Disney Claims It's Copyright Infringement For Dish To Offer Starz To Non-Premium Subscribers
from the felony-interference-of-a-business-model dept
The latest in a long line of ridiculous lawsuits from an entertainment industry that refuses to adapt and loves to put up artificial barriers, is the case of Disney suing Dish Network. Dish's infraction? Apparently a promotional decision to offer the Starz movie network for "free" to its subscribers (of course, it's not really free, since you have to pay to subscribe...). Disney claims that it has specific licensing deals with premium channels like Starz, which say that the films it licenses can only be shown on "premium" pay-TV tiers rather than basic tiers. The idea (of course) is that Disney wants to extend the ridiculous and outdated "windowing" efforts of Hollywood.But, here's the thing: Dish Network is not a party to that contract. Dish should be free to offer whatever channels it wants in whatever tiers it wants, so long as it has the appropriate agreement with those channels. I can't see how Disney has a claim on Dish here, since it's a third party, which is simply making a reasonable business decision that it wanted to offer Starz as a part of a lower tier. Disney is claiming in the lawsuit that this "devalues" its movies. No, it does not. What "devalues" the movies is the silly windowing plans of the studios that make those movies less valuable to consumers.
Of course, Disney is claiming that this isn't a contractual issue, but a copyright one, but even that makes no sense. Dish's license with Starz clearly includes a license to display the content. And Dish is clearly paying to carry Starz, so everyone's getting paid. The only issue is that Dish decided, for promotional reasons, to include Starz in lower tiers for no additional cost for a year (Disney, falsely, repeatedly claims this is "free.") It seems that Dish should be free to offer whatever promotion it wants to its consumers, seeing as all the other terms of the license are the same and everyone's getting paid.
I could see how Disney might have a complaint against Starz for the way it licensed content to Dish, in which Dish was allowed to offer this kind of promotion to consumers, but going after Dish for copyright infringement, just seems silly. If anything, saying that downstream providers can't set their own pricing seems like Disney is opening itself up to a price fixing claim. It made its deal with Starz. Dish then did its deal with Starz. Dish should then be free to determine how much it charges consumers.
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: copyright, movies, premium, windows
Companies: dish, disney, starz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I love irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duh, Disney, it's called PROMOTION
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"I could see how Disney might have a complaint against Starz for the way it licensed content to Dish"
They may, for example: breach of contract and indirect copyright infringement. But that doesn't preclude the plaintiff from enforcing against another entity.
"Dish should be free to offer whatever channels it wants in whatever tiers it wants, so long as it has the appropriate agreement with those channels."
As we discussed, you can't "avoid" infringement under the theory that someone upstream extended to many rights downstream. The original party never had those rights to "grant" in the first place.
What Dish probably has is a claim for indemnification/breach against Starz if Starz warranted it had the rights to grant Dish Network the license. There's probably an indemnification clause that says Starz would defend them if they didn't.
Consider a simpler scenario: an upstream entity with NO LICENSE to a copyright licenses someone downstream. The downstream party DOES NOT have a defense to copyright infringement by pointing at the upstream entity.
This also assumes Dish was in the right, see my final point.
"If anything, saying that downstream providers can't set their own pricing seems like Disney is opening itself up to a price fixing claim."
Perhaps. But even the terms of the Starz license quoted doesn't restrict what is "charged" by anyone. It just says it must be paid for separately by the consumer from the basic tiers, e.g., "a material, time based... fee."
As a final point, we have no idea, yet, what the terms of the Dish-Starz deal are. We are making assumptions about that. Paragraph 3, however, states that Starz did not consent to the promotional deal. I have no idea whether that's relevant or required under the Dish-Starz contract, but another possibility is that there is also a breach under that agreement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Duh, Disney, it's called PROMOTION
Didn't get me to sign up, but according to them a lot of other people signed up for them.
Disney is going to have to realize that 'premium' services are going the way of the dodo. More and more people (myself included) are downloading HBO/other premium channel programming online and having no moral qualms about it.
Why? Because we feel that 110 dollars a month to Comcast is more than enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Initially?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hmm and in your "simple scenario", what if the downstream company has reasonable grounds to expect that the company upstream DOES have the rights to offer what they bought and it later turns out they were full of sh*t?
Should the downstream company employ an IP lawyer to scan and background check the licenses of the upstream company for every single piece of content they take from them? That kind of thinking leads the the "Lawyer Event Horizon" (c.f. Douglas Adams' "shoe event horizon") in which it becomes impossible for any employment to exist except for lawyers.
This is a prime example of what's so totally broken about how IP in general and copyright in particular is structured. Copyright is only provable in the negative; Certain uses are definitely breaking the law, but it is damn near impossible to say any given use is definitely not breaking the law. That's insane any way you look at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He bought land in Anaheim because it was cheaper to buy an orange grove. Also, after the surprise overflow crowds of the first day almost wrecked the place, they realized that they needed to raise the prices to keep the numbers down to a manageable crowd. It's supply and demand at its finest and despite even today's outrageous prices, Disneyland is still packed almost every day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More Evidence of the Incredibly Shortsited Content Industry
You know, where at the end of the promotion a percentage of subscribers will decide they like having the premium channels enough to pay more money to keep them. Which will give Dish a larger amount of premium subscribers, who will pay Starz a larger licensing fee, who will pay Disney a larger licensing fee.
I guess Disney must not like making money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If it wasn't for live sports I'd be so ready to disconnect the TV for good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The stupid now a days makes my head hurt...
You know what happened... I know a lot of people started buying disney after that, b/c they learned to like the channel...
