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.

(NBC News)   Aereo to go wireless. And serverless. And revenue-less   (nbcnews.com) divider line 60
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1975 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2014 at 1:57 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-25 11:01:57 AM  
I can't say I'm surprised. The kicker, of course, is that you should expect to see cable and satellite providers providing copycat services very soon.
 
2014-06-25 11:14:08 AM  
And remember folks, it was the three most conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - that sided with Aereo.
 
2014-06-25 11:19:03 AM  

ArkAngel: And remember folks, it was the three most conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - that sided with Aereo.


So? Just because I agreed with them on one issue doesn't mean I'm going to automatically vote Republican.
 
2014-06-25 11:20:53 AM  

ArkAngel: And remember folks, it was the three most conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - that sided with Aereo.


Yeah, the three who showed some restraint. From the dissent:
"I share the Court's evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks' copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it.... (assuming one shares the majority's estimation of right and wrong) what we have before us must be considered a "loophole" in the law. It is not the role of this Court to identify and plug loopholes. It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes. Congress can do that, I may add, in a much more targeted, better informed, and less disruptive fashion than the crude "looks-like-cable-TV" solution the Court invents today."
 
2014-06-25 11:27:41 AM  
Also, called it:
It's pretty clear to everyone involved (including Aereo, though their lawyer wouldn't admit it during oral arguments) that Aereo is taking advantage of a legal loophole created by the earlier Cablevision case. It's even mentioned in the article:
Outlook: trouble for Aereo. Justices appeared to agree that  Aereo was taking advantage of a kink in the lawthat didn't anticipate the advent of new technologies that the startup is utilizing.

Thing is, if there's a kink in the law, then that's Congress' job to address, not SCOTUS. But, sadly, I don't see them making the right decision, which would be to say that this violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it, and affirm the 2nd Circuit with a pointed suggestion to Congress that they get their thumbs out of their asses and fix the loophole.
 
2014-06-25 02:07:07 PM  
That's disappointing.  I wonder how much it would cost for them to license broadcast channels?
 
2014-06-25 02:12:36 PM  

RexTalionis: I can't say I'm surprised. The kicker, of course, is that you should expect to see cable and satellite providers providing copycat services very soon.


Maybe but the big difference is that the cable companies pay retransmission fees already. If Aereo were doing that they might not be in trouble.

By the way, the dissent mentioned that what Aereo was doing was wrong and expected Congress to fix the loophole. They didn't say it was okay. On the other hand, expecting Congress to do the right thing is like expecting the Second Coming, so maybe a little practicality was called for.
 
2014-06-25 02:18:54 PM  
"spirit of the law" is idiocy.

It's either the law or its not.

If you don't like the way the law is working, you change it.  You don't cede power to the executive branch you don't cede power to the judges.  You rewrite the law.

Congress is incredibly lazy and inept.
 
2014-06-25 02:23:42 PM  
BTW, if you're limiting service in the areas you can legally, freely, watch the station with an antennae, it's total bullshiat that you're 'stealing' something by providing an easier way to watch it.

If the only difference is I'm using my modem instead of an antennae, it's total BS.

I can see saying I can't take KTLA and 'rebroadcast' it to New York, but if I can pull out a TV and watch it, I should be able to pull out an iPad and watch it.
 
2014-06-25 02:24:15 PM  
I agree with the reasoning, but not the outcome. I would have liked to take advantage of Aereo to watch local broadcasts of Colts games and Pacers games from Indy -- don't really like the options to pay 400+ combined for NBA and NFL pay deal, which I can't get on a TV, when all I want to do is watch those two events).  I'd gladly pay for it. Congress should have fixed this, not SCOTUS.

I agree with this guy, though he seems to overlook that this ruling is very narrow applying only to Aereo. Says it in the decision.

Kurt Andersen @KBAndersen  2h
In deciding against Aereo, SCOTUS says old rules don't apply to new tech, but in deciding against warrantless phone searches, that they do.
 
