US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Aereo Case - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 162 Old 05-09-2014, 05:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

OTA broadcasters send that content over the airwaves. Aereo picks up the signal (which is legal) and handles traffic duties to ensure that it makes it to the end customer (who also has a legal right to said content). Aereo gets paid to do this. Aereo has to pay the networks for the rights to carry their content?
In my opinion yes because the reason people would pay for the service is for the content. Cable and satellite companies could also argue they are only providing equipment for reception. The main technical difference is with cable/sat distribution the tuner is after system processing while with Aereo it's before. My guess is that with cable/sat, since the tuners are sharing common processing it becomes a public performance, while Aereo argues since their system tuners are ahead it is a private performance. The end effect is the same which is the issue the court is deciding. I know it's been argued that charging for any remote tuner feeds requires station permission, but if it was that simple it would have been decided long ago. If retransmission fees are legal, and Aereo is effectively providing the same service as cable/sat service providers, should the technical loophole of where the tuner is located exclude them from needing permission from a station to pass their programming. Is Aereo effectively charging for programming? What other ramifications are there with a decision? BTW, it's the station that negotiates the retransmission fee, not the network. Some stations have common ownership with networks, but most network affiliates do not.
TVOD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 162 Old 05-09-2014, 06:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

But they are providing the content, are they not (it goes thru their hardware to get to the consumer, same as Aereo)?  And they are charging a fee for that service, are they not?  Note that a lot of people pay more for higher internet speeds, for the sole purpose of getting that copyrighted content.  Without it, people would pay less. 
No. Netflix is providing the content. The, in turn, subcontract to the ISP to relay the media. There is no such relationship between the stations and Aereo - or the ISPs, for that matter.

No doubt, in a fair world, the ISPs would be paying Netflix to have the content available to suscribers who are more than willing to pay for faster internet speeds in order to take advantage of Netflix and other streaming services.

Too bad it's not a fair world.

That's why my point still stands: the ISPs will be perfectly safe, especially if capital hill and other areas of the government don't want to see something tragic happen to the speed and quality of internet service they get.
Quote:
How is Aereo not an ISP?  Is it because they use antennas and dvr's instead of miles of cable?  Or, is it because the only thing they provide is one specific kind of content?  Would expanding their business to include other things somehow make them less of a cable company and more of an ISP, since the rules are apparently different for the two different types of companies?
Aereo doesn't provide access to the internet. They use the internet. You need an ISP to get Aereo. They provide content owned by others like Netflix does or like cable companies do, especially since they are providing live, linear TV streams. The difference between them is Aereo doesn't have permission to do so.

Expanding their content wouldn't matter if they still do that one thing they aren't supposed to.

I think the only thing that could really clinch it for them is if they were operating under a single, buy-out business model (like Slingbox) rather than a subscription model.

It's impossible to separate the content from the service Aereo provides since the content is key to people paying for it. As a result, they can't create an air tight argument that they aren't charging for the content, no matter how many times they claim it.
Quote:
Even if the ISP doubles as a cable TV provider and pays for the rights to distribute content via. cable TV subscriptions, that does not give them the right to distribute that same content via. the internet, unless the contract specifically states it.  After all, the number of consumers reached via. cable TV AND internet would be significantly higher than those reached by cable TV alone.  Wouldn't the networks want to know how many consumers will be getting their content when they sign a contract with a cable company, so they can adjust their asking price?
They know exactly how many customers will be getting their content. The answer is everyone, since the local stations are on the most basic tier. They know exactly how many subscribers a cable company has, and it's how ever much money per month, for each of them. How many actually watch is irrelevant.
Quote:
Yes.  Netflix pays the networks for the content.  Netflix sends that content down the internet pipelines.  Various ISP's handle traffic duties for said content to make sure it gets to the end consumer.  The ISP's get paid to do this.  The ISP's don't have to pay the networks for the rights to carry their content.
That's because Netflix has subcontracted to them for them to carry their content. Their fees are wrapped up in that. They pay the networks (or studios) X amount of dollars per subscriber and paying the ISP in turn makes those subs available to them.

