Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television The Courts The Media Your Rights Online Entertainment

Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service 210

Posted by timothy
from the crossing-the-streams dept.
An anonymous reader writes A day after a surprise U.S. Supreme Court decision to outlaw streaming TV service Aereo, U.S. broadcaster Fox has moved to use the ruling to clamp down on another internet TV service. Fox has cited Wednesday's ruling – which found Aereo to be operating illegally – to bolster its claim against a service offered by Dish, America's third largest pay TV service, which streams live TV programming over the internet to its subscribers and allows them to copy programmes onto tablet computers for viewing outside the home.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fox Moves To Use Aereo Ruling Against Dish Streaming Service

Comments Filter:
  • by xigxag (167441) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @05:04PM (#47346249)

    Er, UNintended Consequences....that's totally what I meant to say...

    • Jurisdiction (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2014 @07:46PM (#47346883)

      There have been numerous cases where a ruling from a court of a certain country (whether it be US or Europe or Timbuktu) regarding the Net has altered the way the Net operates

      For example, a Canadian company was found to be "breaching the law" of the USA when its online poker operation was available in the USA and had to pay hundreds of millions in fine to the Uncle Sam

      Well ... it's the Net, the operation is in the Net, the company is in Canada, and how come a court inside USA can fine a company in Canada any money in the first place ?

      I mean, if USA does not want online poker to run inside its territory, the REAL JURISDICTION of that US court supposed to be limited to ordering that company to shut off the operation to IPs that originate from USA - and nothing else, really

      Similar case here ...

      A US court find that an online streaming service which streams TV programming (including those from the US teevee channels) has violated some laws INSIDE THE USA, and by jurisdiction, that US court can only order that company to shut off its operation to all IPs which are originated from USA, but no, that company had to shut off ALL OPERATION

      What I want to know is, WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENS TO LEGAL JURISDICTION ???

      And it is not only for online thing only

      A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !

      What the fuck is going on, people ?

      How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???

      • Re:Jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)

        by American Patent Guy (653432) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:21PM (#47346995) Homepage

        The answer to your question is not simple. Most industrialized countries have treaties with each other that permit legal actions to be taken under any applicable jurisdiction. Even the jurisdiction of a single country can be broad: usually U.S. jurisdiction goes to any person or entity "doing business" on U.S. soil or by any infrastructure located on U.S. soil. European countries will enforce U.S. copyrights, and the U.S. will enforce european copyrights.

        Can a U.S. court order a Canadian company to discontinue offering gambling over the Internet? It depends upon the treaties it has with the U.S.

        • Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Catbeller (118204) on Monday June 30, 2014 @09:44AM (#47349663) Homepage

          The US writes all the treaties. Amazing how that works.

          • That's how it worked around WWII. Now it's the European Union that writes most of the recent treaties that relate to IP (at least for countries that seem to matter now). If you file an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, you get to file it using size "A4" paper, not the "letter" size used in the U.S. The regulations are published in English, French, Spanish and German (if memory serves). The U.S. ain't the industrial powerhouse of the world like it used to be...
            • by Catbeller (118204)

              Copyright, as in "intellectual property", is a notion that exploded from The Shining City on the Hill, namely Jesus's country, America. We've rammed each and every treaty down the world's throat for almost thirty years. Now that it's established, of course European copyright lords are helping seal us in with our cask of Amontlliado. But it is American in origin.

          • by geekoid (135745)

            That's not true, and the other country does have to agree to it in any case.

          • by greenbird (859670)

            The US writes all the treaties.

            And ignores them when they're not convenient. Amazing how that works.

        • by mhollis (727905)

          And, certainly such a treaty does exist, else no court in the USA would have had jurisdiction to demand the payments. And, from the standpoint of operating websites, it is pretty easy to block whole countries from seeing your website. All it takes is editing a .htaccess file.

          As to the banking issue, France is a signatory of a treaty within the European Community of Nations as well as the United States to sanction Iran regarding their development of atomic weapons. This is an agreement between the United Sta

      • Re:Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fafalone (633739) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @11:01PM (#47347643)
        The problem is you're hung up on the idea of what's legal and/or right. Think of it more along the lines of the mafia. The family running the corner bodega has nothing to do with the mafia, but they're forced to pay for the mafia's "protection services" not because of the mafia's legal right to enforce their policies, but because they have people willing to use coercion to enforce it. The only option is to get someone with more power/force behind them who is willing to stand up; for the bodega owner, that's the police. But there's no one with the power to stand up and force the United States to back down. So the US enforces global jurisdiction because IT CAN. It even prosecutes its own citizens who break US laws in countries where the activity that occurred is legal.
        Now I know your first thought might be, well we're not going to use our military against Canada/France, but we have many other forms of coercion. We can and will forbid a particular financial institution to do business with US-based businesses and individuals, so that is the force that keeps them in line.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Catbeller (118204)

        "How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???"

