dslreports logo
 story category
Court Orders That Ivi Be Shut Down
Doesn't Buy Ivi's Argument That It Exists In Legal Loophole

Last fall a Seattle-based start-up company called Ivi released a broadband-powered software-based TV service they called "highly disruptive." AT $4.95 a month they were probably right -- it just wasn't clear for how long. Using what the company calls "technicalities in the copyright law," Ivi offers programming from all the major networks without permission, though it claims they'll forward royalty payments on to broadcasters. As you might expect, 40 big broadcasters including all major networks took Ivi to court -- and this week a court ruled (pdf) in their favored and ordered Ivi shut down.

Click for full size
According to the court, Ivi's logic that it fit in a giant copyright loophole in between the Communications and Copyright Acts didn't hold water. Ivi had argued that it was a cable system under the Copyright Act, allowing it to rebroadcast TV signals provided ivi paid a small fee to the U.S. Copyright Office, but that it wasn't defined as a cable outfit under the Communications Act -- thereby freeing it from the jurisdiction of the FCC.

The Judge in question essentially just argued that Ivi can't do that, despite the fact the wonky wording of the law does appear to leave the door open to Ivi's argument. Still, the court ruled that the company is in violation of broadcasters' copyrights. Ivi's CEO Todd Weaver issued a statement saying Ivi would appeal the ruling, while continuing to argue that they exist in a jurisdictional black hole that makes operation legal:
quote:
Specifically, regarding today’s development, Judge Buchwald’s opinion is premised on her statement that ivi is ‘not complying with the rules and regulations of the FCC’. This conclusion is simply false, as ivi has met with all the commisioner’s offices of the FCC repeatedly and have never heard anything from them about being in violation of any rule or regulation. Judge Buchwald makes the legal mistake of misinterpreting the copyright law to instead make communications policy. Communications policy is the province of the FCC and, by basing a judicial copyright decision on communications regulations to be administered by the FCC, the judge is overstepping her constitutional authority.
Many people of course don't see the point in a business model that charges people to watch over the air TV, and it's very likely that the company would have folded without legal intervention.
view:
topics flat nest 

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD

Anon

No permission, no dice....

What did they expect, really? Not that they should have expected to get permission, but did they not learn 'mommy may I...?' when they were little??
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: No permission, no dice....

Easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission maybe? I don't imagine anyone saw this initiative succeeding with exception of maybe the CEO.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer

Member

Re: No permission, no dice....

I'm not a lawyer but it seems pretty clear that the law, the intent of Congress, and court precedents all suggest that what Ivi attempted is copyright infringement.
gworkman
join:2005-10-18
Las Vegas, NV

gworkman

Member

Bummer-but no surprise

The PQ wasn't good enough to watch sports so the only thing I found myself watching was ME and ME-TOO out of Chicago. A fun toy to have while it lasted, but there's no way the NAB was going to let this go on for long.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

can't have it both ways.

In her ruling, Buchwald writes:

“In other words, defendants argue that ivi is a cable system for purposes of the Copyright Act, and thus may take advantage of the compulsory license, but that it is not a cable system for purposes of the Communications Act, and thus it need not comply with the requirements of that Act and the rules of the FCC promulgated thereunder.”

It seems ivi wants it both ways. Either your a cable company or not.
MartyT
join:2004-09-03
Georgetown, SC

MartyT

Member

How about ustvnow.com?

I can watch broadcast TV for "FREE" on my iPhone and Roku box using »www.ustvnow.com/. All the content appears to originate from Harrisburg PA.

Wonder if they will be around long? They say they are for American citizens living abroad, but I live in South Carolina and can watch from here. They also offer standard cable TV channels.

dman
@comcastbusiness.net

dman

Anon

Re: How about ustvnow.com?

How did this work for you? I just tried to register and it denied me due to my ip address being in the US. I really would love this for my phone.

Cito
join:2008-09-22
Quitman, GA

Cito

Member

Re: How about ustvnow.com?

use this

»www.daveproxy.co.uk

free proxy from the UK you can bounce off of it and it masks your ip address as if you were coming from the UK

just registered for that ustvnow.com bouncing through the UK proxy and it worked

otherwise just use »icefilms.info it's totally free and has all tv shows/movies/etc

steelingbox
join:2005-07-09
Casselberry, FL

steelingbox to MartyT

Member

to MartyT
How are you watching this on your Roku? I went to the website and was told i had a banned ip address because i live in the USA. Is there a code to enter into the roku?

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to 88615298

MVM

to 88615298

Re: can't have it both ways.

said by 88615298:

It seems ivi wants it both ways. Either your a cable company or not.

I don't think it's that IVI wants it both ways, rather it wants it one way but the other way doesn't apply to them.

I'm curious as to what grounds ivi would fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC as far as their laws/regulations are concerned.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

In her ruling, Buchwald writes:

“In other words, defendants argue that ivi is a cable system for purposes of the Copyright Act, and thus may take advantage of the compulsory license, but that it is not a cable system for purposes of the Communications Act, and thus it need not comply with the requirements of that Act and the rules of the FCC promulgated thereunder.”

