Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clause & Effect
Satellite Television/Programming-Exclusivity Agreements. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado decided that a satellite channel breached its agreement to exclusively provide its programming to the DISH Network satellite broadcast service. EchoStar Satellite LLC v. Persian Broadcasting Co. Inc. (PBC), 05-cv-00466-PSF-MEH. EchoStar and PBC had executed an affiliation agreement under which PBC agreed to provide its Farsi-language programming to DISH Network in the United States. An exclusivity provision in the affiliation agreement stated: 'Notwithstanding the foregoing grant of exclusive rights, [PBC] shall not be in breach of the exclusivity provision contained in this Agreement, if [PBC] distributes the Tapesh 1 channel to subscribers to its current service offered on the Telstar 5 satellite ('Current Service') (provided that such subscribers shall be limited to those subscribers that are in existence as of the Effective Date) ' until [Sept. 30, 2004] and during such time, [PBC] shall use its best efforts to migrate the [PBC] Customers to the DISH Network distribution platform ' For clarity, the parties agree and acknowledge that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, in no event will [PBC] broadcast the Tapesh 1 channel on the Current Service after [Sept. 30, 2004].'
EchoStar filed suit alleging that PBC had materially breached the affiliation agreement in part by continuing to distribute its programming on GlobeCast North America's Telstar 5 satellite after the exclusivity-provision deadline had passed. PBC argued that the exclusivity provision was 'ambiguous, at best, as to whether the broadcasting prohibition extends only to distribution to 'subscribers' or to all distribution on GlobeCast beyond the Sept. 30, 2004 deadline.' Because GlobeCast had no 'subscribers' who paid monthly fees for service, PBC claimed that its agreement with EchoStar allowed PBC to continue to have its programming distributed on Telstar 5.
But the district court noted: 'It is true that the provision allowed PBC to continue broadcasting to GlobeCast's then-current 'subscribers' until the agreed-upon deadline, and EchoStar does not contest that GlobeCast does not have paying subscribers. However, the provision also states unequivocally: 'For clarity, the parties agree and acknowledge that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, in no event will [PBC] broadcast the Tapesh 1 channel on the Current Service [GlobeCast] after [the deadline].' This language requires PBC to cease broadcasting its Tapesh 1 channel on GlobeCast after the stated deadline, regardless of the extent of its authority to broadcast prior to that date.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?