Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Month: June, 2012
ABC urges judge not to block ‘House’
Category: News, Press | Thursday, June 14th, 2012 | Comments Off on ABC urges judge not to block ‘House’
Network says $16 mil could be lost if CBS restraining order permitted
ABC said it stands to waste $16 million in promotion costs if a federal judge grants CBS a temporary restraining order halting production on the Alphabet’s new reality series “Glass House” on the grounds that it is a ripoff of “Big Brother.”
In a 31-page filing in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Monday, ABC also accused CBS of being “anticompetitive” in trying to put a stop to “Glass House,” set to debut on June 18, suggesting that it would “prevent American viewers from watching both shows to choose which shows they prefer (or to choose both).” ABC said that it has spent $27 million developing the show, which would be a “total loss” if Judge Gary Allen Feess were to halt the show altogether.
Although both shows contain similar elements, ABC contends that the shows are not “substantially similar” and the elements cited by CBS are not protected by copyright.
In its brief, ABC’s legal team said that “they are generic stapels of the reality show genre: people living in a house, competing with each other to avoid elimination, and winning a prize.” They also rejected CBS’ claim that even if the elements can’t be protected by copyright, the “sequence and arrangement” can. Citing the similarities across reality TV, including dance shows “Dancing with the Stars” and “So You Think You Can Dance?” and fashion design shows “Design Star” and “Project Runway,” ABC’s attorneys wrote that “if inspiring the improvement and development of other television shows with a clever idea is copyright infringement, the reality television itself — indeed all of television (with its hospital shows, police shows, friends-in-an-apartment shows) would infringe.”
Much of CBS’s suit focuses on the fact that a producer of “Big Brother,” Kenny Rosen, is now executive producer of “Glass House,” and that he took trade secrets with him and poached “Big Brother” staff. In deposition, Rosen said that an assistant typed up the “Big Brother” House Guest Manual, but ABC pointed out that the manual was returned to CBS. It also challenged that the manual was a “trade secret” but rather “common sense instructions” to contestants, and that versions of “Big Brother” in other countries post the manual on the Internet. ABC calls the claim “impermissibly broad” and said that “should the Court find that some confidential information was taken, the remedy would be to prohibit the use of that specific information.”
ABC also rejected CBS’s claims of poaching of “Big Brother; staff, contending that a group of employees followed Rosen from “Big Brother” to “Hell”s Kitchen” at Fox, and then to “Glass House.” They said that Rosen “did delete some emails tangentially related to ‘Glass House’ after the litigation began, but those were emails he received and non-substantive.” A forensic firm, FTI was retained to image all of Rosen’s emails and his laptop and cell phone.
ABC is represented by a team led by Glenn Pomerantz at Munger, Tolles & Olson. Devin McRae of Early Sullivan Wright is leading the team for the other defendants, Rosen, Corie Henson and Michael O’Sullivan.
CBS said in a statement, “We believe that our filing last week, the testimony from copyright expert Jeff Rovin and “The Glass House” producer’s (Kenny Rosen) own deposition speak for themselves and speak loudly on our behalf. Nothing in the defendants’ submission can change the basic facts.”
Amid Aereo Legal Battle, Upstart Rivals Emerge
Category: News | Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 | Comments Off on Amid Aereo Legal Battle, Upstart Rivals Emerge
As broadcasters attempt to shut down TV streaming service Aereo in court, several other start-ups are launching comparable services that risk undermining the lucrative retransmission fees charged by networks.
The new technology suggests that broadcasters face a long fight to preserve the fees they charge distributors to air their content, which can be between 5% and 10% of their total revenue, even if they succeed in barring Aereo.
Broadcasters are unlikely to battle every new streaming venture like Aereo, as such ventures may lack the financial backing to gain traction, broadcast executives and copyright lawyers said.
But they are likely to take action when new technology spurs big distributors to reconsider how much they will pay for retransmission consent, as was the case with Aereo, backed by Barry Diller’s firm IAC/InterActiveCorp. (IACI).
“We don’t rush to sue people because we don’t like their ideas,” said Sherry Brennan, a senior vice president at News Corp.’s (NWS, NWSA) Fox, testifying last week at a court hearing for Aereo. But “there’s little reason to think other distributors who are paying us those fees would continue to do so.” Ms. Brennan is responsible for overseeing distribution deals at Fox.
News Corp. also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of Dow Jones Newswires.
The broadcasters–including Fox, Comcast Corp.’s (CMCSA, CMCSK) NBC, Walt Disney Co.’s (DIS) ABC, CBS Corp. (CBS) and a unit of Univision Communications Inc.–are suing Aereo on grounds of copyright infringement and seek an injunction to bar Aereo’s service. A ruling isn’t expected until later this month at the earliest.
