DNS NEWS: Murdoch Seeks EchoStar Injunction
- Thread starter nitstalker
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 80
- Views 9K
Uh guys.......you're all shooting yourself in the foot here with this useless political bickering. This isn't a political thing, it's about abuse of power. If the situation was reversed and Charlie was doing this to "D", it would have the same implications.
I say nothing to do with politics but the solution may be rest in the arena of politics. Between now and the November elections we might have a window of opportunity to get some congressional action.
Every single member of this board, regardless of their position on distants and whether or not Dish broke the law, should be deluging congress, the FCC and the FTC with phone calls and emails.
Murdoch may not be technically breaking any of the terms of his agreement (that allowed him to take over Direct TV) but he's certainly abusing the spirit of it. If this is allowed to go through, it will be the beginning of very bad times for satellite subs.
I say nothing to do with politics but the solution may be rest in the arena of politics. Between now and the November elections we might have a window of opportunity to get some congressional action.
Every single member of this board, regardless of their position on distants and whether or not Dish broke the law, should be deluging congress, the FCC and the FTC with phone calls and emails.
Murdoch may not be technically breaking any of the terms of his agreement (that allowed him to take over Direct TV) but he's certainly abusing the spirit of it. If this is allowed to go through, it will be the beginning of very bad times for satellite subs.
WRONG!! If Al Gore would have won in 2000( vomit vomit) The merger would have gone through. Politics is an integral part of any discussion with Murdoch because friends are friends, pals are pals.but Buddies sleep together!!waltinvt said:
Keep in mind this problem...
The District Court, the one that was to issue the injunction, never gave a 45 day period for the sides to negotiate. Once the appeals to the Supreme Court were complete, the case went back to District Court earlier this week.
The only instruction given to the District Court judge was to issue the injunction. Yes, Fox submitted a brief that said the exact same thing, but all in all, the problem was that once the Appeals Court said an injunction must be issued, and all other appeals avenues were exhausted, this judge did exactly what he was told to do by the Appeals Court.
We can complain about this until we are blue in the face, but the issue remains the same: Dish Network was found guilty of copyright infringement and it was determined that there was a pattern or practice of willful infringement. There is only one penalty to be given when found guilty of willful infringement, which is the permanent injunction of the distant network license.
So, for assigning blame, there is plenty to go around. Like Congress, who passed the law. Another would be the NAB, who helped to craft the law. Funny how the affiliate boards that wished to settle are still responsible for the injunction. Sure, we can also blame Fox and DirecTV (only because they are owned by Fox now) for pointing out to the judge that he must simply do his job.
However, blame Dish Network. They kept this suit going on for NINE years, and could have settled at any point. All they needed to do was to cut-off their unqualified subscribers, and this would have all been moot. Instead, they received the death penalty.
The District Court, the one that was to issue the injunction, never gave a 45 day period for the sides to negotiate. Once the appeals to the Supreme Court were complete, the case went back to District Court earlier this week.
The only instruction given to the District Court judge was to issue the injunction. Yes, Fox submitted a brief that said the exact same thing, but all in all, the problem was that once the Appeals Court said an injunction must be issued, and all other appeals avenues were exhausted, this judge did exactly what he was told to do by the Appeals Court.
We can complain about this until we are blue in the face, but the issue remains the same: Dish Network was found guilty of copyright infringement and it was determined that there was a pattern or practice of willful infringement. There is only one penalty to be given when found guilty of willful infringement, which is the permanent injunction of the distant network license.
So, for assigning blame, there is plenty to go around. Like Congress, who passed the law. Another would be the NAB, who helped to craft the law. Funny how the affiliate boards that wished to settle are still responsible for the injunction. Sure, we can also blame Fox and DirecTV (only because they are owned by Fox now) for pointing out to the judge that he must simply do his job.
However, blame Dish Network. They kept this suit going on for NINE years, and could have settled at any point. All they needed to do was to cut-off their unqualified subscribers, and this would have all been moot. Instead, they received the death penalty.
