Time Warner Cable, Viacom Go To Court: Does TWC Need Permission To Let Paying Subscribers View Viacom Content On iPads?
from the battles-of-a-lifetime dept
We recently noted that the various TV broadcasters were quite upset that Time Warner Cable was trying to promote their content to subscribers. Seem strange? It is. TWC set up an app for subscribers of both its broadband and TV services, that would let those users watch the TV stations they already subscribed to via an iPad app only if they were accessing the content via their home WiFi. To simplify it, TWC was letting your iPad act as another TV in your house.Now, normally, if someone sets up an additional TV, they don't have to pay the content providers yet again.
But this is the "internet," you see, where content companies think they should get paid every time something touches their content in a different manner. So they were upset and threatened to sue TWC. TWC caved a bit, and pulled some channels, but then put some others on the app. It's tough to keep up, since the app seems to change each day (which must be great for keeping customers happy). Rather than wait and see if the TV companies would sue, however, TWC has taken matters into its own hands and filed for a declaratory judgment that what it's doing is perfectly legal. Viacom quickly filed the complaint it had ready to go against TWC in response (both are embedded below).
TWC is trying to play down any idea that this is a "fight," saying that "this is not a hostile lawsuit," and that "we need an impartial third party to referee the situation and confirm that our interpretation is correct." Of course, they could have hired an arbitrator rather than burdening the federal court system... but... it's just our tax money. And Viacom, for its part, doesn't seem to be acting as if this is just a bit of a legal clarification among friends. Its response is pretty harsh, if highly misleading.
Viacom's argument seems to be based on the established legal theory of "but... but... everyone else is paying us for this sort of thing so TWC must have to pay for it." In the end, it comes down to a contractual dispute over what TWC's deal with Viacom says, but the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. TWC's offering is really limited, and all it's doing is making Viacom's content more valuable to subscribers. Viacom, in typical entertainment industry fashion, seems to think that everyone needs to pay it for making its content more valuable.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: place shifting, tv
Companies: time warner cable, viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, no, they pay ad rates based on total eyeballs. If there's an issue w/how eyeballs are being counted on iPad streams, then THAT'S the problem they should be tackling, not trying to eek money out of TW. After all, which is going to be more valuable in the long run, counting the total number of eyes on a show (particularly one that has all the commercials intact) or whatever cash they'd get from a TW license?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the point is, they don't get paid based on eyeballs. They get paid based on tracked eyeballs, and streaming eyeballs aren't tracked.
Perhaps they don't see the value in streaming and just want to control the delivery system, in which case they're just reactionary idiots. But my guess is they don't have the muscle to change the methods of the ratings system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Perhaps they don't see the value in streaming and just want to control the delivery system, in which case they're just reactionary idiots. But my guess is they don't have the muscle to change the methods of the ratings system."
Why would that be the case? If content producers worldwide went to Neilsen and told them they were doing a ton of streaming w/commercials intact, what reason would there be for Nielsen not to listen? Most ratings are still gathered via viewer diaries (I think), so how would that change anything beyond allowing questionairres to include streaming to iPads as consideration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an aside, the more I think about the conversations around media corporation board room tables, the more depressed I get. It's too early to start drinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have things backwards.
> paid based on eyeballs. They get
> paid based on tracked eyeballs,
> and streaming eyeballs aren't tracked.
In this case, the transport mechanism is entirely irrelevant. It's still TV. Perhaps you can call it video on demand. Either way, it's still the same thing as going through a conventional receiver.
Also, the notion that streaming stuff is somehow less well understood is absurd beyond belief. It's the conventional content that's not really measured in any meaningful way.
OTOH, streaming as such can very easily be measured and sliced and diced any way you like.
The real problem is that streaming exposes the folly of trusting Nielson ratings for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No no no ...
Which makes you wonder, is it the *content* which is valuable, or is it the convenience of seeing it when you want to? They charge bucketlads of money for video on demand vs. merely obscene amounts for regular cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have things backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You have things backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems clear to me that Viacom sees the value of this streaming, and they want to make sure that some of that value goes back to them. Even if the streamed views are not counted for advertising purposes, getting a licensing fee from TWC would be better than getting nothing at all.
I just don't see what's so nefarious about Viacom's position. If TWC is making money using Viacom's IP in a way not covered by their agreement, then why shouldn't Viacom object? It would be more noteworthy if they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm REALLY not following you here. From what I understand, Viacom produces the shows and then gets money from contracts w/TWC to broadcast them, since TWC and affiliates will get the ad revenue. The more popular and widely viewed the show, the more ad revenue, the bigger the contract Viacom can sign w/TWC. More eyeballs via the iPad app means more ad revenue means bigger contract for Viacom (for this and/or future shows).
The iPad app is free. More eyeballs mean more ad revenue. What is TWC making money off of that you think Viacom should get a piece of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Substitute "Hitachi" for TWC and "a TV" for an IPAD app. and you will see how ridicuulous your argument is.
