It's a bigger deal than you suggest. The judge found that the donations that Locast requests to avoid uninterrupted service are NOT actually donations, and that Locast is not operating as a non-profit. This cuts the legs under Locast's legal argument for why what they're doing is allowed.
Of course, I imagine that Locast might appeal. But this is not a good finding by the trial judge.
I must have missed that part. Care to quote where it said that?
To add to that part of the non profit status says they can't have a competitive advantage, which Locast clearly has
Read the order (linked to above) starting on page 5.
It does not say they are not operating as a non-profit. It says that as a non-profit to be in compliance with the law they cannot use their income to fund expansion, only the direct costs of operating in their markets.
While the judge alludes that the fees collected are not "donations", he does not say they cannot collect them, only that they cannot be used for anything other than necessary and reasonable costs associated with operating the repeater transmissions.
And also, this was not a trial! This was a response to an argument to dismiss the case from even happening. All the Judge has said is that the Plaintiffs have made a compelling argument that the case should happen and that the defendant (Locast) did not have a good enough argument to not have a trial. He has not ruled whether anything he has written is the law, only that it seems like it may be the law and needs to be further explored.
Locast could probably make this whole thing moot just by changing the word "donations" to the phrase "fees necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the service" and charging $2.75 in existing markets.
I did. It doesn't say what you said it says.
When I was with xfinity, cable cost $70 per month, but there was an additional $40 in fees which mostly had to do with rebroadcast fees. All that went away when I dropped cable and replaced it with Philo and Locast. It's not equivalent channel by channel but nobody in my house even noticed what I did. If Locast goes away and I have to drag out my antenna, so be it. But I will no longer pay $40 per month to prop up the dying industry which is broadcast TV. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
I would rather pay the $5.50 than break out my TiVo. The energy saved pays that cost in the summer here in Florida!
Yeah, I am hoping that Locast prevails. But if they don't, I'm not going back to paying their rebroadcast fees for their lack luster content. Besides, I kinda miss the tinfoil covered rabbit ears.
either that, or keep it at $5 but improve the service (think 60fps, which is something they desperately need)...hell, they could even just do 60fps for the main channels only, and it would be a huge improvement.
IANAL but that seems like a bad decision to me. Lots of non-profits expand their mission over time.
you're missing the other part: he granted summary judgement for the networks at the same time, saying locast cannot use the non-profit exemption as a defense. in other words, they now have no defense for retransmitting the signals.
it's all BS, of course. when the law was written in 1976, congress never could have imagined the internet existing in the manner it does today...so of course they didn't write expansion into the law. there was never a thought at that time that a single non-profit could cover the entire country the way locast is trying to do.
It has nothing to do with being a non-profit. They could still expand, they could even take on new roles like starting a nursing home if they wanted; they just cannot use the fees they collect in their current operating markets to do so. They'd have to collect money to start in those markets and other endeavors another way.
The law in question here is the one about retransmission of OTA signals and what narrow exceptions are made to do so without reimbursing the broadcasters first. In order to do that, a non-profit must not make excess dollars through their fees, which Locast admits they do have for the express purpose of expansion. Lowering their fees or raising their costs (as @crackers8199 suggests by using more bandwidth and more expensive equipment) are the only options to align to the law, according to this judgment.
I always thought Locast felt more like a subscription service than a non profit. In order to avoid interruptions you had to subscribe.
Freemium I guess.
You are correct ....
Under a freemium model, a business gives away services at no cost to the consumer as a way to establish the foundation for future transactions. By offering basic-level services for free, companies build relationships with customers, eventually offering them advanced services, add-ons, enhanced storage or usage limits, or an ad-free user experience for an extra cost.
Just got this email from Locast
Locast 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.
Does that mean we can get it added as an additional source without donating? I just tried and Channels wouldn't let me.
I wonder why I thought it would.
Just got the same email.