2014-06-25 02:25:19 PM  
So:

1) Owning and antenna is OK
2) Using that antenna to receive broadcast television is OK
3) Capturing that broadcast with a DVR and streaming it from that DVR is OK.

but

4) paying a company to do 1, 2, and 3 for you is copyright infringement?

Makes no farking sense.
 
2014-06-25 02:26:52 PM  
I must say, the decision surprised me, but I suppose it shouldn't have considering the major players.

So I guess Slingbox better be looking over their shoulders now, eh?
 
2014-06-25 02:30:18 PM  

Doc Daneeka: So:

1) Owning and antenna is OK
2) Using that antenna to receive broadcast television is OK
3) Capturing that broadcast with a DVR and streaming it from that DVR is OK.

but

4) paying a company to do 1, 2, and 3 for you is copyright infringement?

Makes no farking sense.


They rewrote the cable retransmission law from the bench
 
2014-06-25 02:38:12 PM  

MugzyBrown: BTW, if you're limiting service in the areas you can legally, freely, watch the station with an antennae, it's total bullshiat that you're 'stealing' something by providing an easier way to watch it.

If the only difference is I'm using my modem instead of an antennae, it's total BS.

I can see saying I can't take KTLA and 'rebroadcast' it to New York, but if I can pull out a TV and watch it, I should be able to pull out an iPad and watch it.


I'm not clear as to what you could and couldn't do locationwise with Aereo.  For instance, you obviously couldn't sign up unless you had a billing address in a covered TV market.  But once you had a subscription, were you limited to viewing via IP addresses in the market, or could you, say, watch NYC TV via Aereo while on vacation in Vegas as well?
 
2014-06-25 02:43:35 PM  

wxboy: MugzyBrown: BTW, if you're limiting service in the areas you can legally, freely, watch the station with an antennae, it's total bullshiat that you're 'stealing' something by providing an easier way to watch it.

If the only difference is I'm using my modem instead of an antennae, it's total BS.

I can see saying I can't take KTLA and 'rebroadcast' it to New York, but if I can pull out a TV and watch it, I should be able to pull out an iPad and watch it.

I'm not clear as to what you could and couldn't do locationwise with Aereo.  For instance, you obviously couldn't sign up unless you had a billing address in a covered TV market.  But once you had a subscription, were you limited to viewing via IP addresses in the market, or could you, say, watch NYC TV via Aereo while on vacation in Vegas as well?


I guess that shouldn't be their problem since you could feasibly stream NYC TV while on vacation in Vegas with current tech and not violate copyright law.
 
2014-06-25 02:45:33 PM  

ArkAngel: And remember folks, it was the three most conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - that sided with Aereo.


Hitler loved dogs and pampered his pooches. So, by your logic, he was a swell guy right?
 
2014-06-25 02:47:46 PM  
you know there these things called torrents...one can even stream their contents. (I know torrents are only links)
All one needs to do is create an easy ant. to dvr to torrent software.
 
2014-06-25 02:49:40 PM  
Cable companies pay the fee why can't Aero?
 
2014-06-25 02:53:10 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Cable companies pay the fee why can't Aero?


cable companies pay the fee to get first showing access rights which gives them the ability to run commercials.
 
2014-06-25 02:58:13 PM  

Jack Harper: I guess that shouldn't be their problem since you could feasibly stream NYC TV while on vacation in Vegas with current tech and not violate copyright law.


But if you have someone pay you to do it for them, then you are violating the law.
 
2014-06-25 02:58:25 PM  
Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

How's that for irony?
 
2014-06-25 03:00:23 PM  

Theaetetus: what we have before us must be considered a "loophole" in the law. It is not the role of this Court to identify and plug loopholes


Right. Which is why I think SCOTUS needs to be amended right out of the Constitution--it keeps writing its policy preferences into law. I say that even when I agree with those policy preferences, it is still wrong. I used to believe that the problem could be fixed by appointing judges with judicial restraint--now I think the whole institution just has to go.

/not that I'll ever live to see it.
 
2014-06-25 03:07:36 PM  

ShadowKamui: Doc Daneeka: So:

1) Owning and antenna is OK
2) Using that antenna to receive broadcast television is OK
3) Capturing that broadcast with a DVR and streaming it from that DVR is OK.

but

4) paying a company to do 1, 2, and 3 for you is copyright infringement?

