Locast, a Free Streaming Service, Sues ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox (nytimes.com) 59
Locast, a little-known nonprofit behind a free streaming service, sued ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox on Friday, alleging that the television networks colluded in an effort to chill its business. From a report: Locast streams network shows and sports programs through a free app that relays broadcast feeds online. People can get the streams without a cable or satellite plan, potentially cutting off licensing fees to the broadcasters. (More traditionally, viewers can also receive broadcast signals over the air, at no charge, with a digital antenna.) In July, the networks banded together to sue Locast, arguing that it had violated their copyrights and chipped away at the revenue they get from pay-television operators like AT&T and Comcast. The networks are expected to receive more than $10 billion in such fees this year. The broadcasters' lawsuit also named David Goodfriend, a former media executive and lawyer with stints in the Federal Communications Commission, who started Locast in January 2018.
Free stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And if Locast is a free streaming service, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox have even less of an argument since they're broadcasting their signals over the air for free themselves.
That's like someone picking up your couch on a curb with "free" sign, and re-listing it "free" on their own curb.
And now, cue the people who will reply with arguments about ad revenue.
Re:Free stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad revenue: ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox should tell their advertisers that people are ALSO watching the broadcasts over Locast and therefore more people see the ads so the advertisers should pay more money to, yes, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes - this. Locast was formed in the wake of Aereo (?), which was a subscription (ie, pay-for) service. It died a horrible judicial death because it was violating copyright laws by rebroadcasting for profit.
Locast, which I donate, voluntarily, to monthly, rebroadcasts "for free". Yes, they will drop in a nag screen every once in a while, but forking over money is not a requirement of using their service. They rebroadcast the original over-the-air signal, and require that you enable location on your brow
Re: (Score:1)
You know the copyright laws don't really care if it is for profit right? Don't say "fair use", that doesn't mean "not for profit". Fair use is very specific as to what what is safe.
http://www.legalflip.com/Artic... [legalflip.com]
If it was illegal for the other company to do it for profit, it's illegal for Locast to do for free.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Locast is specifically taking action to preserve and arguably enhance the commercial value of the network broadcasts. One factor weighed by the courts is the economic harm done, and here it's hard to see anything but benefit by enabling more ad views.
The law is an ass, and politics goes to the powerful so I expect a decision against them that's then justified instead of anything decided on the merits. You only get that when there is a balance of political power,
Re: (Score:2)
If it was illegal for the other company to do it for profit, it's illegal for Locast to do for free.
That's my take on it too. It's a bit murky, but I predict Locast will get shutdown.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Your reference to fair use is inapposite, and your summation of how Aereo's loss implying Locast's loss is wrong. Leave the legal opinions to lawyers.
Re:Free stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the not-for-profit issue is key here.
See: 17 U.S.C. 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming (a)(5) [cornell.edu]
(a)Certain Exempted.—The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if—
(5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.
Re: (Score:1)
"without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service"
This is the actual specific key in the whole thing. As long as this is strictly followed and can be shown, Locast stands an extremely good chance of winning.
Re: Free stuff (Score:2)
Ohh. That's interesting. Yeah it looks like I didn't know what I was talking about. Thanks for posting the source without being a jerk!
I do think it will be interesting if they will be able to prove that the monies being collected are in line with the costs.
But I would guess since it is then suing the big networks they are pretty confident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"they're broadcasting their signals over the air for free themselves."
You think that transmission equipment, power, infrastructure, and human operators needed for it is free?
Fuck my sides hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
You know exactly what I meant. Not free to themselves, free to the users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except your couch does not have copyright attached to it.
What other electromagnetic signals and frequencies do you believe have copyright attached to? Or is there something unique about broadcast TV?
Re: (Score:2)
They are not retransmitting 'electromagnetic signals and frequencies' (which would be a repeater), they are capturing and retransmitting the CONTENT carried on those signals. And that content is protected by copyright.
Re: Free stuff (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a repeater you would also be in violation of FCC rules as well as copyright.
Re: (Score:1)
So the entire Internet is in violation of copyright because every single router captures and repeats the copyrighted content that it transmitted by EVERYONE.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. The sender of the data has implictly given permission for that to happen by transmitting packets on the internet in the first place. That is how the internet works.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be precise, repeaters capture and retransmit content as well. Retransmitting 'signals and frequencies' actually doesn't work well without shifting the transmission frequency to prevent interference with the received signal.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not retransmitting 'electromagnetic signals and frequencies' (which would be a repeater), they are capturing and retransmitting the CONTENT carried on those signals. And that content is protected by copyright.
