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.

(The Week)   Aereo's argument to SCOTUS: "Look, let's face it. Broadcasters are gonna get hosed one way or the other. If we don't do it, someone else will. Don't harsh our mellow, dudes"   (theweek.com) divider line 219
    More: Followup, Aereo, U.S. Supreme Court, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

7780 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2014 at 10:01 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-21 12:04:59 PM

kittyhas1000legs: wxboy: By that logic, I should be able to pay Aereo to watch the local NYC channels even though I'm in Florida.  If Aereo is legal from 10 miles away, why should 1,000 be any different?

You're not in the market covered by those channels. If Aereo were in my area, I could use them for the local ABC channel. My building is behind a hill, so I can't get that channel. It's different from being out-of-market and having 1,000 miles between you and the channel.


I understand that, but I don't think that should be a limiting factor if Aereo isn't paying any license fees (unless a central part of their argument is that they are only providing an alternate means of service that someone with the resources such as a really good antenna could get for free).

I once lived near a triple point of the edge of three different markets, and the cable provider offered OTA stations from all of them on their subscriptions.  Technically, I was only in one market, but with a really good antenna, could have picked up signals from all three markets (although not necessarily all the stations in each market).

And by taking that kind of example to the extreme, if I had a REALLY good antenna, I could potentially pick up stations from hundreds of miles away.  If I just paid Aereo to have an antenna much closer that could pick up those stations, then under their current operating arrangement, that should be just as legal (since they have no license agreement that would prevent that).
 
2014-04-21 12:06:06 PM

Rincewind53: kittyhas1000legs: wxboy: Skirl Hutsenreiter: I actually don't see how that's fundamentally different.

All those hundreds of people could each have an antenna on their own roof, but they are willing to pay the neighbor to have their antenna on his property instead. Why? Because they can't get antenna reception on their own property. In essence, their choice to get what should be free OTA broadcasts is to either pay to use their antenna on their neighbor's property, or to pay to use the cable company's antenna. The cable company in turn only pays the broadcasters because they weren't interested in having an antenna per customer.

By that logic, I should be able to pay Aereo to watch the local NYC channels even though I'm in Florida.  If Aereo is legal from 10 miles away, why should 1,000 be any different?

You're not in the market covered by those channels. If Aereo were in my area, I could use them for the local ABC channel. My building is behind a hill, so I can't get that channel. It's different from being out-of-market and having 1,000 miles between you and the channel.

See above. There's nothing  technically preventing them from providing those channels to you, it's just a "I live here" honor system from users.


You have to lie about your address and have an IP address in that area (or so I thought? I've been reading the two aereo threads too much.) No matter what safeguards any company puts in place, people will try to find workarounds (hboGO, Sony DRM, downloading a car, etc).
 
2014-04-21 12:06:27 PM

ShadowKamui: What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board


They do some resource sharing. Technically, it's not  really one antenna per subscriber, but rather, "we have 10,000 antennas and when you sign on to watch live, we'll pick one unused one." There's no guarantee that tomorrow you'll get the same physical antenna you have right now, so there is some question of whether you're  really renting it the antenna.
 
2014-04-21 12:08:37 PM

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: Caeldan: On a personal scale. How is what aereo does different from you having an antenna and a slingbox.
All aereo is doing is shifting off premises and charging you to lease the equipment in their space.

The fact that they are following the letter of the laws is important and should be upheld.

Shifting off premises and charging you to lease the equipment  changes things, that's why. It's different. You can't say "How is what X does different when all they do different is Y"? X and Y are two different situations with a  shared but not identical premise. Like, "How is Star Trek any different from Star Wars? All Star Trek did differently is set their TV show in the future, not in the  past."

An antenna and a slingbox only works for one person. While Aereo is  technically still only "one" antenna, the content providing infrastructure is totally different. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, does it really matter if it's actually a highly-sophisticated duck-shaped robot programmed to perfectly mimic a duck in every single way?

No it does not, unless they squash the lower courts ruling.  Remote streaming from a DVR is legal as long as the recording itself was legal.

