Regarding this smokescreen of copyright nonsense, please follow the links and comments that follow.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4542434.htm

I have uploaded their cease and desist letters at the link above. I note that we publicly educated and enlightened the NAB about the iCrave matter they were hoping to use as a precedent and mentioned in most of the C&Ds, but the truth is, no precedent exists. iCrave doesn’t apply for a long list of reasons, not the least of which include the fact that they were altering the retransmission by “wrapping ads” into the signal and it was a significant deterioration of the signal. We all would have loved live TV a decade ago, but bandwidth was not ready. I note that yesterday’s Complaint didn’t bother with the iCrave matter, so I think our message resonated. If it mattered at all, it would have been referenced in their anti-competition, anti-innovation, weak copyright Complaint filed yesterday.

Our response to the NAB to further your perspective about iCrave is here:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4550604.htm

And our response to their Complaint follows:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4581514.htm

ivi TV Response to Lawsuit Filed Against it by Big Media

Seattle (September 28, 2010) – ivi TV issued a statement today in response to a Complaint filed against it by a group of copyright conglomerates. Case number 10 CV 7415, filed in United States District Court Southern District of New York.

Commenting on the development, ivi TV CEO Todd Weaver said:

“This is a predictable move by big media to try and stifle innovation and technology. We pay broadcasters in accordance with the law, just like cable. This is not about copyright, this is about competition. In an initial knee-jerk reaction, broadcasters fought against cable companies, then joined them. Broadcasters then fought against satellite companies, then joined them. Today, it is our turn. ivi TV pays broadcasters and we increase their viewership. Broadcasters charge more in advertising in return due to the increase in viewers. It is unfortunate that big media chooses to fight innovation that is legal, pays them, and increases their revenue. History keeps repeating itself, however. This is EchoStar (satellite), Slingbox and a litany of other innovations the industry tried, but failed, to sue away. The smart move would be for broadcasters to take a cue from the music industry and innovate rather than litigate, as cable TV goes the way of the landline telephone business.”
###

Contact:
Hal Bringman
NVPR
hal (at) nvpr.com
+1.323.851.6877
+1.310-210-8011 (mobile)
Skype: halbringman
Twitter: @halbringman