In that case, Netflix should sue all ISPs for copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course that Netflix is explicitly sending its signals through the ISPs, so they can't very well claim the ISPs don't have permission to carry their content.
Re: (Score:3)
What other electromagnetic signals and frequencies do you believe have copyright attached to? Or is there something unique about broadcast TV?
There is something unique about broadcast TV. Title 47 CFR 73.1207. Broadcast TV gets a special status of allowing copyright attached. A few exceptions are carved out for EAS, VOA, AFRTS, and USNO time keeping. There's a couple of special exceptions coded into law as well. But yes, broadcast TV and certain frequencies of the FM and AM bands are considered "special and different than everything else". Even just repeating the signal has to have special license (MO&O FCC 86-159 ruling).
Re:Free stuff (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say the rules of FTA translator services do ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Might wanna check this out, as they are relaying it and using the devices location to be sure its in the right place.
Just saying, this is legal shaky ground but IANAL but I did stay at a holiday inn express a couple years ago on a bet.
Re:Free stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Locast is gonna win in court because its doing exactly what the Copyright Act says it's allowed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
If you put a couch on a curb with "free" sign
If you charge something for that couch, people can decide whether to buy it or not. But if it has a 'free' sign, the first person driving by has to pick it up [wikipedia.org].
The economics surrounding television has been completely distorted.
Antenna plus DVR (Score:2)
I live in one of the cities covered by Locast. We have an indoor mohu antenna plus a 4 tuner DVR and no cable service. I much prefer being able to watch the stuff I recorded at my convenience and skip the ads rather than watch live.
The only time I see ads now is when I am watching something that I must see live, which isn't very often.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They're angling to be covered under existing translator regulations. They geofence to prevent you from watching channels for which you aren't in the locality.I don't see a fat chance of it working (because the courts are already paid for), but in theory they should be operating legally.
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright owner gets to decide who gets to broadcast their property. Just because one of your licensees uses public airwaves to broadcast does not give some random Joe the right to copy and rebroadcast it. The broadcaster cannot give that authority as they do not have it to give.
Re: (Score:2)
Note, I think decisions like this are usually made based on political power then justified with the law so I'm not expecting this outcome. I just think it's an outside possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
A strict reading of the law shows that there are allowances for unlicensed rebroadcasting. See 17 USC 111 (a) [emphasis mine]:
(a) CERTAIN SECONDARY TRANSMISSIONS EXEMPTED.-The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if-
(1) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system, and consists entirely of the relaying, by the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment, of signals transmitted by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, within the local service area of such station, to the private lodgings of guests or residents of such establishment, and no direct charge is made to see or hear the secondary transmission; or
(2) the secondary transmission is made solely for the purpose and under the conditions specified by paragraph (2) of section 110; or
(3) the secondary transmission is made by any carrier who has no direct or indirect control over the content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission, and whose activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of others: Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph extend only to the activities of said carrier with respect to secondary transmissions and do not exempt from liability the activities of others with respect to their own primary or secondary transmissions;
(4) the secondary transmission is made by a satellite carrier pursuant to a statutory license under section 119 or section 122;
(5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.
Copyright isn't a "what I say goes" concept, although they're trying to change that. Copyright is limited in certain ways, and there's merit in the idea that this type of "internet broadcast relay" is legitimate.
Re: (Score:1)
"The law does not allow for unlicensed rebroadcasting."
Bullshit, and in addition to the stuff everyone is quoting regarding one law, there's also an FCC ruling that states I'm pretty much allowed to do any damned thing I want with any transmission that can reach onto my property, including rebroadcast it. Without such ruling, things like CB repeaters would not be allowed.
Re:The broadcasters will prevail (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The broadcasters will prevail (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Re:The broadcasters will prevail (Score:4, Interesting)
Eh, no they didn't. They said that Aereo was acting as a cable company, even if the technology was different. Having said that, there is a section of copyright law that says retransmission is not infringement if done by a government or non-proft organization. But you can bet the broadcasters will challenge whether retransmission of broadcasts is a valid business for a non-profit to be in (as opposed to incidental retransmission in support of the non-profits regular business).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is the whole reason that Locast was formed as a non-profit. The guy is funding it largely out of his own pocket, just because he doesn't like the broadcasters charging for their rebroadcasts when they get to use public airwaves.
Re: (Score:2)
So, therefore, SCOTUS ruled that a NON-PROFIT company CAN retransmit legally
No. MAY does not mean CAN. It means MAY. The court didn't rule on if non-profit would have saved Aereo. It simply said that it MAY have saved it but did not say it WOULD have saved it. You can't assume ever that when a court says MAY that it means you CAN.
