Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Internet broadcasting VS traditional broadcasters, and the decision will be made by... the Supreme Court? Well... crap   (csmonitor.com) divider line 324
    More: Interesting, Universal Studios, Supreme Court, U-shaped, Aereo Internet, internet, Aereo, internet service, broadcasts  
•       •       •

7913 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2014 at 2:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-20 09:59:48 PM  
Put your money on big business while you get the shaft
 
2014-04-20 10:43:38 PM  

edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft


Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.
 
2014-04-20 11:00:59 PM  

cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.


In what way are they retransmitting? It is in no way different than setting up an antenna to send a signal to your computer instead of your TV. One antenna per person. Every show stored is stored is a separate copy and done only at the behest of the individual subscribers.
 
2014-04-20 11:01:35 PM  

cman: I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.


But is it retransmission?

How is this different than a Sling Box?
 
2014-04-20 11:02:41 PM  
Also, I thought the broadcasters made their money selling commercials.
 
2014-04-20 11:36:29 PM  

ArkAngel: cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

In what way are they retransmitting? It is in no way different than setting up an antenna to send a signal to your computer instead of your TV. One antenna per person. Every show stored is stored is a separate copy and done only at the behest of the individual subscribers.


BizarreMan: cman: I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

But is it retransmission?

How is this different than a Sling Box?


Because the data is being retransmitted from one location not anywhere near the other. Aero is an independent company. They take this copyrighted content and send it through their network to users. That is the definition of retransmission.

I cant speak on the legalities of Sling Boxes, so I wont attempt it. I can say however is that Sling Boxes are not retransmitting signals because the person who received the signal isnt retransmitting the data to others.
 
2014-04-20 11:39:14 PM  

cman: ArkAngel: cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

In what way are they retransmitting? It is in no way different than setting up an antenna to send a signal to your computer instead of your TV. One antenna per person. Every show stored is stored is a separate copy and done only at the behest of the individual subscribers.

BizarreMan: cman: I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

But is it retransmission?

How is this different than a Sling Box?

Because the data is being retransmitted from one location not anywhere near the other. Aero is an independent company. They take this copyrighted content and send it through their network to users. That is the definition of retransmission.

I cant speak on the legalities of Sling Boxes, so I wont attempt it. I can say however is that Sling Boxes are not retransmitting signals because the person who received the signal isnt retransmitting the data to others.


To elaborate:

Sling Boxes IIRC operate usually on ones own home network and do not retransmit data out of said network.
 
2014-04-20 11:42:49 PM  
Lawyers for Aereo respond that the company is not infringing a copyright because it is not "performing" any protected work. The company merely provides a conduit for subscribers to view or record publicly-available broadcasts, they say.

I didn't steal these TVs officer, I'm just selling them.
 
2014-04-21 12:00:01 AM  

ArkAngel: cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

In what way are they retransmitting? It is in no way different than setting up an antenna to send a signal to your computer instead of your TV. One antenna per person. Every show stored is stored is a separate copy and done only at the behest of the individual subscribers.


Aereo is walking on the edge of the law, but their entire business model is a convoluted mess because of our archaic copyright laws.

They retransmit the original stream complete with ads, and they're retransmitting something that the networks broadcast free OTA anyway.  There's no reason why what they're doing should be illegal, but I have a feeling the court will rule against them on the letter of the law.
 
2014-04-21 12:03:09 AM  

cman: cman: ArkAngel: cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

In what way are they retransmitting? It is in no way different than setting up an antenna to send a signal to your computer instead of your TV. One antenna per person. Every show stored is stored is a separate copy and done only at the behest of the individual subscribers.

BizarreMan: cman: I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

But is it retransmission?

How is this different than a Sling Box?

Because the data is being retransmitted from one location not anywhere near the other. Aero is an independent company. They take this copyrighted content and send it through their network to users. That is the definition of retransmission.

I cant speak on the legalities of Sling Boxes, so I wont attempt it. I can say however is that Sling Boxes are not retransmitting signals because the person who received the signal isnt retransmitting the data to others.

To elaborate:

Sling Boxes IIRC operate usually on ones own home network and do not retransmit data out of said network.


