More Media Dial-Up Citations

Relax in southern comfort on the east bank of the Mississippi. You're just around the corner from Beale Street and Sun Records. Watch the ducks, throw back a few and tell us what's on your mind.
User avatar
mediatechnology
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas
Contact:

ivi TV's Retranmission of OTA Broadcasts

Post by mediatechnology » Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:52 am

This is getting real interesting. Just found this Intellectual Property Law Blog site discussing ivi TV's retransmission of over-the-air broadcasts: Media Revolutionary or Copyright Infringer?

The authors write:
In 1999, the same New York federal court now hearing the broadcasters’ and copyright owners’ lawsuit against ivi denied the “passive carrier” exemption to a company called Media Dial-Up. See Infinity Broadcasting Corporation v. Wayne Kirkwood d/b/a Media Dial-Up 63 F. Supp. 2d 420 (1999). Media Dial-Up retransmitted radio broadcasts in remote cities via telephone to its customers who paid a fee for access. Even though Media Dial-Up met all of the factors that would entitle it to be classified as a passive carrier and enjoy the safe harbor of 17 USC 111(a)(3) – no control over the selection of the primary transmission, no control over the recipients of the secondary transmission and the provision of wires, cables or communication channels for the use of others - the court refused to classify Media Dial-Up as a “carrier.” The court stated that to construe the word “carrier” in such a way “would do a violence to a fundamental premise of the [Copyright Act].” ”In an era of rapid technological change,“ the court wrote, “possibilities for the capture and retransmission of copyrighted material over the Internet . . . are enormous.” The court stated that classifying Media Dial-Up as a passive carrier “would threaten considerable mischief.” The court called this the “common sense” view of the statute. While this case undoubtedly weighs against ivi, we believe that the holding may suffer from flawed analysis. In our view, having met all of the elements of 17 USC 111(a)(3), Medial Dial-Up should have been classified as a passive carrier. In the court’s view, the “practical consequences” outweighed literal application of the law. Emphasis added.
Yes, considerable mischief. ;)

Ironic that this case would be argued in the SDNY. Maybe judge Kaplan will hear it.

User avatar
mediatechnology
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas
Contact:

Cited In Fox News Network v TVEyes

Post by mediatechnology » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:17 am

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/i ... te_opn.pdf

Judge Kaplan ruled on this one as well.
I've been down this road before.
TVEyes and I made it to the same point losing in the 2nd Circuit.
Looks like TV Eyes is going to appeal to SCOTUS.

One significant difference is that I did not record the transmissions only relaying them.
TVEyes records and indexes in near real-time.
Media Dial-Up was ephemeral, TVEyes is persistent. That's a huge difference.
SCOTUS may not give them a writ of certiorari and hear the case.

Gold
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:20 pm

Re: More Media Dial-Up Citations

Post by Gold » Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:30 pm

Fascinating. I had no idea.

Post Reply