US Pushing To Kill Any Future Aereo With TPP
from the another-favor-for-hollywood dept
Just a few weeks ago, we were somewhat surprised to see a court rule in favor of FilmOn, an Aereo-clone, arguing that contrary to what was found in the Aereo case, FilmOn’s internet streaming of network TV should be seen as the equivalent of a cable channel. That’s important, because it means that the company can just pay Section 111 compulsory fees to the Copyright Office, and then it’s free to stream broadcast (network) TV over the internet.
The TV networks are, not surprisingly, appealing this ruling, but they have a friend in the USTR, which is apparently looking to negotiate away this very possibility in the TPP. In the just leaked copyright chapter (from May, before the latest round), there’s a provision pitched by the US that would demand no country allow any retransmission of TV on the internet without permission:
[US/SG/PE propose: CL/VN/MY/NZ/MX/CA/BN/JP oppose: No Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal [SG oppose: and, if any, of the signal].
Once again, the USTR shows that its purpose in these negotiations appears to be to carry water for the legacy industry and against new and innovative services. How is it helping American industry to oppose new innovative services?
Filed Under: internet, retransmission, streaming, tpp, tv, ustr
Companies: aereo, filmon
Comments on “US Pushing To Kill Any Future Aereo With TPP”
Not Fair.
I don’t think this latest leak is fair. This shows that the US is not taking the high road that they try to portray. And that government officials could possibly be in the pockets of big corporations like Comcast, Big Pharma, Lockhead and Bank of America instead of the individuals who elected them for representation. I personally think that all future leaks should have all future leaks heavily redacted on anything that shows the US in a negative way.
Re: Not Fair.
I think the reason no one has responded to “Capt ICE Enforcer”‘s comment is that is absolutely ridiculous to think in this manner… At least your last sentence. The first part makes sense, but that last sentence doesn’t follow with the logic above it… This does show that the US is not taking the high road, that would mean that we should make this known, not “redact” it. It shows us that the people who’s job it is to enact the will of the people (You and I and all the other US citizens) not the will of corporations. That should be shouted from the highest mountain tops, not hidden under a rug.
Re: Re: Not Fair.
gallons of black ink !== rug 😉
Re: Re: Not Fair.
You really need to get your irony detector recalibrated…
Re: Re: Re: Not Fair.
My post was an attempt at humor, fail!
Re: Not Fair.
Oh, yes, that is a problem for the government officials and the corporations who must be sheltered and protected.
(I got it. Though if this had been a day I was reading too fast or had previously read a whole lot of comments of that nature that were actually serious…)
Re: Not Fair.
Hey! I’ve got a great idea!
They could just refrain from promoting their obnoxious mercantilist agenda; that way no leaks could do any harm!
Once again, the USTR shows that its purpose in these negotiations appears to be to carry water for the legacy industry and against new and innovative services. How is it helping American industry to oppose new innovative services?
This is your best argument? Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so “new and innovative” that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators? Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?
Don’t worry. I know you won’t answer. Bawk.
Re: Re:
Internet retransmission isn’t as innovative as it is just the natural progression of technology. However it’s being retarded by politicians pandering to legacy companies who are desperately trying to turn back the clock of innovation.
Re: Re: Re:
Uh-oh.
“However it’s being retarded”
Well, heavens to Betsy, wash your mouth out, you are now banned from github.
I bet that stings, huh? It should.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The choice of wording was deliberate. Github reminded me of a perfectly good but long forgotten word in my vocabulary.
Re: Re:
I take it you missed this:
I guess when you perceive “theft from precious rights holders” (otherwise known as copyright infringement), you can’t help yourself from going into attack mode even if it’s blatantly clear to others there’s no intent whatsoever to infringe on said rights.
Please grow up. Either that or die screaming in a fire.
Re: Re:
Nice strawman, pity it’s laughably obvious to anyone who actually read the article.
‘That’s important, because it means that the company can just pay Section 111 compulsory fees to the Copyright Office, and then it’s free to stream broadcast (network) TV over the internet.