Simply because you rented a DVR rather than bought it, doesn't mean you get a whole different set of legal restrictions on what you can record.   Otherwise every god damn rent to own place, cable company, satellite company and anyone else who rents out VCR/DVR committed copy right infringement for the last 30 years

Yeah, but when the "rental" of the antenna is somewhat of a fiction, it gets murkier.

What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

There is no law regulating how small antennas are legally allowed to be


As I pointed out before, those antennas may be serviceable at UHF frequencies, but at low VHF it's an entirely different matter.  I suppose I have to check the FCC database to see if any of Aereo's markets still use low VHF (old channels 2 - 6).

And I can only imagine what the EMI coming off those boards are.
 
2014-04-21 12:10:41 PM

Rincewind53: See above. There's nothing technically preventing them from providing those channels to you, it's just a "I live here" honor system from users.


Sure, but the question is, is there a legal issue preventing them from offering channels out-of-market in this manner?  And my belief is that there is not, assuming they win the SCOTUS case.
 
2014-04-21 12:11:05 PM

Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

They do some resource sharing. Technically, it's not  really one antenna per subscriber, but rather, "we have 10,000 antennas and when you sign on to watch live, we'll pick one unused one." There's no guarantee that tomorrow you'll get the same physical antenna you have right now, so there is some question of whether you're  really renting it the antenna.


Right, it's a cloud computing model claiming to be a direct one-to-one rental services. If Amazon Web Services based their business model on a claim that you were renting a specific server for you alone and no one else, no one would believe them. Just because  at one particular moment you're on one specific server doesn't mean that what you've actually done is rent a server. You've paid for a webhosting  service.Similarly, Aereo is providing a TV-on-demand service, but claims to be just providing a rental antenna and a rental DVR.
 
2014-04-21 12:11:57 PM

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: Caeldan: On a personal scale. How is what aereo does different from you having an antenna and a slingbox.
All aereo is doing is shifting off premises and charging you to lease the equipment in their space.

The fact that they are following the letter of the laws is important and should be upheld.

Shifting off premises and charging you to lease the equipment  changes things, that's why. It's different. You can't say "How is what X does different when all they do different is Y"? X and Y are two different situations with a  shared but not identical premise. Like, "How is Star Trek any different from Star Wars? All Star Trek did differently is set their TV show in the future, not in the  past."

An antenna and a slingbox only works for one person. While Aereo is  technically still only "one" antenna, the content providing infrastructure is totally different. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, does it really matter if it's actually a highly-sophisticated duck-shaped robot programmed to perfectly mimic a duck in every single way?

No it does not, unless they squash the lower courts ruling.  Remote streaming from a DVR is legal as long as the recording itself was legal.

Simply because you rented a DVR rather than bought it, doesn't mean you get a whole different set of legal restrictions on what you can record.   Otherwise every god damn rent to own place, cable company, satellite company and anyone else who rents out VCR/DVR committed copy right infringement for the last 30 years

Yeah, but when the "rental" of the antenna is somewhat of a fiction, it gets murkier.

What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

There is no law regulating how small antennas are legally allowed to be


Well there's one set of laws that regulates the size of antennas... Physics ;-)

/was told there would be no math

/Really wish quoting on phone browser would let you edit the amount you're quoting...
 
2014-04-21 12:12:31 PM

wxboy: Rincewind53: See above. There's nothing technically preventing them from providing those channels to you, it's just a "I live here" honor system from users.

Sure, but the question is, is there a legal issue preventing them from offering channels out-of-market in this manner?  And my belief is that there is not, assuming they win the SCOTUS case.


Yes, if they were providing channels out-of-market then they couldn't claim that it's the same thing as providing a rental antenna to get  local TV. Providing local TV that a person could  definitely not get in the local area is clearly a violation of copyright for the same reason that streaming it online on a Russian warez site is illegal.
 
2014-04-21 12:17:18 PM

Rincewind53: wxboy: Rincewind53: See above. There's nothing technically preventing them from providing those channels to you, it's just a "I live here" honor system from users.

Sure, but the question is, is there a legal issue preventing them from offering channels out-of-market in this manner?  And my belief is that there is not, assuming they win the SCOTUS case.