Makes no farking sense.

They rewrote the cable retransmission law from the bench


You have to understand the history of the laws though. When CableTV first came out, the broadcasters sued and the courts said. "They are just retransmitting a signal". So they didn't have to pay anything. Congress wrote special laws that forced cable to pay for retransmission.

Aereo comes around, court rules that they are effectively doing the same thing Cable companies were trying to do, and have to abide by the same stupid rules, even if the rules are stupid.
 
2014-06-25 03:09:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Also, called it:
It's pretty clear to everyone involved (including Aereo, though their lawyer wouldn't admit it during oral arguments) that Aereo is taking advantage of a legal loophole created by the earlier Cablevision case. It's even mentioned in the article:
Outlook: trouble for Aereo. Justices appeared to agree that  Aereo was taking advantage of a kink in the lawthat didn't anticipate the advent of new technologies that the startup is utilizing.

Thing is, if there's a kink in the law, then that's Congress' job to address, not SCOTUS. But, sadly, I don't see them making the right decision, which would be to say that this violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of it, and affirm the 2nd Circuit with a pointed suggestion to Congress that they get their thumbs out of their asses and fix the loophole.


I found an old blog of mine a little bit ago, and was reminded that I was strongly predicting that Guilliani would be the nominee in '08.

Congratulations, it's good to have that feeling.
 
2014-06-25 03:18:25 PM  
This just in: Money wins every time.
 
2014-06-25 03:27:25 PM  

MindStalker: ShadowKamui: Doc Daneeka: So:

1) Owning and antenna is OK
2) Using that antenna to receive broadcast television is OK
3) Capturing that broadcast with a DVR and streaming it from that DVR is OK.

but

4) paying a company to do 1, 2, and 3 for you is copyright infringement?

Makes no farking sense.

They rewrote the cable retransmission law from the bench

You have to understand the history of the laws though. When CableTV first came out, the broadcasters sued and the courts said. "They are just retransmitting a signal". So they didn't have to pay anything. Congress wrote special laws that forced cable to pay for retransmission.

Aereo comes around, court rules that they are effectively doing the same thing Cable companies were trying to do, and have to abide by the same stupid rules, even if the rules are stupid.


Read the dissented argument, the Cable TV law was specifically written to say no sharing antennas.  Prior to that cable company's didn't have to pay squat.

Aero didn't share the antenna so the law didn't apply to them, the 6 justice rewrote the law so it does now
 
2014-06-25 03:34:49 PM  

MugzyBrown: "spirit of the law" is idiocy.

It's either the law or its not.

If you don't like the way the law is working, you change it.  You don't cede power to the executive branch you don't cede power to the judges.  You rewrite the law.

Congress is incredibly lazy and inept.


The problem with the whole spirit of the law vs letter of the law is that its two standards that get applied at whatever the government feels like.  Ideally you would enforce the spirit of the law 100% of the time because then you don't have people trying to find loopholes in the law, and you also don't have the federal government threatening a young man with 50+ years in prison for violating a websites Terms of Service.

But the government likes to nitpick the letter of the law when it benefits them.
 
2014-06-25 03:48:22 PM  

GrailOfThunder: I must say, the decision surprised me, but I suppose it shouldn't have considering the major players.

So I guess Slingbox better be looking over their shoulders now, eh?


I would think so.... Slingbox isn't much different than Aereo, other than it is using your "source" vs. Aereo's "source" (a personal "antenna" they are "loaning" to you).

And really, Aereo was more selling "remote viewing" and "DVR" capabilities than the "antenna" watching, which is already "free", in my mind, which you can set up on your own antenna source at home anyway if you really wanted to, into your computer.

If you were depending on Aereo to watch your favorite NFL teams games from another market, I am pretty sure Aereo was trying to make sure you could only get an antenna from your home address market (although, that would be pretty easy to get "around" I spose).
 
