US Pushing To Kill Any Future Aereo With TPP

from the another-favor-for-hollywood dept

Just a few weeks ago, we were somewhat surprised to see a court rule in favor of FilmOn, an Aereo-clone, arguing that contrary to what was found in the Aereo case, FilmOn's internet streaming of network TV should be seen as the equivalent of a cable channel. That's important, because it means that the company can just pay Section 111 compulsory fees to the Copyright Office, and then it's free to stream broadcast (network) TV over the internet.

The TV networks are, not surprisingly, appealing this ruling, but they have a friend in the USTR, which is apparently looking to negotiate away this very possibility in the TPP. In the just leaked copyright chapter (from May, before the latest round), there's a provision pitched by the US that would demand no country allow any retransmission of TV on the internet without permission:
If you can't see that, it says:
[US/SG/PE propose: CL/VN/MY/NZ/MX/CA/BN/JP oppose: No Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal [SG oppose: and, if any, of the signal].
Once again, the USTR shows that its purpose in these negotiations appears to be to carry water for the legacy industry and against new and innovative services. How is it helping American industry to oppose new innovative services?

Filed Under: internet, retransmission, streaming, tpp, tv, ustr
Companies: aereo, filmon

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    JMT (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 6:36pm


    "Why are services that simply retransmit the OTA broadcasts of others so "new and innovative" that they should be excused from violating the rights of creators?"

    What orifice did you pull that strawman argument out of? Did you completely miss the bit where Aereo agreed to pay rebroadcasting fees and were still killed off? And just because broadcasters have the legal right (i.e. government-granted privilege) to act as a rebroadcasting gatekeeper, doesn't actually make it right or even smart.

    "Why are you so opposed to innovations that actually take the rights of others into mind?"

    This implies Mike has voiced opposition to innovative services that you support. Can you name them and point to Mike's comments on them?

    Don't worry, we know you're a hypocrite who won't answer.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.