Peter Kafka

Recent Posts by Peter Kafka

Goodbye, Free TV on Your iPad. For Now…

The only surprise here is that it took this long: A federal court has put the kibosh on a Web site that served up programming from broadcast TV networks for free, without their permission.

A federal judge in New York has issued a temporary restraining order against FilmOn.com, which has riled up the U.S. TV industry for a couple of months. The four broadcast networks–News Corp.’s Fox, GE’s NBC, Disney’s ABC and CBS–had asked for the order on Nov. 9.

FilmOn argues that the U.S. copyright act allows it to redistribute broadcast programming; Ivi Inc., a Seattle-based company that offers a similar service, makes the same argument.

FilmOn offers a free service that’s supposed to work on conventional PCs, as well as on mobile devices like Apple’s iPad. As of Monday evening it wasn’t clear whether FilmOn had actually taken down the streams, or if the service was simply misfiring, as it has been prone to do.

UPDATE: Here’s FilmOn’s response, issued Tuesday morning:

FILMON.COM, INC. ISSUES RESPONSE REGARDING NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT’S RULING ON CBS BROADCASTING, INC., ET AL v. FILMON.COM, INC., TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Los Angeles, CA – November 23, 2010 –FilmOn.com Inc. CEO and Chairman, Alki David today issued the following statement regarding the ruling made by the New York Southern District Court, which issued a temporary restraining order, in effect pending the court’s decision on if it will issue a preliminary injunction.

“We respect the Court’s decision in this matter and have temporarily ceased retransmission of free network television on FilmOn. In the few weeks FilmOn provided free access to basic television on consumers’ mobile devices, it received more than 30 million individual users. We also garnered dozens of positive reviews about our free service’s quality and ease of use. We have, in essence, shown full proof of concept of the FilmOn delivery system–proving that millions of viewers will watch our superior television service online, all with commercials, adding millions of extra impressions that enhance network’s value to its viewers and advertisers.”

“FilmOn has succeeded in securing partnerships with several independent broadcast channels to be able to keep a compelling live offering online in the near future. Coupled with our own library of content and that of our partners, FilmOn will remain open for business. “

We do expect to bring the major networks back to our lineup in the near future, all in a legitimate and collaborative business model. We have already begun very positive discussions with TV networks affiliates and other content owners to provide our delivery service and measurement analytics to stream their live content online.

Scott Zarin, Zarin & Associates P.C., legal counsel for FilmOn added:

“In addressing FilmOn’s argument that it is exempt from copyright infringement liability as a cable system, the court indicated that it was not convinced–on the facts currently known to it–which this is the case. Although the court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, it is providing FilmOn with an opportunity to elaborate upon its ‘cable system’ argument more thoroughly in a hearing on the Networks’ request for a preliminary injunction.

“FilmOn will be drafting papers in opposition to the Networks’ motion for a preliminary injunction in the coming weeks, with which it expects to submit to the court the opinion of an expert on FilmOn’s technology in order to demonstrate that FilmOn is indeed a cable system. If FilmOn successfully opposes the Networks’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court’s Temporary Restraining Order–which by law can only remain in effect for a short duration–will be dissolved.”


comments so far. Add yours.

  • Anonymous

    this website is very good, you can go and see it===clshoe.us===

  • http://www.nvpr.com Hal Bringman

    As you know, there are many differences between FilmOn and ivi TV. The operative difference is that FilmOn is providing broadcast television for FREE, which equates to copyright infringement, and that is why they were hit with a TRO.

    To qualify for the statutory compulsory license, and therefore NOT be infringing copyright, a “cable system” needs to deliver broadcast television “to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.”

    ivi TV is amassing a large base of customers who love the service, pay for it, and, in return, ivi TV pays broadcasters under the Copyright Act.

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    Hal, if you’re going to post here on this topic you should explain your relationship eith ivi.

  • http://www.nvpr.com Hal Bringman

    Peter — it’s seems rather obvious since you’ve stated it here before and easily determined via a Google search, but happy to do so in the future. :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CP4N2NMFVUGWMCZQGBSISLD2WM Chris N

    Hal, it was not “rather obvious,” particularly to the millions of new readers that likely linked to this from AAPL related financial news sites.

    After googling your name I see that you consult for a company named “NVPR” per your LinkedIn page, but only after doing a specialized search was I able to discover that you are the MEDIA LIASON for Ivi. You were given a chance to disclose this and you blew it off.

  • http://www.nvpr.com Hal Bringman

    It seemed obvious since it’d been mentioned here before (http://bit.ly/dJa7Xn) by Peter himself who very diligently covers these issues. Regardless, there’s no conspiracy here or attempt to allude! Happy reading! :)

  • Anonymous

    Neither Ivi nor FilmOn are cable systems. Saying they are does not make it so.

  • Player_16

    Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!

  • Anonymous

    Excuse my ignorance but it occurs to me that just saying it’s not one, doesn’t make it not one, either.

    Most people get their broadband via come sort of cable, so if a company delivers TV over that broadband and calls itself a cable TV company, is there a definition in the copyright act that says it is not?

    There is no obvious difference in commercial position. What is odd is that US copyright law allows any sort of cable company to do this without the copyright owners consent, but given that it does, then isn’t this within the same framework.

  • Anonymous

    Google in the input: (clshoe.us )you can find many brand names, even more surprising is that he will sell you the unexpected o(?_?)o

  • Anonymous

    hmmm, someone is perpetuating copyright urban legends?

    Where’d you get the idea that distributing content for free determines copyright infringement? Sorry, but infringement is NOT determined by the sellers financial motives, or whether the infringer personally profits from their infringement. That’s a factor when assessing (punitive and compensatory) damages, but it has no relevance in determining whether the infringement occurred or not.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting that you suggest that networks might be abusing the system to get an unfair advantage. Maybe you don’t know that if no one pays for hi quality content it can’t get made. Broadcasters pay those bills.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

While it’s tempting to see the Huffington Post’s Pulitzer as a “big win for new media,” or something like that, the real story is that these organizations — the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post — are becoming more like each other. Old media and new media are increasingly antiquated terms.

— Journalism professor Jay Rosen to HuffPo media writer Michael Calderone (via GigaOM)