Hardly foolhardy, just because you choose to ignore the basic precept that the airwaves belong to the public does not validate your argument.
don't get caught moving
- Thread starter mikedz4
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 177
- Views 29K
- Status
Material with a Copright maintains that Copyright even when transmitted over "free" airwaves. Anyone who wants to receive the signal over the air is free to do so. Anyone who would like to retransmit the signal cannot do so unless they follow the legal guidelines.
Like I said, you obviously don't understand the concept that the law is a growing entity -- it changes. And this is one area where it should change -- your stuck back in the 1950's obviously.
As for "Anyone who want to receive the signal over the air is free to do so" -- that simply is not true -- I cannot recieve it over the air free --- I live too far away -- what about equal protection under the law?? Or do you just quote copyright laws???
I am not ignoring anything. You've ignored the basic precept that the content broadcast over those airwaves actually belongs to someone, and is subject to copyright law.veeper2006 said:
Changes? Then you need to pay attention to how it has changed over the last 20 years. The changes have been so that the local broadcaster isn't bent over when it comes to retransmissions. The changes have solidified the fact that a local broadcaster deserves payment from a rebroadcaster just like a national channel, just like an ESPN or HBO.veeper2006 said:
Just because you believe that "one area where it should change" doesn't mean that it hasn't changed. It's changed away from what you believe.
What "equal protection under the law"? If you live in a broadcasting dead zone, your only recourse is to find someone that rebroadcasts the signals and subscribe to their service. That is what these laws are all about.veeper2006 said:
Actually, you have a second recourse: you could move to a place where TV signals are available, if TV is that important to you.
Congress will not write laws to seize property. Congress will not seize the contracts between affiliates and their networks. Congress will leave the broadcasters' business model alone. Want any more proof?
Why is the digital transition moving forward on the EXACT SAME 1950's TECHNOLOGY that you so desparately despise?
I knew someone would bring that up...
Congress had nothing to do with Kelo. As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives voted 365-33 to condemn the ruling made by the Supreme Court (not Congress).
Basic Fifth Amendment stuff: a government can seize property only if the owner of the property is given fair value.
History lesson on US Government seizure: The U.S. Government seized the famous Kennedy Assassination film, the Zapruder film. The Government only owns the physical piece of the film, and it costs us taxpayers $16 million. The Zapruder Estate still owns all copyrights as it relates to the use of the film.
So should we pass a law that seizes the content broadcast over the airwaves, and pay off the networks and affiliates a few trillion dollars?
Congress had nothing to do with Kelo. As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives voted 365-33 to condemn the ruling made by the Supreme Court (not Congress).
Basic Fifth Amendment stuff: a government can seize property only if the owner of the property is given fair value.
History lesson on US Government seizure: The U.S. Government seized the famous Kennedy Assassination film, the Zapruder film. The Government only owns the physical piece of the film, and it costs us taxpayers $16 million. The Zapruder Estate still owns all copyrights as it relates to the use of the film.
So should we pass a law that seizes the content broadcast over the airwaves, and pay off the networks and affiliates a few trillion dollars?
I guess I should have said Congress won't write any laws that stop the courts from seizing property.
Like I said, your living in the 1950's. Worried about your local content -- fine keep it - now let me access the networks. face it, you must be a card carrying member of the NAB. And btw, congress seizes property all the time. you simply don't want some people to access locals - for your own perverted reason. (and yes, i have money to pay for it ) they just won't sell it to me)
Last edited:
No, I'm living in a world where there is money to be made, not some fantasy land.veeper2006 said:
Fine. Contact the headquarters of ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX, and ask them what a subscription to the networks would cost. Because unless you are using an antenna (and you stated you cannot), you must go through a third party in order to receive what you want. And the networks will not allow their affiliates to resell network programming out-of-market. So your first gripe is with the networks that you so love.veeper2006 said:
Really? Citation, please.veeper2006 said:
Nice try. You don't want locals. You want distant networks. Just because the industry cannot come to an agreement to allow distant locals to be sold you think the government should seize that ability.veeper2006 said:
Actually, Kelo had nothing really to do with the "law", as it did the Constitution. At this point, there would literally have to be a Constitutional change to the Fifth Amendment in order to stop the use of eminent domain takings when a government seizes private property to be resold to a developer for a private undertaking.scotsmanron said:I guess I should have said Congress won't write any laws that stop the courts from seizing property.
