Joined
·
373 Posts
I've been reading a lot about this but I'm still having a hard time wrapping my brain around it.
It appears that Charlie was giving out distant local channels to whomever wanted them. The networks got mad and said they thought they were breaking the law. The courts said, 'yes, charlie that's illegal, now stop. By the way, you ripped of tivo too.' So Charlie appealed it and lost and now has to stop selling out of market distant channels illegally.
So now E* customers are upset they aren't able to get things the courts say they weren't supposed to have in the first place? And apparently Charlie is going to 'rent' space on one of his birds to another company that *WILL* sell people distant nets? (Which seems like he's just asking to be sued). Wasn't that already found to be illegal? or was it only illegal for Charlie to do it?
I guess my question is, how is this different from how D* sells distant nets to people who can't get them? Was charlie just selling distants willy-nilly?
I just don't get the drama....
It appears that Charlie was giving out distant local channels to whomever wanted them. The networks got mad and said they thought they were breaking the law. The courts said, 'yes, charlie that's illegal, now stop. By the way, you ripped of tivo too.' So Charlie appealed it and lost and now has to stop selling out of market distant channels illegally.
So now E* customers are upset they aren't able to get things the courts say they weren't supposed to have in the first place? And apparently Charlie is going to 'rent' space on one of his birds to another company that *WILL* sell people distant nets? (Which seems like he's just asking to be sued). Wasn't that already found to be illegal? or was it only illegal for Charlie to do it?
I guess my question is, how is this different from how D* sells distant nets to people who can't get them? Was charlie just selling distants willy-nilly?
I just don't get the drama....