LOCAST Receives Unfavorable Court Rulling

[lryrob9301]

Locast TV was given an unfavorable court ruling today for future re-broadcast:


Locast Nation
In the big media companies' lawsuit against Locast, the court just issued a disappointing ruling. We are evaluating our options and will keep you posted as the situation develops.

Here is what our legal team had to say:
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
"We are disappointed that the court ruled against Locast on its copyright defense. The court interpreted the law in an artificially narrow way. Congress wrote copyright’s nonprofit retransmission exception to make sure that every American has access to their local broadcast stations, and expanding access is exactly what Locast does. This ruling that nonprofit retransmitters can’t use viewer contributions to expand access will do the opposite of what Congress intended. Over 3 million people use Locast to access local TV, including many who can’t afford cable and can’t pick up their local stations with an antenna. This ruling threatens their access to local news and vital information during a global pandemic and a season of unprecedented natural disasters. And it treats copyright law not as an engine of progress but a moat protecting the privileged position of the four giant broadcasting networks."
R. David Hosp, Partner Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe:
"We are disappointed in the ruling today and disagree with its conclusions and reasoning. Our client is in the process of evaluating the decision and formulating next steps. Locast provides a valuable service to its over 3 million users who are otherwise unable to access the over-the-air broadcasts to which they are entitled by virtue of their location or economic circumstances. Our client remains committed to its mission of delivering free, local broadcast TV service to all Americans, and particularly for those consumers who can’t afford pay-TV services like cable, satellite, or streaming, or who can’t get their local broadcast channels using an over-the-air antenna."

[lryrob9301]

Update LOCAST has ceased operations.

Locast Nation

As a non-profit, Locast was designed from the very beginning to operate in accordance with the strict letter of the law, but in response to the court’s recent rulings, with which we respectfully disagree, we are hereby suspending operations, effective immediately.


Thank you.

[bgum]

Ain't no free lunch. Some way Some how someone pays the freight. Look at PBS. Payed for by tax dollars and donations. Checkout the salary of Some of their employees. You won't think they're nonprofit.
I repeat If you use something it cost to produce then you should chip in to help pay for it.

[valhalla360]

Dutch_12078 wrote:
TV/radio stations don't CHOOSE to provide free OTA transmission, it's a requirement of their licenses to use the public airways.

Sure it is. They CHOOSE to provide free OTA if they want to use the public airwaves.

They choose a different model when sent over cable/internet.

[NamMedevac_70]

LOCAST provides no local TV stations in my area so I won't miss it.

[1492]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

Did you miss this part of the pertinent law? "...without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service."
(emphasis added)

Locast has dropped the 15 minute donation pleas though, at least during the legal proceedings.

I think you hit on the key issue. It was not the copyright question driving the ruling, but the method Locast used to get the funds they need to support (or expand) their service. Non-profits have to be cautious not to appear operating like a for profit organization.

Perhaps it would be better not to offer any free streaming version, but require all users to pay annual membership fee for access to defray their costs? Though this won't necessarily prevent filing lawsuits to kill the service.

[bdpreece]

Locast's "FREE" transmission is almost unusable. Unless you agree to "DONATE" at least $5 a month plus a 50 cent handling fee the interruptions are so long and so often as to make viewing almost unusable. I originally signed up just to get network news but found it so difficult to watch that they sucked me in to the $5.50 donation. I would hate to loose them but, they are definitely in it for the money.

[Dutch_12078]

Mel Stuplich wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you are using what they paid to produce then you should pay them for that use.

How much should we pay for over the air reception?
The original concept was that advertising revenue paid the expenses and community antenna/cable systems expanded the reach of that advertising.

OTA, (Over The Air), TV reception is FREE but you do have to buy,(pay for), for the TV set and some sort of TV antenna.

Which is no different than any other way of receiving TV signals. They're really hard to watch without a TV... 😉

[Dutch_12078]

valhalla360 wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you are using what they paid to produce then you should pay them for that use.

How much should we pay for over the air reception? The original concept was that advertising revenue paid the expenses and community antenna/cable systems expanded the reach of that advertising.

The difference is they CHOOSE to provide free over the air transmission.

Once you start transmitting via other methods, those costs have to be covered along with copyright payments up and down the production line.

TV/radio stations don't CHOOSE to provide free OTA transmission, it's a requirement of their licenses to use the public airways. And non-profit signal translators have been around for many years. What Locast is doing differently from other translators is in how they "rebroadcast" the OTA signals via the Internet to reach a larger audience within the stations DMA.

[Dutch_12078]

thestoloffs wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:
This is the provision of 17 USC 111 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable) that Locast believes they fall under as an IRS recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit {snip}

But, even though they are organized as a 501(c)(3), the LOCAST user is directed on their sign-up page to indicate their level of "monthly contribution". If you don't select one of those levels, you're directed to see if you qualify for a low-income discount in order to view.

To me, it might be netting out as a Non-Profit LLC, but to be one of its viewers, you're still paying LOCAST. That constitutes paying for programming, which is what appears to be the justification for this court ruling.

Did you miss this part of the pertinent law? "...without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service."
(emphasis added)

Locast has dropped the 15 minute donation pleas though, at least during the legal proceedings.

[srt20]

Its all about greed!

Yet they wonder why so many ppl cut the cord and find "other free ways" of watching tv, sports, movies, etc.....

[thestoloffs]

Dutch_12078 wrote:
This is the provision of 17 USC 111 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable) that Locast believes they fall under as an IRS recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit {snip}

But, even though they are organized as a 501(c)(3), the LOCAST user is directed on their sign-up page to indicate their level of "monthly contribution". If you don't select one of those levels, you're directed to see if you qualify for a low-income discount in order to view.

To me, it might be netting out as a Non-Profit LLC, but to be one of its viewers, you're still paying LOCAST. That constitutes paying for programming, which is what appears to be the justification for this court ruling.

[Mel_Stuplich]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

bgum wrote:
If you are using what they paid to produce then you should pay them for that use.

How much should we pay for over the air reception?
The original concept was that advertising revenue paid the expenses and community antenna/cable systems expanded the reach of that advertising.

OTA, (Over The Air), TV reception is FREE but you do have to buy,(pay for), for the TV set and some sort of TV antenna.

[valhalla360]

ferndaleflyer wrote:
As a kid I remember the reason for cable was it provided commercial free TV. That soon went out the window. Now 1/2 the broadcast time is consumed by commercials and 1/4 of your screen is taken over by that mess running on the bottom. Its commercial progress

When did your major networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) omit commercials when received thru cable?

I only recall the premium channels (HBO, Cinemax) omitting commercials and in large part they still do.

[monkey44]

bgum wrote:
If you are using what they paid to produce then you should pay them for that use.

Too much is too much though ... every few minutes, bombarding us. And we do pay, we pay for cable or satellite so they can show us the product. IF the ad convinces us to buy the product, we pay for it, if not we don't - it's on them to convince, not us.

Nothing is more annoying than: Right at an action scene - We'll be right back, after the break - or during a baseball game, cut our Big Screen in half and post some AD scene, again and again. Believe this, if I want something, I know where to get it. AND, if the AD didn't convince me the first time, it's not gonna convince me the next ten times either - more likely, it will make us buy a different brand.

And, I didn't buy a big screen TV, so a portion of it could devote part of itself to that same bombardment of messages from 'sponsors'. I understand, ADs, we see them between segments of 'free' TV. But now, it's pretty much a constant - including that band across the bottom.

Wife and I have nearly quit watching anything. We do subscribe to some apps, and pay the fee to get uninterrupted movies.