"destruk" wrote:
Well see, we just don't know - ther terms of their exclusivity deal have never been disclosed - the length of exclusivity hasn't been disclosed (meaning it's most likely renewed when the original expires) so it would be indefinite/forever, and Dishwold and Roku actively enforce this exclusivity and ensure the content is legal or at least allowed by Dishworld.
It's about this weird concept of a 3rd party (DW) "blessing" streaming of specific non-domestic content - not about legal right to it, that's what i am pointing out. Though i understand how it simplifies RokuCo's life - by giving first dibs to DW, because of their size they are sure they'd license content right - and RokuCo does not have to learn the intricate details of content licensing abroad. Which differ wildly from country to country - as example do you remember AllofMP3.com case, where a Russian company was selling non-DRM MP3 at $0.10/song in full compliance with Russian law, while paying license fees to their version of RIAA? That was a very sticky situation, bringing questions about legality of trans-border transactions (i.e. if something purchased under other country's law gets imported here, where different rules apply - and the impracticality of Customs/duty on internet). Ultimately that site was shut down through extra-legal means, where Russian government reps* "influenced" the parent company into shutting down the service after USA government reps** have "hinted" that Russia's entry into WTO might be jeopardized if that egg-on-RIAAs-face of a website continues to exist. "The Godfather" vibe going on there. Not the kind of troubles Roku wants to be near anyway.
OTOH, the part where because of DW they took down existing international channels is a low part in RokuCo's existence. Maybe the lowest.
Although Dishworld hasn't added any languages since they launched on Roku they have this to say -- "We intend to continue to expand the languages we offer on Roku and aren’t prepared at this point to provide blanket waivers of our exclusivity." They have nothing for American Indians content language so I wanted to ask if they would allow a waiver for all American Indian content - but they want to keep their options open, and have developers PAY them to have said content available on roku, and then it gets merged into their expensive package deals as you get bought out. No thanks - we'll just provide said content on every device EXCEPT roku.
So you are saying it's a case of dog in the manger, "for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat hay nor does he let the oxen eat"?
[spoiler=dog in the manger, visual:2pr8nrau]
[/spoiler:2pr8nrau] I suspect such position won't bear scrutiny if challenged - though your likely lack the legal muscle to do it. Because DW are sufficiently big to start talking about monopoly in their anti-competitive actions and going against public's interest. Going to court would bring to light the details of Roku-DW deal and has significant risk of breaking the cozy relationship; it might be ordered they could not be "first among equals" even. They'll resolve the issue inter partes.Are you sure that after sufficient dragging of feet RokuCo won't allow you to publish w/o DW consent? I read something that made me think they would, after giving an ample head-start time to DW.
You would have to think there is some kind of vetting process for channels that pay Roku for their premium support like Hulu, Netflix, Dishworld, etc - it'd be both a problem for roku and these other businesses if something somehow got in that shouldn't be there. All I'm saying is at least during the initial channel approval process Roku is big enough now (10 million devices) that it might be a good idea to look a little closer at the content rights itself before simply adding it to the channel store to begin with.
Actually the sheer size is the reason why RokuCo cannot do that. Would you say IRS is big enough to audit 100% of all tax returns? And don't forget one is presumed innocent until proven guilty - not the other way around. See also, YouTube - you publish on good faith, they check on DMCA notice.
(*) we tend to call those "thugs" when events don't align with US geopolitical interests
(**) we call these "trade representatives" and not thugs since they defend US interests