The ISP, for Netflx, is more like a cellular company, the police or the local branch of the FBI renting space on a tower for their radio communications. They pay more for a higher slot, space for a bigger transmitter or the electricity for a more powerful one. They also pay for the maintenance of the lights that keep planes from crashing into the tower and the guide wires that hold it up.
Quote:
Likewise, OTA broadcasters pay the networks for the content.  OTA broadcasters send that content over the airwaves.  Aereo picks up the signal (which is legal) and handles traffic duties to ensure that it makes it to the end customer (who also has a legal right to said content).  Aereo gets paid to do this.  Aereo has to pay the networks for the rights to carry their content?
You're shifting Aereo too far down the chain. They aren't the ISP. They don't provide the actual run or bandwidth to your home. They are a middleman like Netflix.

If Aereo were an ISP, you wouldn't need to pay an ISP to get them.
Quote:
This makes it sound like it's ok for the cable companies, networks, and ISP's to establish one set of rules for themselves, because they are, in many cases, all owned by the same parent company, but set a different set of rules for anyone else.  On the one hand, you could call this capitalism.  But, I think it stinks of crony capitalism, good `ol boys network, and/or monopoly.  Take your pick.  It's a shame that corporations like these seem to abuse the system.  For the record, I am a strong proponent of free trade and a conservative, but, I have to ask myself what Teddy Roosevelt would do if he were President today.  Maybe we just need a hard reset every so often.
You sound surprised that the ISPs would have two sets of rules.

When it comes to being responsible for content, they'll claim their just pipes full of data.

When it comes to charging service providers more, they'll claim they're networks overburdened with excessive data streamed from those data mooches like Netflix.
Quote:
Back to the real concern...I do believe it is possible to render a verdict which makes it clear that what Aereo is doing is illegal without it making other activities that should be legal, illegal.  However, I do not think it is quite as simple as it sounds.
No, it's not simple. I never said that.

However, there seems to be terror and doom pronounced in every tech article about the subject as if doomsday is bound to occur, yet know one can cite a legal service that will be affected by a verdict against Aereo, assuming the argument is that they are acting as a cable carrier in the cloud.

Barry Diller certainly wants everyone to think that will happen, because if people are scared of that effect, they're more likely to support Aereo. The thing is, the SCOTUS can't rule on Aereo's actions based on speculation. They can only consider the exact language to use in the verdict to ensure that speculation doesn't come true.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #123 of 162 Old 05-09-2014, 06:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post

BTW, it's the station that negotiates the retransmission fee, not the network. Some stations have common ownership with networks, but most network affiliates do not.
I think, in this case, it's reasonable to use the term "networks" since:

1) It's the networks that are fighting this in court. Is the NAB even involved as deeply in the case?

2) Let's face it: no one getting Aereo is paying 8 bucks a month to watch the local news. They want those network prime time shows.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #124 of 162 Old 05-09-2014, 07:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I think, in this case, it's reasonable to use the term "networks" since:

1) It's the networks that are fighting this in court. Is the NAB even involved as deeply in the case?

2) Let's face it: no one getting Aereo is paying 8 bucks a month to watch the local news. They want those network prime time shows.

Most prime time Network shows can be streamed for free, directly from the Networks. You might have to wait a few days for the latest episode to be available though. I suspect many of Aereo's customers want the free local professional sports coverage.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #125 of 162 Old 05-10-2014, 12:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I think, in this case, it's reasonable to use the term "networks" since:

1) It's the networks that are fighting this in court. Is the NAB even involved as deeply in the case?

2) Let's face it: no one getting Aereo is paying 8 bucks a month to watch the local news. They want those network prime time shows.
It is the companies that own the networks and the stations. They are arguing about retransmission of their stations. While network supplied programming has perhaps the greatest draw, syndication is quite significant. I wonder if Aereo had only been in markets without O&Os if the companies that owned networks would have been fighting them so vigorously.
TVOD is offline  
post #126 of 162 Old 05-10-2014, 05:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

Most prime time Network shows can be streamed for free, directly from the Networks. You might have to wait a few days for the latest episode to be available though. I suspect many of Aereo's customers want the free local professional sports coverage.
The thing is, a lot of locally produced stuff is being streamed by the local station already - and live.

Most of the sporting events come via network productions - even if the local station participates.

