If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IT World)   Aereo: The courts have ruled that we don't have to pay for the content we stream. Pandora: Wait, what?   (itworld.com) divider line 73
    More: Interesting, Aereo, Second Circuit, adverse effect, streams  
•       •       •

17387 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Apr 2013 at 12:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-24 11:26:21 AM  
Aero is getting off on a technicality, that said I don't have much room to talk because I watch NHL games on my roku through hockeystreams
 
2013-04-24 12:42:09 PM  
It's... not quite that simple, Subby.
 
2013-04-24 12:43:04 PM  
If you don't understand the relevant difference between Pandora and Aereo then you shouldn't be writing for a tech site.  There is no way Pandora falls into the same category.  If Pandora wanted to set up antennas and stream local radio stations then they might qualify.
 
2013-04-24 12:45:43 PM  
What are these "airways" of which you speak?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-24 12:46:54 PM  
Reminds me of the beginning of cable television.

Guy sets up a big antenna on a hill and users connect to that.

Oh well.
 
2013-04-24 12:47:25 PM  
Oh I see what Aero did, and I like it.  Of course, it also means the 'end user' is responsible.  Maybe "like" was too strong of a word.
 
2013-04-24 12:48:50 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: If you don't understand the relevant difference between Pandora and Aereo then you shouldn't be writing for a tech site.  There is no way Pandora falls into the same category..


Yep. Author doesn't have the slightest understanding of broadcasting or the regulatory enviornment surrounding it, which is essential for a full understanding of why Aereo is a unique and non-replicatable phenomenon in the tv industry.
 
2013-04-24 12:49:15 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: If you don't understand the relevant difference between Pandora and Aereo then you shouldn't be writing for a tech site.  There is no way Pandora falls into the same category.  If Pandora wanted to set up antennas and stream local radio stations then they might qualify.


This.
 
2013-04-24 12:50:22 PM  
seems like a revitalizing product for over the air TV especially for those decimal channels you can only get with antennas
 
2013-04-24 12:51:43 PM  
Sounds like a scam.

/plugs RabbitTV into USB drive
 
2013-04-24 12:52:22 PM  
Also, please don't link to websites that muck with the "back" button/ history. That's so 1996.
 
2013-04-24 12:52:38 PM  
Man, Aereo.com is one farked-up site.  Speedy, but damned near illegible.

Available only in metro  NYC area.
 
2013-04-24 12:53:36 PM  
Aereo basically runs a DRV for each of its customers.  They convinced the court that this is the same sort of time shifting that VCR's allowed.

If it is the equivalent of a fancy VCR, the decision follows Supreme Court Precedent.
 
2013-04-24 12:56:21 PM  
So, the judicial branch only follows the laws they like?

I'll have to remember this case when farkers complain about more or less harmless individuals they deem as scofflaws.
 
2013-04-24 12:57:13 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Man, Aereo.com is one farked-up site.  Speedy, but damned near illegible.

Available only in metro  NYC area.


Pretty sure I saw a rumor saying Boston was next.
 
2013-04-24 01:03:19 PM  
Nothing influences Pandora more than this guy:

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-24 01:03:54 PM  

Uzzah: replicatable


That's an awesome word
 
2013-04-24 01:07:04 PM  

MBooda: What are these "airways" of which you speak?


They're radio-indicated pathways which airplanes follow, but that's not important now.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-24 01:07:17 PM  
Apparently the judge understands as much about technology and internet broadcasts as subby.
Amazing the choices some dude that truly doesnt have a clue can make legal rulings.

Gonna just sit here and rant to myself about how the western legal system needs to be redefined.
 
2013-04-24 01:08:18 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: If you don't understand the relevant difference between Pandora and Aereo then you shouldn't be writing for a tech site.  There is no way Pandora falls into the same category.  If Pandora wanted to set up antennas and stream local radio stations then they might qualify.


The article linked to wasn't the one making the claim.  They were paraphrasing someone else, and provided a link to the original claim - "The folks at RAIN have taken this argument a step further..."
 
