Ivi TV

Ivi TV launched in September 2010 as a downloadable app which streamed broadcasts from the big U.S. television networks directly to people’s computers. It worked by taking the live cable feeds from Seattle and New York and rebroadcasting them to subscribers over the Internet.

It sounds illegal, but Ivi TV and its founder Todd Weaver believed they were protected by a passage in the Copyright Act written in the 1970s designed to help and protect fledgling local cable systems.

Not A Cable System

Ivi TV launched a pre-emptive lawsuit against its opponents almost immediately after launch. Those companies, along with a host of others, then sued ivi TV with the sole intention of getting it taken offline and out of business.

This week saw Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York rule in favor of the broadcasters. She stated that ivi TV was not protected by the 1970s law, mainly because the service cannot be classed as a cable system.

Therefore it would need permission from the broadcasters to retransmit their programming. Which it doesn’t have.

Conclusions

I never saw any other outcome than the one now playing out. Ivi TV may have exposed a loophole in the law as it stands, but that didn’t mean it was ever going to be allowed to get away with taking advantage of said loophole for a prolonged period of time.

I’m confident Ivi TV will appeal, and I’m confident of the same result being repeated. The law is completely out of date and needs fixing to take new technology into consideration, but that doesn’t mean those using that new technology are protected.

It’s a shame because Ivi TV was a steal at $4.99-a-month. But in the end it was too good to be true.

YouTube Prank Gone Wrong

Evan Emory is a singer-songwriter and part-time comedian who had an idea for a YouTube video he thought would be funny and could become a hit. Instead, it has led to him being arrested on child sex abuse charges and facing up to 20 years in prison.

Emory gained permission to perform the child-friendly Lunch Lady Song to a class of first-graders in Muskegon, Michigan. Which he duly did. The kids were filmed reacting with delight to the song. When the classroom emptied, Emory performed a different song with explicit lyrics. The two were then spliced together at a later date so that it looked as though the kids had been present for the second song.

The video was uploaded to YouTube (since deleted) where it became an underground hit. Two days later and Emory found himself arrested and treated like a pedophile.

Is This Really A Crime?

Let’s be clear here: Emory did not sing any sexually-themed lyrics to the children. Instead, they watched him perform an entirely innocent song and he then performed the other song to an empty classroom. So what is the crime he had committed? And who is the victim? If the kids aren’t told about what happened then none of them will be any the wiser.

Yes, it was a stupid thing to do, a fact which Emory admits in hindsight. But should this 21-year-old prankster be jailed and condemned as some sort of risk to children for being adept at video editing? Of course not. And the reactions from some people on the issue are preposterous.

Conclusions

If Emory had performed a song about sex to a class of first-graders then he’d deserve some jail time, but even then 20 years would seem extreme. But he didn’t do anything of the sort, making this whole thing a ludicrous example of the law being an ass.

Illegal iTunes Movie Apps

According to BBC News, many old Soviet-era Russian films are available to download and watch via Apple’s iTunes App Store. The only problem is that the original filmmakers and copyright owners haven’t given permission for the films to be distributed in this way, and aren’t seeing any money from them.

The affected titles include Gentlemen of Fortune, Assa, The Diamond Arm, Kin-dza-dza, and Cheburashka. All of which are considered favorites amongst Russians who lived through the Soviet era.

The copyright owners of the titles are film studio Mosfilm and the Joint State Film Collection. Neither of which is involved in the smartphone apps. Apple is investigating.

Criminal or Ignorant?

This is a strange story because Apple is usually very stringent when it comes to deciding what can and cannot be put up for sale on iTunes. Apps have been declined or removed for very slight nudity and other minor indiscretions. But it appears full on movie piracy is acceptable.

The question is whether the people involved in this practice are knowingly breaking the law with criminal intent or rather just a little ignorant to the facts. Vladimir Penshin, a Ukrainian programmer responsible for at least one of these apps, said, “I realize that this is wrong. Maybe I am breaking the law.” He is definitely breaking the law, but doesn’t seem sure.

Penshin added, “Of course, I do not have any license agreement. This is all very simple. The companies, who can have complaints, submit them to Apple and Apple notifies me that they have to withdraw the application.” Because putting the onus on the victim is fair in this case, obviously.

Related Ad

Check out iTunes for yourself for music, movies, and apps

Global Community

Most of you reading this will, at some point in the past, have watched something illegally online. We’re not talking about hardcore pornography here, but normal television programming or a mainstream movie.

The reasons for doing so vary, from price to availability, and just sheer laziness. But a big part of the problem is the way the world is divided up into territories, and each territory gets content at a different time.

That was all well and good years ago, but the Internet has changed things, and made the world a much smaller place where the idea of territorial divisions is falling apart. Unfortunately, the TV and Hollywood studios don’t seem to have realized this. At least for the most part.

Doctor Who On Time For Once

One company that has realized, and adapted as a result, is the BBC, which, according to GigaOM, has reduced the disparity between transmission times around the world of some of its flagship shows in order to counter online piracy.

The example cited is Doctor Who, a show of which U.S. viewers were able to watch the Christmas special just six hours after it premiered on British television. Canada and Australia got the show just one day later. All of which is an improvement on past years.

Richard de Croce, senior VP of programming at BBC America, recently told CNN:

“(American fans) love the shows so much they can’t wait to see them… And that’s the world we live in, in terms of technology, quite honestly. So let’s air these shows as quickly as we can post the UK’s transmission.”

Is it me or is that some good old-fashioned common sense being spouted by a television executive?

Conclusions

The point is that the Internet means the business models of old are no longer sustainable, and it’s only the companies themselves that are fighting to hold onto the past. Viewers are, instead, finding ways of getting the content they want when they want it. And if that means through illegitimate means then so be it.

Related Ad

Buy ‘Doctor Who Season 5 on DVD’ on Amazon

YouTube Vs Viacom

YouTube Vs. Viacom dates back all the way to 2005 when the latter questioned the former over a copyrighted clip that had appeared on the former. The arguments continued for a couple of years before Google acquired YouTube, and Viacom seized its chance to sue for a lot of money.

The case took three years to actually come to court, and when it did so earlier this year, YouTube was victorious. The judge essentially ceded to the safe harbor provision of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), stating that YouTube is protected by that 100 percent.

Viacom obviously disagreed, and the wheels of an appeal were soon set in motion.

Appeal Launched

That appeal was launched on Friday, and Viacom is determined to keep plugging away with the same argument as before. The company is once again alleging that YouTube embraced the posting of copyrighted material in order to help its traffic grow.

Furthermore, Viacom is arguing that the decision to accept the DMCA in this case is flawed, and if the district court’s judgment is upheld, it “would immunize from copyright infringement liability even avowedly piratical Internet businesses.” Which obviously refers to torrent sites and live streaming sites that don’t always stick to the rules.

Conclusions

The problem for Viacom is that YouTube is no longer that kind of site, if ever it was. Had Google not cleaned YouTube up in the way it has thanks to the Content ID system then Viacom would have a point, but the horse has surely bolted, and seeking $1 billion in damages at this point seems way off target.

I cannot see Viacom getting a different result this time, and I hope that is how it turns out. If the safe harbor provision of the DMCA is deemed inadmissible in this case then it could set a dangerous precedent. Which is, I suspect, what Viacom is angling for.

Related Ad

Buy ‘DMCA’ on Amazon to learn about the issues involved.

YouTube Censorship

YouTube has always fought hard to keep the site open and free of censorship, with the question of legality (be it copyright, indecency, or whatever) being the ultimate yardstick with which YouTube has weighed each individual case on.

This has meant upsetting whole countries on some occasions, with Thailand, Pakistan, and China all having banned YouTube because of videos the authorities in those countries found distasteful.

The most recent example saw Turkey re-ban YouTube just days after lifting a two-year ban because videos deemed as offensive to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk were reposted to the site after YouTube reviewed their removal and came out in favor of the original posters.

Anwar al-Awlaki Videos

However, after intense pressure from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic YouTube has removed some, but not all, videos showing speeches and calls for Jihad by Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki is a Muslim cleric who openly calls for a religious uprising against all those who don’t share his faith in Islam. Videos of his hate-filled speeches have been indirectly linked to many violent acts in recent months.

U.S. and British politicians made renewed calls for these videos to be removed from YouTube, and some were removed at the end of last week after YouTube decided they fell under the guidelines prohibiting “dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech, and incitement to commit violent acts.”

A Start, Not An End

There are still thought to be around 5,000 videos on YouTube showing al-Awlaki, and even those removed from the site are still available to watch on other sites around the Web. So the question has to be asked whether this was actually worth it?

If people are determined enough they’ll be able to find whatever they are looking for on the Internet. YouTube is a start, but it isn’t the end.

Related Ad

Buy ‘Internet Censorship: Protecting Citizens or Trampling Freedom?’ on Amazon

And all because a handful of videos have been deemed as offensive to a guy who died 70 years ago, when the Internet was a figment of a futurist’s wet dream.

YouTube Censorship

YouTube isn’t exactly new to this banning malarkey, with various countries having prevented its citizens from accessing the Google-owned site over the past few years.

Thailand banned YouTube after Google refused to remove a clip deemed insulting to its royal family. Pakistan then attempted to block access to the site over a video deemed offensive to Muslims. And China has banned YouTube a number of times, most recently over a video showing violence against Tibetan protesters.

Turkey, however, provides the best story of all, with its on/off/on again banning drama playing out like a particularly cheap soap opera.

Turkey’s On/Off/On Ban

Turkey originally banned YouTube in May 2008 after four videos made it onto the site which the Turkish authorities deemed as offensive to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder and first president of the country.

Google removed the videos from the Turkish site but that wasn’t deemed sufficient, with the courts wanting the videos removed worldwide.

Fast-forward more than two years and the ban was lifted after the videos were removed from the site by “volunteers” working closely with the government who used Google’s copyright protection to do so.

Unfortunately for the Turkish government, Google reposted the videos are deeming that they don’t actually infringe on any copyrights. And so the same court that lifted the ban on Saturday put it back in place on Tuesday (Nov. 2).

Conclusions

This whole YouTube ban is based on four videos deemed to be offensive to a man who has long been in the ground. And for that the Turkish authorities are preventing 70 million people from accessing one of the most popular sites on the Web. Is it me or is this sheer madness?

Related Ad

Buy ‘Turkey: A Modern History’ on Amazon

Is it me or is there something fundamentally wrong here?

Google TV Launches

Google TV launched last week to a bit of a mixed reception. The price of the Logitech Revue set-top box and the range of Sony television sets was a little higher than expected, but the platform as a whole seems to be solid and user-friendly.

All connected TV platforms require one thing to succeed: Content. And that is turning out to be a problem for Google, with three of the four major U.S. networks blocking their content from Google TV for reasons as yet to be detailed.

ABC, CBS, NBC, Hulu Block Google TV

Google TV users cannot view content from the ABC, CBS, NBC, or Hulu websites, as they are all blocking (or attempting to block) viewers from doing so via the new living room devices.

MTV, Fox, CNBC, and HBO are all still working through Google TV, with these sites actually having been optimized to work on the service. Google acknowledged the problem but insisted it couldn’t do anything about it, stating:

“Google TV enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owners’ choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform.”

Google is apparently in talks to have these blocks removed but the networks will likely make them jump through hoops before they’ll even consider reinstating access.

This is a bizarre situation as Google isn’t yet adding any additional layers of advertising to the content from these sites. So anyone watching through Google TV would, given the chance, see the networks’ own advertising. Which is profitable to the networks.

Conclusions

We, and Google, should have seen this coming, because the networks were always likely to rally against a device which could one day help break the traditional broadcasting and advertising model up completely. Especially as Hulu had already blocked Boxee.

I guess I was convinced the networks would see the light, realize the direction their industry is heading in, and decide they want to be a part of it rather than sit on the sidelines watching as viewers switch off in increasing numbers. But I was obviously wrong.

Related Ad

Buy a ‘Logitech Revue Google TV set-top box’ on Amazon

[Via The Wall Street Journal]

YouView

YouView is the recently-appointed name for what was conceived as Project Canvas. In turn, Project Canvas was born out of the remnants of Project Kangaroo, which was shuttered by the Competition Commission after objections from BSkyB and Virgin Media.

