US Pushing To Kill Any Future Aereo With TPP
from the another-favor-for-hollywood dept
Just a few weeks ago, we were somewhat surprised to see a court rule in favor of FilmOn, an Aereo-clone, arguing that contrary to what was found in the Aereo case, FilmOn's internet streaming of network TV should be seen as the equivalent of a cable channel. That's important, because it means that the company can just pay Section 111 compulsory fees to the Copyright Office, and then it's free to stream broadcast (network) TV over the internet.The TV networks are, not surprisingly, appealing this ruling, but they have a friend in the USTR, which is apparently looking to negotiate away this very possibility in the TPP. In the just leaked copyright chapter (from May, before the latest round), there's a provision pitched by the US that would demand no country allow any retransmission of TV on the internet without permission:
[US/SG/PE propose: CL/VN/MY/NZ/MX/CA/BN/JP oppose: No Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal [SG oppose: and, if any, of the signal].Once again, the USTR shows that its purpose in these negotiations appears to be to carry water for the legacy industry and against new and innovative services. How is it helping American industry to oppose new innovative services?
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: internet, retransmission, streaming, tpp, tv, ustr
Companies: aereo, filmon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not Fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Fair.
(I got it. Though if this had been a day I was reading too fast or had previously read a whole lot of comments of that nature that were actually serious...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Fair.
They could just refrain from promoting their obnoxious mercantilist agenda; that way no leaks could do any harm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is your best argument? Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so "new and innovative" that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators? Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?
Don't worry. I know you won't answer. Bawk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"However it's being retarded"
Well, heavens to Betsy, wash your mouth out, you are now banned from github.
I bet that stings, huh? It should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I take it you missed this:
I guess when you perceive "theft from precious rights holders" (otherwise known as copyright infringement), you can't help yourself from going into attack mode even if it's blatantly clear to others there's no intent whatsoever to infringe on said rights.
Please grow up. Either that or die screaming in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'That's important, because it means that the company can just pay Section 111 compulsory fees to the Copyright Office, and then it's free to stream broadcast (network) TV over the internet.
The TV networks are, not surprisingly, appealing this ruling, but they have a friend in the USTR, which is apparently looking to negotiate away this very possibility in the TPP.'
If it was only about being paid for the content, then the TV networks/broadcasters would be all for such online services, as it would mean easy money for them. As is obvious however, it's not, it's all about killing the competition before it can grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're not going to log in, don't complain about having your IP address blocked while trolling. You filthy TOR user, you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn't actually make it right or even smart.
"Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?"
This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike's comments on them?
Don't worry, we know you're a hypocrite who won't answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's purpose it obvious
Well, that may not be the intent, but we've seen "pay us" rules go south before (Google tax in news snippets for instance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ambiguous meaning?
...without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal.
Arguably, it's not the broadcaster that owns the content. It's the one that made the TV show / film that is being broadcast. I wonder if the broadcasters / TV networks realise this?
This is what happens when you put in stupid clauses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ambiguous meaning?
The text is specific and correct, as it covers both sides of the deal. That is both the signal and it's content as presented by the station including logos, local news, whatever, and the shows. In order to rebroadcast you would need the permission of both the station and the content creator. In the US, the content creator part is handled via the copyright licensing setup that exists for that purpose.
The clause isn't stupid at all. It's very clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ambiguous meaning?
What OTA/cable broadcaster is going to give permission to a company that's directly competing with them for viewers, at anything other than insane rates, if at all, if they have any choice in the matter?
The offline broadcasters aren't hampered by the clause, unless at some point they decide to shift their focus to offering their service online, as currently they merely need to pay mandatory, set rates for the content they broadcast. Online services on the other hand would not be so lucky, they would require 'permission', and if the rate for that isn't set and mandatory, you can be sure if it's granted at all, the rates would be incredibly high, to the point that they would have to charge so much for their service that it could never compete with the offline services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOmeday
This is why it is illegal to know what laws are being passed , as soon as the population knows they will revolt and ensure that the copyright industry is competently disbanded or changed in such a way that the laws are realistic and not made to enable content copyright holders tosteal from consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]