TV Streaming Service Locast Suspends Service After Court Ruling (theverge.com) 75
Locast has announced that it is suspending its TV streaming service starting today, following a court ruling earlier this week in a lawsuit from ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC, which jointly sued the nonprofit service shortly after it launched. From a report: "As a non-profit, Locast was designed from the very beginning to operate in accordance with the strict letter of the law, but in response to the court's recent rulings, with which we respectfully disagree, we are hereby suspending operations, effective immediately," an email to Locast users sent out this morning reads. Locast was launched in 2019 as an internet-based alternative to over-the-air television, rebroadcasting local, free over-the-air signals over the internet to users in those areas. Unlike Aereo, a similar service that was shut down after a lawsuit ruled it was violating copyright by rebroadcasting over-the-air networks online, Locast relied on a loophole, using its status as a nonprofit to retransmit broadcasts. Further reading: Locast, a Free App Streaming Network TV, Would Love to Get Sued (2019).
Re: (Score:2)
Now quit feeding the trolls. If you ignore idiots like this they don't get their dopamine hit and eventually fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
AT&T thought it was useful (Score:5, Insightful)
During an NBC blackout on DirecTV streaming AT&T directed its users to utilize Locast for local broadcasts. I guess I just don't see what the big deal is with re-broadcasting freely available air waves. Makes no sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes no sense to me.
Me neither. This is essentially an Internet version of a community antenna. But Congress decided to turn economics on its head and allow the networks to charge such services for increasing their viewer numbers.
So sorry, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. I can't see your shit anymore out here in the country. And if you want more viewers (particularly wealthy ones with waterfront homes, yachts, airplanes, etc.), you are going to have to pay the last mile services some big bucks to get them.
Re: (Score:2)
What, DirecTV doesn't work in your area?
Re: (Score:3)
What, you expect me to pay them so I can watch their ads?
Re: (Score:2)
TV is "so expensive" sometimes that they need both sources of revenue... is that why the NFL can't be streamed without a huge charge, and the ads except for RedZone Channel, which is in the Sports add-on pack?
Re: (Score:2)
is that why the NFL can't be streamed without a huge charge
And yet they give it away for free to anyone with rabbit ear antennas.
Re: (Score:2)
They give you your local game and some games free, but the rest are only seen in the paid packages....
Re: (Score:2)
So sorry, ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. I can't see your shit anymore out here in the country.
Maybe they get paid more to be carried by cable companies than if I snatch their signals out of the air.
When I had cable, the only broadcast channels I watched were Fox (The Simpsons, Family guy et al.- about 2 hours a week) and a little PBS, but all the broadcast stations got their carriage fees and I was paying for ESPN, Disney and a whole lot of other stuff I never watched.
I dropped cable and hooked up an antenna. but the only difference in my viewing is I watch even more PBS - and a whole lot more strea
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T currently owns the former Turner Broadcasting channels, but they aren't local broadcasters, they're all pay-cable.
Broadcasters have the right to remove their signal from the area such services have their antenna(s) if they're not paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T was to blame for the end of "AM skip" effects for the "50,000 watt" stations. They would rather you stream such stations over wireless or home Internet. Home receivers for SiruisXM are now being pushed away in favor of Smart Speakers taking webstreams... all things that make AT&T and Verizon happy.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the re-broadcasting. It was the non-profit status they tried to do it under. They essentially forced people to pay but were classified as non-profit even though they were generating significant profit.
Honestly, I think they should just declare themselves as for-profit, charge people a fee (I think it is like $2 extra per month for the FCC fees or something close to that) and do things legit. Give up on the fake donation stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I just don't see what the big deal is with re-broadcasting freely available air waves. Makes no sense to me.
This might help it make sense: About 50% of broadcast network revenue these days is in the form of retransmission fees paid by cable/sat providers to allow them to carry local channels.