2013-04-24 01:09:07 PM  
Sounds like a new defense against RIAA and MPAA for file-sharers as well.
 
2013-04-24 01:14:36 PM  
the whole thing is stupid.. if Aereo is capturing what's in the air, not much more than someone with an antenna would, how is this a big deal? it's bringing more viewers to basic programming and the advertisements they plug, just makes it easier for consumers to view content on the go, wouldn't this just increase viewership?

so while i think it's a great idea, they really should pay 'public performance" royalties and honestly don't know how they convinced a judge that they're providing "individual" content to users while the source is public. it seems like a silly oversight
 
2013-04-24 01:14:53 PM  
Because piracy is theft unless you pay for it
 
2013-04-24 01:16:41 PM  
If the courts keep ruling that Aereo doesn't violate copyright laws, it could affect other services that stream content, and might prompt Congress to step in

...and do what? Ram a bill though the House and watch it die in the Senate? Filibuster a Senate bill?
 
2013-04-24 01:16:47 PM  

jfivealive: Because piracy is theft unless you pay for it


Wait, what?
 
2013-04-24 01:17:24 PM  

enry: BarkingUnicorn: Man, Aereo.com is one farked-up site.  Speedy, but damned near illegible.

Available only in metro  NYC area.

Pretty sure I saw a rumor saying Boston was next.


There'd better not be a bomb joke in there.
 
2013-04-24 01:18:28 PM  
The whole argument has holes. You broadcast your material for free over the public airwaves. You make your profit by advertisements, you are PAID by how many homes you can touch with your advertisements.

Now comes along a company that is "pulling" down the public feeds from the public airwaves for consumers and allowing them to time shift the material, by delivering the material by internet.

VCR builders/tape builders/coax cable builders profited off the old system, Hard drive/ ISP and Aereo profit off the new system.

This is putting your advertisements in front of MORE VIEWERS.


Fox had it right, if you don't like this.....move to cable and force the consumer to "buy" a cable feed.....oh....wait..... You can't....all those pesky sports contracts you signed that mandate how when and where you broadcast your content.....


I love consumers, I love how people force the good ole'boy system to crawl in to the modern world. God Bless America, we do get some things right from time to time. As a card carrying republican, I am going to go hug a democrat for having the foresight to understand the concept of public domain.
 
2013-04-24 01:18:55 PM  

runescorpio: Apparently the judge understands as much about technology and internet broadcasts as subby.
Amazing the choices some dude that truly doesnt have a clue can make legal rulings.


It's actually entirely consistent with prior precedent. It's one of those interesting things where the law starts developing in a particular direction on a case-by-case basis applying to existing technology, and then some innovator comes along and says "aha! If I follow that line of reasoning, I can set up a system with new technology that works *this* way that should be perfectly legal." And he's right.

Now, maybe you say that the older cases were improperly decided in retrospect and walk away from the existing precendent, but courts don't really like to do that. This is the court's way of telling Congress/the FCC "if you don't like they way this plays out, maybe you need to do something about it."
 
2013-04-24 01:24:27 PM  

A Shambling Mound: jfivealive: Because piracy is theft unless you pay for it

Wait, what?


Well if you pay for piracy then you aren't a thief, you're an entrepreneur.
 
2013-04-24 01:24:40 PM  
A friend and I talked about this around a year ago. He'd heard of it, as he worked for a cable provider. We both agreed that it is a giant waste if resources, what with the ability to de-dupe and such, but as to legal compliance... We thought it probably would stand up. Cool to see it did.
 
2013-04-24 01:25:30 PM  
FTFA: "The recent court rulings in favor of Aereo, the company that captures and streams free over-the-air TV broadcasts to paying customers -"

Wait, wasn't the ruling on radio broadcasts that you basically could not "capture" it without requiring a license and could not send it anywhere with requiring a transmission license or something like that? So why is video different?

//It's one of those legal thingys that has changed a few times so I just forget details over time.
 
2013-04-24 01:32:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: enry: BarkingUnicorn: Man, Aereo.com is one farked-up site.  Speedy, but damned near illegible.

