DIRECTV Applauds Enactment of Satellite TV Bill

[bamaweather]

Think about it. If this law was applied to Newspapers and radio you wouldn't be able to read newspapers from other parts of the country online. You wouldn't be able to listen to radio from other parts of the world. Only the local Television networks can do this.

And how exactly is the newspaper business doing these days?

Not taking sides or anything... just saying.

 

[JohnH]

Since TV is mostly going to the format which spends over half of the newscast telling you what they are going to tell you and saying sponsored by, the newspapers are still the source much of the details and additional stories. They seem to be selling at the vending boxes anyway.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Think about it. If this law was applied to Newspapers and radio you wouldn't be able to read newspapers from other parts of the country online. You wouldn't be able to listen to radio from other parts of the world. Only the local Television networks can do this.

The issue here isn't the law, but the belief in what the law does...

The newspaper contracts for content and distributes it as they see fit. So it is rather easy for a newspaper to sell its publication anywhere; just check the local Borders or B&N. They even make much of their material online through their website.

The radio stations use a royalty payment to publishers to distribute music and/or talk as they see fit. So if you have the equipment, you can receive am/fm/shortwave, as long as it is the original broadcast format. Many radio stations even stream their content online through their website.

Most of the programming on network TV is owned by the networks. So of course they get a bit upset when others copy and rebroadcast it. After all, just like newspapers and radio, copyright holders get upset when their content is duplicated and distributed without control.

The laws regarding copies of transmitted materials had been around for decades. However, in 1988, facing the fact that networks were about to scramble their backhauls and left some rural subscribers out of luck when it came to network TV, enter the SHVA. It was written very narrow in scope so that the rural viewer wouldn't be without network TV. Both DirecTV and Dish Network used this law to illegally retransmit network TV to those that did not qualify.

So, to wrap up, simply understand this concept:

Want the San Francisco Chronicle? I'm sure circulation could set you up and mail you a copy daily, or you could get it at a newstand, as the newspaper has probably setup distribution for such transaction.

Want 98 Rock Baltimore? If you are close enough, you could get it via FM radio, but if not you could check out their streaming. Either way, they control their distribution.

Want WCVB TV in Boston, the ABC affiliate, but out of the area? Well I'm sure they'd like to be contacted if you would like to subscribe to their station. I'm certain they will not sell you any of their network offerings, because they do not have the right to redistribute network programing out of area. Not because of some satellite-tv law, but because of simple copyright law.

The examples I've used all came from Hearst Corporation. On purpose. Because in each case the issues are slightly different even though the company does own properties in each industry. And if Hearst finds someone copying their content and redistributing it without their permission...

 

[televisionarchives]

The freedom is gone. I miss the old days of C-band. I don't believe it hurts local stations at all. In fact, viewership of local news in my area is way down.