An FX Networks lawsuit against Dish Network, for interfering with contracts with Disney and Sony co

[dfergie]

Three years ago, Dish Network celebrated its 30th birthday by giving its customers a free year of the pay-TV channel, Starz.
In the wake of the Starz Giveaway, a rash of lawsuits followed. On May 2, 2011, Disney filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Dish for hurting the value of its movies. The very next day, Starz sued Dish for breaching its affiliation agreement. And two months after that, FX Networks sued both Dish and Starz for tortiously interfering with the cable TV network's deals with movie studios. Since then, much of this litigation has been settled, but not all.Later this year, if FX Networks survives a coming summary judgment hearing, it will be squaring off against Dish in a battle that could test the sanctity of Hollywood's windowing system. Fox and Dish are legal frenemies by now -- the two are still dancing over the legality of the ad-skipping DVR known as the Hopper -- and it's quite possible that the two entertainment giants will be taking its respective troops to a L.A. Superior Courthouse for a trial currently set for October 27.
In the meantime, the two sides have delivered summary judgment briefs in anticipation of an important May 30 hearing.

hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Jim S.]

Just abolish all copyrights and let the crybabies actually work for a living like real people have to.

 

[Tampa8]

I'm all "sued" out.

 

[KazooGuy]

How might this effect the average viewer?

 

[CK SatGuy]

Three years ago, Dish Network celebrated its 30th birthday by giving its customers a free year of the pay-TV channel, Starz.
In the wake of the Starz Giveaway, a rash of lawsuits followed. On May 2, 2011, Disney filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Dish for hurting the value of its movies. The very next day, Starz sued Dish for breaching its affiliation agreement. And two months after that, FX Networks sued both Dish and Starz for tortiously interfering with the cable TV network's deals with movie studios. Since then, much of this litigation has been settled, but not all.Later this year, if FX Networks survives a coming summary judgment hearing, it will be squaring off against Dish in a battle that could test the sanctity of Hollywood's windowing system. Fox and Dish are legal frenemies by now -- the two are still dancing over the legality of the ad-skipping DVR known as the Hopper -- and it's quite possible that the two entertainment giants will be taking its respective troops to a L.A. Superior Courthouse for a trial currently set for October 27.
In the meantime, the two sides have delivered summary judgment briefs in anticipation of an important May 30 hearing.

hollywoodreporter.com

Starz lost the rights for first-run Disney movies to Netflix starting in 2016 so Disney and Starz's lawsuits wound up becoming moot. I didn't know FX networks sued Dish as well over this, but even so, I don't see how giving away Starz for a year affected FX's business. The two parent companies, Fox and Liberty Media, are not related in any way and it's not like both networks were showing the exact same movies at the same time.

 

[Yespage]

What do you call ten thousand lawyers stuck at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

 

[dangue]

What do you call ten thousand lawyers stuck at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

hey! I resent that.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[dewzan]

What do you call ten thousand lawyers stuck at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

I call it a piss poor start.... SLACKERS

 

[ohioankev]

Starz lost the rights for first-run Disney movies to Netflix starting in 2016 so Disney and Starz's lawsuits wound up becoming moot. I didn't know FX networks sued Dish as well over this, but even so, I don't see how giving away Starz for a year affected FX's business. The two parent companies, Fox and Liberty Media, are not related in any way and it's not like both networks were showing the exact same movies at the same time.

FX paid for the "basic cable" run of the movies (edited for content and time of course) in their minds by DISH giving away STARZ for free FX felt they paid to much for these exclusive "basic cable" rights to these movies and the year freeview hurt them financially for the amount they paid to air the movies, plus ratings and advertising. In other words it's all a bunch of corporate B.S.

 

[mike123abc]

FX paid for the "basic cable" run of the movies (edited for content and time of course) in their minds by DISH giving away STARZ for free FX felt they paid to much for these exclusive "basic cable" rights to these movies and the year freeview hurt them financially for the amount they paid to air the movies, plus ratings and advertising. In other words it's all a bunch of corporate B.S.

