4 ms·

> The free version of Locast's service interrupts programming every 15 minutes "with a fifteen-second video requesting donations," Stanton noted It doesn't see

> The free version of Locast's service interrupts programming every 15 minutes "with a fifteen-second video requesting donations," Stanton noted It doesn't seem like they actually needed to shut down. They didn't just interrupt the broadcast, the notifications would stop, and then exit out of the app. You could go back into it and watch for another fifteen minutes or so, and then you'd get another "give us some money or these notifications continue" notification. The judge's ruling was that this means of "forcing" of users to "donate" weren't voluntary donations at all and that locast was therefore not a non-profit. They could have continued by either actually making the donations truly voluntary or by operating as a for-profit.

darknavi 5y ago
I have an account and was not aware of any lawsuit so I am seeing this news only threw emails from Locast. Here is a brief rundown the emails I got: August 31, 2021: > Response to Summary Judgement > > In the big media companies' lawsuit against Locast, the court just issued a disappointing ruling. We are evaluating our options and will keep you posted as the situation develops. September 1, 2021: > Stopping the interrupt > > Locast is suspending immediately all programming interruptions to request donations. > This means that anyone located in a market we serve who signs up for Locast will get the service without interruption, regardless of whether or not they donate. > Of course, it is up to you whether or not to contribute to Locast. But if you currently contribute, we humbly request that you continue to do so. And if you don't contribute, we hope that you will do so if you can afford it. September 2, 2021: > Suspending Operations > > As a non-profit, Locast was designed from the very beginning to operate in accordance with the strict letter of the law, but in response to the court’s recent rulings, with which we respectfully disagree, we are hereby suspending operations, effective immediately. It seems like removing ads was not enough for someone, they turned their attitude very quickly.
- rockostrich 5y ago
  I'm guessing that removing the ads was just a test to see what kind of donation conversion they would get without them and they quickly realized that it would be nowhere near sustainable.
300bps 5y ago
Is PBS not a non-profit? Because they'll give me perks for donating certain levels but won't give them to me if I don't donate at certain levels. There are plenty of non-profits that give similar benefits if you donate. Even a local garden near me that is a non-profit won't let me enter unless I give a donation. I just don't see the difference here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
classichasclass 5y ago
No, that's not it. The ruling hinges on 17 USC 111 and the use of Locast donations to expand to new markets. The judge took a narrow interpretation of the statute, saying that expansion was not part of the law, and therefore the use of donations was therefore beyond the costs of running the service, which is permitted. No ruling was made on whether Locast itself was a non-profit or not. I think this ruling is excessively narrow, since it means that any such non-profit retransmission network would have to exist in its entirety, from the beginning, and could never increase in size (or at least could never use donations to increase in size, which is effectively the same). But it's not a profitability argument.
- sjg007 5y ago
  I imagine this will be overturned on appeal. Basically all nonprofits have an interest in the case now including the Center For Public Broadcasting.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
  Yea, I often dislike when judges massively expand rulings, but it's been a thing for ages that non profits are allowed to expand. Otherwise no nonprofit could grow at all. This judge basically nullified the original law in a way, so Locast would have had to have the capital to cover the whole country from day 1, and that would be fine? How were these nonprofits ever supposed to come into existence to restream broadcast TV? And it mentions they only brought in 4.5 million. To restream content to millions of users, this really does not seem like a ridiculous amount.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    > How were these nonprofits ever supposed to come into existence to restream broadcast TV? They weren't. The law was really just intended to legalise a few existing networks, it wasn't supposed to be used for anything significantly bigger than a university campus.
gamblor956 5y ago
No, that part of the ruling was in the background facts section of the case. (see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217.322.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.52...) The crux of the matter was this, quoted from discussion portion of the ruling (aka, the part where the judge explains the reasoning behind their decision): "On those undisputed facts, in 2020 Locast made far more money from user charges than was necessary to defray its costs of maintaining and operating its service," Stanton wrote." The copyright exemption for non-profits explicitly limits revenue to the costs of providing the service, and no more. (Note that the way the exemption is written, this means current and past costs associated with the service, not prospective future costs such as those associated with expansion. Locast could have expanded; they simply aren't allowed to raise the money to pay for the expansion until after they have actually expanded. This is a deliberate and intended result of the law, which is intended to limit the size and growth of non-profit re-broadcasters while still allowing their existence.) Locast could have kept operating, by reducing the donations it collected. Shutting down was entirely its own decision.
- abraae 5y ago
  Sounds like this has highlighted a wonderful side hustle opportunity that the big guys will never come in and take over.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    I don't follow. In order to take advantage of this exemption, you need to be a registered 501 non-profit, and you need to run this activity at a loss or break-even (at best).
    - abraae 5y ago
      My thoughts were this seems like something a one, 2 or 3 person business could run, and it should be possible to extract decent salaries out of it while still remaining in conformance with non-profit rules. Safe in the knowledge that no megacorp is coming to take it from you.

darknavi 5y ago

I have an account and was not aware of any lawsuit so I am seeing this news only threw emails from Locast. Here is a brief rundown the emails I got: August 31, 2021: > Response to Summary Judgement > > In the big media companies' lawsuit against Locast, the court just issued a disappointing ruling. We are evaluating our options and will keep you posted as the situation develops. September 1, 2021: > Stopping the interrupt > > Locast is suspending immediately all programming interruptions to request donations. > This means that anyone located in a market we serve who signs up for Locast will get the service without interruption, regardless of whether or not they donate. > Of course, it is up to you whether or not to contribute to Locast. But if you currently contribute, we humbly request that you continue to do so. And if you don't contribute, we hope that you will do so if you can afford it. September 2, 2021: > Suspending Operations > > As a non-profit, Locast was designed from the very beginning to operate in accordance with the strict letter of the law, but in response to the court’s recent rulings, with which we respectfully disagree, we are hereby suspending operations, effective immediately. It seems like removing ads was not enough for someone, they turned their attitude very quickly.

rockostrich 5y ago
I'm guessing that removing the ads was just a test to see what kind of donation conversion they would get without them and they quickly realized that it would be nowhere near sustainable.

300bps 5y ago

Is PBS not a non-profit? Because they'll give me perks for donating certain levels but won't give them to me if I don't donate at certain levels. There are plenty of non-profits that give similar benefits if you donate. Even a local garden near me that is a non-profit won't let me enter unless I give a donation. I just don't see the difference here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

classichasclass 5y ago

No, that's not it. The ruling hinges on 17 USC 111 and the use of Locast donations to expand to new markets. The judge took a narrow interpretation of the statute, saying that expansion was not part of the law, and therefore the use of donations was therefore beyond the costs of running the service, which is permitted. No ruling was made on whether Locast itself was a non-profit or not. I think this ruling is excessively narrow, since it means that any such non-profit retransmission network would have to exist in its entirety, from the beginning, and could never increase in size (or at least could never use donations to increase in size, which is effectively the same). But it's not a profitability argument.

sjg007 5y ago
I imagine this will be overturned on appeal. Basically all nonprofits have an interest in the case now including the Center For Public Broadcasting.
ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
Yea, I often dislike when judges massively expand rulings, but it's been a thing for ages that non profits are allowed to expand. Otherwise no nonprofit could grow at all. This judge basically nullified the original law in a way, so Locast would have had to have the capital to cover the whole country from day 1, and that would be fine? How were these nonprofits ever supposed to come into existence to restream broadcast TV? And it mentions they only brought in 4.5 million. To restream content to millions of users, this really does not seem like a ridiculous amount.
- Mindwipe 5y ago
  > How were these nonprofits ever supposed to come into existence to restream broadcast TV? They weren't. The law was really just intended to legalise a few existing networks, it wasn't supposed to be used for anything significantly bigger than a university campus.

gamblor956 5y ago

No, that part of the ruling was in the background facts section of the case. (see https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217.322.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.52...) The crux of the matter was this, quoted from discussion portion of the ruling (aka, the part where the judge explains the reasoning behind their decision): "On those undisputed facts, in 2020 Locast made far more money from user charges than was necessary to defray its costs of maintaining and operating its service," Stanton wrote." The copyright exemption for non-profits explicitly limits revenue to the costs of providing the service, and no more. (Note that the way the exemption is written, this means current and past costs associated with the service, not prospective future costs such as those associated with expansion. Locast could have expanded; they simply aren't allowed to raise the money to pay for the expansion until after they have actually expanded. This is a deliberate and intended result of the law, which is intended to limit the size and growth of non-profit re-broadcasters while still allowing their existence.) Locast could have kept operating, by reducing the donations it collected. Shutting down was entirely its own decision.

abraae 5y ago
Sounds like this has highlighted a wonderful side hustle opportunity that the big guys will never come in and take over.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  I don't follow. In order to take advantage of this exemption, you need to be a registered 501 non-profit, and you need to run this activity at a loss or break-even (at best).
  - abraae 5y ago
    My thoughts were this seems like something a one, 2 or 3 person business could run, and it should be possible to extract decent salaries out of it while still remaining in conformance with non-profit rules. Safe in the knowledge that no megacorp is coming to take it from you.