Wrong. The whole point of sling box is to send the video from your home to you on the road, traveling through multiple networks to get to your phone or laptop.

The only difference here is instead of hooking it up to your antenna (or cable box) at home, you are leasing an antenna at a central location with better reception.
 
2014-04-21 12:28:02 AM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: cman: cman: ArkAngel: cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

In what way are they retransmitting? It is in no way different than setting up an antenna to send a signal to your computer instead of your TV. One antenna per person. Every show stored is stored is a separate copy and done only at the behest of the individual subscribers.

BizarreMan: cman: I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.

But is it retransmission?

How is this different than a Sling Box?

Because the data is being retransmitted from one location not anywhere near the other. Aero is an independent company. They take this copyrighted content and send it through their network to users. That is the definition of retransmission.

I cant speak on the legalities of Sling Boxes, so I wont attempt it. I can say however is that Sling Boxes are not retransmitting signals because the person who received the signal isnt retransmitting the data to others.

To elaborate:

Sling Boxes IIRC operate usually on ones own home network and do not retransmit data out of said network.

Wrong. The whole point of sling box is to send the video from your home to you on the road, traveling through multiple networks to get to your phone or laptop.

The only difference here is instead of hooking it up to your antenna (or cable box) at home, you are leasing an antenna at a central location with better reception.


Which is why I said "IIRC". Thank you for the correction.
 
2014-04-21 12:52:20 AM  

BizarreMan: Also, I thought the broadcasters made their money selling commercials.


Sure but they aren't selling ads on the basis of these kinds of broadcasts, although I'm sure they could.
 
2014-04-21 02:55:56 AM  
Funny enough, there's money on both sides.
 
2014-04-21 02:56:28 AM  
I like them french fried pertators, mmmhmmmm.
 
2014-04-21 02:58:42 AM  
The constitutional purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Stopping new technologies stifles progress and locking up ideas as property is just a form of censorship much like trying to suppress them. Besides, there is no science and the useful arts on the idiot box, just frivolous entertainment.
 
2014-04-21 02:59:47 AM  
Who cares who wins?  Just download shoes, commercial-free, from Piratebay.
 
2014-04-21 03:00:18 AM  
It would have been a lot funnier if we would have gotten this link from Opposing Views.
 
2014-04-21 03:01:09 AM  

Pattuq: Who cares who wins?  Just download shoes, commercial-free, from Piratebay.


Thank you, Ed Sullivan.
 
2014-04-21 03:09:41 AM  
It seems to me the advertisers paying CBS would/should be backing Aero.
 
2014-04-21 03:13:40 AM  

BizarreMan: Also, I thought the broadcasters made their money selling commercials.


They do.  But they make even more money through retransmission fees.

The whole thing seems backwards to me.  The stations should be paying the cable and minisat customers for improving their signal coverage.  Notice how UHF repeaters have become less common over the past two decades?  Wonder why?
 
2014-04-21 03:14:37 AM  

Dinjiin: cable and minisat customers

companies

FTFM
 
2014-04-21 03:16:32 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: They retransmit the original stream complete with ads, and they're retransmitting something that the networks broadcast free OTA anyway.  There's no reason why what they're doing should be illegal, but I have a feeling the court will rule against them on the letter of the law.


yes the networks release their shows for free over the air, but they release it when they want it to air, in order to maximize viewership, which brings them ad dollars.

Plus, if you recorded a movie off of a network channel then played that in a theater and charged people for it, that would be pretty blatantly illegal even though it had been broadcast OTA for free. what they are doing doesn't seem to be any different.
 
2014-04-21 03:19:10 AM  

Dinjiin: BizarreMan: Also, I thought the broadcasters made their money selling commercials.

They do.  But they make even more money through retransmission fees.

The whole thing seems backwards to me.  The stations should be paying the cable and minisat customers for improving their signal coverage.  Notice how UHF repeaters have become less common over the past two decades?  Wonder why?


For a time it was how cable made it's money, by retransmitting to their customers illegally (in terms of how CBS is arguing it) tv signals that the cable company captured with antennas. Now that they have a piece of the pie, I am sure the cable companies will side with CBS despite the history of cable tv.
 
