Disney sues Dish again

[CK SatGuy]

They do not last 3 months, either, but Disney and Starz seem to have no problem letting DirecTV give Starz away for 3 months to new customers.

We also have yet to learn if it really was Charlie's plan to extend the preview for a whole year. Perhaps he only intended to go it for 3 months (as may well be agreed to in the contract), and then start paying standard licences.

Also, the NFL was do to the NFL's indisgression. They signed an agreement with Dish saying they would be the exclusive home to a number of NFL games in exchange for lower package placement, then immediately broke the deal by selling games to local broadcasters.

Well, according to that last quote I posted, it seems like it was Charlie's plan because it seemed like he was angry at Starz for offering their content to Netflix, which Dish sees as a competitor. So I guess Charlie was like "Screw them! If Starz is giving away their content to Netflix, then we'll just give it away to all our subs for a year. They shouldn't mind, right?, since they already devalued their own channel themselves."

 

[Hemi 6.1]

They do not last 3 months, either, but Disney and Starz seem to have no problem letting DirecTV give Starz away for 3 months to new customers.

We also have yet to learn if it really was Charlie's plan to extend the preview for a whole year. Perhaps he only intended to go it for 3 months (as may well be agreed to in the contract), and then start paying standard licences.

Also, the NFL was do to the NFL's indisgression. They signed an agreement with Dish saying they would be the exclusive home to a number of NFL games in exchange for lower package placement, then immediately broke the deal by selling games to local broadcasters.

Those are promotions by the Owners of Directv to Directv.

Not Charlie giving his customers a Free Package for 12 month, when he's obviously not flipping the bill for it.
If he was Disney and Starz wouldn't be suing him!
Charlie also dropps channels into a higher package, and then tells customers it was a free preview.

And your NFL claim, still doesn't change the fact that charlie Claimed it was a 2 year free preview.
Gimmie a break,

Why would you even bother to defend him on something so pethedic!
Clearly charlie being an A$$.

 

[Lt Disher]

Those are promotions by the Owners of Directv to Directv.

Not Charlie giving his customers a Free Package for 12 month, when he's obviously not flipping the bill for it.

I have seen nothing so far that says that Charlie is not paying Starz for these channels. There are other issues involved here, but I don't think that Charlie is stealing the signal and just giving it away.

 

[HDRoberts]

Those are promotions by the Owners of Directv to Directv.

Not Charlie giving his customers a Free Package for 12 month, when he's obviously not flipping the bill for it.
If he was Disney and Starz wouldn't be suing him!
Charlie also dropps channels into a higher package, and then tells customers it was a free preview.

And your NFL claim, still doesn't change the fact that charlie Claimed it was a 2 year free preview.
Gimmie a break,

Why would you even bother to defend him on something so pethedic!
Clearly charlie being an A$$.

Charlie could cure cancer and you would still call him an "A$$"

Disney is suing Dish because of the other suits. Have to get leverage any way you can. Starz is suing because they do not want to lose the Disney licencing deal.

And who cares what Charlie said? It does not change the fact that if the NFL honored their deal, NFL would be in AT120.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

I have seen nothing so far that says that Charlie is not paying Starz for these channels. There are other issues involved here, but I don't think that Charlie is stealing the signal and just giving it away.

No one said he was. But it sounds to me , he's not paying what is required, and thats 14 million starz subscriptions.

What you think Charlie fronts all 14 million subscribers premium costs. Yea OK!

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Charlie could cure cancer and you would still call him an "A$$"

Disney is suing Dish because of the other suits. Have to get leverage any way you can. Starz is suing because they do not want to lose the Disney licencing deal.

And who cares what Charlie said? It does not change the fact that if the NFL honored their deal, NFL would be in AT120.

HA HA HA HA HA !!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA !

WOW what a post!


Charlie is the cause of Cancer!!!

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Ok guys back on topic.

In my talks I was told that dish is indeed paying Starz.

What I find funny is next years team summit is in Orlando. . I wonder if these lawsuits with the mouse will be settled by then, or if we will be going to universal.

Sent from my iPad using The SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Anony55]

...In my talks I was told that dish is indeed paying Starz...

Then that settles it from a moral standpoint... Dish is in the right, and Starz/Disney is in the wrong.

Now we just have to wait & see who is in the right from a legal standpoint. There's no telling what can be buried in a contract.

Cheers

 

[Hall]

Not Charlie giving his customers a Free Package for 12 month, when he's obviously not flipping the bill for it.
If he was Disney and Starz wouldn't be suing him!