Yes, if they were providing channels out-of-market then they couldn't claim that it's the same thing as providing a rental antenna to get  local TV. Providing local TV that a person could  definitely not get in the local area is clearly a violation of copyright for the same reason that streaming it online on a Russian warez site is illegal.



This.

wxboy: I once lived near a triple point of the edge of three different markets, and the cable provider offered OTA stations from all of them on their subscriptions.  Technically, I was only in one market, but with a really good antenna, could have picked up signals from all three markets (although not necessarily all the stations in each market).

And by taking that kind of example to the extreme, if I had a REALLY good antenna, I could potentially pick up stations from hundreds of miles away.  If I just paid Aereo to have an antenna much closer that could pick up those stations, then under their current operating arrangement, that should be just as legal (since they have no license agreement that would prevent that).


MAYBE if you're on a mountaintop with a tower covered in commercial parabolic UHF antennae you MIGHT get them from that distance, assuming you don't have cochannel or adjacent channel interference. Still, you're limited to what you can pick up at your location.

/tvfool.com has been having issues lately. coincidence, or are lots of people visiting it?
 
2014-04-21 12:21:01 PM

Rincewind53: wxboy: Rincewind53: See above. There's nothing technically preventing them from providing those channels to you, it's just a "I live here" honor system from users.

Sure, but the question is, is there a legal issue preventing them from offering channels out-of-market in this manner?  And my belief is that there is not, assuming they win the SCOTUS case.

Yes, if they were providing channels out-of-market then they couldn't claim that it's the same thing as providing a rental antenna to get  local TV. Providing local TV that a person could  definitely not get in the local area is clearly a violation of copyright for the same reason that streaming it online on a Russian warez site is illegal.


Well, where would you draw the line on "definitely could not get"?  Within a market?  Adjacent markets?  I posted an example a little bit up where I could have gotten stations from 3 different markets with a decent antenna (I had cable at the time, which did offer most of them).  Would Aereo be put at a disadvantage by not being able to offer all of them?
 
2014-04-21 12:23:24 PM

vpb: I don't see why it's such an issue.  OTA TV makes money from advertisements and Aereo would help them reach a larger audience and make more money.  It's supposed to be a replacement for an antenna IMHO.  I don't see that it's any different from making a high gain antenna.


except that we made it a hilariously farked up legal issue that if you manage to get the signal from somewhere other than a box connected directly to your tv, it's somehow a problem.
 
2014-04-21 12:23:32 PM

Geotpf: I think Aereo should win.

Here's my thinking.

Imagine you are a landlord.  You own a house and rent it out.  Heck, you own several houses and rent them out.  Attached to each house is a television antenna on the roof (old-school style); the tenant hooks up their TV to it.  Nobody would argue that this is illegal.

Aereo is doing the same thing-renting out a TV antenna.  Therefore, it should be legal.

But who knows the ruling will actually go?


Is the landlord paying for the service and making a deal with the provider that excludes those extra hookups? If you agreed not to transmit or share beyond certain bounds, you are violating the contract.

Just because the provider can't efficiently stop you from doing something doesn't mean you aren't violating contract.
 
2014-04-21 12:25:25 PM

Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

They do some resource sharing. Technically, it's not  really one antenna per subscriber, but rather, "we have 10,000 antennas and when you sign on to watch live, we'll pick one unused one." There's no guarantee that tomorrow you'll get the same physical antenna you have right now, so there is some question of whether you're  really renting it the antenna.


There is a still an unique antenna in the array for every recording.  Until congress outlaws time sharing the courts not touching that argument
 
2014-04-21 12:25:44 PM
Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?
 
2014-04-21 12:26:45 PM

Rincewind53: blindio: MyRandomName: TofuTheAlmighty: JackieRabbit: So, cannot Aereos not be considered a subscription antenna provider?

Aereo is essentially a leased antenna.

Regardless, the broadcasters will win because they have money and the Roberts' court sides with powerful interests every single time.

More ignorant USSC analysis from fark liberals. One word. KELO.

So a developer convinces a city to exercise eminent domain to take land for the developer to use for "economic development"  is somehow not the Roberts court siding with powerful interests, or are we talking about a different Kelo?

