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.

(Deadline)   Supreme Court to Aereo: "You're a cable company." Aereo to networks: "Great, that means you have to license your signals to us." Networks: "Hey, wait...what?"   (deadline.com) divider line 93
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

8640 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Jul 2014 at 4:10 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-10 03:15:23 PM  
Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.
 
2014-07-10 04:15:18 PM  
Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?
 
2014-07-10 04:17:03 PM  

tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?


Nope. Some rentals due, more so with apartment complexes.
 
2014-07-10 04:20:37 PM  
I love these guys.

"Traditional cable networks, we are going to take your business with our cool new web-based service."

"No you aren't.  Haha, you lose!"

"Traditional cable networks, we are going to take your business with our cool new web-based cable network."
 
2014-07-10 04:22:26 PM  
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.
 
2014-07-10 04:23:30 PM  
This seems like a very logical response from Aereo. The Court based its decision on Aereo acting like a cable company, so they might as well go whole hog, eh?
 
2014-07-10 04:29:19 PM  

TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.


How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that. There's no law (that I know of) that would require them to sell their channels for 25¢ (or whatever) per subscriber, in fact they already charge different prices for different providers like Comcast, U-Verse, Dish Network, etc..

As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.
 
2014-07-10 04:31:20 PM  

TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.


Not sure how they are violating the spirit of the law if they are compensating everyone required with royalties or graft or whatever you want to name it.
 
2014-07-10 04:32:13 PM  

rugman11: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.


FTFA: "which broadcasters, in turn, must negotiate in good faith"

So they've got some wiggle room, but they can't charge Comcast one rate and Aereo 100x that amount.  I've been waiting for this since I read the court's decision.
 
2014-07-10 04:32:33 PM  
GrailOfThunder:
As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.

How is Netflix doing with TV over the internet?
 
2014-07-10 04:33:34 PM  
But following up on that, they'd probably also be able to require that Aereo enforce geographic restrictions, so this would hardly be a total victory for Aereo.
 
2014-07-10 04:33:53 PM  

GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that. There's no law (that I know of) that would require them to sell their channels for 25¢ (or whatever) per subscriber, in fact they already charge different prices for different providers like Comcast, U-Verse, Dish Network, etc..

As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.


I'm pretty sure the whole "in good faith" aspect of the law Aereo was quoting would prevent that.
 
2014-07-10 04:35:43 PM  

NewWorldDan: But following up on that, they'd probably also be able to require that Aereo enforce geographic restrictions, so this would hardly be a total victory for Aereo.


Aereo already does/did this. You can't subscribe to a Boston feed, for example, if you have an NYC billing address. IIRC you couldn't even watch the feed outside of your area. Don't quote me on that though
 
2014-07-10 04:38:10 PM  

rugman11: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.


Yes, there is.  The networks have to negotiate  in good faith.  Demanding eleventy bajillion dollars would not be good faith.
 
2014-07-10 04:39:11 PM  

yakmans_dad: GrailOfThunder:
As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.

How is Netflix doing with TV over the internet?


Netflix doesn't do live TV over the Internet.
 
2014-07-10 04:40:28 PM  

yakmans_dad: GrailOfThunder:
As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.

How is Netflix doing with TV over the internet?


Given that Netflix is 30% of US residential internet traffic during peak times, I'd say they're doing pretty well.
 
2014-07-10 04:42:57 PM  

redmid17: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that. There's no law (that I know of) that would require them to sell their channels for 25¢ (or whatever) per subscriber, in fact they already charge different prices for different providers like Comcast, U-Verse, Dish Network, etc..

As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.

I'm pretty sure the whole "in good faith" aspect of the law Aereo was quoting would prevent that.


That's at least another 5 years worth of lawsuits though. Assuming the FCC even grants them "cable operator" status. Which if they don't, is ANOTHER few years of lawsuits..

Yeah, maybe this will all be worked out by 2025.
 
2014-07-10 04:45:12 PM  

NewWorldDan: rugman11: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.

FTFA: "which broadcasters, in turn, must negotiate in good faith"

So they've got some wiggle room, but they can't charge Comcast one rate and Aereo 100x that amount.  I've been waiting for this since I read the court's decision.


Right, but Aereo is broadcasting programming online, which the networks could argue is significantly more valuable than traditional broadcasting, especially since it could potentially draw viewers away from the networks' own web products (which make them money) and Nielsen-measured broadcasts (which also make them money).  How much do they value internet broadcasting over traditional broadcasting?

