Network truck stop showdown at the Flying J
A consortium of networks including ABC, CBS, Fox, Turner Entertainment and Disney have banded together to file a federal lawsuit against the Flying J truck stop chain.
Apparently, the chain of 178 travel plazas and fuel stops has taken to substituting outside commercials for their own spots in every location that has a trucker's lounge playing a service called Plaza TV. Basically, this is made possible by a little box called the segOne 2000 LS, which detects commercials in normal broadcasts, them replaces them with new ones. In this case, trucker-specific ads for Flying J, which itself turns around and charges other companies $31,250 per month for a 30-second spot on Plaza TV.
The suit alleges copyright infringement and "unfair competition."
[Sources: eTrucker.com; Flying-J]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Automotive Web 3:27PM (6/01/2006)
I can see both sides on this one, however I'm going to side with Flying J. Why? They aren't controlling a massive market like say...Microsoft, and they are pre-empting commercials only. Sure it for personal gain, but it's an in-house broadcast and they aren't disseminating the actual programs, just the ads. It's a classic case of "Hey, I should be making money off of this, why are you?". Look for a settlement and possible licensing fees (flying j licensing network access) or a rev share.
Reply
Meek 3:35PM (6/01/2006)
I agree with Flying J also. This is the same as having an employee stand by the TV, and switch the station whenever a commercial starts.
Reply
Brian 4:51PM (6/01/2006)
I disagree. Commercial television is controled content that cannot be used by businesses for profit without proper licensing. It's one thing to skip over commercials in your home when you Tivo, but this is completely different. By replacing the network's commercial ads with their own, they are effectivey stealing the networks' content, as the benefit of the viewers' seeing the commercials is lost.
If Flying J wants to show their own promotions whilst their customers are captively gnoshing their roadside grub, they have to provide their own content as well. This one's going to cost them, I'd wager.
Reply
560 5:06PM (6/01/2006)
I disagree. What Flying J seems to be doing is exactly the same thing as if they were to change inputs on the television to a running tape of their commercials every time the tv went to commercial. They aren't stealing anything, they're simply altering the feed to the television when ever they feel like it, simliar to changing a channel at a commercial break. If they pay for the television service or use OTA, then they *should* own what is being displayed on their television, after all they paid for the televisions as well (keep in mind i didn't say they should own the copyright, just the right to display what they please). Why should they run advertisements for other corporations in their own commercial establishment without compensation? Go Flying J, way to stick it to the man.
Reply
gbh 5:20PM (6/01/2006)
Though I am no fan of cabals like ASCAP and the like, I tend to agree with Brian on this one. The law would appear to be on the side of the networks. If it was not happening in a business, and if Flying J was not getting a revenue cut out of it, the case would play differently, but...
I do wonder if this program was started after O. Jay died (early 2003, IIRC) or after.
Sounds like the usual "more profits, no matter what" shift that happens when the old man goes. Reminds me a bit of WalMart...
Reply
gwballin 6:06PM (6/01/2006)
I took a class on copyrights when I was an undergrad, but I am by no means an expert and will take your word for it if "The law would appear to be on the side of the networks."
However, what one ought to be able to do and what they can do legally are two different things sometimes.
They are effectively changing the channel when the commercials come on and I think there should be nothing wrong with that. They are not at all altering the broadcast, they are only altering which broadcast they are displaying. This is a silly example, but we could take it one step farther. What if they were to purchase new televisions to place next to the TV's they already own. When the commercials come on, they turn that TV off and the other comes on displaying the ads sold by J. This of course would be silly and impractical - so what did they do? They turned to technology for a solution.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with what J is doing.
Reply
JR 6:15PM (6/01/2006)
Next thing we know, Fox Sports is going to sue a bar for playing ESPN and not Fox. They're stealing an audience from Fox by playing ESPN. Not exactly the same thing, but similar. It's up to the owner of the establishment what they want to show on their TV.
Reply
Fabulo 7:30PM (6/01/2006)
Not an expert but "copyright infrigment" sounds hard to prove. Now damage and loss of revenue, that would be a little easier.
J's practices appear unethical at best.
Then again, when it's about shoving commercials down my throat, I tend to be a little less sympathetic.
Hopefully they don't sue me because I mute the TV during commercials or skip them when I record programs.
Reply
Howard Kerr 8:16PM (6/01/2006)
The nets sued when VCRs came out, didn't the electronics companies and/or the videocassette companies wind up having to pay a "tribute"? Since the nets can't sue me for changing the channel, it would SEEM they don't have a leg to stand on here. However, the legal wrangling that went on when the nets sued satellite companies for freely broadcasting the nets programs will probably set the precedent here.
THAT, and the corporate clout the nets have in Washington will assure them that at the least Flying J winds up having to pay a tribute...ooops, royalty to the nets.
Reply
Miker 8:17PM (6/01/2006)
This is a little worse than merely changing the channel for a few reasons.
1) They're clearly making money (and charging people) for a service they really are not providing. If they were simply cutting out and giving announcements during this time "Flying J Souvenier Mugs are on sale" , even THEN I'd have a little more sympathy for them, but c'mon. The fact they're charging money for this airtime means they're well aware they're stealing from someone else's coffers
2) Television is broadcast with the intent of YOU watching the ads. That's what pays for it. Granted, they can't FORCE us to watch the ads, but they've had a lot of luck shutting down companies that try to help us avoid the ads (ReplayTV, anyone?)
3) Just because you're allowed to do it in your home doesn't mean they're allowed to get away with it. They're a business, and they're making money.
Reply
mark 3:12AM (6/02/2006)
Cable companies do this all the time, they put their own local ads in over the network ads all the time! So why is it that the networks don't go after them?
Fact is.. they want to tell YOU when you're going to watch tv.. they think they own the televisions.. and they don't.. Just another attempt at greedy people..
Reply
ken english 9:53AM (8/14/2006)
This is no different than when that little guy (not Bush, it was some independent) was running for President....His supporters had plastic bags printed (upside down) with his ads, and would put them over existing signs of other candidates, and then staple them down. Saved them the time and money of making and installing their own.
Reply