The problem with the prime time programs is that 1) not all are available for streaming and 2) like you said, people might actually have to wait a couple of days. Our "I want it now" society wants it now and doesn't want to have to potentially pay what is required to get it sooner, whether that be pay TV or by living where you can get an OTA signal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post

It is the companies that own the networks and the stations. They are arguing about retransmission of their stations. While network supplied programming has perhaps the greatest draw, syndication is quite significant. I wonder if Aereo had only been in markets without O&Os if the companies that owned networks would have been fighting them so vigorously.
I'm guessing Sinclair, Lynn, Clearchannel and the other big media owners would probably be in there if the networks weren't so quick to fight. Those companies are very big on retransmission fees. Disputes are common when renewal time rolls around. They wouldn't want anything that could hurt their power.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #127 of 162 Old 05-10-2014, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Most of the sporting events come via network productions - even if the local station participates.
That’s true on events which are covered by a network, whether it’s regional or national. But recurring coverage of a particular local team on a given station is usually arranged by the station themselves. RSNs and dedicated networks have obviously greatly diminished the number of local team OTA games. But, as one team owner said, an advantage of a dedicated network is that viewers can find the games all on one channel! rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I'm guessing Sinclair, Lynn, Clearchannel and the other big media owners would probably be in there if the networks weren't so quick to fight.
That’s my thinking also. The networks’ owners may not have jumped in when they didn’t have any skin in the game with their own stations being streamed, even if the ones that were carried network programming. On the other hand, they may have viewed this as a growing cancer and joined to squash it before it grew. It’s pure speculation at this point. Some network owners might have been there from the start, but my guess is the most would have waited at least until after the first court decision.
TVOD is offline  
post #128 of 162 Old 05-10-2014, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

Most prime time Network shows can be streamed for free, directly from the Networks. You might have to wait a few days for the latest episode to be available though. I suspect many of Aereo's customers want the free local professional sports coverage.
Networks make these shows available for streaming with their own forced commercials. They control which shows, how long they're available and the revenue. Such arrangements must also be made with an agreement with a show's owner and copyright holder. A station carrying local sports is another issue, and they may not be able to stream it due to the scope of their agreement with the team and league. Radio stations often block their sports coverge from streaming.
TVOD is offline  
post #129 of 162 Old 06-09-2014, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Liked: 949

Huh.

Aereo Arrives for Chromecast As Supreme Court Decision ...

TIME ‎- by Matt Peckham ‎- 3 days ago
Internet TV streaming service Aereo is finally available for Google Chromecast.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #130 of 162 Old 06-16-2014, 05:30 AM
Newbie
 
sepepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
Its not so different than the slingbox concept that has been around for a while; it was never illegal for someone that has cable to provide a slingbox feed to someone elsewhere - essentially renting out their antenna/cable subscription. The only difference conceptually is the volume and a bigger potential for profit loss/gains.
EXACTLY, mo949. It is NO different, at all. All Aereo does is offer remote-access by providing a subscription service to an antenna signal-- and THAT IS ALL. Aereo is NOT coming into possession of, or rebroadcasting or altering the original TV programming in any shape or form, which is FREE, over-the-air, as mandated by the FCC, by the way. I'm just wondering how effectively their lawyers were able to get that across to the SCOTUS judges who presumably are not tech-savvy, and therefore easily "led" by the "big network/cable" industry plaintiff lawyers, who feverishly work for their bosses in a continuing effort to shut down valid "alternate" providers like Aereo....
sepepper is offline  
post #131 of 162 Old 06-16-2014, 05:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ProjectSHO89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,704
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
rebroadcasting or altering the original TV programming in any shape or form,
Then what do you call it when the ATSC MPEG2 data is transcoded to H264 format, then wrapped in IP headers to send out to subscribers?
ProjectSHO89 is online now  
post #132 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Decision was reached and goes against Aereo!
TVOD is offline  
post #133 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 08:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post
Decision was reached and goes against Aereo!
I'm reading thru the Supreme Court's decision now to see if I can figure out what this all means. Will post with my take once I have read it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-461_l537.pdf
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #134 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 11:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
I have to say that I agree with the dissenting opinion on this one. The majority decision uses what I consider to be pretty flimsy logic asserting that Aereo "looks like a cable company", therefore, should be regarded as a cable company (i.e. looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore must be a duck), despite some (what I consider to be) significant differences. Furthermore, they fail to provide any clear way of testing a potentially abusive technology to legally determine whether or not that technology is close enough to providing the same service as a cable company so as to be in violation of copyright law. Scalia makes a good point when he points out that, in cases where the question before the court is direct copyright infringement (versus secondary copyright infringement), the volitional conduct test has always been a key factor in determining the case. He cites numerous cases that support this, including Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (whether or not Sony was liable for copyright infringement due to its consumers use of the Betamax VCR).