Available only in metro  NYC area.

Pretty sure I saw a rumor saying Boston was next.

There'd better not be a bomb joke in there.


*looks out window at Fenway Pahk*

No.
 
2013-04-24 01:38:25 PM  
I have roku + Aereo + Hulu + Amazon Prime in the NYC area, and TW can bite me.

That is all
 
2013-04-24 01:39:19 PM  

pkellmey: Wait, wasn't the ruling on radio broadcasts that you basically could not "capture" it without requiring a license and could not send it anywhere with requiring a transmission license or something like that? So why is video different?


I mux the OTA signals from an HDHomeRun into an HTTP stream that is accessible from my open wi-fi. I'd love the courts to try to even understand that, let alone try to enforce a law like that against me.

However, I don't sell. That's probably the kicker.
 
2013-04-24 01:49:23 PM  

pkellmey: Wait, wasn't the ruling on radio broadcasts that you basically could not "capture" it without requiring a license and could not send it anywhere with requiring a transmission license or something like that? So why is video different?


I'm trying to find a fascinating article I read that laid out the legal background for Aereo in great detail, going back to the earliest cable t.v. cases. The gist of it was:

1. Private use of OTA tv signals, captured via antenna, is perfectly fine.
2. Public use isn't, so early cable companies who merely retransmited OTA signals were subject to regulation and licensing obligations.
3. Cable eventually turned into companies licensing direct feeds from the networks, rather than receiving their material OTA.
4. The Cablevision case in 2008 involved a cable-based remote DVR solution: you told Cablevision what shows you wanted to record, it recorded them for you on your own personal hard drive (located at Cablevision's HQ), and it would stream your shows back to you (and only you-- you couldn't get your friends' shows). The court found that because there was individual hardware and individual streaming, these were "private" and not "public" performances of the work.
5. Aereo is the combination of #1 and #4, while carefully avoiding #3: Each subscriber has an individual antenna (#1) from which Aereo receives and records programming that the user requests (#4). The user has their own hard drive and cannot access others' recordings (# 4). The networks tried to argue that Cablevision was distinguishable, because Cablevision was paying licensing fees to the networks for content (#3), but because Aereo is using OTA signals (which are free under #1), Aereo is in the clear.
 
2013-04-24 01:55:11 PM  
I live in an RF hole, so I'm getting a kick out of some of these replies.

/stupid Hancock tower shadow
 
2013-04-24 02:02:03 PM  

Uzzah: pkellmey: Wait, wasn't the ruling on radio broadcasts that you basically could not "capture" it without requiring a license and could not send it anywhere with requiring a transmission license or something like that? So why is video different?

I'm trying to find a fascinating article I read that laid out the legal background for Aereo in great detail, going back to the earliest cable t.v. cases. The gist of it was:

1. Private use of OTA tv signals, captured via antenna, is perfectly fine.
2. Public use isn't, so early cable companies who merely retransmited OTA signals were subject to regulation and licensing obligations.
3. Cable eventually turned into companies licensing direct feeds from the networks, rather than receiving their material OTA.
4. The Cablevision case in 2008 involved a cable-based remote DVR solution: you told Cablevision what shows you wanted to record, it recorded them for you on your own personal hard drive (located at Cablevision's HQ), and it would stream your shows back to you (and only you-- you couldn't get your friends' shows). The court found that because there was individual hardware and individual streaming, these were "private" and not "public" performances of the work.
5. Aereo is the combination of #1 and #4, while carefully avoiding #3: Each subscriber has an individual antenna (#1) from which Aereo receives and records programming that the user requests (#4). The user has their own hard drive and cannot access others' recordings (# 4). The networks tried to argue that Cablevision was distinguishable, because Cablevision was paying licensing fees to the networks for content (#3), but because Aereo is using OTA signals (which are free under #1), Aereo is in the clear.


I am not entirely sure how this would be different than someone recording songs from a radio and putting it into a database that could be played back at a later time to the consumer. It would be a private performance because it is directly "requested" by the consumer, the only difference is I hold the hard disk and not the consumer?
 