2014-04-21 03:21:30 AM  

BizarreMan: Also, I thought the broadcasters made their money selling commercials.


They also get fees from cable & sattelite companies that carry the stations.
 
2014-04-21 03:29:01 AM  

log_jammin: TuteTibiImperes: They retransmit the original stream complete with ads, and they're retransmitting something that the networks broadcast free OTA anyway.  There's no reason why what they're doing should be illegal, but I have a feeling the court will rule against them on the letter of the law.

yes the networks release their shows for free over the air, but they release it when they want it to air, in order to maximize viewership, which brings them ad dollars.

Plus, if you recorded a movie off of a network channel then played that in a theater and charged people for it, that would be pretty blatantly illegal even though it had been broadcast OTA for free. what they are doing doesn't seem to be any different.


At one point slavery was legal. Just because something is in the letter of the law doesn't make that law sane or based on logic. This is talking about free over the air programming that any person could get for free there is no logical reason why aero should be stopped.
 
2014-04-21 03:32:27 AM  

Warlordtrooper: At one point slavery was legal.


stopped reading there.
 
2014-04-21 03:33:21 AM  
I'm quite sure this system is a violation of copyright law as currently written and enforced.

Remember, discussing Sunday's football game around the water-cooler Monday morning is a violation of the NFL's copyright, as is referencing the Super Bowl as the Super Bowl.

/Yeah, I called it the Super Bowl
//Come at me NFL bros
 
2014-04-21 03:34:56 AM  

log_jammin: Warlordtrooper: At one point slavery was legal.

stopped reading there.


Why did you stop reading there?  Do you reject the assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past?
 
2014-04-21 03:40:14 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Why did you stop reading there?  Do you reject the assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past?


I do not reject his assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past.

however, I assert that the comparison of the legality of rebroadcasting of OTA programming to slavery is ball numbingly retarded, and anything uttered after that comparison was made, is very likely to also be ball numbingly retarded, and therefore without merit and not worthy of my time.
 
2014-04-21 03:44:24 AM  
Five bucks says as soon as Aero is shot down, they come up with their own higher priced "alternatives", and supreme court justice nephews suddenly land lucrative contracts.
 
2014-04-21 03:45:23 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Remember, discussing Sunday's football game around the water-cooler Monday morning is a violation of the NFL's copyright


no it isn't.

"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

unless your conversation is being broadcastthat is.
 
2014-04-21 03:46:21 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: no... he/she has simply turned into a bad troll recently.


right because only trolls think comparing copy right law to slavery is farking retarded.
 
2014-04-21 03:47:06 AM  

Cpl.D: Five bucks says as soon as Aero is shot down, they come up with their own higher priced "alternatives", and supreme court justice nephews suddenly land lucrative contracts.


We could give them completely whacky names, like "Hulu" or "Netflix".
 
2014-04-21 03:47:37 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Cpl.D: Five bucks says as soon as Aero is shot down, they come up with their own higher priced "alternatives", and supreme court justice nephews suddenly land lucrative contracts.

We could give them completely whacky names, like "Hulu" or "Netflix".


beat me to it.
 
2014-04-21 03:49:44 AM  

cman: edmo: Put your money on big business while you get the shaft

Umm, ok

I think this will come down on the law, and the law is on the side of CBS.

It is illegal to retransmit without explicit written permission. Its plain-as-day copyright infringement.


Meh - the way I see it is much the way the CEO of Aereo explains it.  It is not illegal to have an antenna.  In fact, that is how broadcast TV was originally intended to be broadcast.

Does it really matter if my antenna is on my roof or housed somewhere else?

I don't think so.

If your local stations don't like it, they can stop broadcasting over the air signals.  The FCC gave them the bandwidth to do so, but with certain strings attached.

It's kid of funny.  The local networks can stop broadcasting their shiat, but to do so they would lose carriage fees from Comcast (or whatever cable company carries them).  Then they'd actually have to negotiate a fair price.

I admit that as a consumer I'm a bit biased.  I hate Comcast and I have no love for my local broadcasting affiliates and I can't really install an antenna here that would pick these stations up.  There is no way in hell I'm going to subscribe to ComCrap again.  Dish or Direct don't really appeal to me either, mainly because of contracts and the fact that they may have another dispute with a content provider at any second.  Fark that.