The TV networks are, not surprisingly, appealing this ruling, but they have a friend in the USTR, which is apparently looking to negotiate away this very possibility in the TPP.‘
If it was only about being paid for the content, then the TV networks/broadcasters would be all for such online services, as it would mean easy money for them. As is obvious however, it’s not, it’s all about killing the competition before it can grow.
Re: Re:
“Bawk” Really, are you five years old?
Re: Re:
Whined the chicken impersonator.
If you’re not going to log in, don’t complain about having your IP address blocked while trolling. You filthy TOR user, you.
Re: Re:
“Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so “new and innovative” that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators?”
What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn’t actually make it right or even smart.
“Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?”
This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike’s comments on them?
Don’t worry, we know you’re a hypocrite who won’t answer.
So Slingbox would be dead?
It's purpose it obvious
To kill standard TV. Given the new media models that will be developed, TV will cease to be a part of it and go away.
Well, that may not be the intent, but we’ve seen “pay us” rules go south before (Google tax in news snippets for instance).
The revolution will not be televised, it will be live. And it will put you in the driver’s seat. If it being broadcast over public airwaves they need to all sit down and shut up or take their ball and go home.
Following this to the inevitable conclusion: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX all dead Netflix, MGO etc. supplants.
Ambiguous meaning?
Read part of the leaked text very carefully:
…without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal.
Arguably, it’s not the broadcaster that owns the content. It’s the one that made the TV show / film that is being broadcast. I wonder if the broadcasters / TV networks realise this?
This is what happens when you put in stupid clauses.
Re: Ambiguous meaning?
It’s one of the reasons why the hand waving in the story doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The text is specific and correct, as it covers both sides of the deal. That is both the signal and it’s content as presented by the station including logos, local news, whatever, and the shows. In order to rebroadcast you would need the permission of both the station and the content creator. In the US, the content creator part is handled via the copyright licensing setup that exists for that purpose.
The clause isn’t stupid at all. It’s very clear.
Re: Re: Ambiguous meaning?
You’re half right, it’s not stupid(protectionist yes, stupid no), it is clear, but it’s also ‘clearly’ aimed squarely at making sure that no online competition to OTA/cable broadcasters can ever get off the ground.
What OTA/cable broadcaster is going to give permission to a company that’s directly competing with them for viewers, at anything other than insane rates, if at all, if they have any choice in the matter?
The offline broadcasters aren’t hampered by the clause, unless at some point they decide to shift their focus to offering their service online, as currently they merely need to pay mandatory, set rates for the content they broadcast. Online services on the other hand would not be so lucky, they would require ‘permission’, and if the rate for that isn’t set and mandatory, you can be sure if it’s granted at all, the rates would be incredibly high, to the point that they would have to charge so much for their service that it could never compete with the offline services.
SOmeday
If they carry on like this with removing rights to do what you want with your purchased items and what you can put on the internet , eventually there is going to be a huge movement to get those rights back, at the moment the majority are all ignorant of what laws are being passed and how it affects them but when the majority realise the powers that have been given to the copyright monopoly, there will be such a big outcry that there is a chance that governments could be overthrown.
This is why it is illegal to know what laws are being passed , as soon as the population knows they will revolt and ensure that the copyright industry is competently disbanded or changed in such a way that the laws are realistic and not made to enable content copyright holders tosteal from consumers.
It is increasingly clear that USTR is a direct and hostile threat far more dangerous to American citizens than any foreign terrorist group.
and yet again, the USA is doing anything and everything it is TOLD TO DO by the entertainment industries, just to preserve things as they are, just to stop anything coming on to thje market, to compete and give the public not just more choice but BETTER CHOICE!” what the hell is wrong with just about every country out there? have all politicians and judges been bribed? can no one see how progress is being stopped, not just slowed but literally stopped, by a bunch of old fuckers with too much time and definitely too much money just to keep things how THEY WANT THEM? come on! haven’t they done enough damage? have they held us back long enough? the advances even in their own industries would have been colossal and earned shed loads of bucks!