We will know in about six months or a little less. Another "Kelo" case is being heard. New justices now.
Actually that was a Supreme Court affirmation that permitted a city in CT to take private property for private gain or use..IMO a very short sighted and ill advised decision that fortunately applies ONLY to that case...
there ya go!....That's the ticket.I guess I should have said Congress won't write any laws that stop the courts from seizing property.
But I get your meaning..This thing is real easy to figure out..Yes the airwaves are public domain. We have the right to receive the signals in our airwaves.But that right is not absolute...
"living in a world where money is to be made" -- fine, I am willing to pay for both the networks -- and yes, the locals that are closest too me -- but according to you -- I can't. I have to live with a pre-determined arbitrary line established by ac neilson. But fine, just as long as "your" locals make money. And secondly. don't try to tell me what I "want". I want the option to choose my local in that I am equally distant from four different DMA's. "Citations" ??? about congress taking land??? -hmmmm, guess they didn't teach you about the Indians in your school. You know your really starting to bore me -- it is obvious that I am willing to pay cold hard cash to watch a local station that is closest to me. For whatever reason you feel compelled to sit and argue that the local broadcasters and the NAB are omnipotent. Sorry bud - I am not buying.
Not according to me. Those networks you want so desparately do not want you pick them up from anywhere else. But you don't seem to understand that point.veeper2006 said:
And you are in one of those markets. And it is possible that you may be in a county where those options could be available to you on satellite. I am in one of those counties, where I am equi-distant from the network towers from both DC and Baltimore, yet am in the Baltimore market so I receive Baltimore local channels. There is the significantly-viewed portion of the law, which would allow DirecTV to rebroadcast the DC locals into my county, but for some reason, DirecTV is not able or willing to do so. Maybe you are in the same boat.veeper2006 said:
I know you aren't buying, because the networks prohibit their local affiliates from selling their content anywhere, except in the case of the various cable and satellite laws that allow delivery into local areas.veeper2006 said:
You keep missing the fact your beef isn't with me, but those same networks you so desparately want from another market. And it is the networks that prohibit out-of-market viewing.
I really don't see how you can't understand the king's English --- I DON'T GIVE A PEPPER DAMN ABOUT THE NETWORKS -- and for some reason you keep bringing up the isue of network towers/antenna ---- let me make this clear -- there is no antenna on God's green earth that will pick up an over the air signal where I live. You seem determined to try and "explain" the law -- what you fail to see is that I have more amibtious goals -- I am out to change UNFAIR LAWS. Obviously you don't care about anyone's needs other than your own - because it appears you recieve the programming your desire. I just find it incomprehensible that i cannot receive local channels from the NEAREST METROPOLITAIN AREA WHERE I SPEND MY MONEY. And as i have pointed out -- i have cold hard cash and am willing to pay. but because of a monopolistic structure that is bought and paid for by the NAB and protected by the congress --I AM SCREWED... ALSO YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OR RADIO --- FUNNY I CAN LISTEN TO A SIGNAL OUT OF CHICAGO --- BUT SINCE THIS IS TV -- THE NAB AND CONGRESS SAY IT'S A NO NO -- AND DON'T TELL ME THAT TECHNOLOGICALLY IT CAN'T BE DONE -- BECAUSE IT CAN.