Kelo was a product of the liberals on the court, is what he's talking about. The conservatives unanimously opposed it.


Ah, ok.  That makes sense then.  Yeah, that was kind of a head scratcher for me.
 
2014-04-21 12:27:15 PM
Corproate America really hates competition these days, doesn't it?
 
2014-04-21 12:28:27 PM

goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?


Probably a radio waves vs. physical object thing.
 
2014-04-21 12:29:18 PM

goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?


About 80 different arguments, once you get past people laughing for asking such a stupid question.
 
2014-04-21 12:30:56 PM

goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?


Broadcast signal =/= physical drone carrying other people's property.
 
2014-04-21 12:32:34 PM

wooden_badger: As I pointed out before, those antennas may be serviceable at UHF frequencies, but at low VHF it's an entirely different matter.  I suppose I have to check the FCC database to see if any of Aereo's markets still use low VHF (old channels 2 - 6).


TVfool stopped crapping itself. It looks like VHF 2 and 4 are in NYC, but as low-powered stations (WKOB, WPXO). I'm not sure if Aereo offers them.
 
2014-04-21 12:39:04 PM

BubbaWilkins: Hobodeluxe: Necronic: For the life of me I can't imagine how Aereo can win this argument.   The ramifications of a ruling in their favor would seriously cripple OTA ad revenue.  That said I hope they win.

why? the ads are reaching more homes not less.

Actually, in theory it's a net zero change.  Aereo isn't expanding the geagraphic broadcast area.  What they are doing is providing better reception and functionality for people who would otherwise not be able to receive due to other reasons.  The remote DVR functionality is just a bonus.


lots of people in the area still can't get all the channels in that area. due to geographic and other interference. like me I'm on the south side of a ridge and all local stations are north of me.
 
2014-04-21 12:39:12 PM

Rincewind53: Just because at one particular moment you're on one specific server doesn't mean that what you've actually done is rent a server.


Just because on one particular day I drive one specific rental car off the lot doesn't mean that what I've actually done is rent a car!
 
2014-04-21 12:40:46 PM

goatleggedfellow: If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?


Er, is it because Amazon drones aren't broadcast signals?  I hate trick questions.
 
2014-04-21 12:48:17 PM

kittyhas1000legs: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Probably a radio waves vs. physical object thing.


redmid17: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

About 80 different arguments, once you get past people laughing for asking such a stupid question.


Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Broadcast signal =/= physical drone carrying other people's property.


Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.
 
2014-04-21 12:49:51 PM
Didn't the cable do this exact same thing when they started out?

I don't see how this is breaking new ground. Go with the same rules the cable companies have to follow.
 
2014-04-21 12:50:30 PM
And if there's a case of tropospheric ducting where suddenly I can get UHF OTA from hundreds of miles away, or E-Skip where I can receive FL stations in MA with a simple antenna, will Aereo offer them for me?
 
2014-04-21 12:51:04 PM

goatleggedfellow: Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.


Bullets are physical things. Since it's legal to toss air molecules at someone (by blowing air at them), it's clearly legal for me to fire bullets at them, right? Both involve me transferring one thing to the body of another, right?
 
2014-04-21 12:51:46 PM

goatleggedfellow: kittyhas1000legs: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Probably a radio waves vs. physical object thing.

redmid17: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

About 80 different arguments, once you get past people laughing for asking such a stupid question.

Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Broadcast signal =/= physical drone carrying other people's property.

Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.


Actually, there is one easy-to-spot difference, but none of you had the wits to notice it.
 
2014-04-21 12:51:49 PM

goatleggedfellow: kittyhas1000legs: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Probably a radio waves vs. physical object thing.

redmid17: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

About 80 different arguments, once you get past people laughing for asking such a stupid question.

Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Broadcast signal =/= physical drone carrying other people's property.

Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.


One you can deprive an intended recipient by receiving in lieu.
The other you cause no interference (in this case).
 
2014-04-21 12:52:11 PM

Enuratique: I was an active Aereo subscriber for a few months, so I know the service very well... Reading through these threads it's obvious a lot of people don't fully understand the scope and breadth of Aereo's offerings (in other words, people think it does a lot more than it actually does). While I liked Aereo, and I want to see them win just on the grounds of me liking to see innovative technology/business models triumphing over antiquated laws, I don't think Aereo is going to win.

