A new streaming service like the defunct Locast started in Boston. https://cordcuttersnews.com/a-new-locast-like-streaming-service-is-offering-free-abc-cbs-fox-nbc/?fbclid=IwAR1rAESTE1dtGzfGkztlA7_yUtp9Z3MQkYns8hkvHtCKSDhJ06bB-rlhM-8_aem_AY73GhHH9vUlUTPbSNGSNx96SaHd4p-hWabEqRV_Z3aodMpt47NsnLhuXPDuTI_WIaY
Here we go again
Broadcasters are gonna learn a hard lesson. You kill 1 service, 3 more pops up. Lather, rinse repeat
The Problem is that it is free no AD support ... how long do you think it will last with no revenue coming in. ? The major NETWORKS will fight it and kill it.
Yea. This whole idea is the stupidest thing EVER!
They can not use any money they collect to expand, only to maintain what they run at launch... which, costs slowly will rise as time goes on.
So then, if one service can not expand, that means each city/location has to startup their own independent company/service that does this.
And, the networks will put them under a microscope, find the tiniest thing to nail them on and try to shut them down.
They go after legit and honest services so hard, but do not even care or take the time and effort to kill them illegal pirate iptv services. It is so easy to find one of those, and sign up and be streaming in minutes.
It is my understanding that they can use money that is made as a contribution for new installations, but only apply usage fees to actual maintenance costs. There is nothing wrong with each city contributing what is needed to set up a new server. I have contributed to the Boston group and will contribute more if they ever come up with something I can use. It is not "Stupid" at all, especially if you live in an area with extremely poor antenna coverage.
Not from what i have read. Read the linked to article in the article posted.
" The broadcast networks sued Locast in July 2019, alleging that the nonprofit "must have a license to retransmit copyrighted television programming" even though the TV channels are available over the air for free. Locast argued that its service is legal because US copyright law allows secondary transmissions by nonprofit organizations if they receive no "commercial advantage" and do not charge users anything more than what's "necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service."
Note they do not say to use to expand. Only to maintain and operate... that implies, to me, that they can only use the money to maintain and operate exactly what they have, nothing more.
Maybe someone can use their own personal money, not the money from their subscribers to expand their services, or a "anonymous donation" or a made in writing investment from some person under strict contract of statement of intent, some fancy legal thingy, to the fact they give this money for the sole purpose that service expand into other markets. No matter, how it is done, cause that is what is needed to expand, money, the big networks will find a way to say it is illegal and get them shut down.
it is a lose lose situation for a small, non-profit.
If any service charges any money, it gonna be scrutinized. The powers that be gonna find some issue, some thing. And it is impossible for a company to operate fully free, with no income at all for this type of service provider. How they gonna pay for the equipment, servers, bandwidth etc.
Only the big boys like Google, with their YouTube TV service etc can play in this pool.
I should clarify, when i say this whole thing is stupid, i mean the stupid legal crap and restrictions the networks/government etc is doing that goes after and kills these small and very useful to many poeople services. It is anti-consumer.
You are wrong. They do not charge for expansion. They take donations for expansion. There is a BIG difference. I received no benefit from my donation. My donation came with the following disclaimer:
"No goods or services were provided in exchange for this donation."
The distinction between a fee for service and a donation makes all the difference in the world. I'm 100% sure that they had a team of lawyers going over this before they started.
1 Like
How am i wrong? You seem to be missing the point.
The article states...
"Locast continued to use its “free” status to maintain that the service is allowed to operate a secondary transmission service, U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton wrote that income from the $5 donations required for uninterrupted viewing was used for expanding the service, which isn’t permitted under an exemption to the Copyright Act."
That is what i said, they used the funds from the $ they got from customers to expand, which is the next logical step in a business, after the existing offerings overhead are covered and there is excess funds.
I never said that this new service charges anything or is going to. that is hypothetical as if they were to like Locast tried to. Locast payments were labeled as "donations" as well. Locast had lawyers too, did not help them. Any service gonna be under extreme scrutiny no matter what they do. Cause the big networks want them gone.
This was only a matter of time since the basic concept of Locast wasn't illegal, only the manner in which it was operated. In theory, once all the basic software and all bugs are shaken out in Boston, that template can be used for others to launch in their own cities.
Of course, once ATSC 3.0 is in the mix, it falls apart because it's against the law to subvert copy protection. No doubt ATSC 3.0 was in large part a response to preventing a Locast situation in the future.
Therefore, I'm not so sure we should be cheearing on this sort of thing. It only gives the broadcasters more ammunition for their encryption solutions.
They learned their lesson... and now we have encryption. Duh.