U.S. Judge Says Internet Streaming Service Should Be Treated Like Cable

[jos]

A U.S. judge ruled on Thursday that online television service FilmOn X should be treated like a traditional cable system in order to transmit the programs of the nation’s broadcasters over the Internet.Broadcasters have been aggressively litigating against such services, contending they violate their copyrights and threaten their ability to generate advertising and control subscription fees. U.S. District Judge George Wu in Los Angeles said in his ruling that FilmOn X is entitled to a compulsory license under the Copyright Act to retransmit the broadcasters’ programs if it meets the law’s requirements.In a statement, Fox Networks said the opinion “contravenes all legal precedent” and vowed to appeal. The dispute stems from two lawsuits that Fox, Walt Disney’s ABC network, CBS, Comcast’s NBCUniversal and several others filed against FilmOn X in 2012.

I think in UK they consider it as broadcast. Streaming I TV in UK online pops out a message which states you should be paying TV licence fee to watch this.. And you can click- I am paying and watch.. Streaming services wants this to happen. while cable companies are against it.

Source : http://recode.net/2015/07/16/u-s-judge-says-internet-streaming-service-should-be-treated-like-cable/

[Vanderburg]

I don't get TV licenses. Pay BBC to watch stuff not from the BBC?

[jos]

I don't get TV licenses. Pay BBC to watch stuff not from the BBC?

It is displayed first time you connect ..once agreed it wont pop up again... I dont know if they changed that now..I use direct site

[Guest]

But we're already paying for internet...

[jos]

But we're already paying for internet...

In UK you need to.. Other places I dont know

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

[ShadowCaptain]

I don't get TV licenses. Pay BBC to watch stuff not from the BBC?

 

If you have access to BBC TV you have to pay the licence whether you actually watch it or not

[Toddwjp]

If you have access to BBC TV you have to pay the licence whether you actually watch it or not

True but it's just a weird funding model they have, I'd rather them fund the BBC through general taxation,

[ShadowCaptain]

True but it's just a weird funding model they have, I'd rather them fund the BBC through general taxation,

 

Its weird yes, but putting it in taxes is unfair as not everyone has a TV etc

[HalGameGuru]

Well they could always go PBS with endowments and the support of "Viewers like you" but I doubt the majority of Britons want the BBC changed like that.

 

As for Internet TV I've never really liked equating it to broadcast, its not being blasted across the airwaves, its not even being blasted across a closed wired network, its being accessed and requested by stream viewers/subscribers. I just don't think it's something that necessarily needs to be shoehorned in with anything else.

[Doobeedoo]

I don't even understand why do people pay for TV subscription model. I don't have TV for almost a decade, and when this digital signal and all other crap started for them I laughed. Paying to watch TV is stupid. Simple put.

[Trik'Stari]

I wonder how much this judge was paid under the table to come out with this bullshit ruling.

 

Edit: I was incorrect. This is in fact a GOOD thing.

[Techhog]

Yay for old people using old people logic

[sof006]

I don't get TV licenses. Pay BBC to watch stuff not from the BBC?

I know right.... I don't own a TV only a monitor with HDMI inputs. I will not own a TV licence.

[ChineseChef]

I don't understand, is this ruling good or bad?  I am seeing both reactions here.  

 

I was assuming it was good since the major networks disliked the ruling, but then people started saying it was a bad ruling.  Am I missing something?

[othertomperson]

I think in UK they consider it as broadcast. Streaming I TV in UK online pops out a message which states you should be paying TV licence fee to watch this.. And you can click- I am paying and watch.. Streaming services wants this to happen. while cable companies are against it.

 

Um as far as I know ITV doesn't require a licence of any kind to watch online -- the TV licence only funds the BBC. Even on BBC iPlayer the TV licence is only needed to watch broadcast TV in real time -- you do not need it for any of their on demand services.

 

I don't mind the TV licence tbh. The BBC is the only company that's actually making decent new content and not just buying stuff from HBO. If I watched TV it would basically be exclusively stuff from the BBC now Game of Thrones has gotten so awful.

[Toddwjp]

Its weird yes, but putting it in taxes is unfair as not everyone has a TV etc

I suppose what they could do is run it as a subscription service but also make it so sky, virgin etc have to include it in there packages and have to give the BBC a cut of money, so if you just want BBC you get BBC, if you want sky you get the BBC as well and pay that way, thus it would be easier to police then the current license fee.

[ShadowCaptain]

I suppose what they could do is run it as a subscription service but also make it so sky, virgin etc have to include it in there packages and have to give the BBC a cut of money, so if you just want BBC you get BBC, if you want sky you get the BBC as well and pay that way, thus it would be easier to police then the current license fee.

 

That makes sense

[Robin88]

I don't get TV licenses. Pay BBC to watch stuff not from the BBC?

At the moment you don't have to pay the TV license for streamed content, even on the BBC iPlayer you don't have to pay a TV license to watch the content on there, the law will change soon though. But yes, paying the TV license is stupid if you don't watch BBC stuff, but a lot of content on other channels is paid for from the license fee or was originally broadcast on the BBC, so the only way to effectively police a TV license is to make sure everyone pays for it, and it sucks.