They could also take the road that many cable companies take and start bundling their products.  Oh, you want to broadcast ABC? Well you also have to pay for ABC Family, Disney, and ESPN and put them in your basic package.  Oh, you want to broadcast NBC? Well you also have to pay for SyFy, USA, and NBC Sports and put them in your basic package.  Once that happens, you have the same cost problems that the cable companies currently have.
 
2014-07-10 04:45:47 PM  

NewWorldDan: rugman11: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.

FTFA: "which broadcasters, in turn, must negotiate in good faith"

So they've got some wiggle room, but they can't charge Comcast one rate and Aereo 100x that amount.  I've been waiting for this since I read the court's decision.


No, but they could say, "Yeah, we would charge you the same as Comcast, if we were going to have you carry our broadcasts, but we've decided against that. Obviously."

FTA: Even if broadcasters agreed to negotiate a deal "they need not actually sell signals to Aereo".

Fat lot of good your "you only have to pay $1 for a new car" deal is if no one is willing to sell you a car at all.
 
2014-07-10 04:53:43 PM  

redmid17: Aereo already does/did this. You can't subscribe to a Boston feed, for example, if you have an NYC billing address. IIRC you couldn't even watch the feed outside of your area. Don't quote me on that though


From what I'm reading, you appear to be correct.  At that point, who the hell cares?
 
2014-07-10 04:55:04 PM  
i'm all for trolling the cable companies

the more trolling the better
 
2014-07-10 05:04:16 PM  

NewWorldDan: redmid17: Aereo already does/did this. You can't subscribe to a Boston feed, for example, if you have an NYC billing address. IIRC you couldn't even watch the feed outside of your area. Don't quote me on that though

From what I'm reading, you appear to be correct.  At that point, who the hell cares?


Good question. I would pay good money for local sports broadcasts from my hometown. Most Pacers games are on FoxSports Midwest/Indy. I can't get that channel, but I want to watch the games. It's the same with the Colts. I can catch a couple of games a year on TV in Chicago. My only options are Sunday Ticket, which is expensive as balls, on Direct TV which I can't get or streams. DirectTV has an option for computers, tablets, and phones, but it's 300+ bucks for me to watch 10-12 NFL games and I have little interest in the rest. I can only watch so much football in a day or two, and I only specifically want to watch the Colts.
 
2014-07-10 05:09:11 PM  

tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?


They are all moving towards encrypting those channels.
 
2014-07-10 05:13:04 PM  

mcreadyblue: tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?

They are all moving towards encrypting those channels.


Run that one by me again? Who is encrypting what channels?
 
2014-07-10 05:14:00 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: No, but they could say, "Yeah, we would charge you the same as Comcast, if we were going to have you carry our broadcasts, but we've decided against that. Obviously."


1976 Copyright Act says that cable companies can seek a cumpulsory license. It's not up to the broadcasters to decide, but in the hands of a federal court.
 
2014-07-10 05:20:19 PM  

rugman11: They could also take the road that many cable companies take and start bundling their products. Oh, you want to broadcast ABC? Well you also have to pay for ABC Family, Disney, and ESPN and put them in your basic package. Oh, you want to broadcast NBC? Well you also have to pay for SyFy, USA, and NBC Sports and put them in your basic package. Once that happens, you have the same cost problems that the cable companies currently have.


That might be a problem for corporate owned stations, but a lot of local stations are owned by separate companies.  For example, CBS only owns the stations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Denver, Miami, Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis (including 2 small town simulcasting towers), New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Dallas.  There are a lot of people in those cities, but lots of people that aren't.  The big carriage dispute between Time Warner and CBS last year only effected customers in those cities.
 
2014-07-10 05:21:46 PM  

tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?


Bell Canada does, both on your PC and on your handhelds.
 
2014-07-10 05:25:16 PM  

GrailOfThunder: yakmans_dad: GrailOfThunder:
As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.

How is Netflix doing with TV over the internet?

Netflix doesn't do live TV over the Internet.


I'm not sure what the qualification "live" has to do with anything at all.
 
2014-07-10 05:28:08 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: ArcadianRefugee: No, but they could say, "Yeah, we would charge you the same as Comcast, if we were going to have you carry our broadcasts, but we've decided against that. Obviously."

1976 Copyright Act says that cable companies can seek a cumpulsory license. It's not up to the broadcasters to decide, but in the hands of a federal court.


As I said above, the compulsory license only refers to royalties for the content.  According to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, "No cable system or other multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcast station, or any part thereof, except with the express authority of the originating station."

