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.

(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  
•       •       •

7826 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2014 at 10:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-21 08:32:10 AM  
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.
 
2014-04-21 08:50:13 AM  

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.


Yeah, but there's even more money to be made if they can charge Aereo for the privilege of helping themselves make more money. It's the end game, folks. In twenty years, the haves will have everything and the have-nots will be farked forever. You need to grab what you can, now.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-04-21 08:52:51 AM  
There are a lot of players here, not only two. CBS' plan B for simultaneous streaming hurts its affiliate stations.
 
2014-04-21 09:50:45 AM  

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.


OTA TV also makes a lot of money from charging retransmission fees to cable companies just like a regular cable channel does.  In that, Aereo isn't all that different, and probably should be paying up (since they're now making money providing someone else's product without permission).

That said, I'm not sure how a cable company typically receives a feed from the OTA broadcaster (satellite or fiber or antenna).
 
2014-04-21 09:54:27 AM  

wxboy: 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.

OTA TV also makes a lot of money from charging retransmission fees to cable companies just like a regular cable channel does.  In that, Aereo isn't all that different, and probably should be paying up (since they're now making money providing someone else's product without permission).

That said, I'm not sure how a cable company typically receives a feed from the OTA broadcaster (satellite or fiber or antenna).


So OTA double bills. They get the advertising and fees from the cable companies who then charge us and drop other commercials on top of the OTA ones.

/must go derper
 
2014-04-21 10:06:40 AM  

wxboy: 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.

OTA TV also makes a lot of money from charging retransmission fees to cable companies just like a regular cable channel does.  In that, Aereo isn't all that different, and probably should be paying up (since they're now making money providing someone else's product without permission).

That said, I'm not sure how a cable company typically receives a feed from the OTA broadcaster (satellite or fiber or antenna).


In the early days, I believe the cable company picked up the signal with an antenna on a nice high tower.  Nowadays I suppose the digital signal can just be sent to them from the OTA station, then it gets processed some more to squeeze it onto the cable/fiber.
 
2014-04-21 10:11:56 AM  
Is this really any different than the case against The Pirate Bay?
 
2014-04-21 10:13:35 AM  
Remember this is the same industry that told the Supreme Court, in the early 1980's,  with a straight face, that there should be a $3 surcharge added to every blank VCR tape sold in America and that money should be given directly to them.  A failure to do so, the industry swore, would mean that Hollywood studios and TV production companies would be driven out of business by the end of the decade

Now, of course we know that the VCR and its successors has been the greatest financial BOON to the movie and TV industry ever, but that did not stop them from doing their best to strangle the technology in the cradle.  Mostly because large corporations react to innovation about as well as SNL's famous "unfrozen caveman lawyer"
 
2014-04-21 10:14:58 AM  
solution. give the broadcasters their slice. maybe 10% distributed amongst the big 4. 2.5% each. that means Aereo charges 9 bucks a month and not 8.
 
2014-04-21 10:16:27 AM  
I, too, think the broadcasters will prevail. If they don't, the ruling will impact far more than Aereo and the broadcast industry. However, today's digital televisions cannot even receive a broadcast without a special antenna. The sellers of these devices are not required to pay licensing fees. Telecommunications also transmit content between mobile and other devices without having to pay a licensing fee. So, cannot Aereos not be considered a subscription antenna provider?
 
2014-04-21 10:21:16 AM  

stonicus: Is this really any different than the case against The Pirate Bay?


kind of, PB never let OTA providers gain access to the number of people downloading a specific show for ratings data so they can then use those numbers to squeez more money from advertisers.
 
2014-04-21 10:21:54 AM  

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.


OTA TV pays for content by market size.  This is how small markets can afford content; if Smalltown USA had to pay NYC rates, that would be impossible for the small broadcasters.  If NYC payed Smalltown's rates, there would not be enough money to justify developing content.

Having a third party make those markets completely arbitrary based on where THEY happen to put their antenna will mess up the system.
 
2014-04-21 10:23:31 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 10:23:40 AM  

Name_Omitted: 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.

OTA TV pays for content by market size.  This is how small markets can afford content; if Smalltown USA had to pay NYC rates, that would be impossible for the small broadcasters.  If NYC payed Smalltown's rates, there would not be enough money to justify developing content.

Having a third party make those markets completely arbitrary based on where THEY happen to put their antenna will mess up the system.


They only allow you to see the region based on your IP address.
 
2014-04-21 10:23:58 AM  

Magorn: Now, of course we know that the VCR and its successors has been the greatest financial BOON to the movie and TV industry ever, but that did not stop them from doing their best to strangle the technology in the cradle.


They are as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

//waiting for the barrage of people who don't understand this comment.
 
2014-04-21 10:24:46 AM  
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?
 
2014-04-21 10:25:35 AM  
Theme song for all parties involved.....
 
2014-04-21 10:25:56 AM  

Hobodeluxe: solution. give the broadcasters their slice. maybe 10% distributed amongst the big 4. 2.5% each. that means Aereo charges 9 bucks a month and not 8.


Pretty much this. Hell, if Aereo's service turned out to be popular, in a few years they'd be in a good position to get bought out by Comcast/TW or some other giant media corp. But because they -had- to rush out and implement this without working with the providers or making sure the bajillion middlemen got their cut, it's gonna be ugly.
 
2014-04-21 10:26:22 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: Name_Omitted: 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.

OTA TV pays for content by market size.  This is how small markets can afford content; if Smalltown USA had to pay NYC rates, that would be impossible for the small broadcasters.  If NYC payed Smalltown's rates, there would not be enough money to justify developing content.

Having a third party make those markets completely arbitrary based on where THEY happen to put their antenna will mess up the system.

They only allow you to see the region based on your IP address.


In that case, my argument is invalid.
 
2014-04-21 10:29:39 AM  

Geotpf: 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.


Except the landlord isn't storing and redistributing the content, let alone charging for access to it.
 
2014-04-21 10:32:27 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: Name_Omitted: 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.

OTA TV pays for content by market size.  This is how small markets can afford content; if Smalltown USA had to pay NYC rates, that would be impossible for the small broadcasters.  If NYC payed Smalltown's rates, there would not be enough money to justify developing content.

Having a third party make those markets completely arbitrary based on where THEY happen to put their antenna will mess up the system.

They only allow you to see the region based on your IP address.


Which, as we know, is completely foolproof.
 
2014-04-21 10:38:42 AM  

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.


My thinking as well. Hell, they will probably soon allow corporations to vote and cast a number of votes equal to the number of employees they have. That or the number of dollars they paid in income tax since the last election. America is now an economic oligarchy, not a true democratic republic.
 
2014-04-21 10:41:23 AM  
Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.
 
2014-04-21 10:41:41 AM  

wooden_badger: wxboy: 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.

OTA TV also makes a lot of money from charging retransmission fees to cable companies just like a regular cable channel does.  In that, Aereo isn't all that different, and probably should be paying up (since they're now making money providing someone else's product without permission).

That said, I'm not sure how a cable company typically receives a feed from the OTA broadcaster (satellite or fiber or antenna).

In the early days, I believe the cable company picked up the signal with an antenna on a nice high tower.  Nowadays I suppose the digital signal can just be sent to them from the OTA station, then it gets processed some more to squeeze it onto the cable/fiber.


It wasn't so high tech in the early days, or even these days. A lot of times cable companies use trees, wood poles, 2x4's nailed to poles, whatever is handy, to reach broadcast from  the local stations with a regular old TV antenna. There's more to it after that, like microwave links to the central office in some cases, but for the most part technical knowledge for the general public has improved over the years since the early days of cable - if you were to see an early cable TV system, you would say to yourself, "WTF? I could do that."

The larger the system, both in terms of number of subscribers and distance, the more involved it becomes. Having a simple antenna pointed at a station is pretty cheap and easy - hardwire costs money. The expense come with getting the signal to people's homes. You see cable line tacked on power poles and telephone poles. The cable company has to lease space on those poles from whoever owns them. That's why wireless is cool, and profitable.
 
2014-04-21 10:42:17 AM  

wxboy: 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.

OTA TV also makes a lot of money from charging retransmission fees to cable companies just like a regular cable channel does.  In that, Aereo isn't all that different, and probably should be paying up (since they're now making money providing someone else's product without permission).

That said, I'm not sure how a cable company typically receives a feed from the OTA broadcaster (satellite or fiber or antenna).


As far as receiving the content cable companies love redundancy. Typically a direct fiber link and antennas to pick up the OTA feed at multiple MTCs which are inter-connected via fiber networks.
 
2014-04-21 10:44:08 AM  

JackieRabbit: That or the number of dollars they paid in income tax since the last election.


Considering how much some of them dodge taxes, this could actually reduce corporate influence.
 
2014-04-21 10:44:58 AM  
I used to live in a high-rise condo.  On the roof of the building, our HOA put up several high-quality antennas and installed all the necessary equipment to boost and distribute the signals to the ~200 condo unit owners.  It was a very good, "free" (well, we obviously paid for the equipment and maintenance through condo fees) cable system.  But, the cable providers weren't cut out - if you wanted cable, you could purchase it and their infrastructure was in our building for easy setup; in fact, we also had the choice of two satellite providers who had installed equipment on the roof which would capture/distribute the signals down to the condos.

It all worked very well together.  The condo owners had their choice of market provider(s) and packages, or we could use our socialist OTA system.

Of course, this was in Canada.  Derp.
 
2014-04-21 10:48:32 AM  

GoldSpider: Geotpf: 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.

Except the landlord isn't storing and redistributing the content, let alone charging for access to it.


Imagine that the house you live in gets bad television reception.  Your neighbor, who lives on a hill, gets great reception.  Your neighbor hears you complaining about the difficulty of getting TV at your place, so he comes to you one day and says, "Hey, I've got a spare antenna mounted up at my place, and a spare DVR, too.  How about you rent them from me and we'll run a cable from the antenna down to your house?"

That's all Aereo is doing.
 
2014-04-21 10:49:17 AM  

Hobodeluxe: solution. give the broadcasters their slice. maybe 10% distributed amongst the big 4. 2.5% each. that means Aereo charges 9 bucks a month and not 8.


Except, in practice, this means that my cable/satellite bill is now filled with at least of $8 worth of charges from various ESPN channels that I have absolutely no interest in.
 
2014-04-21 10:49:30 AM  

NutWrench: Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.