        Empire. Rules of an empire. We've thousands of nukes, hundreds of military bases in a hundred+ counties, and we create every single "treaty" that governs our actions. You are either a vassal, or a cooperating and subordinate power.

        Americans are fine with this idea. They never leave home much, and even if they did, they would not mind the hate. We ar

        • Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards. Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country. And every single one of those groups write laws and UN proposals that - if adopted

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            >Quick: name a country which doesn't think its ways are the obviously correct ways, and that the world wouldn't better if only everyone else would adopt their standards.

            >Europeans are convinced that we should maintain a bit of aloof isolationism. The Middle East is convinced that a Muslim theocracy would benefit everyone. Much of Asia wishes we could get over the recent notion of individual rights instead of duties to country.

            These aren't all the same. A worldwide Muslim theocracy would affect everyo

            • As a side note: I despise a lot of the laws we've been pushing out and don't mean to defend them. I just get weary of the idea I hear too often that the US is uniquely and historically bad about this.

              • by Grishnakh (216268)

                That's certainly not the case. Look at all the horrible things the European nations did back during their colonial days. Most nations, when sufficiently powerful, do pretty awful things to other nations just because they can and because it benefits them (or certain members of their population).

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Did you even stop for a moment to think:"Hmm, this seem odd that the US can do this, why do those countries let them?"
        That question alone should lead you to the answer.

        But no. Posting in bolded caps is easier then actually learning something.

      • My understanding is Aereo uses antennas inside of the US to capture the content. This has been found to violate US copyright laws. I'd agree with you if they were using attennas located in Canada/Mexico to pickup signals originating in the US and then only selling in those countries. Still there probably is reciprocal agreements between those countries to respect each others copyrights. Its a similar thing with any large industry. For example healthcare: you don't need FDA approval in Canada but Health Cana

      • A French bank was found by USA to violate its (yes, USA's) policy on the embargo of Iran --- well, that bank was from France, and all its business dealings with Iran was done OUTSIDE the United States, --- and yet, US dare to fine that French bank hundreds of millions of dollars !

        What the fuck is going on, people ?

        How can the government of country A fine a company from country B any money when that company's dealing has NOTHING to do with country A in the first place ???

        Simple, if your business wants to do business in the U.S.A., you'll need to mind the rules. That bank knew the rules and actively falsified documents to make it appear that it was abiding by those rules. They got caught and severely smacked. The fact that they are willing to pay that ginormous fine means they want to make amends with Uncle Sam and *continue* to do business in the U.S.A.

    • by Catbeller (118204) on Monday June 30, 2014 @09:48AM (#47349675) Homepage

      Those consequences were quite intended by the broadcast industry which sued Aereo. Only Scalia, amazingly, got it right when he warned they were after this endgame. Blind adherence to the tiny details of the law give us this stinking pile to live with, just as when they ruled that eternal copyright was fine as long as there was *some* time limit mentioned, even if it was a century, even if the limit would be eternally extended, as it just obviously had been.

    • UnNintendo Consequences?

  • Big Difference (Score:5, Interesting)

    by msobkow (48369) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @05:09PM (#47346267) Homepage Journal

    There's a big difference. Dish pays for broadcast rights. Use of the internet is not a question, legally. It's just a transmission medium.

    So as long as Dish is paying their fees, they should be free and clear.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ThatsMyNick (2004126)

      They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.

      • They dont have re-transmission rights. It costs extra obviously.

        The article says they have the right to 'broadcast' Fox content, however, it also says they are doing what Aereo was doing in violation of 'an express contractual prohibition'. Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

        • Re:Big Difference (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @05:55PM (#47346429)

          Do they have the right to retransmit but not to stream or 'sideload' recorded stuff to mobile devices? I don't get it, those two statements appear to be contradictory at frist glance.

          The Supreme Court Betmax decision. Users obviously have the right to use VCRs and DVRs to "time shift" content. There's no law saying you can't take your DVR with you wherever you go.

          In this case, your tablet is just acting like a DVR. I see nothing new at all here, even considering the recent (bad) SCOTUS decision.

          • Obviously s/Betmax/Betamax

            Sony v Universal Studios [wikipedia.org]
          • by Catbeller (118204)

            This is ME saying this, but in Betamax decision, the SCOTUS said that *even though* VCR sometimes infringed on copyrights, that the non-infringing uses outweighed the "bad" use. Yes, that makes little sense, but blame copyright laws for that. Change the laws, change the decisions.