Locast is simply following the ALREADY SCOTUS-ESTABLISHED RULES
It's not rules, it's precedent. It's not rules, it's precedent. It's not rules, it's precedent! And the word MAY does not set a precedent outside of, if someone does this as a non-profit, then we should rehear the argument. That's all the word MAY
Re:The broadcasters will prevail (Score:4, Informative)
The networks have indeed already lost. As I posted above, Locast was started by a lawyer who used to work at the FCC, who knew exactly what the law allowed. It is complying with copyright law to the letter.
Re:The broadcasters will prevail (Score:4, Informative)
They've won lawsuits like this before
What makes this one different is that Locast is operating as a non-profit. That's important, because according to Section 111(a)(5) of the Copyright Act [cornell.edu], non-profit organizations are specifically exempt from the restrictions that bound Aereo and other companies attempting to offer this sort of service previously.
(a) Certain Exempted.—The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if—
[...]
(5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.
So, not only ought it to be legal, by all indications it actually is legal this time around.
Re: (Score:3)
The parent poster should get the +5 Informative rating since this quote of the rules hits the nail on the head.
And in fact, it is very reasonable for a non-profit to be in the business of providing a secondary transmission to recipients who otherwise cannot receive the primary transmission (which was itself broadcast "free of charge").
I happen to be in a topological situation where I cannot receive free television broadcasts from a not-too-distant major market wherein the big networks all have stations pa
Why is this not good for everyone? (Score:2)
Television stations pay major money for broadcast towers and spectrum licenses. If someone shows up and says "Hey, I can increase your broadcast area for free" why would stations not like that?
Re: (Score:2)
They are not increasing the broadcast area. If you go to the locast site you can only view your local stations if you are in one of the areas they cover.
The stations lose out because they potentially will lose the fees that they get from cable companies if people use locast as part of a cordcutting option.
Re: (Score:2)
I live within the theoretical broadcast area of many OTA TV stations. However, due to various factors (wall composition, house placement, trees, etc), our reception can quickly go from excellent to horrid. I'd highly welcome a service where they managed the antennas - placing them in areas for the best reception in a way that'd be hard for me to do - and I got the channels that I'd normally get where my house is, but via streaming.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way around it that I can see would be if they offered their service "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although Locast may function as part of a "cord cutting" option, it is not its only nor its primary intended function. I would gladly put up an antenna at my house if it would do me any good. I did in my previous house, and enjoyed the free reception of broadcast TV. However, topological interference prevents me from receiving signals (not distance) in my current house. Locast would cure me of the topological disability if it were available in my area. Sadly, it isn't.
Locast only offers a non-profit r
Re: (Score:2)
Because they want to monetize streaming, seeing as the pay cable golden goose is slowly having the life choked out of it.
The major issue is always money, these channels want you to go to their captive portal/service where they can force feed you more targeted ads based on cookies. And auction off ad space in 30 second slices, the targeting goes up because the ads are direct and with that so does the price they reap per ad, vs. the normal ad costs.
If you can milk 6 nipples on a cow and empty it faster, why n
Re: (Score:3)
Because they want to monetize streaming
But it isn't streaming in the sense that I'm familiar with. I can't go to the Locast site and have them send me a copy of a program broadcast at a previous time. I've got to take it as the networks send it. Locast doesn't take a signal and add value to it (by time shifting, for example).
The problem is: Congress distorted the network/broadcast/cable market economics from the early days of community antennas.
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't streaming in the sense that I'm familiar with... I've got to take it as the networks send it.
That's called "live streaming."
Well yes and no (Score:2)
Seems logical because it's OTA, so as long as they don't strip commercials or otherwise edit...
Except Congress considered this and specifically disallowed it, and either they must negotiate payment, or the network can force them to carry it for free. But the choice is the network's, not the distributor's.
So this company has a big uphill battle trying to get around this.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint as to outcome: There are the corpses of a least two billion dollar investments lying in a ditch somewhere.
Google asked "Did you mean: locust"? (Score:2)
I had never heard of this and my antennas struggle with about half the stations, most (all?) of which are over 50 miles away. The Locast picture looks good. It's delayed a few seconds, but that's not surprising and not an issue IMO.
There's at least one independent station they don't carry (bad) and they don't carry the shopping or religious networks (good). It also does not have subchannels so that's kind of a drag, but this is a good service IMO and if the networks aren't happy with the extra ad revenu
The big mistake came earlier (Score:2)