Last edited:
So let me make this simple. You made a statement earlier in this argument:veeper2006 said:
You obviously give a damn about the networks, because you would not have discussed the proposed competition of same-network affiliates in a given area.veeper2006 said:
As am I. I grew up on the DC locals. DirecTV does not offer them. However, I am lucky enough to receive the locals in HD from DC with an antenna.veeper2006 said:
But there is something you have completely forgotten. There is an important reason why local channels are authorized on a per-market basis: the satellite companies get to cherry-pick the markets they wish to serve. Take your original premise, because the four markets that you can get to in a two hour drive were started at much different times:
Nashville in 2000
Lexington in 2004
Louisville in 2004
Knoxville in 2004
Without both must-carry (which I don't particularly like) and in-market authorizations, a market like Baltimore would not have to be carried by DirecTV, as most of the market could see the DC locals and the extreme northeast of Maryland would be covered by the Philly locals. Would a law be written that simply tramples over the rights given by the network in the affiliate agreement?
So, keep in mind that Bronston, Kentucky is in Pulaski County, which is part of the Lexington market. The laws allow for signficantly-viewed local channels to be rebroadcast. In your county, DirecTV could add the ABC and NBC stations from Knoxville to your local pacakge.
So, you'd be allowed to have two stations outside of the Lexington market, but DirecTV has not added them. It could be that there isn't an agreement with those stations from Knoxville. It could be that the Lexington channels have asked DirecTV not to carry those Knoxville channels. It doesn't preclude the fact that DirecTV can carry two stations from Knoxville into Pulaski County, according to the law.
And radio programs don't carry the same exclusivity that has been negotiated between the network and their affiliate. Much different scenario.veeper2006 said:
Fine. I am happy to see people take an interest in fixing a legal wrong. However, you need to understand how the law works before you spout off how unfair it is. Ask the people in Columbus, GA or Montgomery, AL, where DirecTV doesn't offer local channels how fair it would be if you can get locals from four markets while they cannot get any.veeper2006 said:
You really are a DA. It is obvious that you ignored my radio analogy -- and for good reason ---- it would destroy your sacred NAB and locals. No prob. I will just keep working away at righting a wrong -- fact of the matter is -- the system is broken -- all you can do is defend it -- your not even willing to try and correct the wrongs -- like i said earlier -- your stuck in the joe mccarthy era. good luck to you -- you need it. I guess ala carte programming is a big sin at the NAB -- guess you know more about that than me -- since you must be a card carrying member. as for columbus, montgomery, etc -- you have proven my point -- the system is broke --- now instead of telling me the current law -- lets hear some proposals to fix it -- or are you just a mouthpiece for the NAB,locals and sat companies???? and for your info -- I do not get either the louisville stations or the nashville/knoxville stations.
Last edited:
No. Not really.veeper2006 said:
No, I didn't ignore your radio analogy. If you are talking about how you can receive music programming from a radio station in Chicago, the content on the radio is not exclusive. All that needs to be paid is a royalty.veeper2006 said:
If you are talking about syndicated shows, like Dr. Laura, those types of shows are not exclusive to a given radio station.
That is completely unlike television, where Lost is paid for and developed by ABC, and run through their affiliates which do not have the right to resell per their network/affiliate agreement. So much for this DA.
I'm stuck in the joe mccarthy era? If you would be saying these things during the joe mccarthy era, you'd be labeled a communist and testifying in front of Congress because you want to seize someone's property.veeper2006 said:
Well, I've given part of the roadmap. The only way to get what you want is to make sure all locals are available. Which means a law must be passed to force DirecTV and Dish Network to provide local channels to everyone. Then you could start adding provisions in the law to allow the "border" counties in a given market access to a nearby channel.veeper2006 said:
And like I said, you are allowed to have two channels from Knoxville under the current setup, but for some reason DirecTV does not provide them to you. That has nothing to do with the law.
Your wrong again, who said anything about siezing property????? Proves your a DA. I have stated repeatedly i will pay -- simply create the mechanism where i can pay --- Government can do this -- remember -- public airwaves. You do seem to be a bit anal retentive also.
- Status