2013-04-24 02:04:45 PM  
So how is the quality of this Aero service? HD? Please comment, it sounds interesting...
 
2013-04-24 02:20:02 PM  
Aereo's service is still on thin ground, legally speaking.

Rejecting reasoning relied upon by the Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held that retransmission of copyrighted material using Aereo's technology is copyright infringement.  Ironically, the Ninth Circuit case involved claims against a competitor of Aereo named "Aereo-Killer."

At a minimum, Aereo will remain unavailable in California and other states located in the Ninth Circuit.  Presumably, the Supreme Court will address the issue and resolve the split.

http://about.bloomberglaw.com/law-reports/aereokiller-web-tv-service -h eld-infringing-notwithstanding-contrary-decision-on-aereo/
 
2013-04-24 02:26:51 PM  

Not Available: Aereo's service is still on thin ground, legally speaking.

Rejecting reasoning relied upon by the Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held that retransmission of copyrighted material using Aereo's technology is copyright infringement.  Ironically, the Ninth Circuit case involved claims against a competitor of Aereo named "Aereo-Killer."

At a minimum, Aereo will remain unavailable in California and other states located in the Ninth Circuit.  Presumably, the Supreme Court will address the issue and resolve the split.

http://about.bloomberglaw.com/law-reports/aereokiller-web-tv-service -h eld-infringing-notwithstanding-contrary-decision-on-aereo/


Ah, okay, this makes sense now. The other courts were not addressing the retransmission issues specifically.
 
2013-04-24 02:28:27 PM  
On a related note:  I was covering the 2013 National Association of Broadcasters Show which was held two weeks ago at the Las Vegas Convention Center.  (I host a tech-related talk show on an AM radio station so I was able to get press credentials and cover this show...and the upcoming C.E.S.)

Just after the opening address for the show, there was a Q&A session with Gordon Smith, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters and Chase Carey, the president and COO of News Corp. (the parent company of Fox Broadcasting Company and FX).    Carey lauded the network-affiliate relationship and called FOX's partner stations "the core of our business" and that he was "tremendously excited" about the "future potential of the broadcast business model", but after only a few seconds from making those remarks,  he condemned the tiny company "Aereo" for stealing broadcaster content and selling it to Aereo's users for $8 a month but not paying any fees to broadcasters such as FOX. He stated, "We will not sit idly by and let people steal our signal!"

Carey went on to say he believed Aereo would lose in court, but if they happened to win he was willing to rebroadcast the FOX Broadcasting Company as a subscription-only model. "A different business solution is the path we'll pursue if we don't get our rights protected any other way."

After the Q&A, Carey's comments were the center of heated conversation on the convention floor (mainly, as you would expect, in the Television broadcasting and post production sections of the show) since FOX being recast as subscription-only would mean that many of the independent FOX stations, such as local FOX affiliates KVRR/KBRR would lose FOX's broadcasts.

Despite what people believe, their are a large number of americans who rely solely on the free over-the-air broadcasts of their local stations. Those in the Midwest would be the most affected as pay-TV penetration rates are lowest in this section of the country, which given FOX's political leanings to the right, would mean many FOX viewers would be unable to receive FOX news without subscribing to a satellite or cable provider.

I also found that how Carey had talked-up the network-affiliate relationship just before he stated he would be willing to cut all ties to the affiliates if Aereo wasn't shut down soured a few of the attendees' moods.

Just after the Q&A session was over, News Corp. released a statement that expanded on Carey's words. "We have no choice but to develop business solutions that ensure we continue to remain in the driver's seat of our own destiny. One option could be converting the FOX broadcast network to a pay channel, which we would do in collaboration with both our content partners and affiliates."

It was entertaining to think about FOX basically cutting their own neck when it comes to losing their midwestern die-hard republican viewers who do not have pay-tv subscriptions. It wasn't entertaining to think about all the people who work at the FOX affiliates who would lose their jobs (and I'm mainly talking about the engineers, camera crew, set crew and production staff who may not hold the political leanings that the network does...it's just a job to them).

Anyway just a CSB I'd thought I would share.
 