Aereo does nothing more than provide an antenna that is housed at Aereo's facilities instead of on top of my own roof.

God, please let the Supreme Court get it right this time.  Is it too much to ask?
 
2014-04-21 03:50:17 AM  
No, what Aero is doing is flat illegal, because of the little warning the FBI puts on the DVDs and things that nobody reads; and has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

They are taking a paid service (cable) and retransmitting it entire for their own benefit (their subscriber fees) but without paying the cable services for their contribution, i.e. assembling, packaging and broadcasting the cable shows. Which IS a contribution, despite what people who justly hate Time Warner would like to believe.

To use the NFL example someone referenced above, the "any use of this broadcast etc. is strictly prohibited" doesn't really prevent you from discussing the game at the office the next day; what it is meant to do is prevent some enterprising thief from recording the games, assembling them into the Seattle Seahawks Season DVD, adding their own commentary, and then charging the neighbors $10 to come watch it one afternoon just before the Seahawks don't win the Super Bowl. That is what Aero is doing on a very large scale: Packaging something that is already produced and packaged and making it available to their benefit and the detriment of the original makers.

That such a thing is clearly wanted and needed is, at this point, irrelevant under the law. What matters is that Aero took an existing service (which they presumably pay for), repackaged it entire and branded it as their own, and then charged the public for as if they had the right to do that. They do not. So they will lose.

Just because something is desireable and wanted by the general public doesn't make it legal; and unfortunately, the only way to fix that is to change the law or else for Aero to change their operating design.
 
2014-04-21 03:50:25 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Jorn the Younger: log_jammin: Warlordtrooper: At one point slavery was legal.

stopped reading there.

Why did you stop reading there?  Do you reject the assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past?

no... he/she has simply turned into a bad troll recently.


Wait until he tells about how we "give up almost all our rights to get a driver's license".
 
2014-04-21 03:51:17 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: no... because only you think everything is retarded....


It would indeed seem that way...

...to someone who's shown themselves to be rather, "challenged".

However, no, I do not "think  everything is retarded".

HindiDiscoMonster: {fade to past memories}... I remember when you used to be level headed and less crotchety....


I remember when you didn't know how women pee.
 
2014-04-21 03:51:58 AM  

Smackledorfer: Wait until he tells about how we "give up almost all our rights to get a driver's license".


wut?
 
2014-04-21 03:52:22 AM  

log_jammin: Jorn the Younger: Remember, discussing Sunday's football game around the water-cooler Monday morning is a violation of the NFL's copyright

no it isn't.

"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

unless your conversation is being broadcastthat is.


Dude, did you even read the quote you pasted?  "Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

If I'm talking to my coworker about the game - I saw it, he didn't, so I give him a wrap up, mention a few exciting plays - that's a description or account of the game, and as such prohibited by the NFLs claimed copyright.
 
2014-04-21 03:52:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: HindiDiscoMonster: Jorn the Younger: log_jammin: Warlordtrooper: At one point slavery was legal.

stopped reading there.

Why did you stop reading there?  Do you reject the assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past?

no... he/she has simply turned into a bad troll recently.

Wait until he tells about how we "give up almost all our rights to get a driver's license".


I thought he was calling warlordtrooper a bad troll.

/sheepishly leaves the thread.
 
2014-04-21 03:54:16 AM  

log_jammin: Jorn the Younger: Why did you stop reading there?  Do you reject the assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past?

I do not reject his assertion that slavery was in fact legal in the past.

however, I assert that the comparison of the legality of rebroadcasting of OTA programming to slavery is ball numbingly retarded, and anything uttered after that comparison was made, is very likely to also be ball numbingly retarded, and therefore without merit and not worthy of my time.


Except if you hadn't stopped reading there, you'd know that there wasn't a direct comparison being made, slavery was being used as a general example of the point "just because something is legal does not mean it is right".  Nobody is saying the scope of this issue is equivalent to that of slavery, but when making the point that legal != right, slavery is one of the go-to examples
 
2014-04-21 03:55:52 AM  

Gyrfalcon: They are taking a paid service (cable) and retransmitting it


Nope - not even close.