The whole 1 antenna + 1 recording per user is a red herring. The fact that the OTA signal is free to begin with is a red herring. The argument that you're renting infrastructure and not paying for content is also a red herring. A clever argument from Aereo's lawyers (if that's really their tact here).

I saw this analogy in the other thread and I think it makes the most sense to me:

Pandora/Spotify/Slacker all broadcast music to me for free. They're able to do this because they've gotten license agreements from the content owners (RIAA/Sony/Universal/BMG, et al) which allows them to broadcast that music in return for meeting certain conditions (payment of royalties, restrictions on how songs can be played [ie, no on-demand, no more than 6 skips per hour, etc]). They're able to continue providing this service because they charge advertisers for the ad space created between songs.

Now let's say I come along and figure out how to record these audio streams for my own private enjoyment. Honestly this is probably a violation of the EULA, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's legally allowed. I then turn around and run a service that lets others record and access songs from my Pandora stream. Again, for each subscriber, I create an additional virtual instance and that person's recordings are only accessible to them. I charge $8 a month for this, since it takes a lot of power/bandwidth/ram to run all those virtual instances.

I'm now profiting off of content to which I neither own the ...


You're full of shiat, and apparently, you don't know what a "red herring" is, either.

Aereo IS a hosted-DVR service.  They utilize the same legal loophole that Cablevision DVR service did to become a reality.  http://multichannel.com/news/content/cablevision-blasts-broadcasters- t ying-rs-dvr-aereo-litigation/356730   Of course, CV didn't know what a "Pandora's Box" they were opening at the time.

Do you even know how services like Pandora or Spotify work?  For one, they deliver on demand, so that's a directed unicast, but they reuse the same content for multiple subs and often attempt to negotiate rights directly working around the standard streaming rates.  Some of it is still broken, though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/business/media/pandora-suit-may-up en d-century-old-royalty-plan.html?_r=0

Pandora and Spotify deliver from their stored catalogs, and do so based upon users' indicated preferences and schedules.  Aereo does not.  The equivalent to Aereo would be (which I have not seen done, but could exist out there) records from a radio based in a particular physical location at the request of a human user on a particular frequency for a particular period of time.  The selection of those values is aided by a schedule provided by this theoretical Aereo equivalent provider.  THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM PANDORA OR SPOTIFY

/keep your mouth shut, the adults are talking.
 
2014-04-21 12:53:17 PM
So what I want to know is ok if I charge people $4 to use my Aereo account?
 
2014-04-21 12:54:08 PM
Has Scalia said anything mind blowingly stupid in advance yet?
 
2014-04-21 12:55:19 PM

ShadowKamui: Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

They do some resource sharing. Technically, it's not  really one antenna per subscriber, but rather, "we have 10,000 antennas and when you sign on to watch live, we'll pick one unused one." There's no guarantee that tomorrow you'll get the same physical antenna you have right now, so there is some question of whether you're  really renting it the antenna.

There is a still an unique antenna in the array for every recording.  Until congress outlaws time sharing the courts not touching that argument


17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;


Congress has outlawed time sharing of individual copies of works. No, you cannot start your own Blockbuster from your DVD collection and refuse to pay royalties.
 
2014-04-21 12:56:53 PM
What does the tiny antenna have to do with it?  Every subscriber gets their own tuner for legal purposes or something?  Why not have one giant antenna and headend?
 
2014-04-21 12:58:34 PM

Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.

Bullets are physical things. Since it's legal to toss air molecules at someone (by blowing air at them), it's clearly legal for me to fire bullets at them, right? Both involve me transferring one thing to the body of another, right?


i.imgur.com

There's a reason I find myself spending less and less time on this site.
 
2014-04-21 12:58:48 PM

dynomutt: You're full of shiat, and apparently, you don't know what a "red herring" is, either...
/keep your mouth shut, the adults are talking.


I disagreed with Enuratique above, but managed to do it without being a dick, so it's certainly possible.
Honest question: do you really think that presenting yourself as a total cockbag will increase your credibility? And if not, why do it?
 
