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.

(Courthouse News Service)   Don't give up your Netflix or Hulu just yet, TV streaming service Aereo, was just streamed a dose of reality   (courthousenews.com) divider line 18
    More: Followup, Aereo, Hulu, Netflix  
•       •       •

4033 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Feb 2014 at 8:17 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-22 12:38:32 AM
I think copyright will end up being firmly on the side of the networks.
 
2014-02-22 01:11:05 AM
Whoa!  Never saw that coming.
 
2014-02-22 02:34:41 AM
-la?
 
2014-02-22 06:23:15 AM

strangeluck: I think copyright will end up being firmly on the side of the networks.


They have the better paid lawyers.
 
2014-02-22 08:06:06 AM
wonder what the chances are of this ending with aereo picking up carriage agreements.
 
2014-02-22 08:55:30 AM

strangeluck: I think copyright will end up being firmly on the side of the networks.


Yep. Unfortunately for the copyright holders, they're creating a couple generations of people that despise the whole copyright system.
 
2014-02-22 09:13:25 AM

inglixthemad: strangeluck: I think copyright will end up being firmly on the side of the networks.

Yep. Unfortunately for the copyright holders, they're creating a couple generations of people that despise the whole copyright system.


and what's reaaally unfortunate is its one of the few things protecting the industries left in North America.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-22 09:50:16 AM
U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball in Salt Lake City found Wednesday that Aereo's streaming service is "indistinguishable from a cable company."

Unfortunately for anybody who hoped to understand the law without paying hundreds to thousands of dollars per hour, "indistinguishable" is not necessarily "legally identical to." Which is why the previous appeals court decision was divided.

Aereo found a loophole and judges have to decide if it's a hole or a dead end. Since this is a policy decision more than a legal decision, better to have Congress make the policy clear one way or the other.

There's another TV over internet startup (Philo, in Cambridge) taking a less confrontational approach, either staying clearly within precdent or making deals with providers. But that means they can't sell any signal to anyone, anywhere. They provide service to campuses and similar clearly delineated regions.
 
2014-02-22 10:04:37 AM
are Netflix and Hulu some sorta of subscription based PirateBayBitTorrent package?
 
2014-02-22 10:37:41 AM
The court saw a problem with their DVR service not Aereo's re-broadcasting OTA sigals
 
2014-02-22 12:09:54 PM
 The U.S. Supreme CourtABC, CBS, NBC and Fox  will have the final say
 
2014-02-22 12:41:25 PM
No copyright infringed.
-Ya see, the mean old government, years ago, said all TV companies/stations(except for specialty cable channels) have to broadcast their signal to the air and never repealed that, due to ignorant hicks who don't have a cable cord in the wall.
-When the Cable TV broadcast company came along, they initially could get the signal for free, to be able to make a few bucks by sending the signal outside of the antenna range or for people in shiathole apartments.
-The TV station then demanded payment and the cable company threw a few bucks their ways.

Fast forward to now..... TV Stations: "WHAaaaaaaaaaaaaa, we want even more free money to be able to double dip!!!!!!" "Our profits are more important than providing actual quality programming." "WHAAaaaaaa, we hate allowing you to see our commercials for free, outside of our antenna area!!!"

/So, can't enforce copyright on a 'free to air, broadcast'
//The only real criteria is: Have to provide the signal 'as-is' with no signal substitution(inserting your own shiathole commercials, like Canada illegally does to U.S. rebroadcasted TV signals).
 
2014-02-22 01:07:48 PM

sheep snorter: Fast forward to now..... TV Stations: "WHAaaaaaaaaaaaaa, we want even more free money to be able to double dip!!!!!!" "Our profits are more important than providing actual quality programming." "

WHAAaaaaaa, we hate allowing you to see our commercials for free, outside of our antenna area!!!"


As a non-TV person, I never understood the logic of blocking streaming.  I am a fan of the Red Wings - but live in Seattle; so I stream FSN Detroit when there is a game on.  I also get all the commercials (yay Belle Tire!).  How tough is it to measure the amount that is streamed and charge ad buyers for this additional exposure?
 
2014-02-22 01:35:00 PM

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: sheep snorter: Fast forward to now..... TV Stations: "WHAaaaaaaaaaaaaa, we want even more free money to be able to double dip!!!!!!" "Our profits are more important than providing actual quality programming." "

WHAAaaaaaa, we hate allowing you to see our commercials for free, outside of our antenna area!!!"

As a non-TV person, I never understood the logic of blocking streaming.  I am a fan of the Red Wings - but live in Seattle; so I stream FSN Detroit when there is a game on.  I also get all the commercials (yay Belle Tire!).  How tough is it to measure the amount that is streamed and charge ad buyers for this additional exposure?


The problem is that you've got to get the ad buyers to pay for it and pretty much every study has shown that television ad impressions are the number one way (personal recommendations excepted) to reach audiences.  Just scroll halfway down this article and look at the studies they've got.  Some of the headlines:

"Mobile users across 8 countries including the US rank TV ads (81%) as the marketing messages they are most likely to engage with."

"TV is the top advertising medium for reaching affluent adults, and is rated one of the most effective by luxury buyers."

"TV advertising is the top way in which Americans learn about new products and brands."

"Multiscreen consumers are more open to advertising on TV than on computers, tablets, gaming consoles, and mobile phones."

I don't know why, but television advertising is more effective and so advertisers will pay more for it.  I'm sure the networks would love to stream their shows...if they could make the same amount advertising online as they do on television.  Until that happens, though, they don't want to risk losing viewers to a less profitable medium.
 
2014-02-22 01:44:11 PM

rugman11: The problem is that you've got to get the ad buyers to pay for it and pretty much every study has shown that television ad impressions are the number one way (personal recommendations excepted) to reach audiences. Just scroll halfway down this article and look at the studies they've got. Some of the headlines:

"Mobile users across 8 countries including the US rank TV ads (81%) as the marketing messages they are most likely to engage with."

"TV is the top advertising medium for reaching affluent adults, and is rated one of the most effective by luxury buyers."

"TV advertising is the top way in which Americans learn about new products and brands."

"Multiscreen consumers are more open to advertising on TV than on computers, tablets, gaming consoles, and mobile phones."

I don't know why, but television advertising is more effective and so advertisers will pay more for it. I'm sure the networks would love to stream their shows...if they could make the same amount advertising online as they do on television. Until that happens, though, they don't want to risk losing viewers to a less profitable medium.


Not to throw a big ol wrench in that concept but in my case I answer those sorts of things to spin cable TV as the greatest ad platform to target and that ads within software and websites is absolutely useless.  I abandoned my cable subscription two years ago and exclusively rely on the internet instead for shows and movies, I just don't like ads.
 
2014-02-22 07:09:59 PM
This is pretty much the first legal battle that Aereo has lost.  Decisions in other circuits have allowed the service to keep running until the Supreme Court case is heard, likely around April, and in some markets like New York City the demand has been so great that they've had to shut down new registrations to allow their capacity to keep up.
 
2014-02-22 07:50:34 PM
regmedia.co.uk

I got one of these, and can record any off-air stuff I want in HD.
 
2014-02-23 07:09:40 AM
Well if corporations are people, and people can reshow a broadcast to their friends, I'd say they have a case. But money can buy whatever justice you need, so IMHO we'll see the big corporations squash this sooner or later, unless they get a cut.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report