Now, there is a loophole that allows a not for profit to retransmit without fees, which Locast has tried to use. This was designed to allow communities to setup repeaters so they could get OTA in areas like mountainous regions. However the rules are strict. It can only be supported by donations, can't have required fees, an
Re: (Score:2)
Here are a few bogus reasons I can think of them not wanting to allowing it:
- They don't want the possibility of ANYBODY making money off the broadcast, unless they're somehow getting paid as well. I don't know the nature of the non-profit, but I assume they probably weren't making money.
- As copyright holders, they're afraid of relinquishing any rights over their contents. Rebroadcasting their signal takes some control out of their hand.
- They were hoping that people in rural areas whose antennas woul
I don't know if it's a "win" for broadcasters (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if it's a "win" for broadcasters, this was a service that essentially was a remote antenna to bring local broadcasters to cord-cutting/streaming era viewers. They included all the subchannels, etc as one receives OTA (most satellite and streaming services don't have the majority of the "subchannels" in their lineup), respecting geo-boundries of the markets, etc..
Many of the service's viewers reached either are in areas where antenna reception is not feasible (I don't see broadcasters looking to add translators to those areas of their markets now, many of which had translators in the 1970s-1990s that were basically abandoned when the MBAs took over broadcasting) or don't put the effort into hooking up an antenna. Most of the viewers in that camp will just live without local broadcasters now and wait for shows to hit Hulu and other streaming services (or wait for torrents to be posted), and get local news from social media, which even if they are going to the local broadcaster's social media presence, that generates less revenue for the station than people actually viewing the newscast and seeing the ads.
I'm sure MBA types look at it as $5/subscriber re-transmission fees not collected...but I see it as local broadcasters not adapting to current trends and killing their industry. Since the local cable company started breaking out the local re-transmission fees (about $20/month IIRC) as a separate line item on their bill, I know many people who have dropped cable for streaming services that don't necessarily include local channels....
Re: (Score:2)
They want you to pay cable and satellite companies for carrying their channels. They get nothing if you use an antenna.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Syracuse, they shut down the analog transmitters early because everybody was watching on cable or satellite... there was never a good plan for reaching the relatively flat territory of Syracuse University or the nearby farm land without using too much RF. However, the ads were still there.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasters get significant money from cable and DirecTV/Dish providers for the right to relay their channels. So that's why the legit services charge more.
Most stations are streaming their local news multiple ways now... and you can get the most of their network shows by streaming packages that together cost the same as a cable bill.
Re: (Score:2)
With retransmission costs reaching >$20/month/user on many cable/satellite/streaming services, I wouldn't surprise me if they just start dropping locals, and people will quit watching them and they will fail...
Re: (Score:2)
National news is now mostly reported by the local teams, with national talent at the studio revoicing the report to hide the local reporter. No locals leads to clueless national.
Locast and Aereo weren't supplying user data back... which is why they had to be surveyed by Nelison the expensive and old fashioned way.
The "Big 4" require the local be there in order to receive their national cable channels.
You can stream your local CBS station, but have to subscribe to the whole Paramount+ service to get to it.
So
Re: (Score:2)
If all they want is the $$$$ from retransmission, why do they subscribe to Arbitron/Neilson to show they have "large" number of viewers to support their ad rates.
My understanding of the ostensible rationale of newspapers, magazines, and TV networks that combine a paywall with ads is as follows:
Neither advertisement revenue alone nor retransmission consent fees alone are adequate to fund production of the programming that a network seeks to air. Thus networks seek to combine advertisement revenue and retransmission consent fees to provide an adequate production budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to dig your own grave, corporate media empire!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's the lawyers that ruined this one... seems more like the almighty dollar was stretched here. Manager says "We need more income..." and tech guy does the illegal.
mistake was the quasi-subscription (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they made a huge mistake with their aggressive "recurring donation" push. Instead of welcoming ad hoc donations, they tried to push people into forced recurring donations (with a minimum of $60/yr) or randomly inserted ad's placed into the streams.