I do not think that STARZ minded Dish paying them for all the Dish subs to have STARZ for a year. I do think that they "had to mind" when Disney made an issue of it.

 

[TNGTony]

As I was told by my old boss 30 years ago when I was upset about working my ass off for a customer, going an extra mile, much more than the company expected me to do, and they complained about the service I provided. His comment, which I hold dear, "You could hand $100 bills to people as they walk in the door and someone will find a way to complain about it." This is the corporate equivalent. Thou shalt no "give" my service away even if you are paying me for it.

 

[bnewt]

As I was told by something by my old boss 30 years ago when I was upset about working my ass off for a customer, going an extra mile, much more than the company expected me to do, and they complained about the service I provided. His comment, which I hold dear, "You could hand $100 bills to people as they walk in the door and someone will find a way to complain about it." This is the corporate equivalent. Thou shalt no "give" my service away even if you are paying me for it.

this is very true...........some people you just can't please

 

[Willh699]

why don't Fox just buy out Dish, they already want to take Dish for every dime, why not just sue for full ownership of Dish while were at it you greedy b******s

 

[Scherrman]

As I was told by my old boss 30 years ago when I was upset about working my ass off for a customer, going an extra mile, much more than the company expected me to do, and they complained about the service I provided. His comment, which I hold dear, "You could hand $100 bills to people as they walk in the door and someone will find a way to complain about it." This is the corporate equivalent. Thou shalt no "give" my service away even if you are paying me for it.

There is a whole lot of truth to what you said. Some people are just programmed to complain, it's like they live for it.

 

[dishcomm]

As I was told by my old boss 30 years ago when I was upset about working my ass off for a customer, going an extra mile, much more than the company expected me to do, and they complained about the service I provided. His comment, which I hold dear, "You could hand $100 bills to people as they walk in the door and someone will find a way to complain about it." This is the corporate equivalent. Thou shalt no "give" my service away even if you are paying me for it.

Couple of examples of this.
Years ago, Titleist golf equipment was sold only in pro shops. And the Titleist brand could never be advertised as "on sale" . Violation of this woudl result in termination of rights to sell the Titleist brand.
Many manufacturers that sell their products to warehouse type discounters compel the seller to agree to not advertise a discounted price that is below mfgrs suggested retail.
I read an article about this subject. The writer termed the price protection as "snob appeal"..

 

[Claude Greiner]

The question is what did dish pay Starz?

Was it the same as if the customer paid the normal rate, or under a special discount.

Remember Cinemax for a penny, which dish pretty much screwed Cinemax since it was a. 50/50 revenue sharing contract which paid Cinemax half a penny for a year of programming.

 

[Tampa8]

Either DISH was allowed to give the movies channels free or for a penny, or they were not. I never saw anything about HBO complaining about the Cinemax deal or was there any lawsuit. In fact, DISH had Cinemax for a penny all the back to 2007-8, and several times since. So I doubt anyone got screwed, it was mutual.
As for this lawsuit, because all the other lawsuits were settled, it's hard to say if DISH had some valid legal ground and that's why they were settled, or not.

 

[The Fat Man]

Cinemax for a penny wasn't a Dish exclusive promotion. If I remember correctly, some cable companies had the same promotion.

 

[Jaspear]

FX paid for the "basic cable" run of the movies (edited for content and time of course) in their minds by DISH giving away STARZ for free FX felt they paid to much for these exclusive "basic cable" rights to these movies and the year freeview hurt them financially for the amount they paid to air the movies, plus ratings and advertising. In other words it's all a bunch of corporate B.S.

The property FX owned lost value as a result of DISH giveaway. FX wanted relief. They sued to get it. Seems fair to me.

 

[navychop]

I don't see a case for losing value. A tad convoluted.


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!