    • You know, I know, but "on the internet" has spawned a whole lot of new rules without rhyme and reason or roots in reality, so it seems that "on the internet" means "normal sanity does not apply".

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      The fee will rise to the point they go out of business.

    • by Slartibartfast (3395) * <{ken} {at} {jots.org}> on Sunday June 29, 2014 @11:41PM (#47347767) Homepage Journal

      But you're not. (For the record, I work for $MAJORCABLECOMPANY as an engineer in the group... well, under discussion. So I'm somewhat informed.) Case in point: the ability to use a song in a movie for theatric release is not the same as the ability to use the song when released on DVD. Likewise, songs played on the radio cannot (unless, of course, specified) be willy-nilly copied for downloads in podcats. The biggie, of course, is region-enforced blackouts for sporting events.

      I could give more pertinent examples, but I also like my job, so I guess I'll have to take a pass. But trust me: it ain't as easy as you'd like to make it out.

    • What I'm curious about is how the system is implemented and will that matter?

      If they're using Slingbox style implementation and using the customer's own outbound connection to stream, then things are way less murky for Dish.

      If they're using their own infrastructure to serve out shows, then things are less clear about retransmission rights. Given the vast amount of storage needed, I don't think they are.

      I suspect this will be a home run for Dish. They ARE paying the piper, and they're handing customers what

      • by LDAPMAN (930041)

        It's not "Slingbox style",it IS Slingbox. Dish owns sling and has built it into their DVRs.

        • I know they had Sling branding on the box, didn't know if the delivery mechanism was the same.

          Still, Fox is shooting themselves in the feet here.

  • by GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @05:29PM (#47346345)
    There are people who make money with outdated systems that technology decimates. These horse and buggy people would love to see the Internet removed completely. This is why you see places like NBC not streaming the Olympics to everyone on the Internet, but only to cable subscribers. Sure NBC could make a boat load by putting localized advertisements in. People would have made out too if NBC put the Olympics on the Internet because they could watch the events they want when they want instead of waking up at 2 am. NBC is in bed with Comcast though and just wants more cable subscriptions instead of providing a quality service. And Comcast is afraid that if people stream quality programming, that more people will cord cut. So there's little incentive for Comcast to provide better Upload/Download speed. The RIAA from what I hear is making tons of money suing everyone they can, even local places in the sticks are getting sued for using non licensed music in karaoke. Some people would benefit if the Internet ceased to exist completely. This is the same as people who would have benefited if the automobile never got invented.
    • by wbr1 (2538558)
      The problem is, they are winning. I have no cable subscription (except business class data, as it is what I need, and all that is available to me).

      The more I look, the LESS content is available legally without having a cable sub and piping in valid creds.

      Pretty soon (if they haven't already) they will further limit such streaming to IP address known to be the same customers node. To prevent you from using your friends login and not having your own of course, even though it keeps legitimate customers fro

    • by alen (225700)

      so after the paid billions of $$$ to get the rights they are supposed to give everyone free access?

    • by jittles (1613415)

      NBC is in bed with Comcast though and just wants more cable subscriptions instead of providing a quality service.

      NBC is owned by comcast. Comcast is NBC's pimp man. You give it up and pay out your earnings when your pimp comes along.

    • by Catbeller (118204)

      They don't want to eliminate the internet. They want to turn it into a paid cable TV service with data for a fat extra charge. They want to own the internet, turn it into another corporate-owned asset. And they have won.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Let's see how useless and annoying we can make TV and still having people paying for it. It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
    I don't know any TV provider here these days who doesn't provide a option to see TV programs at least 14 days back and even a month.
    That being said, I have given up on cable tv years ago myself.

    • It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).

      I love all these comments that equate to, "Well, you Americans should just stop doing that. Duh!" It's not like there's an entrenched multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to preventing that exact eventuality or anything.

      One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

      "O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

      WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

      "I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

      WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

      "But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."

      OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

      At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

      http://principiadiscordia.com/... [principiadiscordia.com]

  • by PPH (736903)

    No longer available. And nothing of value was lost.

  • The beginning of the end for streaming services.

  • Sony Betamax (Score:4, Informative)

    by JeffElkins (977243) on Monday June 30, 2014 @01:36AM (#47348105)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/... [findlaw.com]

    There's no doubt in my mind that if the Sony case were being heard today, the VCR would be ruled an infringing device.

  • that shutting down Napster totally killed the mp3.

This is now. Later is later.

Working...