Distant Networks: ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION - Effective December 1st

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Oct 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oct 20, 2006 #1 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The Florida Southern District Court has spoken:
    ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
    THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is

    ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation (collectively “Echostar”), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the terms “secondary transmission,” “primary transmission,” “primary network station,” and “network station” shall have the meanings given those terms in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.

    DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of October, 2006.​
    Emphasis is in original.


    If you are looking for the now closed previous threads on the issue (for background) here they are:
    Distant Networks: 9/12 Settlement Details and other court filings ...
    September 15th-October 20th

    EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)
    August 28th-September 15th

    FOX request for Distant Networks Injunction (NO INJUNCTION ISSUED)
    September 1st/2nd

    EchoStar Rejected by High Court Justice, Must Halt Distant Networks
    August 22nd-September 1st

    EchoStar Loses Distant Network Appeal
    July 26th-August 8th
     
  2. Oct 20, 2006 #2 of 658
    makman

    makman Legend

    135
    0
    Dec 1, 2002
    Crap.

    I think it means no RV waivers too.

    Mitch
     
  3. Oct 20, 2006 #3 of 658
    boylehome

    boylehome Hall Of Fame/Supporter

    2,143
    0
    Jul 16, 2004
    Besides losing the DNS on Dec. 1. 2006 what if any, are E*'s plans to satisfy customers (other then the supplying new market Local into Locals)?"
     
  4. Oct 20, 2006 #4 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    No Distants = No Distants regardless of waivers, RV exceptions, etc.

    E* hasn't announced any plans ... they have not announced the court loss either. I suspect locals will be rolled out ASAP - beyond the 175 total they were shooting for.

    The cynic in me says: "You'll probably get PPV coupons too. :)"
     
  5. Oct 20, 2006 #5 of 658
    Chris Walker

    Chris Walker Legend

    232
    0
    May 19, 2004
    Ok so now Dish, ABC, CBS, and NBC appeal the decision.
     
  6. Oct 20, 2006 #6 of 658
    boylehome

    boylehome Hall Of Fame/Supporter

    2,143
    0
    Jul 16, 2004
    What benefits would result in an appeal? Would this extend the shut-off date? Most likely the Supreme will flush it as they pretty much told the lower court what to do.
     
  7. Oct 20, 2006 #7 of 658
    minnow

    minnow Legend

    178
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    aa
     
  8. Oct 20, 2006 #8 of 658
    Chris Walker

    Chris Walker Legend

    232
    0
    May 19, 2004
    I'd wait for the switch to be thrown before I go switching providers.
     
  9. Oct 20, 2006 #9 of 658
    minnow

    minnow Legend

    178
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    aa
     
  10. Oct 20, 2006 #10 of 658
    minnow

    minnow Legend

    178
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    I read the entire decision. This judge is a real pip. His written decision stated that since the Appellate Court so ordered the nationwide injunction, he must follow the direction given. OK., I agree. But why allow all the parties to keep on babbling on and on. Why the hell didn't he just order the injunction back in August and be done with it. This judge wasted all the litigants time and money as well as take up valuable time from the Court itself. I'm sure there were plenty of other cases this Judge could of been spending his time on, instead of wasting everyones time on an issue that was decided the moment the Appellate Court demanded the injunction.
     
  11. Oct 20, 2006 #11 of 658
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,992
    2
    Jan 31, 2003
    You will be better off going through a canadian "broker"
     
  12. Oct 20, 2006 #12 of 658
    minnow

    minnow Legend

    178
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    aa
     
  13. Oct 20, 2006 #13 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There will be an appeal ... whether it gets far is a question for the next court. The next court is the one who mandated the permanent injunction - and they can override their own mandate.

    Plus there is action with the Supreme Court pending.

    The judge was nice enough to delay this and set an effective date far enough into the future that E* is not going to have to wake up in the morning with all distants gone. One last chance to save distants?
     
  14. Oct 20, 2006 #14 of 658
    s8ist

    s8ist Banned User

    74
    0
    Aug 21, 2006
    ok, so what does this mean for the E* subscriber?
     
  15. Oct 20, 2006 #15 of 658
    Ewingo401

    Ewingo401 Cool Member

    11
    0
    Sep 29, 2006
    I don't get it...how can Direc TV have distants but its illegal for Echostar to have them?
     
  16. Oct 20, 2006 #16 of 658
    JohnH

    JohnH Hall Of Fame

    7,802
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    According to the Court, EchoStar did not play by the rules.
     
  17. Oct 20, 2006 #17 of 658
    Badger

    Badger Legend

    184
    0
    Jan 30, 2006
    It means if you have distant networks through E* they will be gone by December 1st even if you legally qualify for them. E* broke the rules now everybody loses!
     
  18. Oct 20, 2006 #18 of 658
    JohnH

    JohnH Hall Of Fame

    7,802
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Does DIRECTV offer Locals for your market?
     
  19. Oct 20, 2006 #19 of 658
    jonsnow

    jonsnow AllStar

    54
    0
    Apr 17, 2006
    Supreme Court anyone?
    Those two acts of congress are breaking the first admendment, they both
    abridge the freedom of speech and go against the spirit of the declaration of independence
    when it comes to pursuit of happiness and liberty and hampers states rights with the regulation of
    the free flow of commerce.
     
  20. Oct 20, 2006 #20 of 658
    Badger

    Badger Legend

    184
    0
    Jan 30, 2006
    That sounds nice but has no basis in fact.:nono2:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements