TV Broadcasters Sue Alki David's TV Streaming Service Once Again, To Establish More Bad Precedents
from the ugh dept
For many years we've pointed out that the self-promoting Alki David seems to get engaged in a variety of ridiculous lawsuits partly as a publicity stunt to build up his own brand. Nearly everything he does seems to be focused on the publicity value of it -- such as renaming his online TV streaming service from FilmOn, as it was known, to AereoKiller and BarryDriller to mock Barry Diller's Aereo. And, unfortunately, in this case those stupid publicity stunts may lead to some really bad case law. As many people know, despite David claiming that his service (whatever name you want to call it) was no different than Aereo, it is different. Aereo carefully followed various court rulings that indicated how to set up such a service that doesn't infringe -- and so far it's won the lawsuits filed against it by the TV networks."AereoKiller," on the other hand, has been losing badly, such that the service is currently barred in most of the western US. Now the networks figure they might as well go in for the kill and have sued David's AereoKiller yet again, this time in the DC Circuit, to try to get a similar ruling on the east coast. The networks could have sued Aereo itself -- as they've been threatening -- but it seems clear they realize that the case against David is much stronger (perhaps, in part, because David himself seems like a goofball who doesn't take any of this seriously, but also because of the company's own actions).
But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case. There are a bunch of issues related to the whole thing, and it seems quite likely David will lose -- but that precedent will now be available to be used against Aereo itself (and a variety of other innovative services). The end result could be a disaster, and the TV broadcasters know it, because that's exactly what they want.
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: alki david, broadcasters, copyright, dc circuit, transmission rights, washington
Companies: aereo, aereokiller, allbritton, disney, filmon, fox, nbc universal, telemundo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pretty super vague there, Mike. Why is it a "bad case"? What are these "bunch of issues related to the whole thing"? What is Aereokiller doing or not doing that Aereo is doing or not doing? Can you give us something concrete? Or are you just upset because you see the writing on the wall for these unlicensed rebroadcasters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case
NO, Masnick, 'cases' don't make laws, laws make 'cases'.
It's not very hard, it's a shame you don't seem to be able to work that out.
BTW: what do you mean by "bad" and "good" in legal terms ??
is it you feel "HOW" someone breaks a law determines if it is 'bad' or 'good', or is it the nature of the crime, or the nature of the law that makes it 'good' or 'bad' ?
"But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case"
The law is first, you cannot 'make a case' if there is no law, but you CAN make a law if there is no 'case'..
cases don't make laws, laws make cases.
a case is a potential breach of a law, to be determined by a court who will look at the 'case' and look at the law make a ruling.
it is either in breach of the law or it is not, as determined by the Court. A 'case' saying little about the law, and the law says little about the case.
Laws are general (they apply to everyone) a 'case' is specific, that is, it is a specific (possible) breach of a law.
The law might be good or bad, that is a matter of opinion, but it's the law, a case may be good or bad (opinion again) but (generally) cases do not make laws, but laws are developed to many different cases.
you don't appear to have much knowledge of these things Masnick, just say'in.
I am sure you would be more popular, and respected if your writings reflected reality a little more, or even just said thing that makes sense, or at least displayed some level of competency.
For a CEO, and Editor in Chief, you don't appear to be overly informed, logical or reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case
But case precedent is also binding in the US.
I'm sure there's a point there, somewhere. Keeeeep looking for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case
I think I just lost a couple of IQ points on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case
You are stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But, of course, bad cases make bad law, and the AereoKiller case is a bad case
In this case, you show us just how smart you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incitefull
Classic Masnick !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC766tzoYfU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it could not too.. way to be specific and direct, and way to detail nuances of this complex case.
and it seems quite likely David will lose
Really great analysis Masnick, now we are all perfectly informed.
Don't lock yourself down to making any statements might be questioned on, or providing anything in the way of explanation of details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And where is YOUR insightful analysis, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presedence of Breach of Copyright
This is NOT a precedence setting case, it's just ANOTHER copyright breach case, of which there are many, have been many for a long time.
Also copyright law has been around for a long time, more than enough time for precedence to have already been determined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hastening the end
http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/nielsen-pegs-ota-broadcast-only-households-at-nine-per cent/217117
Less than 10% of viewers get their TV from OTA only. Dropping OTA (for network TV) seems to be a no brainer, the number of people lost (and who would not seek a replacement in cable or dish style services) is low. Further, with IP TV variants that could be controlled directly by the networks or stations (for a fee, perhaps) it seems a done deal.
Give it a decade, and OTA will be a ghost town. My guess is that they will be re-run channels, with the only real shows of interest being the local news. There isn't much in the way of motivation to put stuff OTA that is fresh if someone else is making the income from it, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.shockya.com/news/2013/05/30/alki-david-releases-open-letter-concerning-filmon-a nd-the-major-networks/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FilmOn skulduggery
The guy is a joke and is ruining the concept of emerging IPTV services by his pathetic attempts of trying to find a backdoor into the broadcasting industry by leaching off other people�s technology.
His FilmOn Facebook page is a prime example of the trickery and skulduggery he gets up to.
https://www.facebook.com/FilmOn.TV
Somewhere he has 183,255 likes on his page, but only 808 people talking about it, strange�!!!
Yes it is strange until you start digging on their site http://www.filmon.com/corp/promotion where they are selling Facebook likes and one million will cost you Price: $370 000, so they have the ability to trick you into thinking that a site is popular when it isn�t.
They can do this for many such social media sites:
� Twitter favorites
� Twitter followers
� Twitter subscribers
� Web traffic
� Youtube real views
� Youtube thumbs up
� Youtube top countries views
� Youtube views
David users this along with his false press releases on all of his sites to trick users into thinking that FilmOn is a major player when in fact they aren�t.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Omniverse-TV
140,352 likes 21 people talking about
It just goes on and on and on and the sooner he is stopped the better. The IPTV sector needs to be regulated stronger and filter out all these idiots like David, as I fear if it doesn�t control these fools then the whole industry is going to be held back for many years to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The quicker he goes, the better for us all
It is hardly surprising that this publicity seeking crook has devised means of faking facebook/twitter/youtube "likes", any more than the way he has been fiddling his Alexa ranking by hot-linking his dreadful quality application to his web pages in a manner that breaches all Apple terms and conditions. Indeed, Mr David has had his apps chucked out of the various app stores more times than he has been divorced, and that is a lot to say.
David is indeed nothing more than an egotistical chancer, perhaps cancer might be the better word, given his blatant disregard for the future of IPTV, his pursuit of pornography (see FlithOn), rubbish film production and his constant provocation of the broadcast industry.
Ultimately it will only take one sick and deeply twisted SOB like Mr David to destroy everyone else's hard work, and I am one amongst many who will loudly cheer his commercial demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]