According to the FCC, "Television stations and cable systems, as well as satellite carriers, negotiate for this "retransmission consent" and money or other consideration is generally exchanged between the parties in these private negotiations."

This is the same reason we don't have real network apps on Roku or Apple TV or smart TVs.  If you want to transmit a network's content, you have to get the permission of the network, and you usually have to buy that permission.
 
2014-07-10 05:28:12 PM  

rugman11: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.


Other than possible anti-trust grounds?
 
2014-07-10 05:28:44 PM  

GrailOfThunder: mcreadyblue: tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?

They are all moving towards encrypting those channels.

Run that one by me again? Who is encrypting what channels?


I know Comcast is. The OTA channels used to be ClearQAM (built into most flat panel TVs), but now you need one of their tuners. For a short time I had all the OTA channels while paying just for internet. I still used the antenna instead since it looked much better.
 
2014-07-10 05:29:38 PM  

sdd2000: rugman11: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not how compulsory licensing works.  Compulsory licensing only covers the royalties that broadcasters have to pay to the copyright owners.  Aereo would still have to negotiate a retransmission contract with the networks (the kind of contracts that see networks get pulled from cable providers all the time), and there's no reason the networks have to make those deals reasonably priced for Aereo.

Other than possible anti-trust grounds?


What anti-trust?  We're talking about content that's broadcast over-the-air for free.
 
2014-07-10 05:30:51 PM  

GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.


Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?
 
2014-07-10 05:32:28 PM  
So, now Aero has to pay for what it was previously stealing?
 
2014-07-10 05:32:55 PM  

yakmans_dad: GrailOfThunder: yakmans_dad: GrailOfThunder:
As far as them providing a "cable-like" service over the Internet (which some stories have pointed out, didn't work for a company called "ivi"), TV over the Internet is nothing new - in fact both FIOS and AT&T's U-Verse is TV over IP.

How is Netflix doing with TV over the internet?

Netflix doesn't do live TV over the Internet.

I'm not sure what the qualification "live" has to do with anything at all.


2 entirely different types of licensing agreements, and different fee structures.
 
2014-07-10 05:36:11 PM  

GrailOfThunder: mcreadyblue: tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?

They are all moving towards encrypting those channels.

Run that one by me again? Who is encrypting what channels?


The FCC changed the rules and cable carriers can encrypt the over the air broadcast channels ( generally channels 0-99 ).

So you will need a cable box to decide them and no longer be able to just plug the catv into your cable ready tv.
 
2014-07-10 05:36:55 PM  

jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?


Control.
 
2014-07-10 05:37:29 PM  

jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?


They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.
 
2014-07-10 05:41:27 PM  

GrailOfThunder: The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber",


No, they can't. Broadcasters are legally required to negotiate in good faith with cable companies. Making an offer like that would not be negotiating in good faith, and Aereo would be entitled to sue the crap out of them if they tried that.
 
2014-07-10 05:42:51 PM  

qorkfiend: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.


If they lose a subscriber via cable but gain one via Aereo how are they hurt?
 
2014-07-10 05:44:28 PM  

kittyhas1000legs: GrailOfThunder: mcreadyblue: tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?

They are all moving towards encrypting those channels.

Run that one by me again? Who is encrypting what channels?

I know Comcast is. The OTA channels used to be ClearQAM (built into most flat panel TVs), but now you need one of their tuners. For a short time I had all the OTA channels while paying just for internet. I still used the antenna instead since it looked much better.


Yeah, I was going to mention that earlier.. When I last had Comcast, the frequencies needed by their cable modem required the 1-29 (or so) channel range, so even if you had an "internet only" package you still got those channels for free and you didn't need a decoder box for them. Not sure if it's still that way now, as I left Comcast for U-Verse about 10 years ago.

But cable companies encrypting those channels is to be expected. They pay for them, so they have every right (IMO) to encrypt them. I just thought perhaps the OP that I quoted was trying to say that *broadcasters* were moving to encrypt their OTA signals -- which they might have the right to do also, I don't know.
 
2014-07-10 05:44:42 PM  

jst3p: qorkfiend: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.

If they lose a subscriber via cable but gain one via Aereo how are they hurt?


Many cable channels (USA, SYFY) are owned by Cable companies (Comcast).
 
2014-07-10 05:45:56 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: jst3p: qorkfiend: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.

If they lose a subscriber via cable but gain one via Aereo how are they hurt?

Many cable channels (USA, SYFY) are owned by Cable companies (Comcast).


