This was an evil move by the networks, I hope they rot.
Didn’t the same thing happen to Aereo a few years ago?
I think the Courts should have allowed them to continue to function until the networks provided free continuous (not on demand) streaming of their channels using just commercials for income the exact same way they operate OTA except for the delivery.
It's a freaking antenna, wow! Greed
The NAB controls everything and the freakin TV stations can not make a profit selling advertising on TV anymore. That used to be their sole means of HUGE profits. They make more money from the rights paid by cable/Satellite customers for something that is free over the air and ads on their webpages than by selling ad time on TV.
Those passive aggressive emails over the last few days. Yikes.
When The SCOTUS puts corporatism ahead of the people...this!
EDIT: People who are downvoting should say why this disagree with the ruling and their legal basis. I'm just saying the basis laid out for summary judgement appears to be a correct assumption.
Here is the ruling https://www.eff.org/document/summary-judgment-opinion-abc-v-goodfriend-locast
I HATE to say... but I agree with it. I hate I have to say this...
Basically if you're operating a non-profit you can do retrans for free and without copyright. The judge said, yes you can, but what you're actually doing is having a company which is in the retrans business, expanding, and taking in income in order to grow your business in additional markets.
Basically, if they were just operating a retrans facility, that would be fine, but since they are clearly soliciting and receiving monies to not just "operate and maintain" the business, but to grow it, thats not OK, because then they are not operating under the rules which allow a company to retrans without fee or copyright
This has long been a debate, and its been understood if you're a non profit, just operating out of the goodness of your heart, thats OK, but you can't be someone in the business of retrans. The ruling was... gotta say, its right. They are operating a business that simply happens to get "donations" and is registered as a non-profit. Thats not what the exemption in the rules are supposed to be about.
This sucks.
Again, this sucks balls, but the decision is justifiable.