Even worse news today. They've suspended operations entirely. 
Locast suspending donation nag screen.
So the NY courts deemed Locast's nag screen asking for donations along with the removal of them if you contribute, to be not in line with their non profit status. So those using Locast and not contributing, you can enjoy a nag free experience now.
The rub will be if many decide not to contribute and those that do contribute stop paying, you probably won't have a service for your locals.
I'm kind of with Locast on the ruling. I do see the court's point, but we're not talking a free app with nagging ads that bring in revenue to the developer in lieu of paying for the app. There is no "other" revenue stream for them if users don't contribute. And what other methods do they have to remind the free loaders that contributions keep the service running (where they'll actually see it and pay attention to it), allow expansion into new markets and blah blah blah.
The rub will be if many decide not to contribute and those that do contribute stop paying, you probably won't have a service for your locals.
I'm kind of with Locast on the ruling. I do see the court's point, but we're not talking a free app with nagging ads that bring in revenue to the developer in lieu of paying for the app. There is no "other" revenue stream for them if users don't contribute. And what other methods do they have to remind the free loaders that contributions keep the service running (where they'll actually see it and pay attention to it), allow expansion into new markets and blah blah blah.
Sent from my SM-N975U1 using TapatalkLocast Nation
As you probably know, the federal district court in the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the case brought against Locast by the big media companies. The court concluded that by interrupting programming to ask users for donations, and by suspending those interruptions based on whether a user makes contributions, Locast actually was charging a fee, not merely seeking a voluntary contribution. The court then concluded that revenues Locast collects in this manner exceed the cost of operating the service because funds are used to add new markets, rendering Locast ineligible to use the copyright exemption for non-profits (17 U.S.C. 111(a)(5)).
Although we disagree with this interpretation and are exploring our legal options to contest it, out of respect for the court's order,
Locast is suspending immediately all programming interruptions to request donations.
This means that anyone located in a market we serve who signs up for Locast will get the service without interruption, regardless of whether or not they donate.
Of course, it is up to you whether or not to contribute to Locast. But if you currently contribute, we humbly request that you continue to do so. And if you don't contribute, we hope that you will do so if you can afford it.
Thank you.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
That's a shame for those that relied on it.
Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
Sucks, I wonder how they went from no interruptions to no service in 1 day.
Maybe because they don't see an out from the ruling at the moment?
Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
Here's a statement from an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit helping Locast with their court battle:Maybe because they don't see an out from the ruling at the moment?
Locast has decided to suspend its operations. The case will continue, likely including an appeal, to resolve the remaining issues in the case. The problem remains: broadcasters keep using copyright law to control where and how people can access the local TV that they're supposed to be getting for free.
So I guess there's still hope for Locast, maybe? But in the meantime, I guess they don't want to continue violating the law per the ruling just handed down to them. If they win their appeal, then perhaps they'll resume operations, but they may have to change their operations or funding structure to comply.
It seems to me that this narrow ruling doesn't say that a nonprofit like Locast can't redistribute free OTA signals over the internet. That's the big copyright issue that hasn't really been decided. Instead, I think Locast would have been in compliance with the ruling if they had just treated their operations in each market as a separately-funded non-profit, not using any money raised from viewers in one market to fund their launches elsewhere.
What I don't get about this is they are not broadcasting the networks directly to the customers. They are broadcasting an authorized retransmission of a local station to the local station market.
I can see the cable company howling because they might lose market share. Locast should be able to indicate to the networks who is watching via the local stations and get appropriate fees if needed that way.
I can see the cable company howling because they might lose market share. Locast should be able to indicate to the networks who is watching via the local stations and get appropriate fees if needed that way.
This stinks. I used Locast to watch my favorite NFL team each week.
And I am a donator.
And I am a donator.
Didn't that other company with the tiny antennas (can’t remember the name) get put out of business by a supreme court ruling for doing the same thing? What made Locast different, just that they were supposedly non-profit?