Viacom is nefarious because they are just using any excuse they can find to screw out more money. In the end, like all short sighted and greedy business practices, it will backfire on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viacom needs some guidance
Why can't they just focus on making the experience better and leave these bickering, childish issues at the door?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viacom needs some guidance
Because, then the lawyers would have to find other ways to afford their mistresses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I had a time machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish I had a time machine
So, way to go Viacom. You've single handedly brought future communism to America. Mike, of course, will be pleased.
You bastards....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wish I had a time machine
Viacom killed Kenny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I wish I had a time machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish I had a time machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wish I had a time machine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV viewing and the customer
The advertiser is the customer. You are the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TV viewing and the customer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TV viewing and the customer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TV viewing and the customer
Given there's little to interest me on TV, I'd be happy to get rid of the idiot's lantern altogether were SWMBO allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A declaratory judgement that this is legal would apply to whatever parties were in the case, and deter any other parties from getting in on the lawsuit happiness as well. While not strictly precedent setting, it is something that can be point to in any other cases as well and is a de facto precedent in your favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what would make it more valuable to Viacom? TWC paying a fee to transmit Viacom's IP to their broadband customers. If the agreement between them really does not allow TWC to transmit to iPads, then why shouldn't Viacom assert their rights and get a piece of the action? Obviously, they believe that doing so will be better for their bottom line. Who are you to say definitively that they are incorrect about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sigh, you're thinking linearly, my friend. You're saying that TWC is streaming to iPads, so if they paid for that, Viacom would get more money. What you're not considering is that if Viacom insists on this, perhaps TWC simply WON'T stream any longer. Then what? Now you've lost revenue from the licensing AND the ad revenue. Guess how THAT effects their bottom line....
"If the agreement between them really does not allow TWC to transmit to iPads, then why shouldn't Viacom assert their rights and get a piece of the action?"
I think, and it's only my opinion, that if the agreement doesn't specifically BAN the streaming to iPads, then Viacom would do better to consider which is more valuable, licensing through TWC or additional eyeballs gained for ad revenue. If Viacom wants to come out and tell the world that the licensing would bring more profit, well, okay, but that doesn't bode well for the value of the advertising, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
on the part about the agreement banning or not even mentioning additional devices, its really just another 'NOW NOW NOW' based decision that does nothing to take into account what the long term benifits are for this type of issue.
again, if you sacrifice long term solvency for short term financial gains, you are going to manage your company right out of existence. this is a great example of how not to handle such issues where there are alternatives that would benifit both companies long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree double charging for the same content will make you more money from it.
"to their broadband customers."
You have to have cable and broadband from twc to get the content. You have to be in your home (well in wifi range of it) so its not like me and all my friends can pay one cable bill and only watch tv on our ipads at our individual houses.
"hen why shouldn't Viacom assert their rights and get a piece of the action?"
They already have a piece of the action. TWC pays them so they can deliver their content. Now they have to pay them twice because they want to show the content on a normal tv as well as a 10 inch tv with no wires.
With the pretty small channel offering (last time i looked, twc isnt in my area so im not sure what channels are on there as of NOW) you would think any content owner would be happy would be happy to be on that list. It adds value to your content by making it more accessible, and you are part of a small list of content that is so accessible.
If twc was trying to stream all the content through there website, or offer it in anyway to people who arnt already paying for the content I would agree, they should pay more in licenses. But right now they are just adding a new way for people to watch tv in their home if they are already paying to watch tv in their home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
has nothing to do with you being able to download programming and is addressing the actual devices you are allowed to watch your programming on.
basically, TWC is saying the device is just an extension of the TV, viacom is saying its not and because its not, they require additional fees for you to be able to watch it on any device that is not connected physically to a set top box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO it's TWC should sue Viacom for money
So Viacom should pay them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Favorite line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Favorite Line
But ... But ... they have money and we are entitled to it!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, for a plaintiff party to claim that it is going to court because they want a third party arbitrator to get their friendly disagreement settled is often grounds for dismissal, and, in some cases, for attorney sanctions.
This whole thing reeks of bullshit. TWC's media relations arm is probably going to get a stern talking to from legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV eats into your life, health, space, finances and all you get in return is a steady flow of moronic drivel telling what and how to think.
I do watch TV series, documentaries etc, I just get them elsewhere online. (there is always 'elsewhere')
If you have a computer, why have a TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you have your viewpoints and mine are a lot closer to yours than you probably think, but alluding to the lack of intellegence when questioning someone about their choices winds up alienating people even if what you are saying is correct.
and i have a TV for my game consoles and to watch tv/movies... i just dont really watch much via my cable box.
its something that i cant really get the experience i desire out of my computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad I don't have TWC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a matter of time...
"Oh, we're sorry, that monthly fee is only for the first four people in your home. You'll need to pay a surcharge for all people over four."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]