DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
And exactly how little would it take be "non-profit" in your opinion? The non-profit Red Cross has a ~$3 billion annual budget. 501(c)(3) non-profits are allowed to show a net profit as long as that profit is not distributed to private individuals or shareholders. Non-profits are allowed to pay reasonable compensation to employees for services rendered. In Locast's case the net profit is used primarily to expand the service to new areas
According to the judge that is part of the problem.

The court found that Locast's policy of expanding into new markets runs contrary to the aim of a non-profit, where cash should be used to cover running costs only. Judge Louis Stanton said that the cash raised from Locast's $5-per-month (don't call it a) subscription was being used to bankroll further expansion and earned "far more money from user charges than was necessary."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
The whole Locast thing is perplexing to me. I understand why Broadcasters were against this type of product back 5 to 10 years but today, it could help them. People are turning off Cable and SAT.
To try to keep people from leaving the Cable and Sat plans and keep those carriage fees coming in. Without cable and sat carriage fees those local affiliates are going to lose a lot of money. Not that I feel sorry for them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
While technically, the judge hadn't yet ruled that Locast had violated copyright, only that Locast couldn't raise its primary affirmative defense (the service had other defenses), the parties had made an unusual agreement at the start of litigation. In return for not seeking hefty financial damages, broadcasters got Locast to agree to an injunction in the event a federal judge had rejected its key defense. Given the court's ruling earlier this week, the broadcasters quickly sought to hold Locast to that promise, and now Locast has bowed to the inevitable.

"Since portions of its user payments fund Locast's expansion, its charges exceed those 'necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service,' which is the only exemption granted in Section 111 (a) (5)," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton in his order Tuesday.
Interesting that Locast agreed to that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
The issue is the locals, with the support of the networks, do not want their signals rebroadcast for free by anyone whether for profit or non-profit and will use any means they can to put a stop to it. And they are pretty well undefeated in their efforts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,371 Posts
Discussion Starter · #81 ·
Why did none of the non-Big 4 stations join the lawsuit?
What exactly is the non-Big 4 stations you are referring to?

As James said and it states in the article at the top of this thread: "Locast has lost the courtroom skirmish started by CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox"
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top