YouView is a new connected-TV platform backed by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, TalkTalk, BT, Arqiva, and Channel 5, and supported by at least 40 more organizations. All of which want a piece of the living room IPTV pie.

BSkyB Object… Late

Just a few days before Ofcom was set to rule whether it would be launching an investigation into YouView, BSkyB lodged a complaint. The Rupert Murdoch-owned satellite television company claims YouView threatens competition in the nascent IPTV market.

Ofcom will now have to reconsider taking the new evidence into consideration. And with Sky’s complaint added to those by several other companies and organizations, including Virgin Media, an investigation seems likely.

YouView Responds

YouView CEO Richard Halton responded to the last-ditch objection by stating:

“While we welcome justifiable scrutiny, the timing of this submission is clearly designed to extend the regulatory process in pursuit of commercial self-interest rather than the public interest. We remain committed to creating a viable, subscription-free alternative to meet consumer needs and stimulate the market.”

“YouView will create competition among TV platforms and increase the range and number of opportunities for content providers and device manufacturers. We encourage Ofcom to take this wider view as they continue their consideration.”

I completely agree with Halton’s logical summation of the facts in this case. BSkyB has acted cynically to try and delay the process, and consequently the eventual release of YouView.

But those involved with YouView are confident they have created a platform with enough flexibility to ensure they can respond to any criticisms without canning the whole project.

Conclusions

I don’t think BSkyB’s objection has any basis in fact. YouView is inclusive rather than exclusive and Sky’s only real problem with it is that it’s free to viewers. If YouView were to take off then it’s likely to increase cord-cutting in the U.K. Which will obviously harm Sky’s business. But that surely means it’s competitive rather than anti-competitive.

[Via The Guardian]

Ivi TV

Ivi TV is a new service from Seattle-based Ivi that launched just a couple of weeks ago. And lawsuits are already flying around all over the place.

The ivi TV app, which can be downloaded here, allows anyone around the world to watch the big U.S. networks (and some smaller channels too) live over the Internet for just $4.99 per month (after the 30-day free trial period ends).

Ivi TV effectively hijacks the live feeds of these broadcasts from cable affiliates in Seattle and New York and rebroadcasts them across the Web directly to people computers.

Although it sounds illegal, and will probably end up being judged to be so, ivi claims it is merely taking advantage of a loophole in the law.

Broadcasters Issue Lawsuit

As soon as ivi TV launched, several U.S. networks and channels issued cease-and-desist letters to the company. In response ivi then launched a pre-emptive lawsuit against the rights holders to try and secure a legal ruling that it isn’t breaking any copyright laws as they stand.

A week later and those same rights holders have issued a lawsuit aimed at taking ivi TV down. In all 14 affected companies have banded together to sue ivi, including those named in the title, MLB, Univision, Telemundo, Cox Media, and others.

The complaint, filed in New York federal court, accuses Ivi and its founder Todd Weaver of copyright infringement. Ivi is sticking to its guns and claiming the service isn’t doing anything illegal.

Legal Positioning

Ivi’s argument is that ivi TV is protected by merely re-transmitting the broadcasts without modifying them in any way. And as long as the company pays the appropriate fees to the U.S. Copyright Office, which can then be paid to the networks, it is doing nothing wrong.

Weaver said:

“Broadcasters fought against cable companies, then joined them. Broadcasters then fought against satellite companies, then joined them. Now it is our turn. History has a habit of repeating itself — and it is unfortunate they cannot learn from that and realize we strongly support broadcasters and their program suppliers, helping them monetize, increase their eyeballs, and ultimately get paid.”

“Ivi is not another Pirate Bay or Napster trying to gain from others’ works. Rather, Ivi wishes to work with content owners in helping them to realize new revenue streams and reach more viewers from around the globe.”

The problem is that history tells us ivi TV won’t last long. iCraveTV was shut down in 2000, and RecordTV followed suit in 2001. Both were offering services similar to ivi TV and both were sure they were protected by the law. They weren’t.

Conclusions

Weaver spent three years developing ivi TV, so he’s either really stupid or super-confident that it’s operating legally. I just cannot see ivi TV coming through this unscathed. Which is a shame because the service could provide a template for the next stage of online TV.

[Via PC World]