themselves moderates think the MSM is liberally biased..I think you may have to look up the defintion of what a liberal is..Oh and by the way don't try that nonsense of labeling your self or any other lib a "progressive"...It is well recognized that libs have been trying to escape the "L" word for years...So those in the MSM and the radical left have chosen the word progressive....
If the people you work with are disatistfied with the news coverage they really must be committted lefties...That in and of itself shows that those on the left are angry that the MSM which used to be in the palm of their hands is not blindly supporting their leftist agenda.....I am willing to wager many of those who you describe watch Fox News just to get themselves lathered up.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Well, I keep trying to get this back onto Murdoch & his actions toward Dish. It would be great someone would step on him and rule that this is an abuse & conflict of interest. But he owns so many politicians that I would be surprised if it happens.

As to the "L" word, I'm not avoiding it. I am a liberal and proud of it. And a Progressive too ... an honorable movement started right here in Wisconsin almost 100 years ago. I support liberal movements because doing so enables me to sleep better at night.

Now if you want to join a real minority group, you can say that you still consider Bush to be doing a good job. And its becoming more of a minority group with each passing month. Pretty soon there will be more E* subscribers than Bush supporters.