Uh, no it wouldn't have. The FCC, which at the time was two Republicans and two Democrats, derailed the merger. The same people would have been in office if it were Gore as President.juan said:
dishcomm said:
Last quick comment on this.
Ten?, my goodness, I could produce thousands in my home town. If all you want is ten, then I could met that requirement using just the people on the floor of the building I work in.
If you think it is only a very tiny number, then that only illustrates how you aren't aware of the liberal/progressive perspective. I barely know any liberals who are satisfied that the MSM are liberal. Decrying the overly conservative reporting bias out of the MSM is a common theme at any progressive gathering.
You could look at this from the magazine "The Nation":
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2
If you are interested in reading a professional (non-blog) progressive perspective, try:
http://progressive.org/
Now, let's get back to how Murdoch is putting the screws to E*.
Last edited:
The FCC voted 4-0 against the merger:juan said:
Charman Michael Powell - served from Nov 1997 to March 2005
Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy - served from May 2001 to December 2005
Commissioner Michael Copps - May 2001 to present
Commissioner Kevin Martin - July 2001 to present (current Chairman)
Michael Powell was the ranking Republican, nominated by Clinton, and was made Chairman by President Bush. Assuming that with a Gore win, Powell still would have been Commissioner, that would have put three Democrats on the Commission.
Considering that the Democrats on the Commission were more voiciferous about blocking the merger, it wouldn't have gone through even if you were President.
waltinvt said:
Agree Walt!! "The Pit" was created for that type of crap, and that is where it belongs. The next poster who injects their political belief's into a satellite thread should be banned for a week.
NightRyder
NightRyder said:Agree Walt!! "The Pit" was created for that type of crap, and that is where it belongs. The next poster who injects their political belief's into a satellite thread should be banned for a week.
NightRyder
I know. Although for a second I almost forgot where I was and let go my own politically tainted drivel.
Greg Bimson said:
Well that ii what the Fox request calims---and it may yet prevail. But while the news today sia bit confusing (many of us thought that an injunction had been issued) tehre si considerable talk of other possible outcomes. It is by no means absolutely certain that the injunction will come.
But Fox sent a clear signal that they are unhappy with the settlement. It may derail the settlement or it may force Echostar to offer better terms. no one can FORCE Fox to agree it is not inconceivable that this is all part of the negotiations.
The parties ina civil suit can settle the matter. Yes they would have to go back to the court but it would not be the first time that it hapened.
in other words let's wait and see what happens.
Last edited:
I could eat crow on this, and truthfully, I'd be happy to, but I just don't see how it can happen when the injunction is mandatory.
waltinvt said:No offense chief but I think your typing fingers shifted a little on that last post
No offesnse taken. Chronic arthritis is my only excuse. But I was editing it. But thanks for pointing it out ina constructive manner.
dishcomm said:
So what you are saying is that you want to evidence that people agree with Tom, but if Tom links to people who agree with him, they don't count as evidence if they agree with him.
LOL! The lengths the right go to to keep their tin foil hats in place.
Unfortunately my body tolerates neither of those things. But your original point is still well taken.
dishcomm said:
Took the words out of my mouth. I am out of this thread. Too much liberal (bs)ranting for me. One guy even say's we (Americans) believed Saddam was responsible for 9-11 because of the media. Yeah right ! He must be watching too much sci-fi.
Outta here !
Greg Bimson said:
No one has said that an injunction will not be issued at the end of the 45 day period. But you seem to think that this means that even if the parties have settled (which could happen) or if echostar can show some reason why the injunction should not be issued (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) that things won't change.
I have no idea where this will end up. Until FOX filed I would probably have said that a settlement will happen. Now I just don't know. I think that you are putting just a little too much stock in that statement in the FOX request for an immediate injunction. A mandatory injunction is called that because it mandates that someone perform a specific act---or in some cases forbids them from doing it. It is not a FINAL injunction and is not necessarily the last word.
But the end result may well be that echostar has to shut off the distant nets.
Last edited:
