Well, it isn't the broadcasters that are suing Locast, but I can see the networks making that argument. I don't think the courts will buy it, but we'll see...
Locast update
- Thread starter mwdxer1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 150
- Views 20K
Once upon a time..cable systems had superstations...that eventually got shutdown due to copyrights protections...its gonna be a uphill battle for locast
Well, the first thing the network lawyers will have to overcome is the IRS determination that SFCNY/Locast is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. If they can't do that, game over, since 17 USC 111(a)(5) will clearly apply.
Its not the network lawyers...its the people who own the rights to the tv shows who just happen to own networks..you need to familiarize your self with the entire law you quote..not just the parts that benefit your position
I am familiar with the entire "Limitations on exclusive right: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable" embodied in 17 USC 111, including the part that says:
"the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service."
What part of "nonprofit organization", which the IRS clearly says SFCNY/Locast is, don't you understand?
He understands perfectly, he just wants to argue. It’s his MO!
While true today, how long can they milk that cash cow? How long are people going to subscribe to cable and satellite that they can force to pay for carriage? As it is, there is the biennial scroll at the bottom of the screen about carriage disputes.
When will cable/satellite call it a day on paying for retransmission? There is no reason that they can’t tell locals that they will carry them under ‘must carry’ but FO on retransmission fees.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope. If they make that argument, they lose. Makes them look like a monopoly, plus a lot of content on network tv isn’t owned by the channel it is broadcast on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess you never heard of syndex exclusivity or why some ball games are blacked out on dish
Legal arguments aside, I hope Locast wins the case. Access to local channels via cable and satellite will only get more expensive. Locast would be an excellent alternative for those of us who have a solid Internet connection and a streaming device, and don't want to fuss fart with an antenna.
Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-T290 using Tapatalk
Yes I have. Perhaps you would like to explain the direct correlation between subscriber fees and how those sports leagues are compensated by the networks that have OTA stations, because I don't see it.
Also, Locast is not a superstation scenario as the recipient of the content is getting the actual station as broadcast. This is all local, in-market, so I don't see how syndex applies.
Subscriber chooses not to buy locals from satellite or cable company...station loses revenue...assuming customer cannot receive locals with OTA antenna..that simple
The stations should be required to cover their entire DMA with a reliable signal.
Portland stations have a ton of translators covering a lot of their DMA, but Seattle stations have very few. A couple here in there within 50-100 miles, but not all of the main nets either. Spokane WA stations also have a lot of translators even into Western MT.
Similar threads