It seems ivi wants it both ways. Either your a cable company or not.

That killed them and the CEO of ivi trying to play the martyr role wasn't making it either. His business plan had a big hole in it and losing was inevitable.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Business model

"Many people of course don't see the point in a business model that charges people to watch over the air TV,"

Really? This is how Cable TV was started and for many years this is what kept them going. There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging to deliver OTA TV just like there is nothing wrong with selling and buying bottled water. You pay for the convenience and aesthetics of not having to deal with setting up an antenna.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Business model

said by fifty nine:

"Many people of course don't see the point in a business model that charges people to watch over the air TV,"

Really? This is how Cable TV was started and for many years this is what kept them going. There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging to deliver OTA TV just like there is nothing wrong with selling and buying bottled water. You pay for the convenience and aesthetics of not having to deal with setting up an antenna.

Sure you can sell access to OTA tv IF you have permission. ivi didn't. Pretty simple.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: Business model

said by 88615298:

Sure you can sell access to OTA tv IF you have permission. ivi didn't. Pretty simple.

Don't people read or do they just post to post? Fifty nine quoted what he was replying to, which was only, "Many people of course don't see the point in a business model that charges people to watch over the air TV."
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Business model

said by vpoko:

said by 88615298:

Sure you can sell access to OTA tv IF you have permission. ivi didn't. Pretty simple.

Don't people read or do they just post to post? Fifty nine quoted what he was replying to, which was only, "Many people of course don't see the point in a business model that charges people to watch over the air TV."

Do you post to just complain about others postings or to actually contribute?

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

1 recommendation

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: Business model

said by 88615298:

Do you post to just complain about others postings or to actually contribute?

Do you post just to question why other people post? We can do this all day!

But seriously, yes, sometimes I do just post to complain about someone's post, if that post was stupid enough to warrant it.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
The tv distribution networks in Canada (primarily cable) did this for years.

Pull the channels out of the air, and delivered it to you via cable.
Good money maker if you ask me.

ivishouldwin
@myfairpoint.net

ivishouldwin

Anon

Judge paid off

The judge was paid to say exactly what they said. Without explanation, the simple comment of "You just can't do that" without backing up exactly why in the same sentence is simply not constitutional. Judges can not make up rules, and IVI is current in their statement that they are operating under the context of a cable company while not having to file regulations with the FCC.

I never pay for cable or sat tv. I support the new startups like netflix and ivi. They make sense. They save money instead of gouging us of our hard earned money.

You have 1 TV and pay $57 per month for a cable service but you can only watch 1 channel at a time. You have to purchase "packages" of channels in a tier group.

Comcast is a perfect example of robbery, and this happens each year they are denied an increase of cable fees. You like to watch TV right? You know how they are pushing the digital boxes at you? Did you know they can tell exactly what you watch and when? They do a qrtly average of the shift in the habits of its viewers and do what they call a channel slide!

So for example you are currently paying $57.95 per month for cable and you get Spike TV as one of your tier channels. What if you watch that channel all the time. What if 45% of the public does the same thing in the same area, they pay $57.95 and watch spike TV.

Guess what happens then, Comcast will do a channel slide based on the watching habits of its users and will change Spike TV and move it into another TIER group. While Comcast knows you watch other channels in the current tier, it forces you to do two things. 1: give up the Spike TV, or two, buy the next tear for $9.99 more per month (or more) and wallah.. Instant increase in cable cost!!

So now you know why I hate cable TV and TV providers in general. Subscribe to Netflix, watch free shows on ABC.com, fancast.com... There is plenty to watch that is free, with very little if any commercials.

If the BIG TV companies were worried about what you were watching (seeing its available in all states anyways), and protecting their advertisers investments, then they need to be a little more proactive in providing companies like IVI with a way to tap in and use the signal.

Corporate GREED my friends, CORPORATE GREED!

I am happy with my netflix, and my ABC and HULU. I pay no more than $18 bucks per month to watch EVERYthing I ever wanted to watch that would be on the way too expensive cable box!
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Bakersfield, CA

kd6cae

Member

Why can't I watch out of area stations if I wish?

I do not understand why if I wish to watch an out of market
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Why can't I watch out of area stations if I wish?

Because the copyright holders choose not to let you? Probably dilutes their advertising revenue when they lose the ability to target specific markets.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to kd6cae

Member

to kd6cae
It's not illegal to watch just illegal to distribute without permission of both the network and your local affiliates.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: Why can't I watch out of area stations if I wish?

It is the same deal as internet radio. OTA radio broadcasts for free but internet radio has to pay royalties for the same music.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Why can't I watch out of area stations if I wish?

Regarding the subject: I think it has to do with rules setup for cable operators many years ago. As cable gained popularity, OTA broadcasters feared cable would bring in network channels from the big metro areas (NY, CHI, LA) and compete for their local viewers. The government stepped in and said cable operators must offer the local affiliates and not bring in like network affiliates from other markets.