Ah yes, the fabled Arpanet-enabled betamax with transcoding to VT100 text animation streaming capabilities to your TRS-80.

/now with COLECOVISION media extender!
 
2014-04-21 10:51:59 AM  

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.


I live in downtown Boston, right beneath a couple of the big television broadcast sites. Because of the antenna beam angles, I can't receive  any television stations. I used Aereo this past fall so that I could watch live football, without paying for full cable.

So, yeah, I think it's a reasonable business model. But it's an interesting question of copyright law, not really addressed in the current statutes.
 
2014-04-21 10:52:38 AM  
Damn.

I've always been under the impression that recording then rebroadcasting a tv show was illegal, even if I encrypted the signal and charged a membership fee.
 
2014-04-21 10:53:20 AM  
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.
 
2014-04-21 10:54:13 AM  
What a tit
 
2014-04-21 10:54:51 AM  

Theaetetus: I live in downtown Boston, right beneath a couple of the big television broadcast sites. Because of the antenna beam angles, I can't receive  any television stations.


Other people are also so close the signal overloads their tuner and can't see anything. I'm in the sweet spot for my area, getting Hartford and Springfield with decent strength.
 
2014-04-21 10:55:15 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 10:55:55 AM  

GoldSpider: Geotpf: 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.

Except the landlord isn't storing and redistributing the content, let alone charging for access to it.


What if the landlord did charge, though? For eight bucks he lets you use one of his VCRs (he has a bunch in the basement) and promises to keep the antenna in good shape and routes it to your apartment.

There's no way that's illegal.

To make the analogy perfect, the landlord has ten units and ten antennae. Aereo literally has an antenna for each user.

This is like suing VCR manufacturers. Which of course Big Cable did.
 
2014-04-21 10:57:58 AM  
As usual, the best place for commentary on cases in front of SCOTUS is scotusblog.

Here's the most recent on Aereo.
 
2014-04-21 10:58:49 AM  
People still watch TV?
 
2014-04-21 11:01:16 AM  

NutWrench: Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.


The crux of this is that Aero is charging for the re-broadcast.    The argument is similar to the one the NFL makes about its games.   You can watch them, you can even hve friends over watching them.  but if you say ran a movie theater and charge people to come watch the game on your giant screen, then you owe the NFL.  Similarly is you have the game on in a bar, since presumably you are trying to get people to come spnd money at your bar so they can watch the game, the NFL requires you to buy a license form them to show those games at your bar
 
2014-04-21 11:01:35 AM  

meat0918: Damn.

I've always been under the impression that recording then rebroadcasting a tv show was illegal, even if I encrypted the signal and charged a membership fee.


They aren't rebroadcasting the show as each user has their own DVR

The whole argument is basically are VCR/DVR legal if they're 10 miles down the road from the TV.  If not then at what distances does a legal VCR/DVR become illegal
 
2014-04-21 11:01:45 AM  

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.


Right.  Their revenue might go down because they wouldn't be able to extract as much from the cable company in carriage fees, but definitely not because of loss of ad revenue.

That said, the desirable OTA spectrum space is being nibbled away bit by bit.  We now have a VHF TV band that's largely unused for TV (part of which could have easily been re-purposed for an expanded FM service), but it's pretty much worth nothing to the mobile comm companies.

That mega-watt UHF transmitter is a big expense that many "broadcasters" may soon want to do without.
 
2014-04-21 11:01:51 AM  
Why is Fark allowing subbu to rebroadcast last night's thread?
 
2014-04-21 11:02:45 AM  

NutWrench: Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.


No, they don't. They are recording devices and the SCOTUS long ago ruled that the copyright laws allow recording for private consumption. If you record content and then sell it without license to do so, the broadcaster or other copyright holders can come after you.
 
2014-04-21 11:04:24 AM  

Necronic: For the life of me I can't imagine how Aereo can win this argument.


From the syllabus of Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, back in 2008:
Copyright holders' exclusive right of public performance applies to transmissions of performances to places open to public or where substantial number of persons are gathered, or to public "whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or different times," 17 U.S.C. §101; in present case, playback transmissions from defendants' "remote storage" digital video recorder system, which permits customers to record programs on servers at defendants' central facility for future playback at home, are not unauthorized performances "to the public," and thus defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for direct infringement of their right of public performance, since transmissions are made using single unique copy of work that is made by individual subscriber and can only be decoded by subscriber's cable box, and thus only single subscriber is "capable of receiving" transmission, and since "transmit clause" of Section 101 contemplates potential audience of particular transmission, not potential audience of underlying work whose content is being transmitted, in that potential audience of any copyrighted audiovisual work is general public; fact that unique copies of same work are used to make transmissions limits potential audience of transmission, and is therefore relevant to determination of whether transmission is made "to the public."

Mind you, that was only from the 2nd Circuit, but I believe SCOTUS denied cert in that case.
 
2014-04-21 11:05:10 AM  

NutWrench: Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.


Well, for one thing, if a content provider wanted to keep a TiVo from doing a "Save Until Deleted" all they have to do is set a special flag when the show is broadcast and the amount of time it stays on the TiVo is limited.  Same thing with the ability to transfer the shows to an external drive on your home network.  It's been a while since I got cable but I seem to remember some shows (like South Park) that you couldn't transfer off the TiVo.
 
2014-04-21 11:06:47 AM  

NutWrench: Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.


Because VCR and TiVo manufacturers only build and sell products.  The crime only occurs with what you do with the equipment.
 
2014-04-21 11:06:55 AM  

positronica: GoldSpider: Geotpf: 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.

Except the landlord isn't storing and redistributing the content, let alone charging for access to it.

Imagine that the house you live in gets bad television reception.  Your neighbor, who lives on a hill, gets great reception.  Your neighbor hears you complaining about the difficulty of getting TV at your place, so he comes to you one day and says, "Hey, I've got a spare antenna mounted up at my place, and a spare DVR, too.  How about you rent them from me and we'll run a cable from the antenna down to your house?"

That's all Aereo is doing.


Except Aereo is putting thousands of spare antennas on a circuit board. So, to make your metaphor better, what if your neighbor were to cover every inch of his rooftop with antennas, and every square inch of his yard, so that there are hundreds of the things. Then he goes around to every house in the neighborhood and says "Hey, I'm willing to rent you access to my antennas for cheaper than the cable company. You should cut the cable and go with me instead."

I think we can both agree that the large-scale operation, while operating in a superficial way like the example you gave, is fundamentally different. The Court and Congress has recognized this in the past; it's perfectly fine to record a program off TV, invite your neighbors over, and have a movie night. It's why it's not a violation of copyright if I invite all my friends over to watch Orphan Black. But it is a violation of copyright if record a program off of TV, then bring it to a theater and charge admission for people to use watch my copy of the program.

Aereo's technology is essentially an attempt to conform to the letter of the law by not  technically doing the latter scenario; each "antenna" is only used for one person, therefore they are  technically not charging large groups of people to watch the same programs. But in aggregate, and ignoring their (admittedly very clever) technological ways around the problem, it's very clear that what they're doing is recording programs off of TV and then charging other people to watch them. They're exploiting a loophole that the Second Circuit made a few years ago, but there's no really good argument for why the loophole should exist.

Aereo is likely going to lose, as a result. Even if their technology actually fits the loophole (which it does seem like it does), the Supreme Court doesn't have to act like idiots and is allowed to call a spade a spade.
 
2014-04-21 11:07:13 AM  
And those hooks were placed in the TiVo software at the behest of content providers.
 
2014-04-21 11:08:15 AM  

Magorn: The crux of this is that Aero is charging for the re-broadcast.


Aereo doesn't  broadcast anything - they unicast everything, on a one customer=one receiver/DVR basis. It's very similar to that Cartoon Network case I quoted from above - a single unique copy is made for each subscriber and sent only to the subscriber.

It's horribly inefficient from a technical standpoint, of course.
 
2014-04-21 11:08:37 AM  

thirdgrader: GoldSpider: Geotpf: 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.

Except the landlord isn't storing and redistributing the content, let alone charging for access to it.

What if the landlord did charge, though? For eight bucks he lets you use one of his VCRs (he has a bunch in the basement) and promises to keep the antenna in good shape and routes it to your apartment.

There's no way that's illegal.

To make the analogy perfect, the landlord has ten units and ten antennae. Aereo literally has an antenna for each user.

This is like suing VCR manufacturers. Which of course Big Cable did.


Well, if you want to make the analogy real perfect, what Aereo is doing would be akin to you calling up the landlord and paying him to tape a program for you.  But it's probably a question of scale for legality.  The landlord's primary purpose is not offering access to content, it's renting a place to live, and the VCR thing is only a few people (and probably could be construed as illegal anyway, just the same as it's technically illegal under copyright law to make a copy of a DVD movie for a friend).  Aereo's sole purpose is offering access to content for a fee, to thousands of people.

My apartment complex offers free limited basic cable (mostly OTA channels plus C-Span and the like) because getting a good OTA signal is hard.  But, they're paying the cable company for that.

The difference between Aereo and VCRs is that all the hardware is under Aereo's control at their own location.  They're exploiting a grey area in copyright law, which I suppose is why this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
2014-04-21 11:08:44 AM  
I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.
 
2014-04-21 11:09:05 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 11:09:34 AM  

Tax Boy: NutWrench: Why aren't VCR and TiVo manufacturers getting sued over this? Their devices allow people to store and "rebroadcast" content.

Ah yes, the fabled Arpanet-enabled betamax with transcoding to VT100 text animation streaming capabilities to your TRS-80.

/now with COLECOVISION media extender!


Atari400 has better graphics, although the optional cassette leaves a lot to be desired when downloading movies.

/think I still have an atari800 someplace
//just need to remember basic
 
2014-04-21 11:10:37 AM  
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 copyright to nor have a license agreement for.

/I believe this is the sticking point
//IANAL
 
2014-04-21 11:10:55 AM  

Rincewind53: But in aggregate, and ignoring their (admittedly very clever) technological ways around the problem, it's very clear that what they're doing is recording programs off of TV and then charging other people to watch them. They're exploiting a loophole that the Second Circuit made a few years ago, but there's no really good argument for why the loophole should exist.

Aereo is likely going to lose, as a result. Even if their technology actually fits the loophole (which it does seem like it does), the Supreme Court doesn't have to act like idiots and is allowed to call a spade a spade.


