Fox Sues Dish Over Ad-Skipping Auto Hop

Toggle sidebar
dangue said:
Reading that brief made me laugh. PTAT is a DVR function. User enabled, uses a tuner, and records content for later viewing. The VOD argument is a complete joke. PTAT content isn't delivered to the Hopper via A sat download or via Internet download, a DVR recording is made. They say that Dish has not availed itself of Fox's VOD offerings, but is in breach by offering VOD commercial free? So if Dish just made Autohop universal to all DVR recordings they wouldn't have any problem with it, because DVR use is fine and it's the VOD part that is the problem? Yeah right, that's believable. And somehow, Sling is suddenly problematic? So I can't watch content I've paid for and chosen to have my DVR record? Fox has lost its mind.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how vod is delivered! Both directv and dish both push vod via sat! Once the commercials are removed by user choice or or auto hop it contractually becomes vod! It's up to the networks to decide how they want to enforce their contracts. It's all boils down to what's in the retrans contracts which I can't comment on and is all hearsay at this point as its up to interpretation of the lawyers. I can tell you one thing, fox's legal team is one of the best and they are an army! I see this dragging out for a long time and a possible injunction coming soon barring auto hop! I am only saying this as its only the next step in these things and happened with TiVo. Also my comments here are of personal nature and are no way official in any way! Infact according to some I don't know the head from my ass! :-D
 
satjay said:
Humm...they have not hopped on yet :)
Click to expand...

Follow the money trail! Perhaps ABC doesn't want to spend the cash, and will let the other networks do their bidding. If the other networks sue and win, abc just saved a ton of cash on a lawsuit FOX, CBS, and NBC won for them. If the other networks loose, abc never lost anything! Win win for them not to sue!

Also abc allready has one lawsuit out with dish!
 
K9SAT said:
It doesn't matter how vod is delivered! Both directv and dish both push vod via sat! Once the commercials are removed by user choice or or auto hop it contractually becomes vod! It's up to the networks to decide how they want to enforce their contracts. It's all boils down to what's in the retrans contracts which I can't comment on and is all hearsay at this point as its up to interpretation of the lawyers. I can tell you one thing, fox's legal team is one of the best and they are an army! I see this dragging out for a long time and a possible injunction coming soon barring auto hop! I am only saying this as its only the next step in these things and happened with TiVo. Also my comments here are of personal nature and are no way official in any way! Infact according to some I don't know the head from my ass! :-D
Click to expand...

Bob, seriously, you're being ridiculous. By your broad definition everything recorded dating back to the VCR days would fall under the title of VOD. In fact, everything currently on my DVR must be VOD because I'm either going to use Autohop or manually skip the commercials. (I would insert a rolls eyes emoticon here if it was possible to do so in the SatGuys iOS app.)

PTAT is Dish's answer to the problem of providing a robust VOD offering like its cable competitors, but it is not, in itself, VOD. For instance, I can't randomly decide to enable PTAT and expect to have the last 8 days of programming suddenly available to me. If I don't choose to have the Hopper use a tuner to DVR the program to its hard drive, I don't have access to it. This is fundamentally a DVR function. It's a great enhancement that allows a user to record 4 channels while only using 1 tuner, but it's something that any user to could do without enabling PTAT, if they were willing to dedicate 4 tuners to the task. It's the use of only 1 tuner that's revolutionary.

And if it became contractually VOD as you state, the networks would have claimed that. Instead they call it bootleg.

You're right on one point, it comes down to what's in the retransmission agreements, considering that the suit is silent on those, the FOX legal team has decided not to even try to make a claim under those (at this time).

Preliminary injunctions aren't very easy to obtain Bob, I wouldn't hold my breath for one anytime soon.
 
The Sling Adapter uses and requires a tuner. So it really no different than having a TV and a VCR. The Sling user also only has access to channels that they have paid for and also recordings to channels that they have paid for.

Sent from my new iPad using SatelliteGuys
 
K9SAT said:
Follow the money trail! Perhaps ABC doesn't want to spend the cash, and will let the other networks do their bidding. If the other networks sue and win, abc just saved a ton of cash on a lawsuit FOX, CBS, and NBC won for them. If the other networks loose, abc never lost anything! Win win for them not to sue!

Also abc allready has one lawsuit out with dish!
Click to expand...

Having one lawsuit has no bearing on starting another one over something else. And letting the other networks sue means that they don't get to be involved in the case directly. That means that if the other legal teams botch the case with bad strategy, ABC just has to sit on their hands and suffer the consequences. And the consequences are significant, if ABC later decided to suit, there would be precedent against them that would make their claims that much more difficult to prove.

To think that ABC would not sue so as to avoid spending the cash is silly. Disney has money out the yin yang, they can absorb the cost of any such suit without blinking an eye. Not to mention the reality of in house legal departments and outside counsel on retainer that get paid regardless of the workload. The decision to sue or not will not be based on money Bob.

I honestly expect that ABC will file suit, or will at least be enjoined in the future consolidated suit.
 
dangue said:
Having one lawsuit has no bearing on starting another one over something else. And letting the other networks sue means that they don't get to be involved in the case directly. That means that if the other legal teams botch the case with bad strategy, ABC just has to sit on their hands and suffer the consequences. And the consequences are significant, if ABC later decided to suit, there would be precedent against them that would make their claims that much more difficult to prove.

To think that ABC would not sue so as to avoid spending the cash is silly. Disney has money out the yin yang, they can absorb the cost of any such suit without blinking an eye. Not to mention the reality of in house legal departments and outside counsel on retainer that get paid regardless of the workload. The decision to sue or not will not be based on money Bob.

I honestly expect that ABC will file suit, or will at least be enjoined in the future consolidated suit.
Click to expand...

The other networks can submit briefs supporting the position of their fellow networks in other lawsuits. They don't all happen in a bubble.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
rockymtnhigh said:
Living up to an old nick-name, I guess. :)

If auto-hop is VOD, I have some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
Click to expand...

I'd say the same about comparing it to fast forward/skip, the primary difference being Dish providing the queues to enable the skipping and without user intervention. That's where any kind of fair use falls and the fine details of their contracts become very important IMO.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top