Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by phrelin, May 15, 2012.
I figured Sling would have been challenged long ago.
I confuse nothing with nothing, but thanks for the mention. My friend Mr. Long is right; I offer nothing but an opinion, a window onto the salient points of the case. To my knowledge none of us is truly qualified to argue the actual case, and if we were.. it is my opinion that said person would be making a big mistake in presenting (or viewing) legal arguments in a public forum.
It may not be specifically in the contract. But many contracts contain blanket disclaimers against doing a variety of things. If the networks can prove AutoHop violates any of these provisions, then they could be in trouble.
And as was shown in the TiVo case, two very smart attorneys can see one set of facts and come to completely different conclusions. And since no one has access to these contracts, we are all just speculating.
You're right, of course, but it's hard to imagine wording that'd prevent AutoHop contractually.
"Contractee shall not devise nor implement any new thingie that makes skipping of our $$commercials$$ easier or more convenient...." :nono2:
IMHO you may not be far off.
Given that Fox has included Sling and PTAT, in addition to Autohop, in their suit, it seems more like "Without the express permission of Fox. Contractee shall not devise nor implement any new thingie that makes it more convenient for its viewers to watch television."
I don't worry about Sling because it carefully restricts viewing to one location. Yeah it's a bit more remote than using the second TV in the basement, but it's still me using the signal as received personally. Except that it is lumped together with Autohop and PTAT.
And PTAT is basically a new system of recording the same data streams off the satellite that we have been recording for years, only one can record four network affiliate channels simultaneously using one receiver.
So I'm curious. Is Rupert Murdoch/News Corp/Fox saying that they have the right to prior approval before any new technology is offered to the general public by a cable or satellite company?
This earlier Hollywood Reporter article has links to the complaints:
Reading the actual Fox complaint now... it's pretty comical. "Dish launched it's own bootleg broadcast video-on-demand service called PrimeTime Anytime"..."makes an unauthorized copy of the entiore primetime broadcast schedule". So, the suit isn't about restricting consumer choice, Fox just wants us to pay to watch their shows, individually, purchasing them through Amazon or iTunes. This is a pretty funny read :lol:
LOL... The very first item listed in the "DISH's Unlawful Conduct" section basically says it's unlawful to be an alternative to NetFlix :lol:
Wow, thanks! Links to the Fox, CBS, and Dish filings!
And if I have 4 separate VCRs/DVRs?
Am I wrong, but doesn't everyone with a DVR who records shows to watch later, create there own VOD library. I always thought that was part of the reason to have one.
It Makes me think Fox would like to get ride of everyone's DVR.
they included PTAT in the suit?why?
it only does what a DVR is beeing doing for years.
now it records 4 programs using 1 tuner. pathetic lawsuit
they don't have the right to prior approval before any technology is implemented. they wish they had.
greedy corporations .
Those filings demonstrate that the broadcasters want to take away more than just AutoHOP. I've noted before that if they had their way either DVRs would be banned (see suits against VCR companies when they were introduced) or we would be able to skip any portion of a program EXCEPT the commercials (see Hulu without an ad blocker).
No, but Dish may be using signals within the broadcast that Fox has not given them permission to use. For example they may have the right to rebroadcast Audio and Video signals, but not the right to use them for any other purpose. This would be other purpose.
I suppose there's truth to that.
I frequently find my recordings without the end of a program because the show doesn't end on the hour. PTAT might allow me to record the whole show plus be able to watch a show on another network that started on the hour.
That's obviously Dish repurposing the signal, in that the idea behind the show that stops at 9:02 is to prevent me from watching another network's show in its entirety.
I wonder if they will explain the purpose to viewers in their lawsuits?
I just don't understand why Dish would be so crass and corrupt as to make it possible for me, a viewer, to watch in their entirety shows I'm now paying for.
The nerve of Charlie to do this! :ramblinon
The first sections don't sound like they were written by a lawyer. They don't even seem like they were written by an adult.
And ... the complaint says that Dish receives a license from the networks to retransmit the programming. Don't they license the broadcasts from the individual stations, not the networks?
I believe DISH and DirecTV rely on a license granted in law by the US Government. Local stations choose must carry or consent to carry under that law (requiring the satellite company to carry their signal at no cost or withholding permission for the satellite company to carry their signal except under negotiated terms). The networks don't provide the "license".
Yes. I think it's pretty clear that, if the networks have a problem with what's being done with their programming, they should take it up with the local stations, not Dish.
That was said as a joke, of course, but I think there's a little bit of truth to it.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges here, but going with your argument, I would think all of the big 4 networks in every market are operating under the consent to carry provision. That is a contracted arrangement, so if the networks/affiliates think that contract is being violated by DISH using broadcast signals for unintended purposes, then they have a right to challenge DISH.