I don't know about that... The Supreme Court can't simply rewrite the copyright act as necessary to close loopholes - that's Congress' job, and is why Congress amended the Act in 1976 specifically to close a similar loophole in which a CATV system had a hilltop antenna and retransmitted the signal to homes in a sheltered valley who could not otherwise receive the broadcasts - the Fortnightly case in the late 60s.
 
2014-04-21 11:11:10 AM  
Wow, I didn't realize the broadcast companies were paying shills to post troll headlines on fark.

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised, entrenched companies tend to try anything they think will take them back to the "good old days"
 
2014-04-21 11:11:47 AM  

wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.


The antennas are the small things on the top. They've done a great job with miniaturization. They then stack these things like server racks.
www.crainsnewyork.com
 
2014-04-21 11:12:14 AM  

wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.


cdn2.vox-cdn.com
 
2014-04-21 11:13:13 AM  

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: But in aggregate, and ignoring their (admittedly very clever) technological ways around the problem, it's very clear that what they're doing is recording programs off of TV and then charging other people to watch them. They're exploiting a loophole that the Second Circuit made a few years ago, but there's no really good argument for why the loophole should exist.

Aereo is likely going to lose, as a result. Even if their technology actually fits the loophole (which it does seem like it does), the Supreme Court doesn't have to act like idiots and is allowed to call a spade a spade.

I don't know about that... The Supreme Court can't simply rewrite the copyright act as necessary to close loopholes - that's Congress' job, and is why Congress amended the Act in 1976 specifically to close a similar loophole in which a CATV system had a hilltop antenna and retransmitted the signal to homes in a sheltered valley who could not otherwise receive the broadcasts - the Fortnightly case in the late 60s.


They don't even have to go that far; they just have to tweak the definition of "performance" to exclude large-scale middleman situations like this one.
 
2014-04-21 11:15:42 AM  

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.


I think they'll let Aero off with what they have already done, then just rewrite the law to close the loophole.  SCOTUS let's lots of things that violate the spirit of the law through, especially involving tax code and tax shelters.
 
2014-04-21 11:15:50 AM  

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.

I'm now profiting off of content to which I neither own the copyright to nor have a license agreement for.

/I believe this is the sticking point


That's where your analogy breaks down... Recording those audio streams  is a violation of the EULA, which means you don't have licensed copies. But when Aereo puts an antenna in the air, they aren't agreeing to any EULAs or license restrictions: they're simply receiving a public broadcast. It's been well established that CBS can't come to you and demand royalty payments for your rabbit ears.
 
2014-04-21 11:17:55 AM  
American Brainwashing Company
 
2014-04-21 11:19:17 AM  
You'd think big business nowadays would be savvy enough to create dummy startups which preemptively secure these rulings in their favor.
 
2014-04-21 11:20:11 AM  

Rincewind53: Theaetetus: Rincewind53: But in aggregate, and ignoring their (admittedly very clever) technological ways around the problem, it's very clear that what they're doing is recording programs off of TV and then charging other people to watch them. They're exploiting a loophole that the Second Circuit made a few years ago, but there's no really good argument for why the loophole should exist.

Aereo is likely going to lose, as a result. Even if their technology actually fits the loophole (which it does seem like it does), the Supreme Court doesn't have to act like idiots and is allowed to call a spade a spade.

I don't know about that... The Supreme Court can't simply rewrite the copyright act as necessary to close loopholes - that's Congress' job, and is why Congress amended the Act in 1976 specifically to close a similar loophole in which a CATV system had a hilltop antenna and retransmitted the signal to homes in a sheltered valley who could not otherwise receive the broadcasts - the Fortnightly case in the late 60s.

They don't even have to go that far; they just have to tweak the definition of "performance" to exclude large-scale middleman situations like this one.


Can't - "perform" is explicitly defined in 101. They'd have to tweak the definition of "public", which appears in this circular definition:
To perform or display a work "publicly" means-
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work...  to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.


But even then, tweaking that to say "the public is 'more than two people who don't know each other'" or something may have huge unintended effects. It would be better to say "Congress, get your shiat together and write a real definition."

/"publicly" means "to the public"? Gosh, legislators sure are smrt.
 
2014-04-21 11:20:17 AM  
This sounds a lot like: Officer, you don't pay that girl to have sex with you.  She's a slut who will have sex with anyone who goes into the room for free.  I just charge a $500 fee to enter the room.
 
2014-04-21 11:23:18 AM  

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 ...


Your spotify example isn't the same thing as you have to circumvent encryption in order to record it.  That's a big DCMA no-no

What you are throwing out as redhearings is the actual argument of the case.
1) Renting a physical antenna and DVR/VCR
2) Letting the renter streaming from DVR to a remote location

#1 was settled a long time ago w/ Betmax lawsuit
#2 is completely dependent on if the SCOTUS upholds the lower courts ruling on remote time shifting
 
2014-04-21 11:23:50 AM  
As someone that was watching a torrented copy of GoT S4Ep03 at 10:45pm last night, I'm getting a chuckle....

I really think the Generation that are the CEO's today don't have effing clue #1 about media in the information age and how to monetize it.
Issues like this, and the fact that within minutes I can have any show or sports match I want, shows me approximately how out of touch with reality these people are, with their trillion dollar compensation packages, bonuses and golden parachutes.

Author is right, Broadcasters are the ones who are farked either way, but it's not people like this company, or people like Me doing it to them - it's they that have done it to themselves by spending all their money and effort to control a virtual monopoly instead of innovating. (RIAA , MPAA anyone?)

Can't have it both ways, crooks... but enjoy the days as they pass, because your time is at an end. As the current generations - the ones with devices and connectivity ubiquitous to their daily lives - come of age, your power and influence will fade, it already is... these are your death throws - and as we get more judges in the circuit that understand technology - your lack of understanding will come home to roost...it already is.  They have already lost, and that is why they fight so now.

All I can do is laugh...... They had this coming and even with a win in this case, they've already lost the war.

We're getting smarter, and they're standing on their laurels...

How does history show that playing out??
 
2014-04-21 11:23:57 AM  

Rincewind53: wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.

The antennas are the small things on the top. They've done a great job with miniaturization. They then stack these things like server racks.
[www.crainsnewyork.com image 850x637]


Thing is, can one individual antenna in that thing pick up the channels desired, or do you need them to be in the array like that to pick up the channels? I sure as hell can't get the local FOX channel from three miles away with that. I need at least a wand if not rabbit ears. Aereo's argument may hold some water if each antenna is capable of reception, but it looks to me that you need the dime-sized antennae in an array to have reliable reception.
 
2014-04-21 11:24:11 AM  

Theaetetus: Can't - "perform" is explicitly defined in 101. They'd have to tweak the definition of "public", which appears in this circular definition:
To perform or display a work "publicly" means-
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work...  to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

But even then, tweaking that to say "the public is 'more than two people who don't know each other'" or something may have huge unintended effects. It would be better to say "Congress, get your shiat together and write a real definition."

/"publicly" means "to the public"? Gosh, legislators sure are smrt.


You're right, I was remembering the Scotusblog article wrong. Regardless, it'll be an interesting result.
 
2014-04-21 11:24:48 AM  

stonicus: Is this really any different than the case against The Pirate Bay?


First they came for the MP3s but I did nothing because I had CDs...then they came for the MP4s but I did nothing because I use DVDs...
 
2014-04-21 11:26:02 AM  

Colin O'Scopy: stonicus: Is this really any different than the case against The Pirate Bay?

First they came for the MP3s but I did nothing because I had CDs...then they came for the MP4s but I did nothing because I use DVDs...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
 
2014-04-21 11:26:31 AM  
The broadcasters just don't want to have to pay Aereo for access to allow them to measure viewership. How else will the broadcasters know how what and many Aereo customers are watching and when?
 
2014-04-21 11:26:42 AM  

kittyhas1000legs: Rincewind53: wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.

The antennas are the small things on the top. They've done a great job with miniaturization. They then stack these things like server racks.
[www.crainsnewyork.com image 850x637]

Thing is, can one individual antenna in that thing pick up the channels desired, or do you need them to be in the array like that to pick up the channels? I sure as hell can't get the local FOX channel from three miles away with that. I need at least a wand if not rabbit ears. Aereo's argument may hold some water if each antenna is capable of reception, but it looks to me that you need the dime-sized antennae in an array to have reliable reception.


Allegedly each antenna is picking up each channel separately.
 
2014-04-21 11:26:59 AM  
Anyone else think the article's author should have revealed his paid affiliation to network TV somewhat before the second-to-last paragraph? Possibly in an italicized note at the very top?
 
2014-04-21 11:27:26 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 11:27:38 AM  

wxboy: I'm not sure how a cable company typically receives a feed from the OTA broadcaster (satellite or fiber or antenna).


Typically satellite in most cases.

Difference is, your local cable company receives a single copy of the signal and makes it available to all their subscribers simultaneously. Aereo receives thousands of copies of the signal and makes each one available to at most one subscriber.
 
2014-04-21 11:30:38 AM  

Hobodeluxe: solution. give the broadcasters their slice. maybe 10% distributed amongst the big 4. 2.5% each. that means Aereo charges 9 bucks a month and not 8.


You think one of the big 4 broadcast networks is going be happy with a 2.5% cut?

You think the smaller OTA broadcast stations are going to be happy with a 0% cut?
 
2014-04-21 11:30:44 AM  
Scrotus.
 
2014-04-21 11:33:46 AM  
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.
 
2014-04-21 11:34:53 AM  
IANAL, but how is this not the same/similar thing to Napster and other file sharing programs?  The argument that its consumer choice and they are "creating" their own broadcast seems like an equivalent to peer-to-peer file sharing, since I'm just setting up my own private link to the host.

Or is this thing just doing real-time broadcasts (so it would only emit Arrow at 8pm on Wed for example), but having every network available at once?
 
2014-04-21 11:37:13 AM  

Rincewind53: kittyhas1000legs: Rincewind53: wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.

The antennas are the small things on the top. They've done a great job with miniaturization. They then stack these things like server racks.
[www.crainsnewyork.com image 850x637]

Thing is, can one individual antenna in that thing pick up the channels desired, or do you need them to be in the array like that to pick up the channels? I sure as hell can't get the local FOX channel from three miles away with that. I need at least a wand if not rabbit ears. Aereo's argument may hold some water if each antenna is capable of reception, but it looks to me that you need the dime-sized antennae in an array to have reliable reception.

Allegedly each antenna is picking up each channel separately.