That doesn't make sense, but the fact that NBC owns a bunch of cable channels does.
 
2014-07-10 05:47:46 PM  

foo monkey: So, now Aero has to pay for what it was previously stealing?


I live with my mom.

Everyone knows that this is copyright violation; you can't "steal" something that isn't physical in the first place. Just ask any MP3 pirate.
 
2014-07-10 05:48:05 PM  

jst3p: qorkfiend: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.

If they lose a subscriber via cable but gain one via Aereo how are they hurt?


Aside from sign_of_Zeta's point, networks still get most of their revenue from advertising and Nielsen doesn't measure Aereo viewing, so any Nielsen homes that switch from cable to Aereo would result in a loss of viewers and a loss of ad revenue.  It would also potentially cannibalize viewing on Hulu or the networks' own websites, for which they receive payment too.
 
2014-07-10 05:49:01 PM  

mcreadyblue: GrailOfThunder: mcreadyblue: tricycleracer: Bright House is nice enough to give me all the local OTA channels for free since I have Internet through them.  Do most cable companies not do this?

They are all moving towards encrypting those channels.

Run that one by me again? Who is encrypting what channels?

The FCC changed the rules and cable carriers can encrypt the over the air broadcast channels ( generally channels 0-99 ).

So you will need a cable box to decide them and no longer be able to just plug the catv into your cable ready tv.


Never knew that was a rule in the first place.  You certainly couldn't do that with U-Verse or FIOS. Ever.
 
2014-07-10 05:49:09 PM  

rugman11: jst3p: qorkfiend: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.

If they lose a subscriber via cable but gain one via Aereo how are they hurt?

Aside from sign_of_Zeta's point, networks still get most of their revenue from advertising and Nielsen doesn't measure Aereo viewing, so any Nielsen homes that switch from cable to Aereo would result in a loss of viewers and a loss of ad revenue.  It would also potentially cannibalize viewing on Hulu or the networks' own websites, for which they receive payment too.


That makes sense as well. Thanks.
 
2014-07-10 05:51:19 PM  

jst3p: qorkfiend: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

They're probably worried about cannibalizing their other revenue sources. I imagine most people would see Aereo as a replacement for their cable package, not an addition to it.

If they lose a subscriber via cable but gain one via Aereo how are they hurt?


They're not hurt, but they don't gain anything, either.

If Aereo's not offering terms that are competitive with their existing deals with the cable carriers, they're probably losing revenue. Even if it's the same, there's still no pressure for content providers to switch, because it'd just be a wash. Aereo would have to offer superior terms than the content providers already have in order to give them a reason to sign up with Aereo.
 
2014-07-10 05:54:18 PM  

mcreadyblue: jst3p: GrailOfThunder: TheOmni: Aereo was pretty closely following the letter of the law, but they have been violating the spirit of the law, so that's why they needed this court case. But now it looks like they're going to be closely following this new slightly different letter of the law while still violating the spirit of the law. Of course, the real problem here is that the spirit of the law is protectionism of legacy media corporations, but you can't just flat out write that down in the legislation.

How are they violating the "spirit of the law" by licensing the content from the providers (assuming the broadcasters agree to license their content to Aereo in the first place)?

The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber", and that would be the end of that.

Why would they do that rather than charge a reasonable rate and see increased revenue?

Control.


Exactly. Aereo has already pissed them off, there's no way they're going to willingly license their content to them -- especially when many of the providers

cptjeff: GrailOfThunder: The providers could very well just say "OK, we want $100 per channel, per subscriber",

No, they can't. Broadcasters are legally required to negotiate in good faith with cable companies. Making an offer like that would not be negotiating in good faith, and Aereo would be entitled to sue the crap out of them if they tried that.


That's IF the FCC agrees and grants them a cable operator license. That's a big IF. Either way, if the FCC does or doesn't, someone's going to sue somebody; Aereo will either sue the FCC for denying them a license, or the providers will sue the FCC for granting them a license (at which point they'll probably get a stay in the issuance of said license), and then we all sit back and wait another 5 years for the outcome. :-(
 
2014-07-10 05:57:41 PM  

GrailOfThunder: foo monkey: So, now Aero has to pay for what it was previously stealing?

I live with my mom.

Everyone knows that this is copyright violation; you can't "steal" something that isn't physical in the first place. Just ask any MP3 pirate.


WTF? "I live with my mom"? That was Fark turns "Zero"/10 into?

lol.. :)
 
Displayed 50 of 93 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 »
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