Thai TV7 (BBTV) Wins US$8Mil In US Copyright Case

[webfact]

BBTV wins $8mn damages over Copyright violation in US

By The Nation

A US district court in California earlier this month ruled in favour of Bangkok Broadcasting & TV (BBTV), one of Thailand's foremost broadcasting corporations - popularly known as "Channel 7" - awarding BBTV $8.3 million (Bt267 million) in damages for wilful copyright and trademark infringement by IPTV Corporation (ThaiTV.tv), BKT Group and its management.

The judgement followed a fiveday trial in the middle of May during which the jury unanimously found all the defendants - IPTV Corporation (ThaiTV.tv), BKT Group, IPTV chief executive officer Ron Petcha, IPTV owner Tip Petcha and IPTV president Noppadon Wongchaiwat - liable for wilful copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

On May 28, 2009 BBTV initiated formal legal proceedings against the defendants when it filed a complaint that the defendants illegally and wilfully copied, sold and rebroadcast BBTV's copyrighted programmes bearing BBTV's federally trademarked logo.

Specifically, BBTV sought an injunction and damages against IPTV for advertising, marketing, selling and rebroadcasting copies of BBTV's copyrighted materials via IPTV's website, ThaiTV.tv, its satellite television service, and a distribution network that fed Thai and Asian storefronts throughout the US and elsewhere, including Europe.

Prior to the trial, on May 11, the court delivered a partial judgement in favour of BBTV, finding IPTV liable for copyright infringement. During the trial, BKT Group admitted liability for copyright infringement. Following the fiveday trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding all of the defendants liable for wilful copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

On July 8, the court affirmed the jury verdict and delivered a final verdict awarding BBTV $8.3 million in damages and permanently barring the defendants from commencing, either directly or indirectly, any activities that could infringe on BBTV's rights in the future.

The judgement and the unanimous decision by the jury are interpreted as clear confirmation that the defendants' actions were deliberate and conducted without regard to US copyright or trademark law.

As one of Thailand's most recognised news and entertainment broadcasters, BBTV has a policy of taking strong legal action against any person or business entity that wilfully and deliberately infringes upon its copyrighted content. BBTV established this policy under the premise that when its material is used without consent, not only is BBTV's business impacted, but its image and reputation is also potentially sullied because its work is marketed in a manner that does not conform to the high standards for which the channel is recognised.

BBTV will not tolerate infringement of its intellectual property, and will aggressively pursue legal action against any person or business entity that infringes its rights, in Thailand, the United States, or anywhere else in the world.

The case was successfully prosecuted by Baker & McKenzie - a global law firm. The litigation team for the action in the US was led by Howard Wisnia and Sanjay Bhandari of the San Diego Office in cooperation with Nont Horayangura of the Bangkok Office, who is also heading a similar action against the defendants and their team in Thailand.

-- The Nation 2010-07-17

[hunglikea]

It begs the question 'who would want to watch it anyway'? Boyyoooyyiiiingggg, splat!

Unless I have missed something in the text

[kuffki]

Can someone please explain to me how Thai TV station filed law suit against another Thai TV in USA????

So if i was mistreated by say LG Electronics in Thailand i can file a law suit against them in USA? because USA court will award 100-1000 times more money then any Thai court

Either i did not understand the article or ..............

[animatic]

Can someone please explain to me how Thai TV station filed law suit against another Thai TV in USA????

So if i was mistreated by say LG Electronics in Thailand i can file a law suit against them in USA? because USA court will award 100-1000 times more money then any Thai court

Either i did not understand the article or ..............

They would have been selling DVD's or VCD's of BBTV shows

to the Thai community in USA. And someone saw it and let BBTV know about it.

[Jimi007]

Can someone please explain to me how Thai TV station filed law suit against another Thai TV in USA????

So if i was mistreated by say LG Electronics in Thailand i can file a law suit against them in USA? because USA court will award 100-1000 times more money then any Thai court

Either i did not understand the article or ..............

I think you may have not understood the article.