You're not going to get Comedy Central or FX or CNN with Aereo.  They are simply providing an antenna to capture over the air broadcasts.  This would be things like your local ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox affiliates.

An  interesting fact I heard the other day about this was that 90% of revenue for local affiliates actually comes from advertising, NOT cable carriage fees.

There must be more to this story, because otherwise you would think the networks would be happy to have all the extra eyeballs watching their shiat.
 
2014-04-21 03:55:54 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Dude, did you even read the quote you pasted?  "Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."


yes...did you read the part before that?

"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. "

the conversation at the water cooler is a private use of that content by their audience. so as I said, unless that conversation is being broadcast("any other use"), it is not illegal.
 
2014-04-21 03:56:40 AM  

Jorn the Younger: I'm quite sure this system is a violation of copyright law as currently written and enforced.

Remember, discussing Sunday's football game around the water-cooler Monday morning is a violation of the NFL's copyright, as is referencing the Super Bowl as the Super Bowl.

/Yeah, I called it the Super Bowl
//Come at me NFL bros


Yeah that's the level of ridiculousness in the law at this point pretty much ANYTHING is a violation of copyright.  Aereo is a business between the copyright holder and the consumer they are making a profit and are expected to pay for the privilege, the public broadcast is supposed to be free but only to people, not corporations.  So we know for sure that corporations really want to be people except when they have a copyright to protect then they are most definitely are not. What convenient lines to draw on that issue...for them and their interests.
 
2014-04-21 03:57:03 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Lenny_da_Hog: Cpl.D: Five bucks says as soon as Aero is shot down, they come up with their own higher priced "alternatives", and supreme court justice nephews suddenly land lucrative contracts.

We could give them completely whacky names, like "Hulu" or "Netflix".

bad comparison is bad... here is why:


Free Over The Air vs. Premium Paid Content

/Comparing Apples to Alien Spacecraft


Hulu and Netflix also retransmit free over-the-air content, for which they pay fees.
 
2014-04-21 03:57:27 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Except if you hadn't stopped reading there, you'd know that there wasn't a direct comparison being made, slavery was being used as a general example of the point "just because something is legal does not mean it is right".  Nobody is saying the scope of this issue is equivalent to that of slavery, but when making the point that legal != right, slavery is one of the go-to examples


Yes, I know that point he was attempting to make. and it was farking stupid.
 
2014-04-21 03:58:25 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: log_jammin: HindiDiscoMonster: no... because only you think everything is retarded....

It would indeed seem that way...

...to someone who's shown themselves to be rather, "challenged".

However, no, I do not "think  everything is retarded".

[images.t-nation.com image 494x358]


hey, you left the part out about you not knowing how women's plumbing works.
 
2014-04-21 04:01:51 AM  

log_jammin: Jorn the Younger: Except if you hadn't stopped reading there, you'd know that there wasn't a direct comparison being made, slavery was being used as a general example of the point "just because something is legal does not mean it is right".  Nobody is saying the scope of this issue is equivalent to that of slavery, but when making the point that legal != right, slavery is one of the go-to examples

Yes, I know that point he was attempting to make. and it was farking stupid.


Legal does not equal right is a stupid concept?  How?
 
2014-04-21 04:04:47 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: HindiDiscoMonster: Lenny_da_Hog: Cpl.D: Five bucks says as soon as Aero is shot down, they come up with their own higher priced "alternatives", and supreme court justice nephews suddenly land lucrative contracts.

We could give them completely whacky names, like "Hulu" or "Netflix".

bad comparison is bad... here is why:


Free Over The Air vs. Premium Paid Content

/Comparing Apples to Alien Spacecraft

Hulu and Netflix also retransmit free over-the-air content, for which they pay fees.


Whose Netflix transmits free over-the-air content?

Free over-the-air content includes commercials, and I've never seen commercials on Netflix.  My understanding is that Netflix only transmits post-broadcast format content (DVDs, full show collections)- that's why there's no ads, but you also have to wait before shows turn up - you can watch season 1 of Arrow on Netflix, but you have to go Hulu for season 2 because it hasn't been released in post-broadcast format yet.
 
Displayed 50 of 324 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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