That's an enormous waste of resources. Mandated by law. Just like the size of Japanese cars. Total ridiculousness.
 
2014-04-21 11:37:33 AM  

Rincewind53: Except Aereo is putting thousands of spare antennas on a circuit board. So, to make your metaphor better, what if your neighbor were to cover every inch of his rooftop with antennas, and every square inch of his yard, so that there are hundreds of the things. Then he goes around to every house in the neighborhood and says "Hey, I'm willing to rent you access to my antennas for cheaper than the cable company. You should cut the cable and go with me instead."

I think we can both agree that the large-scale operation, while operating in a superficial way like the example you gave, is fundamentally different.


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.

As to the theater versus private viewing party analogy: that comes down to the definition of private versus public use.  Previous cases have found that cloud-based DVR services were fine for the very same reasons Aereo is using it its argument: each household chooses what to record, has their own recordings that aren't shared between households, only piped into that one home on demand.  Thus private use.  Likewise, Aereo isn't making one master recording of How I Met Your Mother that for a fee they broadcast to everyone who wants to watch it ala the theater viewing party; they are making an individual recording for each household and charge to store it offsite rather than on an in home DVR.

The only innovation here is that Aereo has both the antenna and the DVR offsite, though still in the same broadcast market.
 
2014-04-21 11:39:23 AM  

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?
 
2014-04-21 11:40:53 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: That's an enormous waste of resources. Mandated by law. Just like the size of Japanese cars. Total ridiculousness.


Well yes, because if they did it in a more efficient way it would be  obviouslyillegal. So it's not mandated by law. That's like saying that Cayman Island tax avoidance schemes are "mandated by law."
 
2014-04-21 11:41:56 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Rincewind53: kittyhas1000legs: Rincewind53: wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.

The antennas are the small things on the top. They've done a great job with miniaturization. They then stack these things like server racks.
[www.crainsnewyork.com image 850x637]

Thing is, can one individual antenna in that thing pick up the channels desired, or do you need them to be in the array like that to pick up the channels? I sure as hell can't get the local FOX channel from three miles away with that. I need at least a wand if not rabbit ears. Aereo's argument may hold some water if each antenna is capable of reception, but it looks to me that you need the dime-sized antennae in an array to have reliable reception.

Allegedly each antenna is picking up each channel separately.

That's an enormous waste of resources. Mandated by law. Just like the size of Japanese cars. Total ridiculousness.


As it turns out, skirting a law while staying technically within its boundaries thanks to technologies that hadn't even been conceived of when the law was originally written is probably not going to result in the most efficient model.
 
2014-04-21 11:45:45 AM  

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?
 
2014-04-21 11:48:43 AM  

Rincewind53: 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?


Yes, it does.  If being a real duck is illegal, then the robot duck isn't illegal.  So yes, it makes all the difference in the world.
 
2014-04-21 11:50:18 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 11:52:41 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 11:54:21 AM  

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 sort of can. Aereo allows you to rent out an antenna anywhere and watch from anywhere, even if you don't live in the area you're renting out the antenna for. If I wanted to watch local Boston programming, I could just rent out one of their Boston antennas and watch right now. However, I would have to lie to them on the registration form and tell them I lived in Boston, since their Terms of Use restrict viewing to your "Home Market", which the define by the residential address you give them. This restriction is yet another attempt to show that they're fitting this loophole, even though their technology would easily allow them to provide every local channel to anywhere.
 
2014-04-21 11:55:45 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 11:56:25 AM  

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?


Actually it does. Because it won't taste like a duck.

There's a valid business model here for getting OTA to people in locations where they should be able to receive it but can't due to infrastructure (ie apartment buildings).

And if the individual use case is perfectly legal, why is hiring someone else to do it for you illegal?
 
2014-04-21 11:56:57 AM  

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
 
2014-04-21 11:58:47 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 11:59:37 AM  

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.
 
2014-04-21 12:03:08 PM  

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?
 
2014-04-21 12:03:34 PM  

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
 
2014-04-21 12:04:07 PM  
Ah, the Future™ and it's coat tail game.  Break what's breakable, break what's fixable and let somebody else do your work for you.
 
2014-04-21 12:04:35 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?

Kelo

 was a product of the liberals on the court, is what he's talking about. The conservatives unanimously opposed it.
 
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.
 
2014-04-21 01:09:26 PM  

Theaetetus: 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.


That you have absolutely no clue WTF you're talking about

Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs, nothing in the law you quoted has anything to do w/ either of those 2 things
 
2014-04-21 01:10:56 PM  

ShadowKamui: 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


They do have to obey the laws of physics however. It's hard enough picking up stations for redistribution on a standard tower with directional antennas. The idea that each of these micro antennas on a circuit board in a server rack do the same is rather doubtful.
 
2014-04-21 01:16:38 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?


Low IQ?.
 
2014-04-21 01:17:42 PM  

ShadowKamui: That you have absolutely no clue WTF you're talking about

Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs, nothing in the law you quoted has anything to do w/ either of those 2 things


Yes, clearly, I don't know that Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs. That's why I never said anything like:

Theaetetus: I used Aereo this past fall so that I could watch live football, without paying for full cable.
Theaetetus: Aereo doesn't  broadcast anything - they unicast everything, on a one customer=one receiver/DVR basis. It's very similar to that Cartoon Network case I quoted from above - a single unique copy is made for each subscriber and sent only to the subscriber.

Theaetetus: 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.

Theaetetus: 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.


Obviously, I have no idea how Aereo works. You sure have adequately described what I'm saying.
 
2014-04-21 01:20:35 PM  

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.


Let me guess, 5-4 in favor of the broadcasters.
 
2014-04-21 01:21:58 PM  

1. Put snakes on plane: ShadowKamui: 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

They do have to obey the laws of physics however. It's hard enough picking up stations for redistribution on a standard tower with directional antennas. The idea that each of these micro antennas on a circuit board in a server rack do the same is rather doubtful.


Exactly. That's why I mentioned RF channels 2 & 4 in New York City. A bow-tie antenna can get UHF, but you need rabbit ears or a proper antenna for VHF. There's no way one dime-sized antenna like theirs can pick up the lower frequencies.
 
2014-04-21 01:22:59 PM  

Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: That you have absolutely no clue WTF you're talking about

Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs, nothing in the law you quoted has anything to do w/ either of those 2 things

Yes, clearly, I don't know that Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs. That's why I never said anything like:

Theaetetus: I used Aereo this past fall so that I could watch live football, without paying for full cable.
Theaetetus: Aereo doesn't  broadcast anything - they unicast everything, on a one customer=one receiver/DVR basis. It's very similar to that Cartoon Network case I quoted from above - a single unique copy is made for each subscriber and sent only to the subscriber.
Theaetetus: 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.
Theaetetus: 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.

Obviously, I have no idea how Aereo works. You sure have adequately described what I'm saying.


Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.
 
2014-04-21 01:24:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, clearly, I don't know that Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs.


Thea: I like you and value your legal analysis on most things. But in this instance, your wording and citation were a little unwieldy.

The timeshare argument was made in relation to the antennae. You responded that timesharing content was not ever permissible. The content was not the topic of the timeshare analogy, the antenna was.

Here is the exchange, snipped for brevity, but still containing the relevant passages:

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

YOU: 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.


As you can hopefully see, the timesharing analogy got off the rails when you were referring to works, rather than the antenna, whereas the person you were responding to was talking about the antenna and said nothing about the works.
 
2014-04-21 01:27:21 PM  

JackieRabbit: However, today's digital televisions cannot even receive a broadcast without a special antenna


Digital TV can use the same VHF rabbit ears and UHF loop antenna as analog TV could.  I use an outdoor antenna from Radio Shack that has been on the books since the late '80s.


wooden_badger: I wonder what these "antenna farms" look like.  What if the channel being received is one of those low VHF ones that need a decent size antenna anyway. There's still a few of those left.


They're fairly small.  They use a fractal design, which allows for the shrink.
 
2014-04-21 01:28:55 PM  

ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.


Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.
 
2014-04-21 01:30:31 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Theaetetus: Yes, clearly, I don't know that Aereo timeshares physical antennas and rents out DVRs.

Thea: I like you and value your legal analysis on most things. But in this instance, your wording and citation were a little unwieldy.

The timeshare argument was made in relation to the antennae. You responded that timesharing content was not ever permissible. The content was not the topic of the timeshare analogy, the antenna was.

Here is the exchange, snipped for brevity, but still containing the relevant passages:

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

YOU: 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.

As you can hopefully see, the timesharing analogy got off the rails when you were referring to works, rather than the antenna, whereas the person you were responding to was talking about the antenna and said nothing about the works.


Sure. I took issue with his broad statement that Congress had not outlawed time sharing, when in fact, they have outlawed time sharing of individual works.

Additionally, as I noted above, the time sharing of the Antennas/DVRs raises the question over whether Aereo is  really renting the antennas out, or whether subscribers are merely getting a slot in a pool of shared resources. This was the "legal fiction" that ShadowKamui first demanded an explanation of:

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: 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

 
2014-04-21 01:41:27 PM  

Magorn: Mostly because large corporations react to innovation about as well as SNL's famous "unfrozen caveman lawyer"


And depend on an army of virtual slaves to implement the same brain dead schemes over and over, they get profit, and the proles are too tired to complain.

In two words: fark that.
 
2014-04-21 01:42:50 PM  

Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.


You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor
 
2014-04-21 01:44:28 PM  

Theaetetus: I took issue with his broad statement that Congress had not outlawed time sharing


This was the point that your JD kicked in and you started talking "legalese" versus "commonspeak."

I read the timesharing broad statement and related it to the antennae, analogizing it to an actual timeshare of a building in the traditional sense. As far as I know, Congress has not outlawed  that particular brand of timesharing.

You took the overly broad statement and narrowed it to another topic that, while related, was not exactly explanatory nor contradictory to the original assertion that Congress has not outlawed timesharing  as it is commonly defined and understood.

I
To be clear, I am not saying anyone is wrong here, just that I can understand where the confusion came from.

Back to the case, however. You then said something that perked my ears. Can you expound on how this statement would make a legal difference?

Theaetetus: raises the question over whether Aereo is  really renting the antennas out, or whether subscribers are merely getting a slot in a pool of shared resources.

If I understand you correctly, you do buy into the notion that Aereo is unicasting and not broadcasting, so I am curious as to why the nature of the rental agreement would make a legal difference.
 
