No one is stopping FOX from selling that service. The internet and their website is available for them to set it up.
Fox Pitches Ninth Circuit On Dish Injunction
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 59
- Views 4K
Who would Sling if they can get it on their receiver? It's a similar situation.
Who's getting it for free? I'm paying Dish and Dish is paying the networks for the programming. I wish I was getting it for free.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Place shifting is not the beef here. The issue is Autohop with a late addition of sideloading (copying content to devices).
Whether DISH offers it as part of their DVR or a person uses some other place shifting solution, that use is at the discretion of the user and not DISH or Echostar.
Slinging isn't limited to what your provider (or your providers sources) provide. If it is available to watch and you have suitable Internet connections, you can sling it. You can't always do that with demand video due to various restrictions that are often placed on such content (or agreements that aren't in place).
Both place and time shifting fall under fair use doctrine so they can't go after DISH, Echostar or anyone else that isn't named in the lawsuit (i.e. Sling Media) for those.
Further, because this is an appeal, they can't add new issues to the proceedings.
Both place and time shifting fall under fair use if the consumer is shifting them. If the court rules that since Dish owns the leased equipment, they are shifting, it might not be fair use. The Aereo ruling was that Aereo was the party transmitting even if the receivers are leased and controlled by the consumer.
The claim in this appeal is that SCOTUS has issued a ruling that directly affects the court's last decision. A change to the understanding of the law based on a SCOTUS decision can most definitely be added to the appeal.
In DISH's case, it is the customer that decides where and when the content is watched, not DISH. The connection that Fox sees is clearly not there as DISH isn't handling things any differently than they always have in terms of content delivery to the home. If I rent a six pack of beer and crash my motorcyle into your fence, the brewer isn't liable nor is Honda.
That SCOTUS ruled that Aereo walks and talks like a cableco rules doesn't materially impact DISH.
If the court had ruled that time or place shifting were no longer covered under fair use, that would be a whole different ballgame.
In the Aereo case, it was the consumer who decided what and when to watch also. SCOTUS said that Aereo was directly responsible for the transmission, even though the consumer was in control of the equipment.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
My last two posts were from my cellphone while I was busy, I don't think they made much sense, sorry. In Aereo's case, the customer decided where and when content was watched. Aereo did not start or stop any of the streams. SCOTUS decided that since Aereo owns the equipment, they are responsible for the transmission. In the case of HWS, it is Dish owned equipment that is streaming content that Fox claim they do not have a license to transmit. I made a very simple Visio document such as the one I described earlier. It shows Hoppers owned by Dish in a box streaming content to customers. If you look at that diagram, Dish "looks" like a cable company. Based on the SCOTUS decision, the courts could determine that Dish owned equipment is transmitting unlicensed content to multiple people at the same time and find it to be illegal.
As I have posted before, I don't believe the court should decide that way, but SCOUTS decided to ignore the actual text of the law and only look at vague similarities. According to that behavior you cannot look at text of a law, or text of a precedent to determine how courts will decide. You can only hope and pray.
That would not change the fact that Dish owned boxes are transmitting to multiple people at the same time. The court would look to see IF Dish violated the law in any case, not whether they had followed the law in a few cases. If you own a liquor store and sell to minors, it is illegal. If you also sell to people of legal age, it does not make the underage sales legal.
The Aereo decision also points out explicitly that "Aereo uses its own equipment, housed in a centralized warehouse, outside of its users’ homes. (my emphasis)." Language they included in both the syllabus and full opinion. In your diagram, the Aereo side is a very close approximation of the physical location of the devices, not so much for Dish.
With Hopper, Dish is not actually transmitting any content. The transmission originates from my home IP and routed directly to my current location's IP, not Dish's. DishAnywhere.com is only providing authentication services and relaying requests, essentially the same thing GoToMyPC does for PCs.
It's a muddy opinion, can't fault Fox for trying, but there is plenty in the decision to negate Fox's claims. There is also enough the court could side with Fox if it wanted.
I don't see an injunction happening in any event. Even if the court thinks the Aereo decision may apply, they would likely wait and address it in a final decision on the case. Fox still has to meet other criteria for an injunction, and there isn't any harm that can't be addressed with money if Dish ultimately loses.
With Hopper, Dish is not actually transmitting any content. The transmission originates from my home IP and routed directly to my current location's IP, not Dish's. DishAnywhere.com is only providing authentication services and relaying requests, essentially the same thing GoToMyPC does for PCs.
It's a muddy opinion, can't fault Fox for trying, but there is plenty in the decision to negate Fox's claims. There is also enough the court could side with Fox if it wanted.
I don't see an injunction happening in any event. Even if the court thinks the Aereo decision may apply, they would likely wait and address it in a final decision on the case. Fox still has to meet other criteria for an injunction, and there isn't any harm that can't be addressed with money if Dish ultimately loses.
That is the reason that I have been responding so much in these threads. Laws should be written so that people can understand what is legal and what is not legal. SCOTUS should interpret what the law actually says. In my opinion, SCOTUS made the law more confusing, and did not clarify anything.
I also don't think that the court will issue an injunction, but it is so murky that anything could happen. On the diagram I made, it is accurate if you group by ownership instead of location. Hopefully the 9th Circuit will take that into account, but that is the appeals court in the entertainment industries back yard.
Who owns the box is not the issue. The issue is who controls that box and that's not DISH.
I personally would be a lot more happier if Dish didn't control every darn thing I stream, via their authentication mumbo jumbo. Maybe we'll get a standalone player out of this.
All the Dish receiver has to do is authenticate the user, the rest of the communication is directly from the receiver to the remote device - singular - only one device can receive programming from the receiver at a time.
Authentication is necessary to assure that the receiving device is from a paying customer's account.
If the remote device is on the user's network, after that millisecond of authentication, the signal never leaves your network.
Authentication is necessary to assure that the receiving device is from a paying customer's account.
If the remote device is on the user's network, after that millisecond of authentication, the signal never leaves your network.
