DISH Sues Networks

[osu1991]

Shows you like now, would not appear without sponsor support OR subscription.

It should not be both. The broadcast networks were given all the public airwaves and now they expect us to pay them to use something we gave them. Its amazing the broadcast networks survived for decades without subscription fees. If they want the public to pay for their content, then the networks need to pay for the bandwidth and remove the commercials.

 

[greeny96]

The consumers get the content for free along with the commercials

I understand that OTA is free, but could you please explain the logic used when applying this comment to dish. As I see it, it's not free to me or to dish.

 

[dangue]

The networks should be paying the providers to carry their signal, not the other way around if it is free... and we the consumers shouldn't be paying for the same since it is free.

I don't know about that. I think I'd like to see the local networks and the providers find some way of dividing up the cost of getting the signal to subs (probably tied to increased ad revenue) and then The providers charging customers only for what costs they have to pay to get those channels to us. So in essence, it would be "free" to subs, beyond the costs of delivery.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I understand that OTA is free, but could you please explain the logic used when applying this comment to dish. As I see it, it's not free to me or to dish.

Barry's logic is that he works in the TV industry and a loss of viewers which could and probably mean a lower paycheck for him. There is nothing in PUBLIC INTEREST in anything Barry says which is too bad since their FCC Licenses say in order to operate they must operate in the Public Interest.

Maybe we should start filing complaints with the FCC over these networks and stations who we feel are not operating in our public interest.

 

[darrengs]

I just posted this in the Hopper forum, but it applies to this thread as well:

Obviously we will see where this goes, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this in the Betamax Case.

"in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to 'time-shift' — to record a television program for viewing at a later time — was a fair use"

Dish cannot be held accountable for creating/selling the Hopper even if it allows users to infringe on copyrights. As has been stated here, the fact that the user must initiate the recording and autohop feature clears Dish of any wrong doing.

"In the case of a VCR, it seems clear . . . that the operator of the VCR, the person who actually presses the button to make the recording, supplies the necessary element of volition, not the person who manufactures, maintains, or, if distinct from the operator, owns the machine."


I am sure that the EFF will be weighing in very shortly.

 

[Stargazer]

I think Dish has nothing to lose as a result of this. If they have legal fees then they have free advertisement of their product as a result of the suits to make up for it.

Even if Dish has legal fees, they lose money for this and that, they still have to remain competitive so for some to say they will raise fees to make up for this and that, yes, they may raise fees but others do as well. If others are not raising fees like Dish is then Dish has to remain competitive and not raise their fees either if they want to keep their subscribers along with add new ones. In other words, I do not think extra costs are not going to influence Dish very much as to the prices that they charge.

 

[JM42]

I think Dish has nothing to lose as a result of this. If they have legal fees then they have free advertisement of their product as a result of the suits to make up for it.

Dish knew this was coming before auto-hop and even the Hopper was released. I'm sure they had legal already budgeted back in January, and know how much they are willing to spend on it, looking at it largely as any other marketing expense. The fact is they can stretch this out and garner a good bit of press for fairly small legal expense.

The doom and gloom, worst case scenarios are comical. Dish isn't going to take the company down over auto-hop. Wherever their line is, when they cross it they will get as much as they can and settle. Even if Dish is willing to go all the way, I think the nets would rather settle somehow than face a deep pocket on a precedent setting case.

Dish no doubt has a bigger picture that all this plays into with contract negotiations, etc. From the day auto-hop was announced, I thought it opened the door to a more hulu-like PTAT with some required ads with revenue split between Dish and the providers.

 

[fbbonline]

Not the same, the fair use right to skip commercials on a recording is a horse that left the barn a long time ago. This is only a variation.

But you are assuming the make-up of the court and the statutes passed over the past 30 years have stayed the same. Neither are the same, as Napster found out when it tried to rely on the Betamax decision for it's "space shifiting" argument...(and later Grokster). The Supreme Court always has the right to overturn itself and put that horse back in the barn (or a different barn) if it can find a legal basis to do so.

 

[Mochuf]

Barry have you even watched the crap on your network lately? if NBC keeps pumping out crap like they have they might have to start paying us to watch.

Hell, NBC is lucky they have the NFL. Otherwise they could be approaching CW numbers!

 

[Mochuf]

Maybe we should start filing complaints with the FCC over these networks and stations who we feel are not operating in our public interest.

