PDA

View Full Version : Viacom Sues Cablevision Over Live TV App for iPad, Negotiating Settlement With Time Warner




MacRumors
Jun 23, 2011, 12:49 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/23/viacom-sues-cablevision-over-live-tv-app-for-ipad-negotiating-settlement-with-time-warner/)


Back in March, cable provider Time Warner launched an iPad app (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/14/time-warner-cable-to-launch-live-tv-streaming-ipad-app/) that allowed subscribers to the company's TV and Internet services to access live TV from a number of channels via their iPads while on their home Wi-Fi networks. The cable company was forced, however, to quickly pull (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/01/time-warner-cable-pulls-some-channels-from-ipad-app-adds-others/) channels from several content providers who objected to the usage. Disputes with Fox and Discovery were resolved within weeks (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/15/time-warner-adds-channels-from-fox-and-discovery-back-to-ipad-app/), while Time Warner filed suit (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/08/time-warner-cable-goes-to-court-for-ipad-app-content-rights/) against Viacom over the issue, claiming that its contract did allow the cable provider to broadcast channels such as Comedy Central, MTV, and Nickelodeon to iPads.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/cablevision_ipad_1.jpg

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/cablevision_ipad_1.jpg)Cablevision's Optimum for iPad (http://appshopper.com/entertainment/optimum-for-ipad) live TV app
In the meantime, Cablevision launched its own iPad app (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/02/cablevision-one-ups-time-warner-cable-with-new-tv-ipad-app/) bringing full access to the cable company's cable lineup as well as on-demand content. In the process, Cablevision took content providers head-on with statements laying out its position that such an offering was allowable under carriage contracts for the various channels.

Things had been quiet for the past several months, but a couple of developments yesterday and today are reigniting the debate. Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303970604576402052505835720.html) that Time Warner and Viacom have placed their legal dispute on hold as they work toward a settlement.The two companies said in a court filing made public Wednesday that they had reached a "standstill agreement," which put all the litigation on hold as of June 17. "In an attempt to resolve this and other litigation and potential litigation, the parties have entered into a standstill agreement," the parties said in the agreement.

The two companies are currently in talks over whether to return channels like MTV to the Time Warner Cable app, but it is unclear what the outcome of those talks will be, according to people familiar with the matter.While there may be hope for some sort of resolution for Time Warner, Viacom has actually ratcheted up the pressure on Cablevision, as Reuters reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/viacom-cablevision-idUSN1E75M0WV20110623) that Viacom has filed a lawsuit against Cablevision over its live TV app for iPad. The Wall Street Journal provides more detail (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576403763622634574.html) on the lawsuit:In the suit Thursday, Viacom said it is "committed to meeting consumer demand for broadband delivery of its programming."

"To this end, Viacom has reached reasonable agreements with several emerging and established digital media distributors so that they can stream Viacom's content and also provide an outstanding user experience.

"What Viacom cannot do, however, is permit one of its contracting partners, Cablevision, to unilaterally change the terms of its contractual relationship," it said in the lawsuit.Apple's iPad has become a popular way for users to consume video, with streaming video services such as Netflix and Hulu experiencing strong success on the platform. Live television is yet another step forward for iPad video consumption, with some networks such as ESPN putting out their own apps for live video while cable providers such as Time Warner and Cablevision have been attempting to bring a breadth of channel offerings to their customers.

Article Link: Viacom Sues Cablevision Over Live TV App for iPad, Negotiating Settlement With Time Warner (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/23/viacom-sues-cablevision-over-live-tv-app-for-ipad-negotiating-settlement-with-time-warner/)



GFLPraxis
Jun 23, 2011, 12:59 PM
I can't believe I am actually rooting for a cable company.

Way to go Cablevision. The results of these lawsuits will be groundbreaking in a lot of areas. Essentially, Time Warner and Cablevision are arguing that the method is irrelevant; they have the license to distribute Viacom content to Time Warner/Cablevision subscribers over cable lines, and are switching from an analog transmission to doing it over IP on the same cable lines. Viacom is arguing that they should have to pay for seperate licenses to send the same content over the same wires to the same customers using a slightly different transmission method.


We should all be hoping for Viacom to get smacked down here, or we'll all suffer.

DiamondMac
Jun 23, 2011, 12:59 PM
Right, so we can expect the Big Companies to resist any and all live TV unless it is on exactly their terms and on their apps?

Awesome. Can't wait to see how much that costs me

BC2009
Jun 23, 2011, 12:59 PM
Meanwhile Dish Network keeps offering internet-based access to the content on your Dish 722 or 922 receiver. Seems Dish knew what they were doing when they had all content served from the receiver itself.

pimentoLoaf
Jun 23, 2011, 01:00 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if Apple brings out an iPad that transforms it literally into a TV for WiFi and 3G/4G, essentially eliminating cable and satellite TV companies for good. :cool:

tasset
Jun 23, 2011, 01:00 PM
Translation: "A provider of our content cannot give away a value-added benefit to their customers, without us first having the opportunity to nickel-and-dime them by charging for the same content twice."

GFLPraxis
Jun 23, 2011, 01:04 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if Apple brings out an iPad that transforms it literally into a TV for WiFi and 3G/4G, essentially eliminating cable and satellite TV companies for good. :cool:

An AppleTV with a TV tuner that can reverse-Airplay the signal hooked up to it to an iPad?

That'd work, but I see no motive for Apple to do it. It'd keep people still using the cable and satellite companies.

Apple's trying to kill them with iTunes already. They just need to add streaming content for live stuff like sports/news.

DiamondMac
Jun 23, 2011, 01:06 PM
Translation: "A provider of our content cannot give away a value-added benefit to their customers, without us first having the opportunity to nickel-and-dime them by charging for the same content twice."

This is where someone here tells you that the Cable people deserve to get paid AGAIN if the content is anywhere BUT your TV

Or...someone saying that the Cable company can and should get to do WHATEVER they want WHENEVER they want HOWEVER they want b/c that is awesome 100% capitalism! Yeah!

roland.g
Jun 23, 2011, 01:06 PM
At current the best way to get live TV content on your iPad/iPhone or even computer is to go Sling. May not be the cheapest. But it is the best until all those companies get it sorted out, and I don't see that anytime soon. The new iPad App for DirecTV is awesome. Don't need your remote anymore and scrolling what is on is easier than even. Totally customizable/multiple guides, but you can't watch on it, just control.

aristotle
Jun 23, 2011, 01:12 PM
Your congress should pass a law to prevent double billing. As long as the app validates that the user is a subscriber in good standing, they should not be allowed to charge a second time.

roland.g
Jun 23, 2011, 01:12 PM
An AppleTV with a TV tuner that can reverse-Airplay the signal hooked up to it to an iPad?

That'd work, but I see no motive for Apple to do it. It'd keep people still using the cable and satellite companies.

Apple's trying to kill them with iTunes already. They just need to add streaming content for live stuff like sports/news.

There is always someone propagating the big iTunes myth. Apple has no interest in killing cable. They have no real interest in iTunes as some end all video consumption model. They make little to no profit on anything iTunes whether it be App Store, iTunes music and movies, iTunes rentals. Their 70/30 split is to make enough money to make a marginal profit at best. Less than 10% and probably closer to 5%. iTunes, App Store, all that serves one purpose and one purpose only. SELL HARDWARE. Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads. What they generate in revenue and profit on hardware makes the little actual net profit from iTunes pale in comparison. It is a drop in the bucket. But they wouldn't sell nearly the amount of hardware or make the money they do without the content to drive the ecosystem.

d21mike
Jun 23, 2011, 01:23 PM
At current the best way to get live TV content on your iPad/iPhone or even computer is to go Sling. May not be the cheapest. But it is the best until all those companies get it sorted out, and I don't see that anytime soon. The new iPad App for DirecTV is awesome. Don't need your remote anymore and scrolling what is on is easier than even. Totally customizable/multiple guides, but you can't watch on it, just control.
I use a SlingBox as well and you are right. This is why I have been saying for some time we need an App Store for the ATV. This would allow a SlingBox Native App on the ATV. I can use Mirroring to do this from my iPad 2 (but not iPad 1 or iPhone) but I would prefer a native ATV App for SlingBox. Also, this would open up the ability to add Hulu Plus to the ATV and many other Apps.

tasset
Jun 23, 2011, 01:24 PM
There is always someone propagating the big iTunes myth. Apple has no interest in killing cable. They have no real interest in iTunes as some end all video consumption model. They make little to no profit on anything iTunes whether it be App Store, iTunes music and movies, iTunes rentals. Their 70/30 split is to make enough money to make a marginal profit at best. Less than 10% and probably closer to 5%. iTunes, App Store, all that serves one purpose and one purpose only. SELL HARDWARE. Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads. What they generate in revenue and profit on hardware makes the little actual net profit from iTunes pale in comparison. It is a drop in the bucket. But they wouldn't sell nearly the amount of hardware or make the money they do without the content to drive the ecosystem.

