Facebook Google+ Twitter
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: so is there a thread about tvcatchup court case with itv ch4 and ch5??

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11

    Default so is there a thread about tvcatchup court case with itv ch4 and ch5??



    so is there a thread about tvcatchup court case with itv, ch4, and ch5??

    cant see one, thought would be a hot topic!!

    Sorry to see the judge did not throw the case out, looks like a long battle looms in court for you next year.

    good luck

    Here is Inqs story from yesterday:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ght-webtv-firm

  2. #2
    Super Moderator stuart08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,558

    Default

    TVC asked the court to rule that the broadcaster's argument against internet streaming of live TV lacked all coherency, and was a waste of the court's time.

    The burden of proof to obtain a summary strike-out of the broadcaster's allegations is extremely high, TVC were required to prove that the broadcasters had absolutely no real prospects of success in their harassment of TVC. Despite the broadcasters having previously assured the court that it would take little over 20 minutes to prove they actually did have a case to bring, it took them well over 3 and a half hours, leaving them bleating that TVC had failed to rule out all their chances, and even if the tiniest chance remained, they deserved to be heard by the court at a full trial.

    TVC takes great heart from the fact that the broadcasters' argument is not so very compelling that they were able to convince a judge - widely regarded as being the top copyright judge - either in the 20 or so minutes that they originally requested, or during the course of a 4 hour hearing, or even for six very long days later, only for him to simply rule that their inability to distinguish between "transmission" and "broadcast" was "not necessarily fatal to the(ir) claim". Having dispensed with that technicality and having exposed the weakness of the broadcasters' arguments, it is very much "game on" for TVC and the future of live internet streaming of TV

  3. #3
    TVC Member lordofangels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sunny South Shields
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stuart08 View Post
    TVC asked the court to rule that the broadcaster's argument against internet streaming of live TV lacked all coherency, and was a waste of the court's time.

    The burden of proof to obtain a summary strike-out of the broadcaster's allegations is extremely high, TVC were required to prove that the broadcasters had absolutely no real prospects of success in their harassment of TVC. Despite the broadcasters having previously assured the court that it would take little over 20 minutes to prove they actually did have a case to bring, it took them well over 3 and a half hours, leaving them bleating that TVC had failed to rule out all their chances, and even if the tiniest chance remained, they deserved to be heard by the court at a full trial.

    TVC takes great heart from the fact that the broadcasters' argument is not so very compelling that they were able to convince a judge - widely regarded as being the top copyright judge - either in the 20 or so minutes that they originally requested, or during the course of a 4 hour hearing, or even for six very long days later, only for him to simply rule that their inability to distinguish between "transmission" and "broadcast" was "not necessarily fatal to the(ir) claim". Having dispensed with that technicality and having exposed the weakness of the broadcasters' arguments, it is very much "game on" for TVC and the future of live internet streaming of TV
    Amen too that.
    They knew it was a waste of time, just wanted to cost TVC money.
    Here's to TVC's future, hassel free.

    LoA

  4. #4
    Senior Member Frog_Hog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    142

    Jolly well done TVC - more power to you all !

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Belladonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    can a compromise if need be, be reached with them?

    A channel sponsor say? B&Q sponsor programmes on channel 5 - pre rolled for example. Bascially targeting current advertising at a higher price for sole channel sponsorship on the bsis of being the sole advert scrolled on any channel change to said channel. And with a sprinkling of general ad placements factored in?

    Surely a marketing deal with a bit of revenue share would sweeten the deal somewhat?

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Belladonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    note.... i do say if need be... a hypothetical situation

  7. #7
    Administrator TVC_Admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,505

    Default

    Unfortunately trying to reason with people incapable of distinguishing between a broadcast (one to many) and a transmission (one to one) is an uphill struggle. Believe me, we have tried to reason with them, and yet they are the very same people who told us they had no problems at all with our services in 2008 only to have a go at us 18 months later when they suddenly realised they had missed the boat and couldn't sell an iPhone application to watch the world cup on when we had been giving people a far better service on their iPhones for free for the preceding 9 months! I'm looking forward to the day when the newspapers try telling bloggers that they have the exclusive rights to sell access to news, just as they have with Google. That we should live in such mixed up times.......
    TVC Administration
    ☑ ITV ☑ Chan 4 ☑Chan 5 ☑ SKY/BSB ☑ ABU QATADA ☐ COMMON SENSE

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Sorry to bring this back up, when does this actually go to the Royal Courts of Justice?

    I've seen a couple of dates, 2011/2012? Obviously I'm not after you posting too much detail; how's your case coming along?

    Just interested, Andy.

  9. #9

    Default

    I think it would be best to leave court cases where there is no verdict out of the question. There is certain information which is disclosed to the public due to agreements made between TVC and others.

  10. #10

    Default

    "Sun is shining, the weather is sweet Make you want to move your dancing feet"

    allabouttv, if there are any updates we will make them in the Announcements forum, its best not to go into our arguments, their arguments or how well its going. As allays TVCatchup is optimistic of the outcome.
    Adam H
    " You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. "

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. A case for invasion: A debate
    By tartist in forum Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 15-02-2011, 10:59 PM
  2. TVCatchup vows court fight with broadcasters
    By Robit in forum TVGuide + Website
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 12:16 AM
  3. Irish court rules in favour of ISPs in piracy case
    By tartist in forum Broadband Internet News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 15-10-2010, 09:50 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-08-2009, 10:18 AM
  5. Court will jail Pirate Bay founders
    By TVC_Colwal in forum World News
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 14-05-2009, 06:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts