4 Comments

Summary:

Eccentric billionaire Alki David just relaunched a streaming service that he says is a legal version of Aereo’s service that was just shut down by the Supreme Court. He will have to keep his lawyers nearby.

Alki David Teleporter

FilmOn, a service that streams live TV and movies over the internet, is reinventing itself as a cable company following last week’s Supreme Court ruling that barred a similar service, Aereo, from operating without a license. But the broadcasters, fresh off their victory over Aereo, are unlikely to stand still.

On Monday, FilmOn announced the launch of a new paid streaming package in 18 cities across the U.S., offering the ability for viewers to watch broadcast channels like ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox on their computers or mobile devices. Here’s a screenshot of how NBC’s morning show looked on FilmOn this morning:

FilmOn screenshot

I asked my colleagues on the West Coast to give it a try, and they reported it worked for them too — but they could only get the local New York NBC affiliate station, not the San Francisco one. According to FilmOn, this quirk is due to its “teleporter” technology that “transports” viewers in order to let them to watch TV through a mini-computer screen situated in New York.

If you think all this sounds half-baked, you’re probably right. FilmOn, you see, is run by an eccentric billionaire named Alki David who delights in thumbing his nose at the broadcasters’ reluctance to license their signals over the internet. The broadcasters keep squashing him in court, but he keeps coming back.

A cable company on the internet

This time around, David is seizing on the Supreme Court’s words last week that streaming services like Aereo (and, by extension, FilmOn) are basically cable companies. In Alki David’s eyes, this means that the broadcasters must now treat FilmOn as a cable company by allowing it to use their signals in exchange for a fair royalty payment. He claims that FilmOn has long offered to pay but that the broadcasters have refused to negotiate with him — but now they don’t have a choice.

In order to qualify as a cable company, FilmOn claims it must charge its subscribers, which is what the company also started to do on Monday morning. Here’s the paywall that my colleague, Barb Darrow, encountered after watching a CBS show on FilmOn for 5 minutes at her home in Boston:

FilmOn paywall

In Alki David’s view, the copyright problem is now solved — since FilmOn is now officially a cable company, the broadcasters get paid and everyone is happy.

The big broadcasters, however, are unlikely to see it that way, especially given their previous responses to FilmOn.

In recent years, for instance, the broadcasters have sued FilmOn repeatedly. In their most recent court triumph, they obtained an injunction that barred FilmOn from retransmitting their signal anywhere outside of three states, including New York, where another court had said Aereo was legal. (This meant that FilmOn could continue to offer small local over-the-air TV channels, but not the big networks).

John Hane of Pillsbury, a lawyer for the broadcasters, told me on Monday that FilmOn is definitely not a cable company — and can expect yet another lawsuit.

A “Teleporter” to TV

FilmOn is going on a big legal limb to say it is a cable company. But that position is downright conservative compared to the other legal gambit it announced on Monday, concerning what it calls a “revolutionary technology–which goes far beyond anything Aereo had offered.”

The technology is what FilmOn calls a “Teleporter.” You can see Alki David, who is also an actor, holding the marvelous machine here:

Alki David Teleporter

 

FilmOn first described the device to the Financial Times in February as a way to watch out-of-town TV, but its legal and practical implications are unclear. A spokesperson, who conceded the legal argument is “aggressive,” said the Teleporter allows a user in San Francisco to claim they are actually watching TV in New York via a “split-screen” or a “mini-computer” attached to a thousands-mile long cord (I confess I don’t quite understand this argument).

In my view, the Teleporter claim is a legal fiction to get around the injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who Alki David described to me by phone as “that fascist woman in Washington.”

Hane, the broadcasters’ lawyer, said he had not heard of the “Teleporter” but said that FilmOn can’t retransmit the networks’ signal with that or any other device without permission.

The bottom line is that Alki David appears eager to exploit the hole left by the Supreme Court’s unwise decision to shutter Aereo — but for now, he better put aside some of his fortune for some coming legal bills.

Comment

Community guidelines
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Avatar you are commenting using your account. Sign out / Change

Comment using:

Or comment as a guest

Be sure to review our Community Guidelines. By continuing you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

4 Comments

  1. In Aereo case, i always wondered if outcome would have been different if they also offered a “free” options.
    That would have made their argument stronger that they weren’t’ simply skimming the OTA signals & selling it for money rather it was customers who were using a free service to be able to watch the free telecast on new media (namely online).
    Not to mention $8/month is not a very attractive pricing model anyways for bunch of free channels.
    Hopefully FilmOn can learn from that.

  2. I’m a LPTV broadcaster so I don’t have any sympathy for the Full Power guys but to me it was still a matter of taking something for nothing and selling it for a profit, plain and simple. Rarely is anything “free”. In my opinion, Aereo was a streaming “cable provider”, MVPD or whatever else you may want to call them.

    If Aereo had operated a “freemium” model it may have worked, offering teh off-air broadcst channels for free and charging for other channels. What also never gets reported is actual subscriber numbers for Aereo; this usually means the numbers are few. My opinion is that Aereo would have eventually collapsed for lack of a viable business model.

  3. Flying B Ranch Tuesday, July 1, 2014

    Whether you think Alki David is crazy like a fox or just plain crazy, you have to give him credit for taking on this fight. The existing video distribution model is archaic and has to change. Maybe the ruling in the Aereo case (as flawed as it is) has created some cracks in the ice.

  4. edmundsingleton Wednesday, July 2, 2014

    It has started, every Tom, Dick and Harry has an option to send the broadcasters back into the court room to fight for every buck they get from now on…