I wonder about this. The amount of bandwidth Apple would have to serve for iTunes TV streaming would be astronomical. Maybe in 5 to 10 years? I've heard the 30% they get for a 99c song download is marginally enough to cover costs. And that's roughly 5mb a song. How much would they have to charge to stream an hour of HDTV? But then I think, obviously profitable for Netflix to make it work. So maybe the bandwidth costs are greatly exaggerated.

crisss1205
Jun 23, 2011, 01:24 PM
At current the best way to get live TV content on your iPad/iPhone or even computer is to go Sling. May not be the cheapest. But it is the best until all those companies get it sorted out, and I don't see that anytime soon. The new iPad App for DirecTV is awesome. Don't need your remote anymore and scrolling what is on is easier than even. Totally customizable/multiple guides, but you can't watch on it, just control.

I love my SlingBox, where I go to school they only have Cablevision in the dorms (iO TV) and miss my HBO and Showtime from home (FiOS). And it works out great when I travel too.

d21mike
Jun 23, 2011, 01:26 PM
I wonder about this. The amount of bandwidth Apple would have to serve for iTunes TV streaming would be astronomical. Maybe in 5 to 10 years? I've heard the 30% they get for a 99c song download is marginally enough to cover costs. And that's roughly 5mb a song. How much would they have to charge to stream an hour of HDTV? But then I think, obviously profitable for Netflix to make it work. So maybe the bandwidth costs are greatly exaggerated.I would add Hulu Plus to your Netflix Comment.

Oman
Jun 23, 2011, 01:26 PM
I can't believe I am actually rooting for a cable company.

Way to go Cablevision. The results of these lawsuits will be groundbreaking in a lot of areas. Essentially, Time Warner and Cablevision are arguing that the method is irrelevant; they have the license to distribute Viacom content to Time Warner/Cablevision subscribers over cable lines, and are switching from an analog transmission to doing it over IP on the same cable lines. Viacom is arguing that they should have to pay for seperate licenses to send the same content over the same wires to the same customers using a slightly different transmission method.


We should all be hoping for Viacom to get smacked down here, or we'll all suffer.

Yep, the Viacoms of the world are just greedy. Time Warner and Cablevision do not get an added benefit other than more people will subscribe to their cable service which benefits the Viacoms of the world also. Essentially the cable companies are giving the app away for free, which means they are absorbing the cost of development and upkeep in hopes that people like it so much that they choose to subscribe to their service to use the app. So the only folks who are trying to double dip are the Viacoms. Interesting enough is Time Warner is a content provider and a internet service provider and they see nothing wrong with what cablevision and essentially they have done. Time warner can be as greedy as viacom. This should be interesting for that reason and that reason alone, Time Warner is on both sides.

rdowns
Jun 23, 2011, 01:33 PM
I'm rooting for Cablevision. It's my most used app on my iPad.

Attention content providers- If you think I'm going to pay more to watch on my iPad inside my own home, you're ****ing crazy.

Akuratyde
Jun 23, 2011, 01:34 PM
Breaking news on MacRumors:

Today, some tech company sued some other tech company. The same thing happened yesterday, and we're predicting the same thing will happen tomorrow. Now, back to the weather...

tasset
Jun 23, 2011, 01:39 PM
Breaking news on MacRumors:

Today, some tech company sued some other tech company. The same thing happened yesterday, and we're predicting the same thing will happen tomorrow. Now, back to the weather...

Yes that's very much how it is. The disruption the Internet causes to business models, whether it be book publishing, telephony, or music/video content, can be likened to watching these industry giants play musical chairs on the Titanic to determine who rides out on a lifeboat. Everyone is fighting each other to be in a better position when it all goes down

Consultant
Jun 23, 2011, 01:52 PM
Translation, Time Warner paid off greedy Viacom.

Cablevision tries to stand up for their licensing rights.

iSee
Jun 23, 2011, 01:56 PM
This story makes me sleepy.

TheSlush
Jun 23, 2011, 02:00 PM
Oh, get it together, you scared, content-providing morons! People want your stuff! Figure out ways to give it to them, not keep it from them!

Get on the bus or you'll find yourselves under it!

cav23j
Jun 23, 2011, 02:25 PM
Translation, Time Warner paid off greedy Viacom.

Cablevision tries to stand up for their licensing rights.