Re: (Score:2)
This is from an email they sent out yesterday
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 Loc
Re:mistake was the quasi-subscription (Score:4, Insightful)
The random extra ads likely are what got them caught... cable isn't allowed to do this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that isn't a true statement (unless something massively changed in the past 10 years around this). I worked in this space for 15+ years and we absolutely were allowed to randomly add in extra ads. However, it was very very rarely done because we had more then enough backlog of paid ad space and because charges were based on eyeballs and seconds we tended to not change things up much. But there have been cases like with live sports or breaking news where the schedules changed and it became more im
Re: (Score:2)
Technically possible, but not legal without an agreement. In my area, GSN had some problems locally years ago because they were so desperate to get on cable, they agreed to air on a leased channel that they could be outbid on. A typical problem was the the overlay ad was triggered when it was time for the bonus round, so you didn't find out if they contestant won or fell though the trap door on Russian Roulette.
Now, GSN's got its own SD and HD channels on Comcast, and always had one on DirecTV, so the probl
Re: (Score:2)
How did you expect them to keep something running that costs money? By goodwill and happy thoughts?
Re: (Score:1)
How did you expect them to keep something running that costs money? By goodwill and happy thoughts?
Did you not watch the Wizard of Oz? Isn't (randomly injected ad requesting donation) that how it works ... you question (randomly injected ad requesting donation) baffles me.
Re: (Score:2)
What they need is somebody rich who isn't in broadcasting to pay their bills...
Re: (Score:2)
I think they made a huge mistake with their aggressive "recurring donation" push. Instead of welcoming ad hoc donations, they tried to push people into forced recurring donations (with a minimum of $60/yr) or randomly inserted ad's placed into the streams.
This may have been the problem, but I'd have to read the ruling to know if it played a role. Courts take a dim view of people trying to be sneaky to get around the law.
Some guy below says basically "But non-profits can ask for donations". Yeah, but not for anything under the sun. For example, non-profits can't collect money to go kill members of minority group X. I suspect whatever they got non-profit status for didn't cover them rebroadcasting TV and being heavy handed about making users "don
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but not for anything under the sun. For example, non-profits can't collect money to go kill members of minority group X. I suspect whatever they got non-profit status for didn't cover them rebroadcasting TV and being heavy handed about making users "donate" for it.
To clarify: Collecting money to go kill members of minority groups is exclusively allowed only for for profit companies. I mean, logical, right? Why kill them if there is no profit to be made. It is wasted capital, abhorred by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market.
Case in point, Haliburton lied, manufactured evidence, fooled every one from Colin Powell to man in the street that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, orchestrated a astroturf movement to trigger a war to go kill random Iraqi's in Baghdad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is the crux of the ruling. The court ruled that the constant nagging meant the 'donations' were not in fact 'donations', but were charges to provide uninterrupted service. And because they were charges, they could only charge up to the amount required to operate and maintain the service, but they actually collected almost twice that much.
Here is the ruling: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.... [thomsonreuters.com]
3rd Attempt? (Score:2)
Seems like the only way to get this done is with a tip jar on the website, and no interruption of the streams being pulled off the air. Monthly fee or interruption has got to go.
What does it serve? Whats in it for them? for me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because most stations refuse to actually stream it without having a paid for service. So for example, you can't actually stream Fox or NBC unless you have Comcast/ATT cable subscriptions you pay for.
Locast was excellent because it allowed me to get all of the local channels for very cheap (yeah nagware if you don't donate, fantastic cable cutting service if you do donate)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single channel streams without having a cable subscription in my area. Which is complete fucking bullshit. If I wanted to clutter up my yard with a big antenna it'd be free, but streamed? DOLLAR DOLLAR BILLS Y'ALL! The networks work so god damned hard to prevent people from watching for free I'm really surprised they even broadcast over the air anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the over-the-top services... but admittedly you'd have to pay close to the price of cable to get them all.
5 DLLS a month? Yeah right. (Score:2)
I laughed when I started using locast and they kept harassing for "5 Dollars/month"
Really? Where they came up with that number?