2014-04-21 01:00:15 PM

goatleggedfellow: Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.

Bullets are physical things. Since it's legal to toss air molecules at someone (by blowing air at them), it's clearly legal for me to fire bullets at them, right? Both involve me transferring one thing to the body of another, right?

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]

There's a reason I find myself spending less and less time on this site.


Probably due to embarrassment from easily found holes in your argument.
 
2014-04-21 01:00:19 PM

Theaetetus: 17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Congress has outlawed time sharing of individual copies of works. No, you cannot start your own Blockbuster from your DVD collection and refuse to pay royalties.


Aereo allows you to make your own recordings. They're more like Blockbuster having 1,000 antennae and 1,000 VCR's. THEN you drive up and grab your own copy of Big How Two and a Half Broke Girls Met your Mother Theory to watch over the weekend.
 
2014-04-21 01:00:50 PM

oakleym82: What does the tiny antenna have to do with it?  Every subscriber gets their own tuner for legal purposes or something?  Why not have one giant antenna and headend?


Exactly that. If they had one giant antenna and headend, then existing court decisions would say that they were illegally publicly performing or displaying the signal. With individual signals, the argument is that they are not providing a single signal "to the public", but just to an individual.
 
2014-04-21 01:01:52 PM

Caeldan: goatleggedfellow: kittyhas1000legs: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Probably a radio waves vs. physical object thing.

redmid17: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

About 80 different arguments, once you get past people laughing for asking such a stupid question.

Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Logical Question:

If copyrighted broadcast signals are free to be taken, what keeps me from sniping Amazon drones out of the air and taking whatever they were transporting?

Broadcast signal =/= physical drone carrying other people's property.

Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.

One you can deprive an intended recipient by receiving in lieu.
The other you cause no interference (in this case).


Well, at least one person figured it out.
 
2014-04-21 01:03:19 PM

thirdgrader: Rincewind53: Theaetetus: Mind you, that was only from the 2nd Circuit, but I believe SCOTUS denied cert in that case.

Right, Aereo was essentially created as a direct result of that decision. It's a rather brilliant technological exploitation of a legal loophole, as explained very well on Scotusblog. That said, I think the Supreme Court isn't going to allow it; it's violating the spirit of the law so obviously that even if there's no  clear violation of the letter of the law, the Court is still going to strike it down.

Scalia is pretty vehement when he speaks publicly that letter of the law trumps spirit of the law every time.

His rulings also demonstrate his belief that the richer you are the better person you are and therefore deserve to win.

I'm guessing he'll rule for the wallet guys. Which is exactly why this case is important. It's yet another nail in the coffin for the middle class.


Yeah, I think Scalia is going to do his best to put an end to this Internet thingy.
 
2014-04-21 01:03:32 PM

Enuratique: Now let's say I come along and figure out how to record these audio streams for my own private enjoyment. Honestly this is probably a violation of the EULA, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's legally allowed. I then turn around and run a service that lets others record and access songs from my Pandora stream. Again, for each subscriber, I create an additional virtual instance and that person's recordings are only accessible to them. I charge $8 a month for this, since it takes a lot of power/bandwidth/ram to run all those virtual instances.


And there is no EULA with over the air broadcast.

They are basically selling you antenna and TV service, and I am fine with it.
 
2014-04-21 01:04:09 PM
Am I supposed to feel bad for the broadcasters? Because I don't.
 
2014-04-21 01:04:38 PM

redmid17: goatleggedfellow: Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.

Bullets are physical things. Since it's legal to toss air molecules at someone (by blowing air at them), it's clearly legal for me to fire bullets at them, right? Both involve me transferring one thing to the body of another, right?

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]

There's a reason I find myself spending less and less time on this site.

Probably due to embarrassment from easily found holes in your argument.


More to do with Poe's Law.
 
2014-04-21 01:04:39 PM

Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

They do some resource sharing. Technically, it's not  really one antenna per subscriber, but rather, "we have 10,000 antennas and when you sign on to watch live, we'll pick one unused one." There's no guarantee that tomorrow you'll get the same physical antenna you have right now, so there is some question of whether you're  really renting it the antenna.

