So none of the research results will be licensed, patented, or used to bolster the universities reputation?
And they aren't doing it to become world renowned for their rebroadcasting, they're doing research and publishing results first and foremost. Big difference. Unless you want to start couching every type of university research as commercial advantage now, which seems pretty harmful to the university research landscape to me.
Also, the copyright licenses the station has for their programming usually specify limits on redistribution - e.g. geographical, types of carriage, amount of customers reached (with a wider distribution costing more, as it provides more value to the licensee and reduces the licensor's ability to sell licenses to other entities).
So the opposite of what some ISPs are trying to pull.
The reality is cable operators are no longer need to be anything but a dumb pipe. And TV channels are no longer as valuable as they once were due to multitude of other sources of information.
Not really.
> (Previously, it was 100% in-house.)
Nope.
Even in-house programming doesn't mean you're free of underlying copyright issues.
They don’t get that money if you use an antenna, but that’s a small market compared to the internet. Most people who use antennas won’t pay anyway, and broadcasting gives them access to the network.
But opening up streaming will draw a lot of people who would otherwise have a cable subscription. Which will lead to much more cord cutters and cut into the carriage fees from the cable company.
This increase by YTTV is driven by the leverage that ViacomCBS has because of the CBS locals then own. They are forcing YTTV to take these network. Until retransmission consent is changed, we are stuck paying the local station holders despite the fact that their content is free OTA.
[1] - https://www.multichannel.com/news/is-the-retrans-cash-cow-ru...
Pretty simple. They money using a tried and true model, why would they bother innovating or rocking the boat. It's much easier to collect the check for most of the money on the table than to bother innovating and collecting a slightly higher percentage with signicant potential downsides.
There wouldn't be loopholes if the law was consistent, and I would argue there is no 'spirit' in such a confusing set of rules.
First sale doctrine covers rentals, but having good relations with studios to get supply of new releases often influences rental establishments to avoid buying discs at retail to rent out. (But, RedBox will sometimes do it)
They buckled from pressure from studios and agreed to stop for the reason you gave.
It kind of seemed at the time that they used their right to do this as a negotiating tactic in getting better prices from distributors.
They might also need to sell you a short-term lease on that particular drive bay, so that you are playing the DVD in your own home too.
Kind of sad it got killed off :(
If there is such a rule I highly doubt it's intended to cover distribution to the public, more like within campus facilities, but that could be what Stanford is trying to exploit.
It seems like the Stanford service is trying to justify themselves by being an academic study and limiting to 500 concurrent participants... but it's telling they don't list any legal justification on the site, and merely generically claim:
> Stanford respects the intellectual property rights of others. If you believe your copyright has been violated on a Stanford site, please notify [email protected] and give notice as stated under Reporting of Alleged Copyright Infringement. [2]
I'm honestly shocked this ever passed Stanford legal review. Maybe it never did?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
[2] https://puffer.stanford.edu/terms/