2014-06-25 04:15:16 PM  
"We're gratified the Court upheld important Copyright principles that help ensure that the high-quality creative content consumers expect and demand is protected and incentivized."

Translation: FARK YOU, PAY ME!
 
2014-06-25 04:22:41 PM  

dletter: I would think so.... Slingbox isn't much different than Aereo, other than it is using your "source" vs. Aereo's "source" (a personal "antenna" they are "loaning" to you).

And really, Aereo was more selling "remote viewing" and "DVR" capabilities than the "antenna" watching, which is already "free", in my mind, which you can set up on your own antenna source at home anyway if you really wanted to, into your computer.


Setting it all up yourself for viewing by yourself doesn't constitute a "public performance" though, so there's no legal issue.  Charging someone else to access your stream, or even providing a publicly available stream for free, does.

The problem with Aereo is that they dynamically "loan" access to the equipment.  You are never in physical possession of anything, and none of the equipment ever moves, so saying Aereo is doing anything else but providing access to streaming video/recorded streaming video is nothing more than a twisting of legal definitions to exploit a perceived loophole.

In the Slingbox example, you own all the equipment, and you are the only one who can access the video stream.  Therefore it's not a public performance.  If Aereo was set up so that you were always using the same physical antenna, instead of being assigned one on the fly, and nobody else ever had access to that antenna so long as you were a subscriber, they might have a leg to stand on.
 
2014-06-25 04:24:08 PM  
Hope they start selling home kits then. fark those dicks for not recognizing these guys are providing me a service for something I could do myself but don't feel like doing. Now I have to drape wires and crap off my home myself.
 
2014-06-25 04:27:54 PM  

wxboy: dletter: I would think so.... Slingbox isn't much different than Aereo, other than it is using your "source" vs. Aereo's "source" (a personal "antenna" they are "loaning" to you).

And really, Aereo was more selling "remote viewing" and "DVR" capabilities than the "antenna" watching, which is already "free", in my mind, which you can set up on your own antenna source at home anyway if you really wanted to, into your computer.

Setting it all up yourself for viewing by yourself doesn't constitute a "public performance" though, so there's no legal issue.  Charging someone else to access your stream, or even providing a publicly available stream for free, does.

The problem with Aereo is that they dynamically "loan" access to the equipment.  You are never in physical possession of anything, and none of the equipment ever moves, so saying Aereo is doing anything else but providing access to streaming video/recorded streaming video is nothing more than a twisting of legal definitions to exploit a perceived loophole.

In the Slingbox example, you own all the equipment, and you are the only one who can access the video stream.  Therefore it's not a public performance.  If Aereo was set up so that you were always using the same physical antenna, instead of being assigned one on the fly, and nobody else ever had access to that antenna so long as you were a subscriber, they might have a leg to stand on.


Wait... how is it protected by the "public performance" aspect of things if I can watch it anyways with a set of rabbit ears for free?
 
2014-06-25 04:28:11 PM  

wxboy: In the Slingbox example, you own all the equipment, and you are the only one who can access the video stream.  Therefore it's not a public performance.  If Aereo was set up so that you were always using the same physical antenna, instead of being assigned one on the fly, and nobody else ever had access to that antenna so long as you were a subscriber, they might have a leg to stand on.


Most radio stations use their broadcast signal as music-on-hold, so when you call up and get put on hold, you can hear the station. That means that their signal is being sent down a wire, to the phone company, through a set of phone company-owned switches, down another wire, and eventually to you (possibly via other switches, cell towers, etc.). The phone company does resource sharing and uses the same switches and wires for others.
... so, is it a public performance by the phone company when you listen to music-on-hold?
 
2014-06-25 04:35:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Most radio stations use their broadcast signal as music-on-hold, so when you call up and get put on hold, you can hear the station. That means that their signal is being sent down a wire, to the phone company, through a set of phone company-owned switches, down another wire, and eventually to you (possibly via other switches, cell towers, etc.). The phone company does resource sharing and uses the same switches and wires for others.
... so, is it a public performance by the phone company when you listen to music-on-hold?