The stupid now a days makes my head hurt...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I love irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More Evidence of the Incredibly Shortsited Content Industry
And of course the kicker that makes it even more dumb is that it's totally free advertising to Disney. The "cost" (in lowered margin) of the cheaper subscription is borne by Dish and Disney still get the same license fees - they have nothing to lose and plenty to gain. Who thinks like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The stupid now a days makes my head hurt...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"They initially charged high entrance fees to Disneyland for similar purposes."
They still charge high entrance fees. These are based on how much can they charge and still fill the park up with customers. It's all about money and has nothing to do with a class structure. Keep digging left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I love irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Duh, Disney, it's called PROMOTION
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about the Disney vault?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks for pointing this one out Mike!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I love irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If Dish is displaying a Disney work in a manner that does not comply with those conditions/restrictions, then it's not licensed, and the fact that they may have a license or sublicense to display the work *in some other manner* is no defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Let's make this simpler: Imagine if Dish were a toll booth. It may not have rights to the cars passing through its gates, but it most certainly has a right to control how those cars are to pass. If the toll booth wishes to waive the fee, there is no infringement.
What Disney is trying to do is assume the copyright befalls the toll booth, not the vehicles, and that's just not how this works.
The relationship between Starz and Dish is on the context that Dish will pay for licenses and this has no bearing on 3rd parties. Copyright law does not extend beyond the first license.
However, it's not surprising to see Disney chase this. It's not the first time they've tried to go after tiered licenses, which is nothing more than getting multiple parties to pay for multiple licenses for the same content.
I will state if Disney wins this case, all through appeals and higher courts, this will set one of the worst precedents in copyright history.
I can't speak for anyone here, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for having to pay "Nth" fees for licenses to cover every party between me and the content owner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
When you buy a house, you get title insurance to guard against the possibility the seller doesn't actually own the house.
Of course, there are going to be lawyers involved in a deal like this no matter what. Cest la vie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Copyright law does not extend beyond the first license."
If that first license grants permission to do X, but not XY, then that first license is no defense to XY being infringement by the sublicensee.
If Disney said, you can show our movies on a premium channel and sublicense that right, then that license is no defense to showing their movies on some nonpremium channel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Until I read this article I didn't know that this promotion was going to last for a year.
One or two weeks ago, Starz started playing Toy Story 3. They've also been playing UP.
And of course we still get the various Disney Channels on Dish Network.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would somebody please explain...
We have a dish package (second from cheapest, iirc) that gives us network, USA, TNT, SyFy, etc, plus a load of channels we never watch - but not the "premium channels" or BBC America.
We'd quite like to have BBCA, for Doctor Who & Top Gear and would prob pay an extra $5 a month for it.
But, of course, we can't do that. The only way we can get it is by paying an extra $20 or $25 a month, for the next package up, with even more redundant channels that we'd never watch.
I very much doubt that BBCA sees $5 of that $20 or $25, so who's driving the whole bundling thing and why the ban on a la carte?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is why Mike's statement didn't make sense to me when he said: "Of course, Disney is claiming that this isn't a contractual issue, but a copyright one, but even that makes no sense. Dish's license with Starz clearly includes a license to display the content."
Even if true, if Starz licensed rights that it didn't have the right to license, and those unlicensed rights were exercised, then it's copyright infringement, not breach of contract.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, yeah, just saying "starz has a license to display" doesn't tell the whole story, because there have got to be some restrictions/conditions for that license (telecommunications licenses aren't usually one-page documents).
The question is whether Starz and/or its sublicensee copied/displayed/etc. any Disney works in a manner that either breached those terms (probably not possible for the sublicensee) or was outside the limited scope of the license.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Would somebody please explain...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But really, we could definitely use another button for "trolling/uninformed", not to hide the post, just to put a little green troll-face next to it to remind people to read it with a healthy bit of skepticism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:opposite
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hiiragi Kagami's comment
One of the rights granted a content owner under copyright is the right to distribute the content. Based on the complaint filed by Disney, Disney licensed Starz to distribute its content in a very specific way. That license included the right to sublicense others to distribute its content in a very specific way. Starz apparently licensed Dish to do this distribution on its behalf. All Starz had in its possession to give to Dish was that which Disney gave it: a right to distribute in a particular way.
Before receiving the license from Starz, Dish had zero rights to distribute this particular Disney content and if they did distribute it, they were infringing Disney's copyright. Now, Dish has a license which can only grant them that which Starz had to give. Starz cannot give to Dish that which it does not have. The agreement between Starz and Dish may purport to give Dish the right to distribute without limitations. But, beware the buyer.
Dish is in the same position it was in before it contracted with Starz: without authorization from the copyright owner (Disney) to unlimitedly distribute Disney's content.
A pertinent analogy is a person, A, owning two adjacent apartments leases one of them to B with a right to sublease. B then in turn leases to C both apartments. When C occupies the second apartment, A has an right to evict C directly without dealing with B. C may have an action to recover costs against B, but really C should have been more careful in what it leased.
It is interesting to note that Bloomberg is reporting that Starz has also filed suit against Dish in Colorado for violating the agreement between the two companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
Were you the one who was saying that something isn't property unless you can point to a statute that defines it as such? If so, can you show me where it says that something isn't property unless a statute says it is?
That's just not how it works.
Answer me this: What, in your mind, is the definition of property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
15 U.S.C.A. § 278n.
19 U.S.C.A. § 2411.
26 U.S.C.A. § 170.
I could go on and on. So I take it you'll answer my question now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Enough With The FUD, Buster!
So where did you go? You claim I'm spreading FUD and demand I look something up for you. I did look that up for you, and then you disappear. That's rude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]