My concern is always that people believe they have some "right". The rights people (and corporations) have are given in the Constitution. The "rights" given by laws are subject to case law and judicial review. And courts have time and time again made sure the rights are assigned "properly". Here, the rights of the local stations are more important because they own the licenses for broadcast, while the copyright owners own the license for the material.waltinvt said:I'm thinking the type of class action civil suits that could come out of this and the Tivo ruling probably have the potential to bury Dish.
And Greg, I gotta tell ya, you're a patient man.
The whole problem here is that "Dish gives them distant networks". However, Dish Network, according to the court ruling, does not have any backup documentation to support how customers were given distant networks. They didn't provide their burden of proof in determining the qualfication of their subscribers, for a government-mandated copyright license. They didn't follow the terms and conditions of the license they were given.odbrv said:Wow!!! What a callous attack. There are many Dish customers that are not in any local area. A customer 1/2 way between Lubbock and Amarillo is without any cable or over the air TV. The only choice is satellite. Whoever makes the rules don't say which local Dish should give them. Dish did their job and gave both cities locals, but still cannot satisfy the rules. Maybe cold people like you wrote these dumb rules.So Dish gives them distant networks. Now this new ruling takes those away. And you say it deserves them right. I find that attitude quite offensive, even heartless. I believe the judges in Atlanta made the same heartless, uninformed opinion.
Charlie Ergen, is that you?odbrv said:With respect to TV service we are now seeing a privledged class and a repressed class. I believe I am fighting that repression and you are for the oppressors.
riffjim4069 said:Personally, I find that Greg has an excellent understanding of local broadcasting issues and the legal aspects affecting their carriage and retransmisison. Now, regarding folks about to lose their distant networks...I feel for you. I really do! However, it is clear that Dish Network has [for years] continued to violate the law, which left the courts little recourse other than to order a shutdown distant networks to all their customers.
Perhaps it's time to take a closer look at DirecTV and jump on board that class action lawsuit I see coming. Customers should direct their anger at Dish Network for their continued, and willful, violation of the law and not the FCC, Courts, or broadcasters who are playing by the rules. If people don't like the rules...get involved with your legislators and change them.
And every person in the US can throw up an antenna to pick up whatever is available for a "primary transmission", the one generated through a station's OTA transmission. The issue here is how copyright law must be changed or followed in order to have other entities rebroadcast those same channels.bcope9 said:However, WSAZ in Huntington/Charleston, WV was at one time receivable in Cuba, last time I checked that is not in the DMA. The FCC cut the power when more stations came online.
700WLW can be picked up almost anywhere, and I don't think that too many advertisers care.
Really you cannot control how atmospeheric skip will run, so Lubbock stations could be picked up in New Hampshire, given the right conditions.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdfClancy said:In your first paragraph, you incorrectly stated that the courts ordered a shutdown of distant networks to all their customers.
I read in the court ruling : Echostar is permitted to deliver so-called distant signals only to homes that receive no other stations over the air.
If I misread , please clarify.
When the District Court reexamines the case. We don't know when it will be placed on the docket.roadrhino said:When will the distant networks be dropped?
One only needs to look at the last paragraph of the last page of the ruling:Clancy said:I read in the court ruling : Echostar is permitted to deliver so-called distant signals only to homes that receive no other stations over the air.
If I misread , please clarify.
Greg Bimson said:And every person in the US can throw up an antenna to pick up whatever is available for a "primary transmission", the one generated through a station's OTA transmission. The issue here is how copyright law must be changed or followed in order to have other entities rebroadcast those same channels.
Cable gained their rights for rebroadcast through a copyright exemption given by the Supreme Court in the United Artists v. Fortnightly case in 1968.
Satellite gained their rights for rebroadcasting certain local channels by the original SHVA in 1988, through a law passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan. The local-into-local provisions and some of the distant network provisions were signed into law in November, 1999 by President Clinton.
These all exempt copyright law in some way, shape or form.
cablewithaview said:what is different between Canada and here on "copyright"?
you can time shift up there with NO SyndEX rules, DMA's, must carries, or cash for carriage but here, it's about copyright and these Bullsh!t rules. For those that don't know, in Canada they carry the major four from the U.S. using east and west coast feeds along with A Channel, Global, CTV, City TV and CBC and other Canadian broadcasters broadcasting the same programming just at different times in some cases. Copyright is actually held with the network itself, they just distibute a product to there affiliates to air. So again where does copyright come into play when we should have a choice? It's not about copyright, it's about advertisers, they don't want something outside of the market competeing against them, so they pushed to remove the competition is what it boiled down too. If we lined NAB's pockets with enough cash, they would probably swing our way.
Copyright laws are not being changed. Satellite providers were granted permission to provide distant network programming to people like you who cannot get the programming off the air. Dish didn't follow the rules that gave them permission and the punishment, defined by Congress, is to no longer allow them to provide distant networks to its subscribers.bcope9 said:Copyright laws being changed, what is exactly being copyprotected? The signal or the content.
And actually, not everyone in the US can throw up an antenna and get a signal. Mountains, hills and apartments kinda reduce that.
If a person wants a Distant Network Signal, let them pay for it.
waltinvt said:Some of you are starting to rile me a little.
Don't for a minute assume because Greg doesn't have many posts here that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's been explaining SHVA, SHVIA, SHVERA, and copywrite law to us lunkheads for longer than I can remember and I know of no one any better versed on the subject.
He's kind enough to take the time to explain this stuff to us, so just because you don't like the law (I don't) or you're PO'd at Dish for getting us into this mess (I am) or you're upset with the FCC, NAB, congress or your local affiliate (all of the above), you don't need to direct your frustration at Greg. I for one am glad to have him here.
Wow - You sure had me convinced otherwise! While I hate the fact (and I've resigned myself to it) that I'm going to lose my NY distants, you've given me a clear understanding of why they're going away.Greg Bimson said:No, I am not a lawyer.
waltinvt said:Some of you are starting to rile me a little.
(snip), you don't need to direct your frustration at Greg. I for one am glad to have him here.