Phone company in this instance is a passive party. They're not actively seeking to obtain a radio station's signal and provide it to a third party. Plus, most radio stations pay for distribution rights via multiple technologies. NOW.. if a clothing store were to use a terrestrial radio station's signal for its music-on-hold, they would be in violation of copyright laws.
 
2014-06-25 04:42:04 PM  

Marine1: Wait... how is it protected by the "public performance" aspect of things if I can watch it anyways with a set of rabbit ears for free?


They will put the "line" wherever they can... heck, VCRs were looked at as "illegal" as this is now when they first came out, since in their mind you shouldn't have been able to record and watch it when "you" want.   But, technology won out in that case.

FOX specifically came out and said they'd move FOX Network programming to cable only if Aereo won.....  honestly, wish they and the other networks would just go and do that, and abandon the "public" airwaves, if they think the 10-15% of people who don't have cable (either because of cost or choice) aren't worthwhile then.

I mean, its come to the point where the new generation coming in barely "recognizes" that you can get TV "free" over the airwaves, at least if you believe how the digital TV antenna companies advertise their product, like they "discovered" some new way of getting TV.
 
2014-06-25 04:42:57 PM  

ArkAngel: And remember folks, it was the three most conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas, and Alito - that sided with Aereo.


Well, sure. The content industry owns the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Have we forgotten that the current head of the MPAA was the former head of the Senate banking committee up until he got caught red handed making crooked deals with Countrywide Financial, one of the main corporate drivers behind the recent financial collapse?

In his role as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Dodd proposed a program in June 2008 that would assist troubled sub-prime mortgage lenders such as Countrywide Financial in the wake of the United States housing bubble's collapse.

Condé Nast Portfolio reported allegations that in 2003 Dodd had refinanced the mortgages on his homes in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut through Countrywide Financial and had received favorable terms due to being placed in the "Friends of Angelo" VIP program, so named for Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Dodd received mortgages from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes.[


He was forced to resign from Congress.

In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist," Dodd replaced Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

On January 17, 2012, Dodd released a statement criticizing "the so-called 'Blackout Day' protesting anti-piracy legislation." Referring to the websites participating in the blackout, Dodd said, "It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power... when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests." In further comments, Dodd threatened to cut off campaign contributions to politicians who did not support PIPA and SOPA, legislation supported by the MPAA.


Hell, Obama stacked the Justice Department with RIAA lawyers to such an extent that public interest groups started trashing him for it before he ever took the oath of office.

If you're surprised that the so called liberal wing would be the ones who would completely reinterpret the law for this particular set of wealthy masters you haven't been paying attention.
 
2014-06-25 04:48:04 PM  

Theaetetus: wxboy: In the Slingbox example, you own all the equipment, and you are the only one who can access the video stream.  Therefore it's not a public performance.  If Aereo was set up so that you were always using the same physical antenna, instead of being assigned one on the fly, and nobody else ever had access to that antenna so long as you were a subscriber, they might have a leg to stand on.

Most radio stations use their broadcast signal as music-on-hold, so when you call up and get put on hold, you can hear the station. That means that their signal is being sent down a wire, to the phone company, through a set of phone company-owned switches, down another wire, and eventually to you (possibly via other switches, cell towers, etc.). The phone company does resource sharing and uses the same switches and wires for others.
... so, is it a public performance by the phone company when you listen to music-on-hold?


Nope. And your ISP isn't performing anything when you use Aereo. But the ISP isn't the one being sued here. If the local plumber was piping in a radio station's feed for their hold music, though, I think the plumber would be in trouble, just like Aereo is.
 
2014-06-25 04:49:49 PM  

dletter: They will put the "line" wherever they can... heck, VCRs were looked at as "illegal" as this is now when they first came out, since in their mind you shouldn't have been able to record and watch it when "you" want. But, technology Mister Rodgers won out in that case.

 
2014-06-25 05:02:04 PM  

MugzyBrown: "spirit of the law" is idiocy.

It's either the law or its not.

If you don't like the way the law is working, you change it.  You don't cede power to the executive branch you don't cede power to the judges.  You rewrite the law.

Congress is incredibly lazy and inept.


Bull.