Although having said that, the license does pay for the local BBC run radio stations, rights to some shows and channels from America, and pays for the upkeep of all the broadcasting houses in the UK and of course pays for the TV service, and a license covers you no matter where you are and no matter on what device you use to watch TV or listen to radio, and it hasn't increased in price for at least 5 years now, so it isn't that bad of a deal, oh and if you have multiple people in a household you only pay once a year and it covers those people so long as they continue to live at that address (Obviously people in flats have to pay a license per flat, but for a family, you only pay it once per year)

It also means that adverts are not a thing on BBC channels, the only advertisements on the BBC are for BBC's own stuff, and there's never more than 3 minutes of adverts per break, it's also not expensive in the grand scheme of things, £145 a year for a colour TV license, which compared to the cost of a streaming service subscription is actually not bad, Netflix is about £72 a year, and only covers you for 1 device, the TV license is £145 a year and covers you and everyone in your household for any device and any free-to-air channel and radio broadcast for 1 year.

[jos]

At the moment you don't have to pay the TV license for streamed content, even on the BBC iPlayer you don't have to pay a TV license to watch the content on there, the law will change soon though. But yes, paying the TV license is stupid if you don't watch BBC stuff, but a lot of content on other channels is paid for from the license fee or was originally broadcast on the BBC, so the only way to effectively police a TV license is to make sure everyone pays for it, and it sucks.

Although having said that, the license does pay for the local BBC run radio stations, rights to some shows and channels from America, and pays for the upkeep of all the broadcasting houses in the UK and of course pays for the TV service, and a license covers you no matter where you are and no matter on what device you use to watch TV or listen to radio, and it hasn't increased in price for at least 5 years now, so it isn't that bad of a deal, oh and if you have multiple people in a household you only pay once a year and it covers those people so long as they continue to live at that address (Obviously people in flats have to pay a license per flat, but for a family, you only pay it once per year)

It also means that adverts are not a thing on BBC channels, the only advertisements on the BBC are for BBC's own stuff, and there's never more than 3 minutes of adverts per break, it's also not expensive in the grand scheme of things, £145 a year for a colour TV license, which compared to the cost of a streaming service subscription is actually not bad, Netflix is about £72 a year, and only covers you for 1 device, the TV license is £145 a year and covers you and everyone in your household for any device and any free-to-air channel and radio broadcast for 1 year.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

[Robin88]

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

I'm 100% certain I read that the law for the TV license does not cover streaming, that's why the law is going to change soon, I even read that on BBC's website, I'll see if I can find the link, but afaik the TV license law has not been updated yet to cover streaming, and are trying to scare people with that notice.

Sorry, I misread the original link, for live broadcast content you do need a TV license, but for stuff that is not being live broadcast you don't need a TV license currently, I stand corrected ^__^;

 

[dalekphalm]

I don't even understand why do people pay for TV subscription model. I don't have TV for almost a decade, and when this digital signal and all other crap started for them I laughed. Paying to watch TV is stupid. Simple put.

Where do you get your content from then? Direct from each broadcasters website? (Eg: ABC.com, BBC.com, Sky.com, etc)

 

How do you expect content providers to afford to pay for content if there is not some sort of payment model in place?

 

Free over the air TV is paid via Ads, but we all know that most tech-savvy internet users hate ads, and many will adblock even YouTube.

 

So who is going to pay for the content?

 

In my opinion, the Netflix model is pretty much the best - a very reasonable monthly subscription fee that gives you wide access to many different movies and shows from across all kinds of broadcasters.

[KirbyTech]

Its weird yes, but putting it in taxes is unfair as not everyone has a TV etc

But not everyone watches the BBC so wouldn't that be unfair still as well?

[marldorthegreat]

I don't get TV licenses. Pay BBC to watch stuff not from the BBC?

If you dont live in the UK you dont understand how important the BBC is and how integreal it is to our way of life. The BBC is truely publicy owned and it gives the british people a sense of possession. And we dont pay that much anyways, the bbc only has a budget of 2.5 billion, which is very small. Considering one season of game of thrones costs a quarter of this. It is a beacon for excellence in television, as its shows are small budget, but have a massive impact. We pay TV licenses, but that means 0 adverts something which we cherish in the UK

But not everyone watches the BBC so wouldn't that be unfair still as well?

Almost everyone does. We dont have many major channels like you do In canada, we have 3 networks that have 95% market share. The bbc being the biggest. 

[Murdoch]

 

If you dont live in the UK you dont understand how important the BBC is and how integreal it is to our way of life. The BBC is truely publicy owned and it gives the british people a sense of possession. And we dont pay that much anyways, the bbc only has a budget of 2.5 billion, which is very small. Considering one season of game of thrones costs a quarter of this. It is a beacon for excellence in television, as its shows are small budget, but have a massive impact. We pay TV licenses, but that means 0 adverts something which we cherish in the UK

Almost everyone does. We dont have many major channels like you do In canada, we have 3 networks that have 95% market share. The bbc being the biggest. 

 

It's revenue is closer to £5 billion, with £3.8 billion of that coming from the TV licence. Sky has a revenue of about £7.6 billion.

 

The BBC is certainly not small. I agree with it's importance, but the key question is does it need to be of importance going forward, considering the options available out there and the competition it faces from commercial rivals. This is about the only policy I agree with the conservatives on, the BBC should be shrunk, and new funding models should be considered, the TV licence is archaic.

[ShadowCaptain]

But not everyone watches the BBC so wouldn't that be unfair still as well?

 

But they have access to it, which is how its determined