Once again, instead of issuing a decision based on what is written in law now, the liberals of the court attempt to go back in time (to 1976 in this case) to guess what Congress would have done, had they been writing the laws in today's world, and legislate from the bench. Worse, they haven't given the lower courts any blueprint for determining what is legal and what is not for settling these types of suits when they arise, which will happen quite frequently until a clear litmus test is provided. What are they supposed to use a precedent now?
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #135 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 11:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
Scalia makes a good point when he points out that, in cases where the question before the court is direct copyright infringement (versus secondary copyright infringement), the volitional conduct test has always been a key factor in determining the case. He cites numerous cases that support this, including Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (whether or not Sony was liable for copyright infringement due to its consumers use of the Betamax VCR).
I disagree that's it's the same thing at all.

1) A VCR resides in a viewers home and relies on the user to acquire the content themselves. Sony sells the user the equipment and provides nothing beyond the equipment. Aereo, on the other hand, provides an ongoing service that tunes in content at the behest of the user and essentially guarantees that content will be there in return for a monthly fee. The equipment is owned and operated by Aereo and is leased out to users at their discretion.

2) A VCR has uses beyond recording TV programs, including the playback of material created by the users. This is what makes Torrent services legal, verses a specific P2P service like Kazaa which was shown to exist for the purpose of trading copyrighted content. The only use for Aereo is in acquiring OTA TV signals. There is no reason to pay Aereo otherwise. A video tape machine (even before pre-recorded video cassettes) is not specifically intended to record or play back copyrighted content, any more than CD and DVD burners are intended to duplicated copyrighted music and movies.

Now, if you want a comparison that more closely mirrors this situation, you could argue that preventing the use of Aereo without compensation to content providers is similar to cable companies wanting to collect money from customers with VCRs on the grounds that they were "second tuners". The cable companies at that time would drive around and scan for the number of tuners accessing the feed and charge customers if they had more than they were being billed for. The home recording act essentially invalidated that practice because VCRs could no longer be referred to as additional tuners and there was no way for the cable company to tell the difference between a TV tuner and VCR tuner.

How this compares is that, to the customer, it's just another tuner.

Having said that, it doesn't appear that the comparison to cable was the main deciding factor: it was the "public performance" aspect. The reasoning was that, while the signal is sent out to each user individually, there is no discernible difference between each user's feed. Therefore, it was a public performance since the content was fundamentally the same user to user.

I think that weighed in more than anything and led to the decision that Aereo was performing the same function as a cable operator.

It does appear, though, that the DVR storage issue wasn't even considered in the decision.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #136 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 11:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Also, unless I am reading it wrong, the majority decision of the court seems to leave the door open for Aereo to transition to a download service rather than a streaming service based on their definition of a "transmitting a performance".

"This Court assumes arguendo that Aereo is correct and thus assumes, for present purposes, that to transmit a performance of an audiovisual work means to communicate contemporaneously visible images and contemporaneously audible sounds of the work. Under the Court’s assumed definition, Aereo transmits a performance whenever its subscribers watch a program."

In other words, you're not transmitting a performance unless it can be viewed or heard at the same time as it is being transmitted.

I can only assume that they arrived at this definition in order to avoid catching downloaded content in their ruling, which could make ISP's liable for illegal downloads? While that may be a just cause, the way they went about it leaves a lot to be desired. Now they are going to have to make a ruling on whether or not a service like Aereo can offer downloads of copyrighted material without paying a licensing fee to the copyright holder. Granted, they would have had to do that anyway, but the decision here doesn't give any indication of how they will provide legal reasoning for the decision in that case.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #137 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 11:55 AM
Member
 
JavaJohnNV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Aereo claimed that they are simply renting antennas and DVR equipment over the Internet. However without the content from the networks broadcast signal there is no reason a person would subscribe to the Aereo service.
Aereo's business model was built around passing along that content to it's subscribers, while claiming they should have free access to that content.
Apparently SCOTUS decided that the Aereo service equated to a public performance, so free was not an option.

Last edited by JavaJohnNV; 06-25-2014 at 11:58 AM.
JavaJohnNV is offline  
post #138 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 12:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
The only use for Aereo is in acquiring OTA TV signals.
It was mentioned in the decision that not all programming that is broadcast OTA is copyrighted. I'm not sure which content they were referring to, but I'm guessing that some paid programming (infomercials) and local public broadcasting content might not be copyrighted. If true, couldn't Aereo argue that their service was not intended to infringe upon copyright law, but to provide a means for their customers to access content legally? It's not their fault that their customers used it to access copyrighted content...

