Post by budgetguy on Apr 16, 2004 18:46:44 GMT -5
I certainly plan to watch Master Fx and our esteemed webmaster on Sunday on Channel 6...my legal experiences leads me to a what I beleive to be a flaw in Master FX's logic here....agreed: owners of copyrights have the right to protect copyrighted material....however...if I'm not mistaken...the local channels have no such copyright protections or rights in re: network material...as network affiliates they only have an exclusive right to locally CONVEY copyrighted material owned by CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc...in fact since CBS has an agreement with Time Warner regarding HD carriage...there would appear to be no such issue with regard to Ch. 6's CBS broadcasts certainly CH 6 has ample legal right to protect locally produced and copyrighted programming which generally amounts to News...personally I would not pay one cent for the right to view WRGB's local newscasts!!!
(but that's my own personal bias., I admit)
I do agree however that the issue of what to do about the additional channels is the more significant issue in the local vs cable dispute....and this won't get solved via payments or agreements...ultimately it will resolve when the FCC decides on locals "must carry' rights...
(eg Per Federal Fiat cable co's "must carry" local channels...)
What does this all mean? It means that the current impasse is a temporary issue...ultimately the locals know that if must carry goes through (and from a historical perspective FCC has no real choice here...they would seem to have no legal justification not to grant local "must carry"...at that point the compensation issue goes away.......local channels and cables will be forced to play ball with each other and the cable cos are holding a full house....
One other interesting tidbit I just learned about: NBC is the incipient stages of forming a digital network with its affiliates to provide a news/weather digital channel (presumably to be directed to one of the local's multi-cast channels)...its a wild ever changing digital tv world!!! Does anyone have any thoughts on any of the foregoing???
(but that's my own personal bias., I admit)
I do agree however that the issue of what to do about the additional channels is the more significant issue in the local vs cable dispute....and this won't get solved via payments or agreements...ultimately it will resolve when the FCC decides on locals "must carry' rights...
(eg Per Federal Fiat cable co's "must carry" local channels...)
What does this all mean? It means that the current impasse is a temporary issue...ultimately the locals know that if must carry goes through (and from a historical perspective FCC has no real choice here...they would seem to have no legal justification not to grant local "must carry"...at that point the compensation issue goes away.......local channels and cables will be forced to play ball with each other and the cable cos are holding a full house....
One other interesting tidbit I just learned about: NBC is the incipient stages of forming a digital network with its affiliates to provide a news/weather digital channel (presumably to be directed to one of the local's multi-cast channels)...its a wild ever changing digital tv world!!! Does anyone have any thoughts on any of the foregoing???
;D