The one thing I read is it's fine to use the contributions to maintain and operate the service, but it doesn't say anything about using it to expand the service into new markets. The expansion part is what makes it a violation in a very narrow definition. Congress being congress and omitting the word expansion was all they needed to pounce. Of course that judge isn't going to rule on what they thought the intent of the law was. But I suppose that is something the Supreme Court could rule on.Here's a statement from an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit helping Locast with their court battle:
Locast has decided to suspend its operations. The case will continue, likely including an appeal, to resolve the remaining issues in the case. The problem remains: broadcasters keep using copyright law to control where and how people can access the local TV that they're supposed to be getting for free.So I guess there's still hope for Locast, maybe? But in the meantime, I guess they don't want to continue violating the law per the ruling just handed down to them. If they win their appeal, then perhaps they'll resume operations, but they may have to change their operations or funding structure to comply.
It seems to me that this narrow ruling doesn't say that a nonprofit like Locast can't redistribute free OTA signals over the internet. That's the big copyright issue that hasn't really been decided. Instead, I think Locast would have been in compliance with the ruling if they had just treated their operations in each market as a separately-funded non-profit, not using any money raised from viewers in one market to fund their launches elsewhere.
Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk
Was it Aero?Didn't that other company with the tiny antennas (can't remember the name) get put out of business by a supreme court ruling for doing the same thing? What made Locast different, just that they were supposedly non-profit?
Aereo, but yes that's the one I was thinking ofWas it Aero?
Yes, Aereo was for for-profit and Locast was non-profit. They used all the funds they raised to operate the service, including expanding the service into new areas, and it was this part of their operations that the judge ruled violated the law.Didn't that other company with the tiny antennas (can't remember the name) get put out of business by a supreme court ruling for doing the same thing? What made Locast different, just that they were supposedly non-profit?
From what I read awhile back, the underlying law that Locast was relying on allows a nonprofit to erect an OTA repeater tower, without any consent from the original broadcast tower's operator, to expand the geographic area in which OTA viewers can receive the original signal (although on a different frequency, with the repeater tower still operating under FCC authorization for use of their licensed frequency). This kind of thing is done in some places in the rural West.
Locast was saying that they were doing the same thing but over the internet. IIRC, the wording in the original statute was vague (and written before the internet even existed), and didn't explicitly describe the repeater function in OTA terms, even though that was likely the technology the drafter had in mind.
Can anybody with more knowledge about how all this works explain why there isn't more offerings like Locast? People who put up antennas don't want to pay for cable packages. So why don't these network channels themselves offer a local streaming service? Or, why aren't the big boys like Youtube TV, Hulu Live, etc., offer a less expensive package that mainly focuses on local channels? Is it as simple as these broadcast networks and cable providers being in cahoots to force people to pay for entire cable channel packages?
A bare bones live TV service would be a tough sell probably. It makes more sense to offer live TV as a free extra in a subscription VOD service.Can anybody with more knowledge about how all this works explain why there isn't more offerings like Locast? People who put up antennas don't want to pay for cable packages. So why don't these network channels themselves offer a local streaming service?
All cable TV providers offer a locals-only package.Or, why aren't the big boys like Youtube TV, Hulu Live, etc., offer a less expensive package that mainly focuses on local channels? Is it as simple as these broadcast networks and cable providers being in cahoots to force people to pay for entire cable channel packages?
I am surprised that the Network say ABC doesn't have an ABC app that can be customized to your local affiliate and allow you livestream.A bare bones live TV service would be a tough sell probably. It makes more sense to offer live TV as a free extra in a subscription VOD service.
All cable TV providers offer a locals-only package.
That just means a lot of apps and inconsistencies that fail the WAF.
Hence Cable/Hulu Live/YTTV/... that have a single UI but get you because the big guys force bundles and don't allow custom choices.
The second main reason is they just want so much money from you each month and they play the bundle games to justify it.
They only offer it because the local borough, city, or township is able to regulate the price on the basic tier of service. The locals only package is the basic tier not what most people think of as basic cable which is actually expanded basic.A bare bones live TV service would be a tough sell probably. It makes more sense to offer live TV as a free extra in a subscription VOD service.
All cable TV providers offer a locals-only package.
I believe Paramount+ offers your local CBS affiliate live channel.
For free though, not much. Our local NBC offers live streaming of their newscasts, but not the rest of their daily programming.
For free though, not much. Our local NBC offers live streaming of their newscasts, but not the rest of their daily programming.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
TiVo Community Forum
A forum community dedicated to TiVo digital video recorder owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about programming, streaming, content, schedules, home theaters, displays, models, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Steveknj
377 Replies
cheesesteak
344 Replies
stevel
330 Replies
Recommended Communities