There is a still an unique antenna in the array for every recording.  Until congress outlaws time sharing the courts not touching that argument

17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Congress has outlawed time sharing of individual copies of works. No, you cannot start your own Blockbuster from your DVD collection and refuse to pay royalties.


You might wanna reread that law again it doesn't out law renting VCRs
 
2014-04-21 01:04:46 PM

blindio: MyRandomName: TofuTheAlmighty: JackieRabbit: So, cannot Aereos not be considered a subscription antenna provider?

Aereo is essentially a leased antenna.

Regardless, the broadcasters will win because they have money and the Roberts' court sides with powerful interests every single time.

More ignorant USSC analysis from fark liberals. One word. KELO.

So a developer convinces a city to exercise eminent domain to take land for the developer to use for "economic development"  is somehow not the Roberts court siding with powerful interests, or are we talking about a different Kelo?


If there's a football stadium needing to be built, you can't let the little people stand in the way.
 
2014-04-21 01:05:27 PM

liam76: Enuratique: Now let's say I come along and figure out how to record these audio streams for my own private enjoyment. Honestly this is probably a violation of the EULA, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it's legally allowed. I then turn around and run a service that lets others record and access songs from my Pandora stream. Again, for each subscriber, I create an additional virtual instance and that person's recordings are only accessible to them. I charge $8 a month for this, since it takes a lot of power/bandwidth/ram to run all those virtual instances.

And there is no EULA with over the air broadcast.

They are basically selling you antenna and TVDVR service, and I am fine with it.


DOH!
FTFM
 
2014-04-21 01:06:00 PM

ShadowKamui: Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: What fiction, there's an actual antenna physically on the circuit board

They do some resource sharing. Technically, it's not  really one antenna per subscriber, but rather, "we have 10,000 antennas and when you sign on to watch live, we'll pick one unused one." There's no guarantee that tomorrow you'll get the same physical antenna you have right now, so there is some question of whether you're  really renting it the antenna.

There is a still an unique antenna in the array for every recording.  Until congress outlaws time sharing the courts not touching that argument

17 USC 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Congress has outlawed time sharing of individual copies of works. No, you cannot start your own Blockbuster from your DVD collection and refuse to pay royalties.

You might wanna reread that law again it doesn't out law renting VCRs


My post had nothing to do with renting VCRs. Not quite sure what you're confused about.
 
2014-04-21 01:07:12 PM

goatleggedfellow: redmid17: goatleggedfellow: Rincewind53: goatleggedfellow: Both are physical things. Yes, EM waves are physical things.

Both are things belonging to other people/corporations and recognized as such by the government.

Both are being transferred under contract to particular parties.

Bullets are physical things. Since it's legal to toss air molecules at someone (by blowing air at them), it's clearly legal for me to fire bullets at them, right? Both involve me transferring one thing to the body of another, right?

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]

There's a reason I find myself spending less and less time on this site.

Probably due to embarrassment from easily found holes in your argument.

More to do with Poe's Law.


Ah, the old "I'm not wrong. I'm... trolling! Yes, that's it! Trolololol!"
 
2014-04-21 01:07:40 PM
On one hand, I support anything to fark cable companies.

On the other, it's technically legal, as far as I understand it, having followed it for months.

A lot of money changes hands between cable providers and stations, over the air or cable only. Sometimes it goes one direction, sometimes the other. It's because cable companies have a de facto monopoly in some areas.

Cable and phone companies have a vested interest in eliminating competition for their services, and in maintaining their position as a premium service deliverer and not a bit-pipe utility. It is plainly obvious that won't happen without aggressive tactics against anyone infringing on their turf including new laws to eliminate regulation and competition.

Places like New York with its tall buildings and San Francisco or Pittsburgh with its hills make for problematic UHF reception. Channel 4 in Pittsburgh has a special experimental license for two transmitters to try to serve most of the region. People would love to pay $8 for an antenna instead of $80 for cable plus rental fees for the boxes so you can get equivalent HD broadcasts.

I hope that Aereo wins, I'm not sure of it because money talks, but I hold out hope.
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report