I'll give an example.

It is apparently constitutional to hold a couple hundred people without trial for over a decade in an island prison (Gitmo).  However, it certainly violates the spirit of the constitution.
 
2014-06-25 05:13:41 PM  

Chaos750: Theaetetus: wxboy: In the Slingbox example, you own all the equipment, and you are the only one who can access the video stream.  Therefore it's not a public performance.  If Aereo was set up so that you were always using the same physical antenna, instead of being assigned one on the fly, and nobody else ever had access to that antenna so long as you were a subscriber, they might have a leg to stand on.

Most radio stations use their broadcast signal as music-on-hold, so when you call up and get put on hold, you can hear the station. That means that their signal is being sent down a wire, to the phone company, through a set of phone company-owned switches, down another wire, and eventually to you (possibly via other switches, cell towers, etc.). The phone company does resource sharing and uses the same switches and wires for others.
... so, is it a public performance by the phone company when you listen to music-on-hold?

Nope. And your ISP isn't performing anything when you use Aereo. But the ISP isn't the one being sued here. If the local plumber was piping in a radio station's feed for their hold music, though, I think the plumber would be in trouble, just like Aereo is.


And as funny as it sounds, the radio station has to pay to use their own station as hold music.

ASCAP gets really nasty about that stuff.
 
2014-06-25 05:28:17 PM  

Chaos750: Theaetetus: wxboy: In the Slingbox example, you own all the equipment, and you are the only one who can access the video stream.  Therefore it's not a public performance.  If Aereo was set up so that you were always using the same physical antenna, instead of being assigned one on the fly, and nobody else ever had access to that antenna so long as you were a subscriber, they might have a leg to stand on.

Most radio stations use their broadcast signal as music-on-hold, so when you call up and get put on hold, you can hear the station. That means that their signal is being sent down a wire, to the phone company, through a set of phone company-owned switches, down another wire, and eventually to you (possibly via other switches, cell towers, etc.). The phone company does resource sharing and uses the same switches and wires for others.
... so, is it a public performance by the phone company when you listen to music-on-hold?

Nope. And your ISP isn't performing anything when you use Aereo. But the ISP isn't the one being sued here.


Just because someone's not being sued doesn't mean that the opinion couldn't possibly apply to them. Maybe they get sued  next.
 
2014-06-25 05:29:48 PM  
Looks like I'll be getting some kind of antenna. My wife and I cut the cable and just went with Netflix and Prime, and the only thing I really miss is football.
 
2014-06-25 05:41:33 PM  

dletter: GrailOfThunder: I must say, the decision surprised me, but I suppose it shouldn't have considering the major players.

So I guess Slingbox better be looking over their shoulders now, eh?

I would think so.... Slingbox isn't much different than Aereo, other than it is using your "source" vs. Aereo's "source" (a personal "antenna" they are "loaning" to you).

And really, Aereo was more selling "remote viewing" and "DVR" capabilities than the "antenna" watching, which is already "free", in my mind, which you can set up on your own antenna source at home anyway if you really wanted to, into your computer.

If you were depending on Aereo to watch your favorite NFL teams games from another market, I am pretty sure Aereo was trying to make sure you could only get an antenna from your home address market (although, that would be pretty easy to get "around" I spose).


DISH uses sling box, so obviously those rules don't apply for them
 
2014-06-25 06:36:47 PM  
SCOTUS re-wrote the law.

What the hell?

They are not elected officials. What gives them the right to rewrite laws at whim? This is bullshiat

If it werent for rulings such as Brown v Board of Education I would be advocating to significantly restrict SCOTUS powers
 
2014-06-25 06:39:33 PM  
The law is only a line in the sand that tells two parties where to start fighting.
 
2014-06-25 07:17:26 PM  

Taxbongo: They are not elected officials. What gives them the right to rewrite laws at whim? This is bullshiat


1) They don't rewrite laws on a whim (it's in response to a case or controversy before the court).
2) They aren't rewriting laws so much as clarifying existing law.
3) Between the English common law (on which the American common law system) and the American common law, there's been nearly 800 years of unbroken tradition on the role of judges and the law. If you don't like it, go to France, where they use Civil Laws based on the Napoleonic Code.
 