2014-04-21 01:49:02 PM  

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.

You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor


A stellar rejoinder! Good show, old chap.
 
2014-04-21 01:51:34 PM  

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.

You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor


You now what they call a guy who never went to med school but still tries to give medical advice?

An idiot.
 
2014-04-21 01:55:31 PM  
I'm a young professional that works for a CBS affiliate. I support Aereo for several reasons:
1) Television is dying and needs a reformative kickstart
2) In general, local advertisers will reach more people
2a) Especially younger people, like myself. People my age are too Internet savvy to be fooled into paying $80/month for full television service. If I had Aereo, I would've watched a lot more broadcast television.
3) I'm in advertising, and this could provide valuable research to advertisers if its accessed online. Local business owners wet themselves over IP targeting.
4) Hell, a few years from now, you could even make ads clickable and redirect directly to the brand's website.

So, yeah. If this rules in Aereo's favor, CBS will defnitely lose some capital in the short-term, but they - and television in general - will benefit from it longterm if they can properly adapt to the changes.
 
2014-04-21 01:57:52 PM  

aintnuttintofarkwith: I'm a young professional that works for a CBS affiliate. I support Aereo for several reasons:
1) Television is dying and needs a reformative kickstart
2) In general, local advertisers will reach more people
2a) Especially younger people, like myself. People my age are too Internet savvy to be fooled into paying $80/month for full television service. If I had Aereo, I would've watched a lot more broadcast television.
3) I'm in advertising, and this could provide valuable research to advertisers if its accessed online. Local business owners wet themselves over IP targeting.
4) Hell, a few years from now, you could even make ads clickable and redirect directly to the brand's website.

So, yeah. If this rules in Aereo's favor, CBS will defnitely lose some capital in the short-term, but they - and television in general - will benefit from it longterm if they can properly adapt to the changes.


Sure, but the decision-makers at CBS are looking at next quarter's numbers, not the numbers five years from now.
 
2014-04-21 02:00:57 PM  

qorkfiend: aintnuttintofarkwith: I'm a young professional that works for a CBS affiliate. I support Aereo for several reasons:
1) Television is dying and needs a reformative kickstart
2) In general, local advertisers will reach more people
2a) Especially younger people, like myself. People my age are too Internet savvy to be fooled into paying $80/month for full television service. If I had Aereo, I would've watched a lot more broadcast television.
3) I'm in advertising, and this could provide valuable research to advertisers if its accessed online. Local business owners wet themselves over IP targeting.
4) Hell, a few years from now, you could even make ads clickable and redirect directly to the brand's website.

So, yeah. If this rules in Aereo's favor, CBS will defnitely lose some capital in the short-term, but they - and television in general - will benefit from it longterm if they can properly adapt to the changes.

Sure, but the decision-makers at CBS are looking at next quarter's numbers, not the numbers five years from now.


Yeah, the fundamental flaw of publicly held companies.
 
2014-04-21 02:01:37 PM  

Omis: So what I want to know is ok if I charge people $4 to use my Aereo account?


Well

You're limited to 5 device activations, one or two tuners depending on how much you pay and 20 or 40 hours of storage so subletting your account would run into issues pretty quick.
 
2014-04-21 02:08:41 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Back to the case, however. You then said something that perked my ears. Can you expound on how this statement would make a legal difference?

Theaetetus: raises the question over whether Aereo is  really renting the antennas out, or whether subscribers are merely getting a slot in a pool of shared resources.

If I understand you correctly, you do buy into the notion that Aereo is unicasting and not broadcasting, so I am curious as to why the nature of the rental agreement would make a legal difference.


Sure... As I said above, I think this case should come down on Aereo's side and that Congress should be the ones to update the law, but that relies on SCOTUS having the restraint to say "this is wrong, but not currently illegal under the law, so Congress, get your shiat together" rather than "this is wrong so we're gonna rewrite the law in some short-sighted way." They're less likely to have that restraint if they think Aereo is not just being legally clever to find a loophole, but that they're playing fast and loose with the facts...
... which brings us to the fact that Aereo has been premising all of its arguments on "one subscriber=one antenna". If the other side starts hammering on that and saying "but you share those antennas", the Justices, who are not as technologically savvy as they think they are, will start wondering if Aereo has been misleading them. And if so,  that will make them less likely to apply the restraint that they're supposed to.

Short version: legally, it doesn't make a difference to the copyright infringement claim and Aereo should be in the clear. Practically, it's not good to have the core of your defense rest on highly nuanced facts that are not technically, unambiguously, 100% undeniably true.
 
2014-04-21 02:12:17 PM  
aintnuttintofarkwith:
2a) Especially younger people, like myself. People my age are too Internet savvy to be fooled into paying $80/month for full television service. If I had Aereo, I would've watched a lot more broadcast television.

This right here.  Unless I start making >100k a year I will never pay for cable again.  I still get advertisements from AT&T trying to get me to get cable again and it makes me angry to read it.  I still feel ripped off for having cable for a year.
 
2014-04-21 02:12:48 PM  
I cant imagine telecos are too keen on this Aero thing. And considering the money and weight they hold...these antennas stand no chance.
 
2014-04-21 02:16:25 PM  

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Back to the case, however. You then said something that perked my ears. Can you expound on how this statement would make a legal difference?

Theaetetus: raises the question over whether Aereo is  really renting the antennas out, or whether subscribers are merely getting a slot in a pool of shared resources.

If I understand you correctly, you do buy into the notion that Aereo is unicasting and not broadcasting, so I am curious as to why the nature of the rental agreement would make a legal difference.

Sure... As I said above, I think this case should come down on Aereo's side and that Congress should be the ones to update the law, but that relies on SCOTUS having the restraint to say "this is wrong, but not currently illegal under the law, so Congress, get your shiat together" rather than "this is wrong so we're gonna rewrite the law in some short-sighted way." They're less likely to have that restraint if they think Aereo is not just being legally clever to find a loophole, but that they're playing fast and loose with the facts...
... which brings us to the fact that Aereo has been premising all of its arguments on "one subscriber=one antenna". If the other side starts hammering on that and saying "but you share those antennas", the Justices, who are not as technologically savvy as they think they are, will start wondering if Aereo has been misleading them. And if so,  that will make them less likely to apply the restraint that they're supposed to.

Short version: legally, it doesn't make a difference to the copyright infringement claim and Aereo should be in the clear. Practically, it's not good to have the core of your defense rest on highly nuanced facts that are not technically, unambiguously, 100% undeniably true.


So the distinction isn't really a distinction other than how it may be perceived by those that will sit in judgment.
 
2014-04-21 02:17:39 PM  
Interesting thread, though it only highlights how broken the broadcast model is, and how it's probably all (or almost all) the cable companies' fault.

In a SANE world, every TV station would have a web site and/or dedicated stream service where you could watch the channel on any internet connected machine with halfway decent bandwith and a web browser.

Why not?  It's my understanding because cable companies extort local stations to carry their channels to their local market, along with an arcane tangle of transmission/retransmission agreements with the larger networks.

Really, there shouldn't be any reason I couldn't take my pc here in Oklahoma and use the browser to watch some station in south Florida if I wanted to.

Hell, all those stations are supported by ads anyway, and the ads would still be seen-- only by far more people.
 
2014-04-21 02:17:45 PM  

dynomutt: 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.


How does IHeartRadio fit into all this? They let you tune into radio stations from across the nation, IIRC.
 
2014-04-21 02:19:15 PM  

Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.

You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor

You now what they call a guy who never went to med school but still tries to give medical advice?

An idiot.


No calling out Doctor Zoidberg as being completely wrong does not make one an idiot.  Bad lawyers w. little to no understanding of basic electronics shouldn't be spouting off random crap from some law book to coverup their stupidity.

Splitters and amplifiers would be illegal, hell depending on the signal splicing a wire would be illegal.  Physics doesn't work that way no matter how stupidly you wanna interpret a law that nobody w/ any intelligence has ever been stupid enough to try and interpret it that way before
 
2014-04-21 02:24:41 PM  

CtrlAltDestroy: dynomutt: 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.

How does IHeartRadio fit into all this? They let you tune into radio stations from across the nation, IIRC.


It helps that IHR is owned by Clearchannel Communications, which owns a lot of radio stations, so presumably they're allowed to use their own content. I don't know if 100% of their content is CC content, but I assume they're paying for licenses for content they don't already have a license to.
 
2014-04-21 02:25:14 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the distinction isn't really a distinction other than how it may be perceived by those that will sit in judgment.


Or rather, it's an important distinction from an engineering and resource-management standpoint; but an irrelevant distinction from a copyright law standpoint... but the justices may confuse the former with the latter if they think they're being snookered.
 
2014-04-21 02:30:39 PM  

Riche: Interesting thread, though it only highlights how broken the broadcast model is, and how it's probably all (or almost all) the cable companies' fault.

In a SANE world, every TV station would have a web site and/or dedicated stream service where you could watch the channel on any internet connected machine with halfway decent bandwith and a web browser.

Why not?  It's my understanding because cable companies extort local stations to carry their channels to their local market, along with an arcane tangle of transmission/retransmission agreements with the larger networks.

Really, there shouldn't be any reason I couldn't take my pc here in Oklahoma and use the browser to watch some station in south Florida if I wanted to.

Hell, all those stations are supported by ads anyway, and the ads would still be seen-- only by far more people.


Whoa there, fella.  Slow your roll. You kind of have it backward.  Cable companies pay the local stations for transmission, not the other way around.

And why would some station in south Florida care if you're watching in Oklahoma?  Let me rephrase that.  Why would a local advertiser, who is advertising on a local station in south Florida, want to pay the network more because some random person in Oklahoma, who will never shop at Bob's Boot Emporium or request legal services from Bob Loblaw, is watching their commercials?

The reason you can't watch television online is not because the cable companies don't want it.  Hell, Dish Network is backing Aereo in this case because THEY WANT TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING.  The reason you can't watch (all) television online is because the networks make more money selling their content to cable companies than they likely would to individual consumers.
 
2014-04-21 02:33:53 PM  

rugman11: And why would some station in south Florida care if you're watching in Oklahoma?  Let me rephrase that.  Why would a local advertiser, who is advertising on a local station in south Florida, want to pay the network more because some random person in Oklahoma, who will never shop at Bob's Boot Emporium or request legal services from Bob Loblaw, is watching their commercials?


