Non-profit organization fights court to keep free TV services alive

A non-profit organization that offers free online access to television channels has accused the television networks of joining forces to limit access to these channels.

The non-profit organization that runs Locast, the free television service, has formulated these allegations in response to a complaint filed by ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC. The networks alleged in July that Locast was violating their copyright and was asking for a permanent injunction to close the television service. The operator Locast filed its response to the TV networks' complaint yesterday and tried to reverse the situation by making several counter claims against the television networks.

"The plaintiffs have agreed to limit reasonable public access to live signals that they are legally required to make available for free," says the Locast court record. "[The networks] have instead chosen to use their copyright abusive rights to create and protect a pay-TV model that requires consumers to forgo live programming or pay cable, satellite and cable providers. line for access to programming intended to be free. "

Locast cites a non-profit exemption

While television networks are freely available over the air, the networks reportedly collected $ 10.1 billion in 2018 through retransmission fees that they charge TV operators for the right to broadcast these channels. Networks want to shut down Locast because the free and widespread availability of their channels over the Internet would threaten their broadcasting activities.

The lawsuit of the television channels was filed in the Southern District of New York District Court in the United States against the New York Sports Fans Coalition (SFCNY), the non-profit organization that runs Locast, and the founder from SFCNY, David Goodfriend.

Locast, available in 13 US markets up to now, retransmits local broadcast signals via an online broadcast service and detects user locations, so that the flow of each channel is only available in the local broadcast. In its lawsuit, SFCNY asserted that the US Copyright Act "unambiguously states that retransmissions by non-profit entities do not constitute a copyright infringement". Specifically, the law states that secondary transmissions do not constitute copyright infringement if performed by a "non-profit organization, without a purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage".

Locast does not charge users for its services but seeks donations to finance its operations.

Locast: television networks limit the range of channels

Television channels have deliberately made it difficult to access their live channels despite the fact that the US government has granted them "free licenses for portions of the limited spectrum of public sector broadcasting," SFCNY said. .

"Broadcasters have agreed to limit practical access to live signals by broadcasting signals that they know are not powerful enough to be accessible to all members of the public in the relevant local geographical areas. ", wrote SFCNY. Networks therefore do not fulfill their spectrum licensing requirement "to function in the public interest," wrote SFCNY.

The SFCNY / Locast repository is continuing:

This failure has resulted in poor quality of live broadcasts in many markets, forcing consumers to pay for video services that include local or national television programs, including: (i) through cable or satellite providers; (ii) online via authenticated video services of cable or satellite providers; (iii) streaming services offered by broadcasters on a monthly subscription basis (eg CBS All Access); or (iv) pay-TV providers (eg, YouTubeTV).

SFCNY asserts that broadcasters "intentionally buy low-end equipment even if other equipment is available for sale that could provide better live coverage", but does not seem to have direct evidence to support this assertion. The record indicates that Goodfriend received this information "from a major market participant" to whom, in turn, had been informed "by the vendors of transmission equipment".

SFCNY also wrote that the networks have banned their local television affiliates from broadcasting live live television broadcasts, the court said.

No Locast on YouTube TV

Television networks have also lobbied television providers to avoid associating with Locast, according to Locast's report. For example, when Locast met senior YouTube TV executives in April 2019, "the leaders said they were told that if YouTube TV allowed access to Locast, Big 4 TVs would sanction YouTube TV when they negotiate distribution agreements other unspecified programming channels, "said the court record of SFCNY.

Pay-TV operators have complained about the high cost of retransmitting television channels and could benefit from the extension of Locast service. Locast has received a donation of $ 500,000 from AT & T, but says that TV channels have been pressuring others for them to refrain from donating.

In addition to filing "a fake complaint for copyright infringement" against Locast, the networks "threatened corporate retaliation and unfounded lawsuits against any current or potential donor, supporter, or trading partner or business partners of the Claimant-Claimant, "said Locast. The cable company RCN "pledged to donate $ 750,000 to CFNYY," but then decided not to do so because of "bullying by broadcasters," SFCNY said.

The TV stations contend that Locast is not eligible for the non-profit exemption provided by the Copyright Act because it has "commercial purposes". The proof by the networks about this is the $ 500,000 donation from AT & T and the fact that Goodfriend is a paid lobbyist for Dish. SFCNY says that he has not received any funding from Dish.

SFCNY accuses conspiracy television networks aimed at restricting trade and other violations of competition laws and claims financial damages as well as an injunction preventing the networks from continuing their action for violation of the law d & # 39; author. "The plaintiffs' litigation is supposed to intimidate the defendants for them to block the Locast service – and if that strategy did not work, bury the defendants as part of a costly and unnecessary procedure," wrote SFCNY.