So I googled news on Ivi, and found this, from San Francisco Chronicle's sfgate.com:
Meanwhile, Seattle-based online video provider Ivi Inc. claimed a victory thanks to the Cablevision-Fox dispute, saying Monday it saw a 323% increase in new subscribers throughout the Fox programming blackout. It didn’t provide actual numbers for new subscribers.
Major broadcasters recently filed a lawsuit against Ivi, claiming that the startup is infringing copyrights by retransmitting over-the-air broadcast signals online. The company has argued it operates under a legal loophole that allows cable and satellite companies to retransmit over-the-air broadcast content as long as they pay semi-annual fees to the U.S. Copyright Office.
I'm ready for a smackdown of immense proportions.
Fast Facts about ivi TV's Legal Position
Section 111 of the 1976 Copyright Act permits cable systems to retransmit television broadcasts
- ivi TV is a cable system under Section 111 of the 1976 Copyright Act
- ivi TV is entitled to a statutory license under Section 111 of the 1976 Copyright Act
- ivi TV pays the Copyright Office under its statutory scheme and it, in turn, pays the content owners
- The FCC does not regulate the Internet, hence;
- ivi's retransmission of television broadcast over the Internet is permissible
ivi TV's downloadable app makes it easy to watch live television programming online for only $4.99 a month after a 30 day free trial. The company pays broadcasters in the same fashion as prescribed by law for cable companies.
ivi TV offers more content than Hulu and a 30 day free trial to watch major broadcast channels including ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, The CW, PBS, and others from a growing number of local affiliates, all available via a downloadable app at ivi.tv.