If they had charged a one-time $10.00 DLLS/year for operating cost they could have have a defense.
They got greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Per month or Per Year mixed with a nag screen disqualified them from the charity status they were trying to claim. As I said elsewhere here, you've got to do this by tip jar.
At $5/mo they were losing money on bandwidth (Score:2)
It's strange that a judge thought their contribution requests were excessive, because bandwidth alone for a month is going to be more than $5. Why didn't the EFF use their actual costs as a rebuttal to the "you're exceeding your cost to maintain the service" argument?
And in any case all wealthy non-profits like the American Red Cross do that all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they were supposed to do this for free... with VOLUNTARY contributions paying the bill. Charity can't do pay-or-nag with its service.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the American Red Cross is not accused of infringing copyright, so I have no idea why you would bring them up in a copyright case. It is copyright law that says it is not infringement for a non-profit to retransmit AS LONG AS any fees charged are only enough to cover the ACTUAL cost of operating the service.
Second, Locasts own numbers show that they had 'actual costs' of $2.436M in 2020, but had revenue of $4.519M. Clearly they were 'exceeding [their] cost to maintain the service'.
More proof that copyright law is out of control (Score:2)
They were following the letter of the law and corporations were still able to make them stop. Copyright law needs to be revised with more protections for fair use exceptions!
Re: (Score:2)
'The letter of the law' says they can only collect enough money to cover the actual costs. By their own admission they collected almost twice that much. Exactly which letter of the law were they following?
Public domain. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So all cell phone conversations, text messages, data usage should be 'in the public domain'? All WiFi traffic should be 'in the public domain'?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, following the GP's logic, yes.
The difference is that cell phone traffic, text messages, and data usage are encrypted. So's WiFi traffic. Sure, the OTA datastream should/can be public domain, but without the ability to decrypt, having access to it is worthless.
This is precisely how things are now, from a technical point of view. There's absolutely nothing stopping me from receiving every cellphone transmission around me; it's just that I can't do anything with them, so what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
'Public domain' is a legal, not technical issue. And, legally speaking, having equipment (other than an authorized phone) that can receive cellphone transmissions is illegal. Remember the uproar when Google was collecting SSIDs from all wireless networks? Doesn't really seem like most people thing that sort of thing should be 'public domain' just because it is technically doable.
Re: (Score:2)
And, legally speaking, having equipment (other than an authorized phone) that can receive cellphone transmissions is illegal.
I'm open to being corrected, but I think this is incorrect, based on this page on the FCC's website [fcc.gov]
What kinds of interception and divulgence of radio transmissions are legal?
The FCC and the Communications Act do not forbid certain types of interception and disclosure of radio communications, including:
Mere interception of radio communications, such as overhearing your neighbor’s conversation over a cordless telephone, or listening to emergency service reports on a radio scanner (although intercepting and/or recording telephone-related radio communications may be a violation of other federal or state laws).
This logically extends to wifi and cell phones, which are essentially just radios, (2.4GHz and 5GHz bands for wifi, 28GHz and 39GHz for 5G cellphones.)
Merely intercepting those transmissions is perfectly permissible, and in fact, any antenna does intercept them with varying efficiency, regardless of if the discriminator in the receiver passes them or not. The act of decrypting those transmissions is what is il
Re: (Score:2)
Keep reading down that page until you get to this part:
The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from authorizing radio scanning equipment that:
Can receive transmissions in the frequencies allocated to domestic cellular services.
Can readily be altered by the user to intercept cellular communications.
May be modified to convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio.
It is illegal to manufacture, import, sell or lease su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Public domain" has a specific legal meaning.
You do not know what that meaning is, so you made up your own.
Locast Ruling (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, the Judge ruled based on the law. If you want to change the law then emailing a judge won't help you. You should be emailing your congress critters.
Public Air Waves Are Public Until... (Score:2)
OTA has been trash for decades (Score:2)
The less of it accessed the better. I call this a win.
Good use for a cryptotoken? (Score:1)