Because the South Florida station can connect to an ad server that inserts interstitial ads into the streams, customized based on the viewer's location, and thus get a bit of extra revenue from the Oklahoma advertiser who has their ad played in place of Bob's Boot Emporium for the Oklahoma viewer. ;)
 
2014-04-21 02:40:13 PM  

Riche: Hell, all those stations are supported by ads anyway, and the ads would still be seen-- only by far more people.


Except that they aren't, anymore.  Ads are a big part of the pie, yes, and a bigger part of the balance sheet for your local network affiliate than for something like Lifetime or Discovery.

But, your local network affiliate is also sucking in a lot of money from the cable/Dish bills in re-transmission fees.  If the typical network affiliate had to live on their ad revenue alone, most of them would have to drop a lot of their expenses (news/weather/local sports stuff).

The OTA signal is somewhat of an afterthought at this point.  They keep it up for somewhat historical reasons, and because the networks (CBS, etc) want to be shown on 'broadcast'.   In the next 10-15 years, as broadcasters are able to sell "their spectrum" to the mobile data providers and the networks adapt (possibly including the death of the affiliate middlemen), broadcast TV will die out.
 
2014-04-21 02:43:47 PM  

dynomutt: 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.


Know what the difference here is?  Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees to the stations, as well as copyright.gov fees for each subscriber.

/who's the adult?
 
2014-04-21 02:45:06 PM  

Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the distinction isn't really a distinction other than how it may be perceived by those that will sit in judgment.

Or rather, it's an important distinction from an engineering and resource-management standpoint; but an irrelevant distinction from a copyright law standpoint... but the justices may confuse the former with the latter if they think they're being snookered.


There is a separate tuner and DVR for all users. Nobody but you is being stupid enough to argue that possibly time sharing a passive wire counts a copy right infringement. Physics doesn't work that way
 
2014-04-21 02:46:12 PM  

qorkfiend: It helps that IHR is owned by Clearchannel Communications, which owns a lot of radio stations, so presumably they're allowed to use their own content. I don't know if 100% of their content is CC content, but I assume they're paying for licenses for content they don't already have a license to.


Ah. I didn't know that. Nor did I think to look into who owns them. Thanks for that clarification.
 
2014-04-21 02:47:22 PM  

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.

You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor

You now what they call a guy who never went to med school but still tries to give medical advice?

An idiot.

No calling out Doctor Zoidberg as being completely wrong does not make one an idiot.  Bad lawyers w. little to no understanding of basic electronics shouldn't be spouting off random crap from some law book to coverup their stupidity.


What about good lawyers with electronics and broadcast engineering backgrounds who are quoting statutes to correct an overly broad statement about the law?
 
2014-04-21 02:47:48 PM  

Theaetetus: rugman11: And why would some station in south Florida care if you're watching in Oklahoma?  Let me rephrase that.  Why would a local advertiser, who is advertising on a local station in south Florida, want to pay the network more because some random person in Oklahoma, who will never shop at Bob's Boot Emporium or request legal services from Bob Loblaw, is watching their commercials?

Because the South Florida station can connect to an ad server that inserts interstitial ads into the streams, customized based on the viewer's location, and thus get a bit of extra revenue from the Oklahoma advertiser who has their ad played in place of Bob's Boot Emporium for the Oklahoma viewer. ;)


I've been waiting for broadcasters to figure this out forever.  I watch something On Demand and it's got old commercials that aren't even relevant anymore.  You would think that they would have figured out a way to partner with the cable companies and exploit remote DVR storage technology to change the ads and thus be able to charge advertisers for Live+7 or Live+30 viewing instead of just Live+3.

So Disney buys an ad run for the Muppets on March 20th but I DVR the show and don't watch the ad.  It doesn't help them if I see that ad when I watch the episode two weeks later.  But if they had stored my recording in the cloud and were able to swap out the ad for a new Captain America commercial?  Then a Million Dollar Arm commercial two weeks later, and a Maleficent ad two weeks after that.  Everybody would win.

But maybe the technology isn't there to do it on television yet.
 
2014-04-21 02:58:13 PM  

ShadowKamui: Theaetetus: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So the distinction isn't really a distinction other than how it may be perceived by those that will sit in judgment.

Or rather, it's an important distinction from an engineering and resource-management standpoint; but an irrelevant distinction from a copyright law standpoint... but the justices may confuse the former with the latter if they think they're being snookered.

There is a separate tuner and DVR for all users.

Concurrent

 users, yes. Not for all subscribers. For efficiency, Aereo - along with resource providers in just about every industry from cloud computing to cellular or land-based communications etc. - has a fewer number of resources than subscribers, because they know that statistically, no more than n% of their subscriber base is attempting to use a resource at any one time, with  n<100... and quite probably  n<50, and possibly even  n<10. Accordingly, they can share any one particular resource among multiple subscribers, shifting it between them as necessary so that the resource stays utilized even when a subscriber is idle.

Shiat, the phone company has been doing that for a century.

 Nobody but you is being stupid enough to argue that possibly time sharing a passive wire counts a copyright infringement. Physics doesn't work that way

Actually, nobody is being stupid enough to argue that. You are fighting a strawman, and everyone except you has noticed it.
 
2014-04-21 02:59:16 PM  

ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.

You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor

You now what they call a guy who never went to med school but still tries to give medical advice?

An idiot.

No calling out Doctor Zoidberg as being completely wrong does not make one an idiot.  Bad lawyers w. little to no understanding of basic electronics shouldn't be spouting off random crap from some law book to coverup their stupidity.

Splitters and amplifiers would be illegal, hell depending on the signal splicing a wire would be illegal.  Physics doesn't work that way no matter how stupidly you wanna interpret a law that nobody w/ any intelligence has ever been stupid enough to try and interpret it that way before


As someone who does work in RF, I have to say you come across in this thread as "not even wrong".
 
2014-04-21 03:01:15 PM  

dynomutt: 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 neit ...


Wow, who pissed in your cheerios this morning? I guess a better analogy would have been me recording my local NPR affiliate and providing those shows online to my subscribers...

You were missing my point, anyways, and arguing over split hairs. My point, at its base, is that they are making available content that they do not have the rights to.
 
2014-04-21 03:09:28 PM  

Theaetetus: Aereo has been premising all of its arguments on "one subscriber=one antenna". If the other side starts hammering on that and saying "but you share those antennas"


Is that actually the case, though?

If I'm an Aereo subscriber, am I leasing exclusive use of Antenna NYC-0-108195 for the duration of my subscription?  Or will the system connect me to any one free antenna in the NYC-0 cluster depending on service load availability?

Aereo seems to have been so fastidious about obeying the letter of the law in every other aspect of their hardware systems design, I'd be surprised if they hadn't done the former just to be safe.
 
2014-04-21 03:22:02 PM  
I wonder how the Supreme Court will overturn this without overturning the 2008 ruling. There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between remotely recording and storing an OTA signal and remotely recording and storing a cable signal since both are acquired legally.
 
2014-04-21 03:24:29 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Theaetetus: Aereo has been premising all of its arguments on "one subscriber=one antenna". If the other side starts hammering on that and saying "but you share those antennas"

Is that actually the case, though?

If I'm an Aereo subscriber, am I leasing exclusive use of Antenna NYC-0-108195 for the duration of my subscription?  Or will the system connect me to any one free antenna in the NYC-0 cluster depending on service load availability?

Aereo seems to have been so fastidious about obeying the letter of the law in every other aspect of their hardware systems design, I'd be surprised if they hadn't done the former just to be safe.


I have to think Aereo examined their service thoroughly before they could present it to investors.
 
2014-04-21 03:28:14 PM  

poot_rootbeer: Theaetetus: Aereo has been premising all of its arguments on "one subscriber=one antenna". If the other side starts hammering on that and saying "but you share those antennas"

Is that actually the case, though?

If I'm an Aereo subscriber, am I leasing exclusive use of Antenna NYC-0-108195 for the duration of my subscription?  Or will the system connect me to any one free antenna in the NYC-0 cluster depending on service load availability?


The latter... From the 2nd circuit opinion:
Aereo's system usually assigns these antennas dynamically. Aereo users "share" antennas in the sense that one user is using a particular antenna now, and another may use the same antenna when the first is no longer using it.

Aereo seems to have been so fastidious about obeying the letter of the law in every other aspect of their hardware systems design, I'd be surprised if they hadn't done the former just to be safe.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I have to think Aereo examined their service thoroughly before they could present it to investors.


As I said, it doesn't matter from a legal perspective... It just undermines the credibility of their argument somewhat.
 
2014-04-21 03:29:06 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I wonder how the Supreme Court will overturn this without overturning the 2008 ruling. There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between remotely recording and storing an OTA signal and remotely recording and storing a cable signal since both are acquired legally.


I have not read up on that ruling (off to do that now), but I think the major difference is that Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees, as well as fees to copyright.gov(1).  I haven't read those agreements, but would assume that CV therefore has obtained the necessary rights to broadcast, and therefore employ the technology in question.

In the case of Aereo, while I would like for them to be successful, they aren't paying either of those items.

(1)  Cable - Section 111
Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976, title 17 of the United States Code, established a compulsory licensing system under which cable systems may make secondary transmissions of copyrighted works. The license prescribes various conditions under which cable systems may obtain a compulsory license to retransmit copyrighted works, including the filing of statements of account forms. It also establishes the requirements governing the form, and content of the filing of these semi-annual statements and submission of statutory royalty payments. 37 CFR 201.17

The law requires a cable system to file statements of account for two purposes:
To show basis for the semiannual royalty fee the cable system owes under its statutory license; and
To give the information needed to allocate royalty fees among copyright owners.
 
2014-04-21 03:34:58 PM  

kev_dog: I have not read up on that ruling (off to do that now), but I think the major difference is that Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees, as well as fees to copyright.gov(1).


Nope, the 2008 ruling relied on the fact that there were individual DVRs for each cable subscriber at the cable provider's farm, so they weren't retransmitting any individual recording to  multiple subscribers. Aereo's system was specifically designed to use the same legal loophole.
 
2014-04-21 03:42:08 PM  

Lawnchair: The OTA signal is somewhat of an afterthought at this point. They keep it up for somewhat historical reasons, and because the networks (CBS, etc) want to be shown on 'broadcast'. In the next 10-15 years, as broadcasters are able to sell "their spectrum" to the mobile data providers and the networks adapt (possibly including the death of the affiliate middlemen), broadcast TV will die out.