BBTV sought an injunction and damages against IPTV for advertising, marketing, selling and rebroadcasting copies of BBTV's copyrighted materials via IPTV's website, ThaiTV.tv, its satellite television service, and a distribution network that fed Thai and Asian storefronts throughout the US and elsewhere, including Europe.

BBTV is Channel 7 Thailand. IPTV was illegally using (stealing) their (ch 7's) signal and distributing it on the internet as well as on satellite TV in the US without paying for the use of channel 7's copyrighted materials. In other words IPTV was pirating channel 7's signal and content. I have a few friends in the US that have the satellite dish and receiver so they can watch Thai TV stations in the US...

[kuffki]

Can someone please explain to me how Thai TV station filed law suit against another Thai TV in USA????

So if i was mistreated by say LG Electronics in Thailand i can file a law suit against them in USA? because USA court will award 100-1000 times more money then any Thai court

Either i did not understand the article or ..............

I think you may have not understood the article.

BBTV sought an injunction and damages against IPTV for advertising, marketing, selling and rebroadcasting copies of BBTV's copyrighted materials via IPTV's website, ThaiTV.tv, its satellite television service, and a distribution network that fed Thai and Asian storefronts throughout the US and elsewhere, including Europe.

BBTV is Channel 7 Thailand. IPTV was illegally using (stealing) their (ch 7's) signal and distributing it on the internet as well as on satellite TV in the US without paying for the use of channel 7's copyrighted materials. In other words IPTV was pirating channel 7's signal and content. I have a few friends in the US that have the satellite dish and receiver so they can watch Thai TV stations in the US...

ok, i am with you now, BUT both are Thai owned and operated company's so what does US court have to do with Thai owned business?

As article states they also suing in Thailand, but then is not that double dipping?

Not trying to be smart or difficult just trying to figure out how they managed to end up in USA court, cause rest assured in Thai court they will be lucky to get 1/4 of the amount

[Jimi007]

Can someone please explain to me how Thai TV station filed law suit against another Thai TV in USA????

So if i was mistreated by say LG Electronics in Thailand i can file a law suit against them in USA? because USA court will award 100-1000 times more money then any Thai court

Either i did not understand the article or ..............

I think you may have not understood the article.

BBTV sought an injunction and damages against IPTV for advertising, marketing, selling and rebroadcasting copies of BBTV's copyrighted materials via IPTV's website, ThaiTV.tv, its satellite television service, and a distribution network that fed Thai and Asian storefronts throughout the US and elsewhere, including Europe.

BBTV is Channel 7 Thailand. IPTV was illegally using (stealing) their (ch 7's) signal and distributing it on the internet as well as on satellite TV in the US without paying for the use of channel 7's copyrighted materials. In other words IPTV was pirating channel 7's signal and content. I have a few friends in the US that have the satellite dish and receiver so they can watch Thai TV stations in the US...

ok, i am with you now, BUT both are Thai owned and operated company's so what does US court have to do with Thai owned business?

As article states they also suing in Thailand, but then is not that double dipping?

Not trying to be smart or difficult just trying to figure out how they managed to end up in USA court, cause rest assured in Thai court they will be lucky to get 1/4 of the amount

Where does it say IPTV is a Thailand based company? It is owned by Thai people, but I think they live and their business is US based. But I am not certain of that. I work have to do some research. Anyway they were selling BBTV's signal online and through their own (IPTV's) satellite service in the US. Since it was happening in the US it would be against US intellectual property theft laws. So they sued them in a US court to stop them from doing so in the US. All I know is that if you go to Thai Town area of Los Angeles California, you can buy the dish and receiver to watch Thai TV channels and I guess it is IPTV that sells them and the satellite service. I'm not sure who BBTV is going to sue here in Thailand. Maybe IPTV has some connection here as well...

[nakachalet]

Can someone please explain to me how Thai TV station filed law suit against another Thai TV in USA????

So if i was mistreated by say LG Electronics in Thailand i can file a law suit against them in USA? because USA court will award 100-1000 times more money then any Thai court

Either i did not understand the article or ..............

I think you may have not understood the article.