2014-06-25 07:41:24 PM  
redmid17:

I agree with this guy, though he seems to overlook that this ruling is very narrow applying only to Aereo. Says it in the decision.

Kurt Andersen @KBAndersen  2h
In deciding against Aereo, SCOTUS says old rules don't apply to new tech, but in deciding against warrantless phone searches, that they do.



To the extent that they have fark-all to do with each other - which they don't really - it looks like both cases are about form vs function.

-Govt:  If we can search wallets and they have personal info, why should it matter that info is in electronic form on a phone.
-Court:  Because the info you get from searching a cell phone is substantially different.

-Aereo:  We have rubegoldberged our system in search of a form that Congress didn't anticipate, so la la la I'm not touching you.
-Court:  The service you provide is substantially the same as what they did anticipate, don't make me come back there.

/I agree with the cell phone decision; not sure about Aereo
 
2014-06-25 09:52:20 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: redmid17:

I agree with this guy, though he seems to overlook that this ruling is very narrow applying only to Aereo. Says it in the decision.

Kurt Andersen @KBAndersen  2h
In deciding against Aereo, SCOTUS says old rules don't apply to new tech, but in deciding against warrantless phone searches, that they do.


To the extent that they have fark-all to do with each other - which they don't really - it looks like both cases are about form vs function.

-Govt:  If we can search wallets and they have personal info, why should it matter that info is in electronic form on a phone.
-Court:  Because the info you get from searching a cell phone is substantially different.

-Aereo:  We have rubegoldberged our system in search of a form that Congress didn't anticipate, so la la la I'm not touching you.
-Court:  The service you provide is substantially the same as what they did anticipate, don't make me come back there.

/I agree with the cell phone decision; not sure about Aereo


Aereo isn't even really about what Congress anticipated, it's about what Congress specifically outlawed.  Fundamentally, Aereo is a CATV system, except instead of one antenna, they use 1,000 and instead of coaxial cable, they use the internet.  Otherwise, they're much the same.  The Supreme Court basically said, "Yeah, Congress outlawed 40 years ago.  Just because you bought a bunch of tiny antennas instead of one big one doesn't make you special."

Now, whether that was the appropriate ruling, I'm not sure, but it was easy to see coming.
 
2014-06-25 10:18:35 PM  

rugman11: Fundamentally, Aereo is a CATV system, except instead of one antenna, they use 1,000 and instead of coaxial cable, they use the internet.  Otherwise, they're much the same.


Yep, but that implicates the whole  public performance bit.

If you put an antenna on your roof and send the signal down to your TV, that's clearly fine. If you put the antenna on someone else's roof and send the signal down, that's also fine (provided they agree). If you put the antenna on someone's roof and send the signal to an encoder which sends an MPEG stream over HTTPS to your house, that's also fine. But if that someone charges you rent, and does the same for a bunch of other people, it apparently becomes a public performance.

This was a case of "Aereo violated the spirit of the law, if not the text, so we're just going to re-interpret the text to agree with the spirit."
 
2014-06-25 10:31:37 PM  

Theaetetus: rugman11: Fundamentally, Aereo is a CATV system, except instead of one antenna, they use 1,000 and instead of coaxial cable, they use the internet.  Otherwise, they're much the same.

Yep, but that implicates the whole  public performance bit.

If you put an antenna on your roof and send the signal down to your TV, that's clearly fine. If you put the antenna on someone else's roof and send the signal down, that's also fine (provided they agree). If you put the antenna on someone's roof and send the signal to an encoder which sends an MPEG stream over HTTPS to your house, that's also fine. But if that someone charges you rent, and does the same for a bunch of other people, it apparently becomes a public performance.

This was a case of "Aereo violated the spirit of the law, if not the text, so we're just going to re-interpret the text to agree with the spirit."


I agree.  In essence, an apartment building that has one (big) antenna on the roof with leads that run to every apartment allowing a renter to hook up a TV directly to it, is now illegal per the SCOTUS.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report