One reason free OTA television is still around is because of seniors.  Many of them have limited budgets and would resent subscriber fees.  As long as they continue to be a major voting bloc, it will be difficult to end the service.

Also, while many networks would like to adopt ION's centralized ownership model, their affiliates would fight any such action.  I also image that public advocacy groups would fight it, as ION has no localized content (AFAIK).  But ION's model does ease user consumption, as ION is available for free via Internet streaming and unencrypted C-band transmissions.

What will be interesting to see is the proliferation of encrypted OTA television after the next major ATSC version is released.  The new ATSC-M/H (mobile/handheld) standard introduced protected content, but there aren't many ATSC-M/H tuners out there.   What happens when every home 2180p TV includes protected content support?
 
2014-04-21 03:46:14 PM  

Theaetetus: kev_dog: I have not read up on that ruling (off to do that now), but I think the major difference is that Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees, as well as fees to copyright.gov(1).

Nope, the 2008 ruling relied on the fact that there were individual DVRs for each cable subscriber at the cable provider's farm, so they weren't retransmitting any individual recording to  multiple subscribers. Aereo's system was specifically designed to use the same legal loophole.


http://www.cablevision.com/pdf/cablevision_aereo_white_paper.pdf

From the above

The Copyright Act grants owners various exclusive rights, including the right to "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies" and to "prepare derivative works."1 One such right is the right "to perform the copyrighted work publicly."2 Although the Act has long granted that public performance right in some form, its scope has evolved over the years. 
 
Before the 1976 Copyright Act, it was unclear whether the public performance right applied to cable systems. Cable system operators would erect community antennas to capture broadcast signals and retransmit them over cable lines to subscribers in areas where  over-the-air reception was impaired by long distances or hilly terrain. In two cases - Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.3 and Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.4 - the Supreme Court ruled that such cable systems were not "performing" the programs they retransmitted. Since an individual consumer would not be performing by placing an antenna on his own rooftop to improve reception, the Court reasoned, a cable television operator should not be deemed to publicly perform by providing essentially that same service on a larger, commercial scale. 
 
Congress responded in the 1976 Copyright Act. It recognized that, under Fortnightly and Teleprompter, "the cable television industry has not been paying copyright royalties for its retransmission of over-the-air broadcast signals."5 Congress "believe[d] that cable systems are commercial enterprises whose basic retransmission operations are based on the carriage of copyrighted program material and that copyright royalties should be paid by cable operators to the creators of such programs."6 Congress thus amended the public performance definition to clarify its applicability to cable systems while enacting a statutory 
licensing scheme for cable retransmissions.

Congress accomplished that change through several revisions. First, it enacted a definition of "perform" that included a special definition for "audiovisual works" such as television programs: 
 
To "perform" a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either 
directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion 
picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make 
the sounds accompanying it audible.8 
 
In other words, to "perform" a television program is to "show" it - a performance is a showing of the program. Congress then further defined what it meant to perform a work "publicly": 
 
To perform or display a work "publicly" means - 
 
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place 
where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a 
family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or 
 
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a 
place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or 
process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the 
performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places 
and at the same time or at different times.9 
 
The first clause covers performances in public places, while the second - the "Transmit Clause" - covers transmissions of performances either (i) to public places or (ii) "to the public." A person thus infringes the public performance right when, absent consent or exemption, he "transmit[s] . . . a performance . . . of the work . . . to the public." 
 
 Finally, Congress adopted a statutory licensing scheme for cable systems. Under Section 111, "secondary transmissions to the public by a cable system of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a broadcast station" are subject to statutory licensing upon payment of any applicable fees and compliance with other requirements.10 (Since 1992, broadcasters themselves have also had the right to demand fees from cable companies under the "retransmission consent" provision of the Communications Act.11)
 
2014-04-21 03:54:07 PM  

Theaetetus: Aereo's system usually assigns these antennas dynamically. Aereo users "share" antennas in the sense that one user is using a particular antenna now, and another may use the same antenna when the first is no longer using it.


Ah, thank you.
 
2014-04-21 03:59:00 PM  

Theaetetus: kev_dog: I have not read up on that ruling (off to do that now), but I think the major difference is that Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees, as well as fees to copyright.gov(1).

Nope, the 2008 ruling relied on the fact that there were individual DVRs for each cable subscriber at the cable provider's farm, so they weren't retransmitting any individual recording to  multiple subscribers. Aereo's system was specifically designed to use the same legal loophole.


And perhaps more relevant from the same linked paper:

Aereo thus performs essentially the same function as a cable provider like Cablevision or a satellite provider like DirecTV or Dish Network: It captures over-the-air broadcasts and retransmits them to subscribers in real time. Unlike cable or satellite operators, however, Aereo does not pay any licensing or retransmission consent fees for providing that service. Cable and satellite providers must either comply with the statutory licensing requirements and pay any applicable fees or else negotiate licenses directly with copyright owners; they must also pay retransmission consent fees to broadcasters. Aereo, by contrast, claims it is exempt from those requirements because it engages in private rather than public 
performances.47
 
2014-04-21 04:01:15 PM  

kev_dog: Theaetetus: kev_dog: I have not read up on that ruling (off to do that now), but I think the major difference is that Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees, as well as fees to copyright.gov(1).

Nope, the 2008 ruling relied on the fact that there were individual DVRs for each cable subscriber at the cable provider's farm, so they weren't retransmitting any individual recording to  multiple subscribers. Aereo's system was specifically designed to use the same legal loophole.

http://www.cablevision.com/pdf/cablevision_aereo_white_paper.pdf

From the above
[snip]


Yes, and? The thing you're quoting from is not the 2nd Circuit's 2008 ruling, nor does that section actually have anything to do with it. That relates to the Fortnightly case and the resulting 1976 Revisions. What are you trying to say?
 
2014-04-21 04:02:54 PM  
Kev, rather than reading random quotes from a third party legal memo, how about reading the 2008ruling?
 
2014-04-21 04:10:28 PM  

Theaetetus: kev_dog: Theaetetus: kev_dog: I have not read up on that ruling (off to do that now), but I think the major difference is that Cablevision is paying retransmission consent fees, as well as fees to copyright.gov(1).

Nope, the 2008 ruling relied on the fact that there were individual DVRs for each cable subscriber at the cable provider's farm, so they weren't retransmitting any individual recording to  multiple subscribers. Aereo's system was specifically designed to use the same legal loophole.

http://www.cablevision.com/pdf/cablevision_aereo_white_paper.pdf

From the above
[snip]

Yes, and? The thing you're quoting from is not the 2nd Circuit's 2008 ruling, nor does that section actually have anything to do with it. That relates to the Fortnightly case and the resulting 1976 Revisions. What are you trying to say?


Aereo is essentially acting like a CATV system (Community Access TV, or Community Antenna TV)- designed originally to get limited broadcast signals out to people having difficulty receiving quality broadcast signals.  You dismissed the fact that Cablevision is licensed and pays retransmission consent and copyright fees and said that Aereo is exploiting the same loophole.

While I agree with you to the loophole extent, the problem that I tried to point out in my original post was that Aereo has no right to record/store the programming to begin with.  That is the fundamental difference between the Cablevision case and Aereo.  What I was citing was a reference to the playing field under which cable companies must play- and Aereo is trying to get around it.

Now, if Aereo were to pay retransmission consent and copyright fees, as required by all cable companies, I don't think there would be an argument in their technology application, but might rather hurt their business case.
 
2014-04-21 04:11:26 PM  

Theaetetus: Kev, rather than reading random quotes from a third party legal memo, how about reading the 2008ruling?


Appreciate this, and am in the process of reviewing now.
 
2014-04-21 04:19:32 PM  

kev_dog: Aereo is essentially acting like a CATV system (Community Access TV, or Community Antenna TV)- designed originally to get limited broadcast signals out to people having difficulty receiving quality broadcast signals.


Yes, I know what they are. From several hours ago:

Theaetetus: Congress amended the Act in 1976 specifically to close a similar loophole in which a CATV system had a hilltop antenna and retransmitted the signal to homes in a sheltered valley who could not otherwise receive the broadcasts - the Fortnightly case in the late 60s.


You dismissed the fact that Cablevision is licensed and pays retransmission consent and copyright fees and said that Aereo is exploiting the same loophole.


Yes, because while that  is a distinction between Cablevision and Aereo, it was not why the 2nd Circuit made their decision in the 2008 case. That case relied only on the definition of "public" in the Copyright Act. That interpretation is what Aereo exploits.

Another way to look at it is that the cable retransmission fees are for a license to legally rebroadcast the copyrighted works. Aereo is saying "we don't even broadcast, brah, so we don't need a license in the first place".
 
2014-04-21 05:09:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Kev, rather than reading random quotes from a third party legal memo, how about reading the 2008ruling?


Fascinating read- I think everyone should have read that before commenting (myself included).  Thanks for setting me straight. While I am no fan of broadcasters, I suppose I fall in the Judge Chin (dissent) camp:

"Aereo is doing precisely what cable companies, satellite television companies, and authorized Internet streaming companies do-they capture over-the-air broadcasts and retransmit them to customers-except that those entities are doing it legally, pursuant to statutory or negotiated licenses, for a fee. By accepting Aereo's argument that it may do so without authorization and without paying a fee, the majority elevates form over substance. Its decision, in my view, conflicts with the text of the Copyright Act, its legislative history, and our case law."
 
2014-04-21 05:26:35 PM  
If this turns out to be legal would it be legal to do the same but for broadcast radio?  And then parse the radio by song?  Or would it have to be by show?  Or what?
 
2014-04-21 06:06:08 PM  

kev_dog: Theaetetus: Kev, rather than reading random quotes from a third party legal memo, how about reading the 2008ruling?

Fascinating read- I think everyone should have read that before commenting (myself included).  Thanks for setting me straight. While I am no fan of broadcasters, I suppose I fall in the Judge Chin (dissent) camp:

"Aereo is doing precisely what cable companies, satellite television companies, and authorized Internet streaming companies do-they capture over-the-air broadcasts and retransmit them to customers-except that those entities are doing it legally, pursuant to statutory or negotiated licenses, for a fee. By accepting Aereo's argument that it may do so without authorization and without paying a fee, the majority elevates form over substance. Its decision, in my view, conflicts with the text of the Copyright Act, its legislative history, and our case law."