Cablevision will eventually settle or lose more money then TW by being sued

The Phazer
Jun 23, 2011, 02:30 PM
Oh, get it together, you scared, content-providing morons! People want your stuff! Figure out ways to give it to them, not keep it from them!

Get on the bus or you'll find yourselves under it!

They do. They just want the cable companies to pay for it. They have to pay additional money to writers, directors and actors as a result too...

Phazer

jvmxtra
Jun 23, 2011, 02:59 PM
Once again I MUST bring up coward way of verizon FIOS of not taking any action whatsoever.

NOt even an announcement to their customers saying they are doing anything or waiting for these legal issues to get resolve. They took all the credit in the world last year as first major company to break the news and completely took a step back while other cable companies fighting for their customer.

What a joke...

roland.g
Jun 23, 2011, 03:04 PM
I wonder about this. The amount of bandwidth Apple would have to serve for iTunes TV streaming would be astronomical. Maybe in 5 to 10 years? I've heard the 30% they get for a 99c song download is marginally enough to cover costs. And that's roughly 5mb a song. How much would they have to charge to stream an hour of HDTV? But then I think, obviously profitable for Netflix to make it work. So maybe the bandwidth costs are greatly exaggerated.

Apple sold about $4 billion in Music, Movies, TV Shows and iOS apps combined in 2009, up 21% from 2008, and that figure has undoubtedly risen in 2010 and 2011 YTD. However, the iTunes store is essentially a "break-even business" for Apple. They might net $100 to $400 million in profit or less on $4 billion in sales. However, in the quarter ending end of March 2011, they had $24.67 billion in revenue and $5.99 billion in profit. Now I don't know what part of their quarterly revenue or profit was iTS/App Store, but when you sell 3.76 million Macs and 18.65 million iPhones, that's your bread, butter, and opera tickets. 30% on iTunes, Apps, etc. just keeps that part of the business afloat so they can sell us all that other fun stuff.

NYR99
Jun 23, 2011, 03:15 PM
I hate Cablevision and the Dolan's. This is the one thing they are finally doing right. I do enjoy the Optimum app.

Ciclismo
Jun 23, 2011, 04:04 PM
Whilst the media houses squabble over who gets what piece of the pie, we end consumers, frustrated about not being able to easily consume media when and where we want, will continue to use other methods (such as torrents) to gain access which deny said media corporations of any profit anyhow. Now that is what is called an "own goal".

JAJ
Jun 23, 2011, 04:06 PM
I really hope that Cablevision doesn't buckle here, Viacom doesn't have a leg to stand on. Because Cablevision limits their on Demand and LIVE tv offerings to people who are only on their home networks(you have to have iO and Optimum Online) to qualify for their service(I believe) they aren't doing anything wrong. If they were letting you use it with OptimumWifi while you were out then it might be more easily challengeable, but with the way they made the app it seems to be pretty strong.

rdowns
Jun 23, 2011, 04:07 PM
They do. They just want the cable companies to pay for it. They have to pay additional money to writers, directors and actors as a result too...

Phazer

Why?

If I buy a new TV, it costs me no more to watch content other than the cable box rental. Cable companies pay content providers based on subscribers, not number of TVs.

Ciclismo
Jun 23, 2011, 04:25 PM
They do. They just want the cable companies to pay for it. They have to pay additional money to writers, directors and actors as a result too...

Phazer

Wait, what? So as an actor in a show, you get more money if a Cable TV subscriber then suddenly has the ability to watch on a device other than a TV? So does your water company charge you more once you start to use an additional vessel to consume water?

rdowns
Jun 23, 2011, 04:40 PM
I hate Cablevision and the Dolan's. This is the one thing they are finally doing right. I do enjoy the Optimum app.

Since they started offering wifi, I love them. I get wifi all over the island and in the city.

winston1236
Jun 23, 2011, 06:06 PM
with everyone suing everyone i feel like maybe i'm missing out, i need to sue someone!

mchoffa
Jun 23, 2011, 09:20 PM
So I could buy a 10 inch LCD tv and watch my cable on it, and viacom is just fine with that, but not on my 10 inch lcd screen on my ipad? I do not understand how they even have a case here... how are those two different?