You should read before you spout off stupid comments....

1) He's "obviously not flipping the bill" ? You know this how ?
2) Starz has stated why they're suing Dish and it's NOT because they aren't getting paid.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Ok guys back on topic.

In my talks I was told that dish is indeed paying Starz.

!

Paying them What though, The amount required to provide 14 million customers Starz for free?

 

[Hemi 6.1]

This doesn't sound like Dish Paid what would be required to provide all his customers free Starz. It Clearly states he was not aloud to do so!


Disney claims in the suit that, in February, Dish began providing millions of subscribers free access to Starz through to January 2012 in violation of its agreements with both Disney and Starz. Both companies said they wrote to Dish in March requesting it cease and desist its Starz giveaway, but Dish refused to do so.

Starz said it received notices of breach of contracts from several of its movie studio partners due to Dish's actions. Starz said it "pleaded" with Dish for months to stop the free offer to help Starz placate its studio partners.

The majority of Hollywood movie content on Starz is from Disney and Sony Pictures. Sony is currently not a plaintiff in the lawsuits against Dish.

Disney said Dish's actions devalue its movies and undermine its "windowing" strategy. Hollywood studios and TV show makers use windowing to try to maximize the value of their content by offering it to consumers through differently timed "windows" such as theater, DVD rentals and premium pay-TV.

Dish said it will vigorously defend its rights to offer Starz for free.

"Dish Network pays hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to distribute Starz content to our customers, which includes the rights to a number of Disney movies," the company said in a statement."





That doesn't mean he paid Starz to Provide his customers with Free Starz.
He paid Starz just like every other provider to be able to offer Starz pack to subscribers.
No where does it indicate he was aloud to go out of bounds of his contract for any reason.


So My beef still stands , He didn't pay for crap!

 

[Lt Disher]

This doesn't sound like Dish Paid what would be required to provide all his customers free Starz. It Clearly states he was not aloud to do so!


Disney claims in the suit that, in February, Dish began providing millions of subscribers free access to Starz through to January 2012 in violation of its agreements with both Disney and Starz. Both companies said they wrote to Dish in March requesting it cease and desist its Starz giveaway, but Dish refused to do so.

Starz said it received notices of breach of contracts from several of its movie studio partners due to Dish's actions. Starz said it "pleaded" with Dish for months to stop the free offer to help Starz placate its studio partners.

The majority of Hollywood movie content on Starz is from Disney and Sony Pictures. Sony is currently not a plaintiff in the lawsuits against Dish.

Disney said Dish's actions devalue its movies and undermine its "windowing" strategy. Hollywood studios and TV show makers use windowing to try to maximize the value of their content by offering it to consumers through differently timed "windows" such as theater, DVD rentals and premium pay-TV.

Dish said it will vigorously defend its rights to offer Starz for free.

"Dish Network pays hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to distribute Starz content to our customers, which includes the rights to a number of Disney movies," the company said in a statement."





That doesn't mean he paid Starz to Provide his customers with Free Starz.
He paid Starz just like every other provider to be able to offer Starz pack to subscribers.
No where does it indicate he was aloud to go out of bounds of his contract for any reason.


So My beef still stands , He didn't pay for crap!

If indeed, Charlie pays a flat fee to be able to give Starz to his customers you may have a point. I suspect though that he pays Starz based on a subscriber count. If he pays by subscriber, he is paying Starz. Scott has said that he is paying Starz. I don't see in your quote any place that says he is not paying. The beef that Disney has is that he is devaluing their movies. If he gives them away for free, they will not be able to sell them for as much in their other venues (their later release 'windows'), eg. DVD's, other cable channels, and network channels.

 

[whatchel1]

This doesn't sound like Dish Paid what would be required to provide all his customers free Starz. It Clearly states he was not aloud to do so!


Disney claims in the suit that, in February, Dish began providing millions of subscribers free access to Starz through to January 2012 in violation of its agreements with both Disney and Starz. Both companies said they wrote to Dish in March requesting it cease and desist its Starz giveaway, but Dish refused to do so.

Starz said it received notices of breach of contracts from several of its movie studio partners due to Dish's actions. Starz said it "pleaded" with Dish for months to stop the free offer to help Starz placate its studio partners.

The majority of Hollywood movie content on Starz is from Disney and Sony Pictures. Sony is currently not a plaintiff in the lawsuits against Dish.

Disney said Dish's actions devalue its movies and undermine its "windowing" strategy. Hollywood studios and TV show makers use windowing to try to maximize the value of their content by offering it to consumers through differently timed "windows" such as theater, DVD rentals and premium pay-TV.