I agree with the spirit of what Chin's saying, but I think he's wrong about the text.  Specifically, his interpretation of "public" here:
Giving the undefined term "the public" its ordinary meaning, see Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1997, 2002 , 182 L.Ed.2d 903 (2012), a transmission to anyone other than oneself or an intimate relation is a communication to a "member[ ] of the public," because it is not in any sense "private."

If someone comes over to your house to watch the game with you, under Chin's interpretation, that would be a public display. Similarly, if you have the radio on in your shop and a customer comes in and listens to it while they wait for you to finish some piece of work for them, again, under his interpretation, that would be a public performance of a work.

I think that goes too far. Aereo should pay royalties, but not by reinterpreting the copyright act to define "public" as "anyone other than oneself or an intimate relation". I think theright thing is for SCOTUS to say "Aereo is legal, under the current copyright act, so get your shiat together, Congress."

One interesting aside is that Chin was the district judge who was reversed by the circuit court in the 2008 Cablevision case - he thought that the remote DVRs at Cablevision's farm were infringing.  Now he's on the circuit court, and, in some ways, is rehearing his previous case.
 
2014-04-21 06:17:35 PM  

Dinjiin: Lawnchair: The OTA signal is somewhat of an afterthought at this point. They keep it up for somewhat historical reasons, and because the networks (CBS, etc) want to be shown on 'broadcast'. In the next 10-15 years, as broadcasters are able to sell "their spectrum" to the mobile data providers and the networks adapt (possibly including the death of the affiliate middlemen), broadcast TV will die out.

One reason free OTA television is still around is because of seniors.  Many of them have limited budgets and would resent subscriber fees.  As long as they continue to be a major voting bloc, it will be difficult to end the service.


Umm, I'm 48, and cut the cable TV cord a few years ago. Got tired of paying for 250 channels of "reality shows" I never watched. Every time I was watching something, it was on CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS, etc, anyway, so  I put this up outside, get 19 channels FREE, with better programs AND picture quality...

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-21 06:19:59 PM  

albert71292: Dinjiin: Lawnchair: The OTA signal is somewhat of an afterthought at this point. They keep it up for somewhat historical reasons, and because the networks (CBS, etc) want to be shown on 'broadcast'. In the next 10-15 years, as broadcasters are able to sell "their spectrum" to the mobile data providers and the networks adapt (possibly including the death of the affiliate middlemen), broadcast TV will die out.

One reason free OTA television is still around is because of seniors.  Many of them have limited budgets and would resent subscriber fees.  As long as they continue to be a major voting bloc, it will be difficult to end the service.

Umm, I'm 48, and cut the cable TV cord a few years ago. Got tired of paying for 250 channels of "reality shows" I never watched. Every time I was watching something, it was on CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS, etc, anyway, so  I put this up outside, get 19 channels FREE, with better programs AND picture quality...

[img.fark.net image 600x450]


"Seniors" typically refers to people 65 and older...
 
2014-04-21 06:30:04 PM  

Theaetetus: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Rincewind53: ShadowKamui: Then you need to seriously seek help for either blackout memory loss and/or schizophrenia.  Because everything you just reposted posted directly contradicts the crap your wannabe lawyer personality posted.

Theaetetusis an actual lawyer, unlike (I suspect) you.

You know what they call a guy in med school who got a D.  Doctor

You now what they call a guy who never went to med school but still tries to give medical advice?

An idiot.

No calling out Doctor Zoidberg as being completely wrong does not make one an idiot.  Bad lawyers w. little to no understanding of basic electronics shouldn't be spouting off random crap from some law book to coverup their stupidity.

What about good lawyers with electronics and broadcast engineering backgrounds who are quoting statutes to correct an overly broad statement about the law?


Then you made a stupid strawman example and for some idiotic reason keep trying to defend it rather than let it get knocked down

Here's how it works http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-tech-that s -changing-how-we-watch-tv/

The antennas are separate per user but have to be dynamic as you may need multiple of them to pickup the signal and must also be extremely close to the transmission towers.  A user needs about a 6in antenna at the max (close proximity makes the math fuzzy).  While recording a show an Aereo user has complete ownership of their antenna(s), the tuner and the dvr through the rental agreement.

The whole actual argument is on whether the streaming counts as rebroadcasting or not.  Anything else is simply go back to trying to put monkeys on trial, science says you're wrong
 
2014-04-21 06:46:32 PM  

ShadowKamui: The antennas are separate per user but have to be dynamic as you may need multiple of them to pickup the signal and must also be extremely close to the transmission towers.


That is not how Aereo works. It's not even how antennas work, unless you're either confusing a Yagi antenna as being "multiple antennas" or you're confusing this with a directional beam-forming receiver. Aereo isn't doing either of those.

A user needs about a 6in antenna at the max (close proximity makes the math fuzzy).

This is not even wrong.

While recording a show an Aereo user has complete ownership of their antenna(s), the tuner and the dvr through the rental agreement.

Nor is this. They have exclusive usage of their antenna (singular), tuner, and DVR while connected. Ownership never changes hands. Nor does it in any rental agreement. Do you think you own your apartment or rental car?

The whole actual argument is on whether the streaming counts as rebroadcasting or not.  Anything else is simply go back to trying to put monkeys on trial...

No, the "whole actual argument" is whether thousands of individual streams can be aggregated to be considered a display to the "public".

... science says you're wrong

I think it's pretty clear you know very little about antennas  or copyright law.
 
2014-04-21 06:53:02 PM  
All this really shows is that the current state of written laws and regulations for the over-the-air broadcast TV industry are dusty and out-of date, leading to fairly ridiculous conundrums like this one.

If A) Areo is doing nothing technically illegal; and B) the broadcast TV industry will be seriously harmed by it; then C) this isn't a problem for the COURTS, it's a problem for the CONGRESS and the FCC.
 
2014-04-21 07:12:26 PM  
I find their argument similar to the one of, "I'm not selling beer, I'm just renting the glasses I serve it in."

Of course, the crux of the problem is that producers of TV content split off the streaming rights and DVD rights separately from the broadcast rights.  Aero has created a distinction without a difference as to whether they are renting antennae space or streaming in violation of copyright/retransmission rules.  I'm quite surprised Congress hasn't fixed this.
 
2014-04-21 08:10:26 PM  

Cataholic: I find their argument similar to the one of, "I'm not selling beer, I'm just renting the glasses I serve it in."

Of course, the crux of the problem is that producers of TV content split off the streaming rights and DVD rights separately from the broadcast rights.  Aero has created a distinction without a difference as to whether they are renting antennae space or streaming in violation of copyright/retransmission rules.  I'm quite surprised Congress hasn't fixed this.


I'm a little skeptical of Congress' ability to write legislation that would require Aereo to pay license fees but not also require any individual with an antenna and a DVR to do the same.
 
2014-04-21 08:21:39 PM  
AEREO HAS ALREADY WON lawsuits across the nation, in multiple jurisdictions.  They lost a single case - in Utah I believe - which was overturned on appeal.  The next stop for the suit was the Supreme Court, and Aereo did everything they could to fast-track the networks' Supreme Court petition to put this to bed once and for all.

Sorry about no citations - you know how to use Google and I'm in a hurry.

Don't forget your history - the first cable companies just put a big antenna on a hill and sold access to the local communities so that the people could better receive the same OTA signals that Aereo is somehow "stealing".

That anyone on this thread is in favor of the broadcasters is shocking to me. Cases like this don't come around all that often - if people are too short-sighted to see the long term implications of an Aereo loss... well, I weep for the future.
 
2014-04-21 08:28:32 PM  

qorkfiend: albert71292: Dinjiin: Lawnchair: The OTA signal is somewhat of an afterthought at this point. They keep it up for somewhat historical reasons, and because the networks (CBS, etc) want to be shown on 'broadcast'. In the next 10-15 years, as broadcasters are able to sell "their spectrum" to the mobile data providers and the networks adapt (possibly including the death of the affiliate middlemen), broadcast TV will die out.

One reason free OTA television is still around is because of seniors.  Many of them have limited budgets and would resent subscriber fees.  As long as they continue to be a major voting bloc, it will be difficult to end the service.

Umm, I'm 48, and cut the cable TV cord a few years ago. Got tired of paying for 250 channels of "reality shows" I never watched. Every time I was watching something, it was on CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, PBS, etc, anyway, so  I put this up outside, get 19 channels FREE, with better programs AND picture quality...

[img.fark.net image 600x450]

"Seniors" typically refers to people 65 and older...


I think he's trying to point out that there are people under 65 who also watch free OTA television.  I'm under 65 and I'm a cord cutter, too.

But my point is that senior citizens are a special case.  They're more reliant on free OTA television than other age groups.  And because they vote in higher numbers, politicians tend to heed their input a lot more.  Last time there was talk of eliminating free OTA television, seniors collectively crapped their pants.  I remember all of the television ads that the NAB played reassuring people that free TV wasn't going anywhere.  The AARP scheduled meetings with senators.  It was a really big deal.

Again, ATSC-M/H introduced protected content.  Eventually, all televisions will support protected content.  Will we see a handful of encrypted digital subchannels, with the main network channel unencrypted?  Or will we see entire channels locked up?

/in Seattle, unencrypted channel 33.1 is ION, but encrypted subchannel 33.85 is NFL Network and 33.90 is Starz
 
2014-04-21 09:41:38 PM  

Theaetetus: I think theright thing is for SCOTUS to say "Aereo is legal, under the current copyright act, so get your shiat together, Congress."


Couldn't agree more.  And while we're at it, let's talk about tying and bundling (cable companies being forced to carry crap channels in order to access the most watched- e.g. must carry [and pay for] ESPN classic to get ESPN and Disney), forced carriage (sure there is a more salient name- but forcing channels to be carried on a tier that is subscribed to by x% of subscribers- ensuring that all channels that are part of a contract get sent to essentially all users), retransmission consent (we've already seen a number of broadcasters not negotiate in good faith) and finally provider equity (it costs no more to deliver content to the small guys, so why charge what is likely an absurdly higher price to them- just because they are small).
 
2014-04-21 09:58:45 PM  

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.


How so? They aren't altering the signal and inserting their own ads, they are essentially just boosting the signal to reach people who otherwise couldn't get it. That means more people end up seeing the ads, not less. The OTA companies "Could" do the same if they wanted to but it would cost them too much money so they accept that they lose some viewers instead.
 
Displayed 219 of 219 comments

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