Canada’s public and private broadcasters, as well as a growing collective of Canadian producers, are taking legal action to stop iCraveTV.com from broadcasting their unlicensed programs over the Internet.

But TVRadioNow Corp. president and ceo Bill Craig, operator of iCraveTV, has no intention of surrendering the $13 million investment. In addition to there being no crtc restrictions, he says, the retransmission of live over-the-air tv stations, in their entirety, over the Internet, is well within the copyright law in Canada (referring to section 31 of the Copyright Act, which states that a retransmission is not an infringement of the act if it is of a local or distant signal, it is lawful under the Broadcasting Act, the signal is retransmitted simultaneously and in its entirety and, in the case of a distant signal, the retransmitter has paid royalties… ).

In fact, according to Craig, the only body iCraveTV is accountable to is the Copyright Tribunal, which he says will issue a tariff applicable to the given mode of redistribution. With the cable companies, as well as Look tv and ExpressVu, the tariff is based on a percentage of the subscriber fees, but because the site offers its service free, Craig suspects it will be based on ad revenues.

iCraveTV was launched on Nov. 30 at 11 a.m. Approximately 10 minutes prior, broadcasters received a notice of congratulations, stating that their services were now available on the Internet.

On Dec. 3, McMillan Binch sent a cease and desist letter to Toronto-based TVRadioNow Corp., on behalf of nine Canadian tv stations provided on its Internet service, including the cbc, src, Global, ctv, tvo, City-tv, the New vr, Ontv and cfmt.

The letter warned the webcaster that if it did not stop unlawfully streaming broadcasters’ signals through its website by 5 p.m. on Monday, Dec. 6, further legal action would be taken. It did not.

Such action could include copyright and reproduction infringement and brand damage, says Michael McCabe, president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

cab members are considering their options to go to trial and, at the moment, they are preparing their individual affadavits.

‘These people do not hold and did not even try to attain reproduction rights from broadcasters,’ says McCabe.

Furthermore, broadcasters like Global and ctv are in the process of developing their own product to eventually go online so, essentially, ‘these people are using our product to compete with us,’ he says, adding, the quality of their transmissions is not up to par, which damages the reputation of the various brands.

Broadcasters are not fully online yet because they are waiting until the technology is such that they can transmit top-notch quality, says McCabe.

‘Dumb idea’

‘I think streaming content on the Internet is a dumb idea because the technology is not there yet. The quality is supremely inferior,’ says Gary Maavara, vp, general manager, Global Television, adding, ‘when the technology is ubiquitous and easy to use and it doesn’t matter whether you’re doing broadband or narrowband, of course we’ll be there.’

Likewise, Craig does not believe his company should be faulted for the quality of the programming. ‘We transmit a picture as good or better than the cable companies do – the issue is the path and the receiver,’ he says.

At press time, there were more than 15 cftpa members involved in the effort to stop the webcaster, including Alliance Atlantis Communications, Breakthrough Film & Television, Catalyst Entertainment, Ellis Entertainment, Epitome Pictures, Fireworks Entertainment, Galafilm, Great North Productions, Minds Eye Pictures, Sound Venture Productions Ottawa, Keatley Films, White Iron and CineGroupe, imX Communications and Portfolio Entertainment.

‘The issue is not distribution… The issue is that people are creating intellectual property and they should be paid for that creation. Just having it taken and delivered to people that way with no consideration while they’re selling advertising on it, is stealing,’ says Elizabeth McDonald, cftpa president and ceo.

‘It is a breach of the Copyright Act,’ says lawyer Peter Grant, McCarthy Tetrault, who’s representing cftpa members. ‘Section 31 does not apply in this case.’ In addition to copyright infringement, which is dealt with under civil law, there are issues of trademark and unjust enrichment, he says.

It is a case for the courts, confirms crtc spokesman Denis Carmel.

Last spring, the crtc stated that it will not take measures to regulate the Internet. However, if online programming becomes harmful to broadcasters in the long run, the commission says it will look to ‘soften’ regulation in the broadcasting arena, in lieu of instituting regulation on the Internet.

As it stands, the producers at hand are looking into taking an injunction route. At the moment, they are preparing a common statement of claim.

Border broadcasters are retaining counsel and a letter has been sent to the webcaster warning that if u.s. network signals containing National Football League game telecasts were to be made available in any way, it would constitute an infringement of the legal rights of the nfl under the u.s. Copyright Act.