2013-04-24 02:34:03 PM  

geek_mars: If the courts keep ruling that Aereo doesn't violate copyright laws, it could affect other services that stream content, and might prompt Congress to step in

...and do what? Ram a bill though the House and watch it die in the Senate? Filibuster a Senate bill?


Congress is both the Senate and the House.
It is just as likely that a completely ration bill would pass in the Senate and never get a floor vote in the House.
 
2013-04-24 02:36:12 PM  

Uzzah: I'm trying to find a fascinating article I read that laid out the legal background for Aereo in great detail, going back to the earliest cable t.v. cases. The gist of it was:


This one from arsTechnica?
 
2013-04-24 02:41:27 PM  
"The folks at RAIN have and applied it to audio streaming. Pandora, for example, currently creates unique streams for each listener, so they can support limited customization such as song skipping. Does that mean they can stop paying royalties that currently consume more than half their revenues taken this argument a step further?"

The person who wrote this moronic sentence doesn't appear to have read the rest of the article that THEY WROTE.

Pandora isn't re-playing a public radio broadcast station, it is playing music from a selected library that it bought the rights to broadcast.  The true equivalent would be basically just Aereo but for radio broadcast.  That is absolutely NOT what Pandora is, and attempting to draw the connection means the writer either doesn't know what Pandora is, didn't read his own article, or doesn't care that he's making false equivalencies and misleading his readers.
 
2013-04-24 02:50:06 PM  

namatad: geek_mars: If the courts keep ruling that Aereo doesn't violate copyright laws, it could affect other services that stream content, and might prompt Congress to step in

...and do what? Ram a bill though the House and watch it die in the Senate? Filibuster a Senate bill?

Congress is both the Senate and the House.
It is just as likely that a completely ration bill would pass in the Senate and never get a floor vote in the House.


Yes, thank you, I'm aware of that. I didn't think I needed to list out every possible scenario for what should have been an obvious example of neither house (or both combined) accomplishing anything. I figured one example of what could happen with a bill originating in the House and one example of something that could happen with a bill originating in the Senate would be sufficient.
 
2013-04-24 02:55:02 PM  
What's the difference between this and renting a connection to your next door neighbors giant outdoor antenna and his DVR? All it does is save you from putting up your own giant outdoor antenna and connecting your own DVR.
I don't get the broadcasters complaint about this. Don't they want more people seeing their broadcast that they get more money for when there is a higher viewership? I'd bet Aereo would even be willing to share viewership numbers with the stations so they can track how popular a show is and charge more money for commercials that appear during popular shows. The stats that Aereo could give them would be more accurate than what they now base the numbers on.
 
2013-04-24 02:57:43 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: If you don't understand the relevant difference between Pandora and Aereo then you shouldn't be writing for a tech site.  There is no way Pandora falls into the same category.  If Pandora wanted to set up antennas and stream local radio stations then they might qualify.


This.

No comparison
 
2013-04-24 03:09:59 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Aero is getting off on a technicality, that said I don't have much room to talk because I watch NHL games on my roku through hockeystreams


So, hypothetically, would such a thing exist / be possible for, say, oh, I don't know, a baseball team that has no OTA broadcasts anymore?

/just curious...
 
2013-04-24 03:23:37 PM  

Hella Fark: so while i think it's a great idea, they really should pay 'public performance" royalties and honestly don't know how they convinced a judge that they're providing "individual" content to users while the source is public. it seems like a silly oversight


I would contend that the Compulsory License created by Section 111 of the Copyright is more on point:  Aereo seems to be

a facility, located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession of the United States, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.

Which would be fine by me, since I make my living administering the Cable Compulsory License.

Continued employment FTW!
 
2013-04-24 03:38:10 PM  

Joe_diGriz: Uzzah: I'm trying to find a fascinating article I read that laid out the legal background for Aereo in great detail, going back to the earliest cable t.v. cases. The gist of it was:

This one from arsTechnica?


That's the one. It wasn't coming up in my Ars Technica searches on "Aereo" for some reason. Thanks for finding it.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report