I am shocked to read this! They are giving up without a fight? I am disappointed to say the least! I knew the nets would go after them, but I figured they would fight this to the bitter end. Checked it and yep, Locast is off. Too bad.
Sinclair warns of 112 channels being dropped by DISH next Monday (8/16)
- Thread starter syphix
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 658
- Views 92K
There's a significant difference between "suspending" and "discontinuing" service. The Locast legal team is still evaluating the trial and appeals paths forward, but in the interim the service is suspended per a prior agreement with the networks to avoid possibly large fines or awards.
I think you will see it pop up again under a different name without ads interrupting the programming.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
It has to do with contracts and what the locals are allowed to send via streaming. They own their news content (and any other locally produced programs), so they can stream that to their heart's desire. Other programs (including commercials), whether syndicated or network, they don't necessarily have permission to stream. Therefore they don't.
Apparently Overcast. At least for now.
I guess Engadget was correct. I hope it's suspend and not end service. I wonder if some of the problem is having money for appeals, and court appearances etc.
I 100% agree that's what they have to do - but how? There has to be an incentive for most people to actually send money.
Simple. Pre roll ads.
They see an ad before the channel starts playing.
By them interrupting and putting graphics over the programming that in and of itself was a violation of copyright law.
They must provide the signal as provided without editing it or overlaying anything.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
I don't think the Judge is far off on his decision. In my original posts when Locast first started I said the Networks would stop them over interrupting shows. Since that time I thought I was wrong because Locast had won in Court already and it has been in service quite sometime now.
I can see how their structure made it a fee, not a donation.
As for them showing commercials, they always did I'm not sure that is the problem. In fact what Scott is suggesting is what they need to do - show programming in it's entirety. Show everything in it's entirety not making any changes.
Remember - they are under (if they follow it) a law that allows them to do this so copyright etc actually plays no role - as long as they are following the law.
I can see how their structure made it a fee, not a donation.
As for them showing commercials, they always did I'm not sure that is the problem. In fact what Scott is suggesting is what they need to do - show programming in it's entirety. Show everything in it's entirety not making any changes.
Remember - they are under (if they follow it) a law that allows them to do this so copyright etc actually plays no role - as long as they are following the law.
Do you think they could do pre roll and not let the programming start if no payment? Not sure they can it becomes a fee I think. So we are back to hoping people pay, not sure that will work.
As much as I dislike Comcast , I am fed up with Dish Disputes . They are always in some sorta dispute and it's really annoying. We will be going back to Comcast at some point soon. It's really annoying to have to keep playing this game with them . I know Sinclair is very greedy and is demanding more money but people like me and others still watch sports and it's sad that it's gone dark and they will continue to not allow dish to air their channels until an agreement is reached . At this point I'm about done with Dish . It's not their fault Sinclair is greedy but they're not suffering, their customers are the ones suffering.
Folks are bringing up all sorts of things (e.g. fee vs. donation, insertion of donation appeals in the video stream, etc.) which, as far as I know, the judge didn't comment on in his ruling. Now, who knows, those things might be problems too but the judge just didn't bother dealing with them because he found one issue that disqualified Locast's non-profit status and then stopped there.
The specific thing the judge found is that, as a non-profit, Locast could only spend the money they collected on retransmission of TV signals in a given area but Locast was instead using some of that money to expand operations to new areas.
Now, who knows, if it hadn't been that issue, maybe he would have gotten into the question of whether the repeated interruption asking for $5 constituted a request for a donation or amounted to a requirement for a subscription fee. Although I don't know why the latter would necessarily mean that Locast wouldn't be a non-profit. Seems to me like it would be OK for them to completely cut viewers off after 15 minutes if they hadn't paid their share of the operational costs Locast incurs to deliver service, so long as the total fees taken in an area were roughly equal to the ongoing operational costs there, and none of the fees were taken out of the organization or used for anything other than running the service in that area.
But the bigger questions involve copyright issues -- does the law that Locast was relying on allow for the unauthorized retransmission of OTA TV signals over the internet? The internet didn't exist when that law was drafted and passed. Prior to Locast, it had only been used to cover nonprofit repeater TV stations that extend another station's signal further out into rural areas that would otherwise be unserved. This was always the big question about the legality of Locast, which hopefully gets answered in a future appeal.
Some excellent questions and observations.
1. I think in a round about way the Judge did consider the break for donations. He used the term "charges" and they can't be used for expansion. What he is saying is if they are non profit they can not charge and make their business bigger in the process. They can get donation only to cover the cost of providing the service.
Many in the business do agree with Locast this is an extremely narrow view of expanding the business, however that they stop the broadcast to get money is where is use the term "Charges." If they only relied on donations without it stopping the broadcast I think the Locast position would be stronger.
2. I don't read in the law about how the programs are transmitted. I see they can "retransmit". But I have not read the whole complete document.
3. Good point, the Judge did not nor need to address everything that could be a problem.
4. It's going to be very tricky in how they get the donations. Lets say they do give you an hour, perhaps per day if no donation. That's fine. As soon as you give the donation to watch longer that I would say is a fee. Can they charge a fee, with no money going anywhere but to cover the direct costs of providing the service from where the donation comes from and remain a Non Profit? Maybe.
What Scott proposed would work if they ask for the donation first then give you the programming. As I pointed out however they can't withhold the programming till the donation so how many will give?
Is their interruptions allowed? I'm going to say we just don't know.. Remember they would have the copyright exemption which is where the no changes rule comes in. (Remember DISH won on that because the Judge said the process used for Auto Hop did not change what was given to DISH if it did Auto Hop would have been ruled illegal) But we don't know if a strict reading of the law would say they can retransmit and that means what they are given.
5. None of it may matter if Locast has no money for never ending court appearances, appeals etc. even if they could get past this Judge ruling.
The only thing with Comcast is they won't tell you they're in a dispute and raise your cable rates after the fact.
So you think that when and if Dish finally reaches an agreement Sinclair isn't going to go after Comcast (and others)? And if Comcast decides to cave and jumps your bill $10 or $15 a month (or more) you're ok with that? So your policy would be to always pay them what they want just to avoid a dispute? Seriously? Dish is trying to save you money and it annoys you. Good grief.