Meanwhile, other rival services also threaten the networks’ retransmission fees and advertising revenue. Nielsen’s benchmark ratings for the TV industry still don’t calculate viewing on tablets and mobile devices targeted by new services like Really Simple Software Inc.’s Simple.TV.
“The story right now is Aereo, but Aereo is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Mark Lieberman, chief executive of TRA Inc., a consulting firm for the advertising industry.
Simple.TV doesn’t plan to pay broadcasters to stream shows in near-live show times to iPads and other mobile devices, by way of a device that sits in viewers’ homes.
The service, which launches in August and begins testing in San Francisco this week, captures broadcast signals and transmits shows to viewers’ tablets and mobile devices using an Internet signal. The service faces fewer legal hurdles than Aereo because its home-installed device only picks up the broadcast or basic cable signals a viewer could already access at home, according to its creators.
“We feel like we are in a pretty safe, well-trodden legal area,” said CEO Mark Ely at SimpleTV.
None of the broadcasters would comment on the potential legality of the Simple.TV service or say if they would fight the company in court.
Bryan Sullivan, a Los Angeles copyright attorney, agreed that Simple.TV raised fewer legal questions because it is only a device sold to viewers, as opposed to a broadcast service. “That’s an important distinction from Aereo.”
In Aereo’s case, lawyers are debating whether the use of tiny antennas and data buffering qualifies it as a recording service for individual subscribers or rather, as the networks argue, as a public broadcasting service that requires a special license.
Another startup, Skitter Inc., has already caught broadcasters’ attention in its Portland, Ore., launch market. Local network affiliates have balked at its plans to broadcast content over the Internet, using an application developed for Roku Inc. and Western Digital Corp. (WDC) set-top boxes.
Skitter President Bob Saunders says he plans to expand the service to around 100 markets nationwide by the end of the year. He argues the service is legal because Skitter pays some fees to carry content it broadcasts separately through a local telephone operator and is willing to pay other retransmission fees.
“We have to do what is required by law and get retransmission consent,” said Mr. Saunders. Skitter also has the capability to broadcast live shows to tablets and mobile phones, but only transmits through TV set-top box devices for legal reasons, he said.
Patrick McCreery, the general manager at Meredith Corp.’s (MDP) KPTV Fox 12 and KPDX in the Portland area, said his networks wouldn’t pursue any retransmission agreements with Skitter. The other affiliates didn’t return calls or offer comment.
Other TV streaming companies have already gone to court over attempts to capitalize on legal loopholes governing retransmission fees. Ivi Inc. awaits a ruling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to continue operating, following a court injunction two years ago.
“I don’t know if any of them will pass legal muster,” said Bernstein Research analyst Todd Juenger. But “distribution companies are thinking very strongly about an option where they no longer carry broadcast TV.”
Source: William Launder, Wall Street Journal
Fox sues over ad-skipping service
Category: News | Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 | Comments Off on Fox sues over ad-skipping service
FOX Broadcasting Co. filed suit Thursday against Dish Network LLC over its new video-on-demand service that allows subscribers to watch shows without commercials, saying the service infringes on Fox’s copyrights and breaches the companies’ distribution contract.
Late Thursday, CBS and NBCUniversal filed their own suits against Dish.
The suit marks the first major legal challenge to ad· skipping technology since three major networks sued digital video recorder maker ReplayTV in 2001. That case was dropped after ReplayTV filed for bankruptcy two years after being sued.
In a complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court, Fox said Dish’s “bootleg” Prime Time Anytime service makes unauthorized copies of the prime-time shows of the four major television networks and violates a licensing agreement between the two companies. In March, Dish introduced a “Hopper” set·top box that makes and stores Prime Time Anytime copies and offers an Auto Hop feature that lets viewers skip commercials.
Fox said in the complaint that the service would cause the free broadcast television business model to collapse because advertisers would no longer help pay for shows.
“We were given no choice but to file suit against one of our largest distributors, Dish Network, because of their surprising move to market a product with the clear goal of violating copyrights and destroying the fundamental underpinnings of the broadcast television ecosystem,” Fox said in an emailed statement.
“Fox’s lawsuit makes sense to me,” said Lindsay Conner, an entertainment. attorney and partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP in Los Angeles. “The underlying economic issue is who pays for the creation of content? Studios and networks spend millions of dollars creating content That’s not a viable business model unless someone pays for it.”
Bryan Sullivan of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, said, “One of the biggest problems studios and networks are having is DVRs that cut ad revenues.”
He added that whether Fox will prevail may turn on the exact wording of its distribution agreement with Dish. “If the agreement is vague or permits modifications, then it’s going to be harder to win.”
Source: Jean Yung, Los Angeles Daily Journal