Had intended to extend Section 111’s compulsory license to Indeed, the legislative history indicates that if Congress But the court said they were ineligible for that exception to copyright law, because they’re not a “cable systems.”Ĭongress did not, however, intend for Section 111’sĬompulsory license to extend to Internet transmissions. Read the actual ruling, in which everyone agrees that ivi was paying compulsory rates under Section 111.
It seems, according to the above that Ivi was not paying at all or not paying everything that was due.
Collapse replies (12) Reply View in chronology They can’t seem to live without their NCIS.Ĭonsumers spend more time complaining than actually doing something about it.įor shame. Though, I doubt we’ll ever see consumers making the right decision. If consumers would voice their opinion by ignoring the content produced by these companies, they will go away and stop suing everyone else. There’s so much back-scratching going on, it’s no wonder consumers are getting pissed.īut ultimately, they’re the ones at fault. Moonves may be making asinine claims, but so does everyone else who wasn’t born in the internet generation, including 9 people who really shafted everyone. I feel for CBS because it’s fighting a losing battle.
Ivi pro drm tv#
Worse, these broadcasts are considered “free” by the public, which hasn’t been the case since the advent of TV (the “price” was dealing with ads). Advertising revenue supports most of the shows over the air, yet no where near as profitable from a streaming service. It’s a Pyrrhic victory for CBS, who is only stalling the inevitable death of “broadcast” TV. You can claim that the networks’ win in the Supreme Court was “good” for the broadcast industry (though I’d challenge that assertion too), but to claim in any way that it was “pro-consumer” is just clearly out and out ridiculousness by Moonves.įiled Under: consumers, copyright, innovation, les moonves Now, we?re stuck instead with the TV industry?s over-priced bundles and, in the case of mobile, a confusing and convoluted ?TV everywhere? system that seeks to replicate an out-of-date form of linear TV watching that no one wants in the first place. And it lacked the lazy, channel-clicking pleasure of TV.īut Aereo did point out what could be: a commonsense way to watch TV over the internet at a reasonable price. The show streams could be choppy, and in the case of sports, the short time delay could be frustrating ? I would sometimes learn about a goal on social media right before seeing it on Aereo. The service, to be sure, was from perfect.
Ivi pro drm for free#
It gave urban dwellers like me a cheap way to see over-the-air shows (which the broadcasters send out for free in the first place, don?t forget) on their computers and phones. Not only did the court just stick it to them by protecting the TV industry?s bundle rip-offs, consumers also lose access to a marvelous technology.Īereo, you see, was different. What gets ridiculous is when he claims that it’s a “pro-consumer thing.” How, exactly, is that the case? If you look at the comments from just about any Aereo user following Aereo’s decision to “pause” the service this weekend in the wake of the ruling, it certainly doesn’t look particularly “pro-consumer.” Aereo user and GigaOm writer Jeff Roberts has what might be the best explanation of how horrible this is for consumers:īut while CBS and ABC investors may be throwing around high fives at the sop from the Supremes, the average consumer just took a bath. Of course, when talking to his investors, Moonves also admitted that an Aereo win would have no real impact on the company, revealing the truth of the matter.Įither way, it’s no surprise that he’d be delighted by the victory over Aereo. He was the one insisting that CBS would move its content off of the public airwaves if Aereo won - to which many people said that sounded like a good idea, so that others could use that valuable spectrum. Les Moonves, CEO of CBS, was one of the more vocal network execs leading the charge against Aereo. Mon, Jun 30th 2014 09:05am - Mike Masnick
0 kommentar(er)