Beerstalker
Jun 24, 2011, 10:54 AM
The big deal here is Time Warner, and Cablevision are streaming the content from their servers over IP to customers. This is just like someone sitting at home and watching a show on Hulu, etc as far as they are concerned. That means Viacomm has to pay the writers, actors, directors, etc. for the viewing, seperate from what they have been paid for the show to be broadcast on the actual channel. But now Time Warner/Cablevision aren't paying Viacomm for that extra viewing and Viacomm has to foot the bill on their own. This is not fair to Viacomm, and that is why they are suing. They want Time Warner/Cablevision to pay for the streaming rights seperate from the rights to the actual channels just like Viacomm has to. I don't blame them.

Now if Time Warner/Cablevisions apps only allowed you to watch recordings off of the DVR in your home, then I don't think they would need to sign any new agreements.

This is precisely why DirecTVs app currently does not allow streaming of shows. They are working on getting the streaming rights from the content providers first, then they will add the function. Supposedly this is one of the things keeping AMC's HD channel off DirecTV. DirecTV wants the streaming rights included on all new carriage deals, and AMC doesn't want to give DirecTV those rights.

d21mike
Jun 24, 2011, 11:05 AM
I heard this somewhere, just not sure where.

What if you were only allowed to STREAM from a Cable Box. I.E. Like from a DVR of recorded content but also from the same DVR for LIVE Content. Like a PASS THRU. That would take away 1 of the tuners but how much stuff would I be watching at the same time anyway. This is kind of like the SlingBox where the content is delivered to the SlingBox and is STREAMED from there to your device. You would simple need a SET TOP BOX Client.

With this setup I could not see VIACOM having a problem. However, I am still not sure I agree with the prior post that FIOS Streaming to a SET TOP Box is any different then FIOS Steaming to my iPad which is really like a SET TOP Box. Unless you are saying that Streaming to an iPad is coming "directly from VIACOM" bypassing FIOS thereby using up VIACOM Bandwidth. But I have not heard that before.

Beerstalker
Jun 24, 2011, 11:50 AM
What if you were only allowed to STREAM from a Cable Box. I.E. Like from a DVR of recorded content but also from the same DVR for LIVE Content. Like a PASS THRU. That would take away 1 of the tuners but how much stuff would I be watching at the same time anyway. This is kind of like the SlingBox where the content is delivered to the SlingBox and is STREAMED from there to your device. You would simple need a SET TOP BOX Client.


As far as I know this is fine, if it is coming from your own receiver, and staying within your own home. DirecTV actually allows you to do this now from your DVR to your PC with their DirecTV2PC program.

Slingbox is a bit different though and I'm not entirely sure how they get away with some of the stuff they allow.

As far as I know FIOS uses QAM to send all their linear channel programming just like cable providers. They do not use IP. That is the issue here, Time Warner and Cablevision are sending this content out as over IP and that means it is considered to be streaming just like Hulu etc instead of linear programming like watching the QAM/analog MTV channel.

The way I understand it now DirecTV is trying to lock up 4 things with their new carriage agreeements. Linear channel rights, streaming rights, On Demand rights, and portable copy rights. They are working on a device (NOMAD) that will allow you to take your recordings off your DVR and transfer them to your iPhone/iPad/Android device etc. and take them with you anywhere without depending on an internet connection to watch them. I think these are going to be the standard set of rights that providers are going to have to negotiate over from now on.

rdowns
Jun 24, 2011, 11:57 AM
I heard this somewhere, just not sure where.

What if you were only allowed to STREAM from a Cable Box. I.E. Like from a DVR of recorded content but also from the same DVR for LIVE Content. Like a PASS THRU. That would take away 1 of the tuners but how much stuff would I be watching at the same time anyway. This is kind of like the SlingBox where the content is delivered to the SlingBox and is STREAMED from there to your device. You would simple need a SET TOP BOX Client.

With this setup I could not see VIACOM having a problem. However, I am still not sure I agree with the prior post that FIOS Streaming to a SET TOP Box is any different then FIOS Steaming to my iPad which is really like a SET TOP Box. Unless you are saying that Streaming to an iPad is coming "directly from VIACOM" bypassing FIOS thereby using up VIACOM Bandwidth. But I have not heard that before.


If they were streaming content that we could view OUTSIDE our homes, I'd understand wanting more money for those rights. This is no different than if I bought another TV.

adwebinc
Jun 25, 2011, 09:36 AM
I am so sick and tired of the cable companies and movie studios operating with blinders on. Have they learned nothing from watching the music industry?!? I pay a shload of money to my cable company every month, but I can't watch it remotely without cobbling together crap solutions. I own over 300 DVDs, but there is no "legal" way to rip movies that I paid for and own?!? All they do is motivate people to use less than ethical solutions. :mad:

Rant over.