BBTV sought an injunction and damages against IPTV for advertising, marketing, selling and rebroadcasting copies of BBTV's copyrighted materials via IPTV's website, ThaiTV.tv, its satellite television service, and a distribution network that fed Thai and Asian storefronts throughout the US and elsewhere, including Europe.

BBTV is Channel 7 Thailand. IPTV was illegally using (stealing) their (ch 7's) signal and distributing it on the internet as well as on satellite TV in the US without paying for the use of channel 7's copyrighted materials. In other words IPTV was pirating channel 7's signal and content. I have a few friends in the US that have the satellite dish and receiver so they can watch Thai TV stations in the US...

ok, i am with you now, BUT both are Thai owned and operated company's so what does US court have to do with Thai owned business?

As article states they also suing in Thailand, but then is not that double dipping?

Not trying to be smart or difficult just trying to figure out how they managed to end up in USA court, cause rest assured in Thai court they will be lucky to get 1/4 of the amount

some twenty years ago, when thaitv first started in los angeles, the signal was good enough for thai people in utah to follow, and

the signal itself was carried by some international broadcasting company air wave.

the thai news was among vietnamese, cambodian, korean, chinese news boardcast, which was broadcasting around midnight.

the news content consisted of previous week news both from the thai communities around usa and canada and also news from thailand itself.

the news gents and ladies were students and thai citizen around los angeles.

there were many paid asian as well as some u.s. companies advertisers which kept the broadcasting afloat at the time.

the news reel was on thai airway weekly, from bangkok to los angeles....

the dissemination of information for thai people was much appreciated at that time.

biz must be multiplying since then.... so as to entice a court case like this....

[jfchandler]

There's a very large Thai community in the Los Angeles area, supposedly the largest concentration outside Thailand. And thus, there's a big market and demand there for Thai language television content and programming among those folks.

I'm not sure which system/service they were using, but a lot of my Thai friends subscribed to watch Thai TV programs there in the States via a small satellite dish similar to True's in Thailand.

I never knew what, if any, kinds of retransmission permissions were involved. Based on the court ruling, it appears... none.

[chaoyang]

Very unclear story from the Nation ... again.<br><br>I think some of the posters here have helped cracked the code -- that it was an illegal retransmission carried in the States.<br><br>This line in  the story is direclty from a company  press release:<br><br>BTV will not tolerate infringement of its intellectual property, and

will aggressively pursue legal action against any person or business

entity that infringes its rights, in Thailand, the United States, or

anywhere else in the world.<br><br>But it is noted attributed to anyone. Sez who?<br><br>Whot cr*p "journlism.<br>

<br><br><br>

[Jimi007]

Very unclear story from the Nation ... again. I think some of the posters here have helped cracked the code -- that it was an illegal retransmission carried in the States. This line in the story is directly from a company press release, BTV will not tolerate infringement of its intellectual property, and will aggressively pursue legal action against any person or business entity that infringes its rights, in Thailand, the United States, or anywhere else in the world. But it is noted attributed to anyone. Sez who? Whot cr*p "journlism.

Hope you don't mind if I fixed your post as it was hard to read what you were saying with all the <b><rbr> stuff.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Jimi007

[sedeflonga]

I wonder what would have been the outcome if something like that would have happened in a Thai-Court.

[ExoticMatter]

It begs the question 'who would want to watch it anyway'? Boyyoooyyiiiingggg, splat!

Unless I have missed something in the text

Haha yes those (same same) noises drive me round the twist; but it keeps the wife happy

Always had a problem (well for TW anyway) of getting Ch7 online without it jumping and cutting out and yet all other channels are ok, is it controlled more.

[witold]

<br>Very unclear story from the Nation ... again.<br>

<br><br>Thaitv.tv is rebroacasting content they don't have rights to on US airways and streaming it on their site.  They are also selling bootleg dvds/etc in stores.  This business is operated on US soil so the lawsuit was files in the US.  What is not unclear about this?  <br><br>Also, there is no such thing as stealing satellite signals.  If you can pick up satellite signal from some broadcast from other country, it is perfectly legal for you to do so.  Many people do this in the US.  I know that a lot of Easter Europeans buy regular dish network and change the reception to get Euro channels, for example.   This case has nothing to do with that.  <br><br><br>