Dish said it will vigorously defend its rights to offer Starz for free.

"Dish Network pays hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to distribute Starz content to our customers, which includes the rights to a number of Disney movies," the company said in a statement."





That doesn't mean he paid Starz to Provide his customers with Free Starz.
He paid Starz just like every other provider to be able to offer Starz pack to subscribers.
No where does it indicate he was aloud to go out of bounds of his contract for any reason.


So My beef still stands , He didn't pay for crap!

Not all subs are getting it. Only those that didn't have premium channel. My brother doesn't get it due to his having Showtime. I had to drop HBO to be able to get Starz for free. I had done it just a while before the give away. I had to contact the DIRT team to be able to get it as it was dropped when I switched programming packs. That wasless than a month before the giveaway so a standard CSR couldn't add it. The pressure from Starz directly due to Disney pressuring them about the "movies" of Disney is on there channel.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

If indeed, Charlie pays a flat fee to be able to give Starz to his customers you may have a point. I suspect though that he pays Starz based on a subscriber count. If he pays by subscriber, he is paying Starz. Scott has said that he is paying Starz. I don't see in your quote any place that says he is not paying. The beef that Disney has is that he is devaluing their movies. If he gives them away for free, they will not be able to sell them for as much in their other venues (their later release 'windows'), eg. DVD's, other cable channels, and network channels.

Lots of IF'S.
No way is charlie paying Starz for 14 million subscribers.

Thats why Starz is Pissed.
Starz doesn't want Dishnetwork giving all their customer access to Starz,, WHY you ask? Because the contracts don't allow it!, Why again, Because Charlie is not PAYING the Proper price to do so.

Otherwise we would no be having this Starz topic right now.

Glad you see what I'm talking about!

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Not all subs are getting it. Only those that didn't have premium channel. My brother doesn't get it due to his having Showtime. I had to drop HBO to be able to get Starz for free. I had done it just a while before the give away. I had to contact the DIRT team to be able to get it as it was dropped when I switched programming packs. That wasless than a month before the giveaway so a standard CSR couldn't add it. The pressure from Starz directly due to Disney pressuring them about the "movies" of Disney is on there channel.

Encore is owned by Starz, and there is Now Starz Channels in the Platinum pack.

Don't go there!
Tell charlie to give away $156 to all 14 Million customers in PPV credits for and see how much he likes that.

Because that what he's giving away in Libery Starz Credits.

 

[lparsons21]

Hemi, neither you nor I know what Charlie is paying Starz. But your attitude is to take the road that shows Charlie is always wrong. You are welcome to do that, but with that stance taken, your credibility when it comes to Dish is exactly what it should be = ZERO!

And just for your info, not all Dish subscribers got the free Starz deal, you keep ignoring that fact.

 

[lparsons21]

Encore is owned by Starz, and there is Now Starz Channels in the Platinum pack.

Don't go there!
Tell charlie to give away $156 to all 14 Million customers in PPV credits for and see how much he likes that.

Because that what he's giving away in Libery Starz Credits.

No he's not. First not all are getting it, second if he is giving it away, he is paying the wholesale price not the retail price.

 

[mike123abc]

There is probably some sort of big volume discount if Dish has 10+ million Starz accounts. Probably was a condition of the contract that was never considered when it was drawn up (i.e. Starz never thought 10 million+ would sign up via Dish). Dish is probably paying under $5/account/month for Starz. They probably covered it with the last price increase.

Plus Dish probably threw in a month's worth of free previews or something to knock the price down lower.

 

[dangue]

There is probably some sort of big volume discount if Dish has 10+ million Starz accounts. Probably was a condition of the contract that was never considered when it was drawn up (i.e. Starz never thought 10 million+ would sign up via Dish). Dish is probably paying under $5/account/month for Starz. They probably covered it with the last price increase.

Plus Dish probably threw in a month's worth of free previews or something to knock the price down lower.

If that's the case, then Dish is acting per the contract terms and the lawsuit is frivolous.

But honestly, what Charlie is or isn't paying is all speculation in this thread. Without any facts to back the speculation, any argument is pointless.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Hall]

If that's the case, then Dish is acting per the contract terms and the lawsuit is frivolous.

There's NO WAY it's spelled out in any way that flat-out allows Dish to do this. If it were, does Starz and Disney hope the judge can't read ? Just to add more speculation.... One has to presume that this is an "interpretation" of the contract. Dish interprets it one way (in their favor) and Starz/Disney interprets the opposite.