Scott, "in the public interest" disappeared when Congress allowed local stations to opt out of "must carry". This used only happen in rural areas, but I see in larger markets now infomercials being disguised as news reports being hosted by that particular stations retired and "well respected" news reader. The lack of morals for a business based on a public license is really appalling.

Also, just look at what local stations do whenever there is a re-trans dispute. The station will often mention that they're being carried by another provider, but rarely mention that you can pick them up free via an antenna.

 

[Jhon69]

Dish knew this was coming before auto-hop and even the Hopper was released. I'm sure they had legal already budgeted back in January, and know how much they are willing to spend on it, looking at it largely as any other marketing expense. The fact is they can stretch this out and garner a good bit of press for fairly small legal expense.

The doom and gloom, worst case scenarios are comical. Dish isn't going to take the company down over auto-hop. Wherever their line is, when they cross it they will get as much as they can and settle. Even if Dish is willing to go all the way, I think the nets would rather settle somehow than face a deep pocket on a precedent setting case.

Dish no doubt has a bigger picture that all this plays into with contract negotiations, etc. From the day auto-hop was announced, I thought it opened the door to a more hulu-like PTAT with some required ads with revenue split between Dish and the providers.

I'm sure the networks liked the idea of PTAT.It benefits all programs on the 4 networks,actually it surprises me that the other networks did not sue because their programs are not being recorded.

Even though the networks know we skip through commercials,Autohop is a company(DISH) approved item for consumers to enable to bypass commercials.I believe there is the difference,a company approved item to bypass commercials.But we of course will let the jury decide.

 

[mike123abc]

This lawsuit helps Dish because if any network attempts to cut off programming, Dish can go to the judge and get an injunction to stop the network. Having the first lawsuit in place, in a jurisdiction that Dish has picked helps a lot. We have a lawsuit that is framed in Dish's favor. The lawsuit is over fair use, not over "stolen revenue" or some such claim that a network would make if they filed the lawsuit. Now any lawsuit that a network might file would probably be held up pending the outcome of this lawsuit since it was first.

I am sure Dish planned this lawsuit a long time ago, and had their lawyers research a ton of arguements and basis in advance. They launched autohop, then set back and waited for the appropriate comments and threats from the networks to be documented. Then they ran to file the suit, before the networks have had time to consult with their legal team and figure out what basis to sue Dish.

 

[PokerMunkee]

I'd bet that DISH will settle with the networks and charge $8/month for the Auto Hop feature and split revenues with the networks. All part of the great plan

 

[nelson61]

I'm guessing Dish has this well thought out. If I understand correctly,, "you", the viewer, must choose to not view the commercials by pressing a button on your remote, putting you in charge of the decision making process. In regard to the 8 day recording, it is just more of the same where today, "you" can elect to record each program prime time 8 days in advance, if you so choose. And, if I remember correctly, there is an exemption in the copyright laws, that allow any single viewer to make a copy of something for their personal use. So, Dish is not the decision maker and is not controlling your decision to view or not view and indeed, is delivering the commercials to your recorder without modification. Their defense is "who me, talk to Joe down on Main Street, he is the one recording your programming".

 

[Tampa8]

If I were arguing on the Network side it would be this. Presently the skip or fast forward feature is based on an amount of time, and can be used throughout the recording. The new feature is aimed just at commercials, only works when commercials are detected, and is not based on time but actually eliminating the presentation of commercials.

The Dish side to that would be, we are not using anything about commercials to implement it, we are looking at CC information of when a program starts and stops. The use is no different than now. it is user initiated, must be done so for each show. In the end it simply gives the user less steps to what they already do.

 

[PokerMunkee]

There is no state or federal laws that say it's illegal to skip commercials, right? So the networks are sueing based on contract disputes. Do the current contracts state anything about DISH giving user's the ability to skip commercials?

It will be fun to watch this all unfold.

 

[nelson61]

Some good stuff about the "decision maker " (you) and the law and dvrs.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...mote-dvr-stays-legal-supremes-wont-hear-case/

 

[Frank Jr.]

Barry have you even watched the crap on your network lately? if NBC keeps pumping out crap like they have they might have to start paying us to watch.

Now that you mention it, I have often thought they had it backwards. The Big 4 should be paying Dish to retransmit their programming.

 

[Tampa8]

Many of us have been saying that for a long time, not in a kidding way either.....

 

[Tampa8]

Some good stuff about the "decision maker " (you) and the law and dvrs.

Cablevision remote DVR stays legal: Supremes won’t hear case | Ars Technica

Just read it - becomes clear Dish set-up their new feature with this decision in mind.