I doubt that would have made much difference.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #139 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Liked: 949
This was a huge misunderstanding of the situation by SCOTUS. I've heard enough lame arguments that this is somehow different from doing this on your own with your own antenna and blaming google drive for it. That Aereo is somehow different is absolutely nuts.

I'm the least anti-industry guy on the planet, but this was absolutely short sited and a bit of over protection of existing cable industries. Sickening quite frankly.

At LEAST SCOTUS had the honesty to worry enough to declare that this decision was isolated to this one case.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #140 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 12:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaJohnNV View Post
Apparently SCOTUS decided that the Aereo service equated to a public performance, so free was not an option.
Exactly. But, if you read the decision and the dissenting opinions, it's clear that not all of the justices agreed that Aereo was transmitting a public performance. I feel that the dissenting opinion does a much better job of explaining what the law is, how it is applied, and what the court's role is in all of this. The majority opinion doesn't seem to follow any sort of precedent, nor does it connect the dots. It creates more questions than it answers.

I'm not saying that what Aereo is doing is entirely legal. I'm saying that the decision of the majority of the justices (as written) leaves a lot to be desired.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #141 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 12:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
At LEAST SCOTUS had the honesty to worry enough to declare that this decision was isolated to this one case.
Actually, I'm not sure how honest their promises that this won't impact other technologies are. Just because they say it won't doesn't mean it won't. Scolia says as much in the dissenting opinion.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #142 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Liked: 949
What an unbelievably BRAZEN load of BS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by from cnn
"Today's decision is a victory for consumers," Paul Clement, the attorney representing the broadcasters, said in a statement.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #143 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
It was mentioned in the decision that not all programming that is broadcast OTA is copyrighted. I'm not sure which content they were referring to, but I'm guessing that some paid programming (infomercials) and local public broadcasting content might not be copyrighted. If true, couldn't Aereo argue that their service was not intended to infringe upon copyright law, but to provide a means for their customers to access content legally? It's not their fault that their customers used it to access copyrighted content...

I doubt that would have made much difference.
I don't know of anything on TV that isn't copyrighted. I'm not sure, aside from public access stations, what they could be referring to. Then again, a lot of public access stations don't broadcast over the air. As far as I know, Nutmeg TV up this way is on cable only.

All professionally produced TV programs have a copyright, regardless of whether it's actually displayed on screen or not. Even the ads are copyrighted. Local news and other public information programming is also all copyrighted. I've worked at local TV stations and every show we created had a copyright notice. In addition, some of the show titles were trademarked by the station. Even the local newscast used a franchised title they paid for the rights to use.

Even public broadcasting stations copyright even their most local stuff. Heck, PBS and their affiliates are very strict on that stuff.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #144 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
What an unbelievably BRAZEN load of BS:

Quote:
"Today's decision is a victory for consumers," Paul Clement, the attorney representing the broadcasters, said in a statement.
That I agree with.

Had he stated it was a victory for copyright owners, I could respect that since not all copyright owners are big media companies.

Maybe he means it helps justify people's cable bills...
NetworkTV is offline  
post #145 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Liked: 949
I look forward to working around this BS myself. It shouldn't be awfully hard. The right combination of antenna, XMBC / Plex, and simple port forwarding and >poof<, none of this insane crap will matter. Or at least I'll gladly check out the advice of those at AVS as to how they manage this.

In any case, here is the official text from SCOTUS, including the actual wording of the ruling and the dissenting opinions from the 3 dissenting justices. All from supremecourt.gov.

(PDF): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-461_l537.pdf

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is online now  
post #146 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
I look forward to working around this BS myself. It shouldn't be awfully hard. The right combination of antenna, XMBC / Plex, and simple port forwarding and >poof<, none of this insane crap will matter. Or at least I'll gladly check out the advice of those at AVS as to how they manage this.
Why go through all that?

Since you mentioned an antenna, just get a Sling Box and use the antenna with it and skip all the other steps. Or use a tuner in a Windows PC and use a VPN.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #147 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 225 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
What an unbelievably BRAZEN load of BS: Quote:
Originally Posted by from cnn
"Today's decision is a victory for consumers," Paul Clement, the attorney representing the broadcasters, said in a statement.
I suppose it's a win for those folks who are able to receive OTA broadcast TV without a service like Aereo, as the networks won't pull their programming, for now. It's a loss for those who can't get reception in their area, though, and could have used an affordable service like Aereo to get local programming. While the networks could provide a service like Aereo's without violating copyright law (because they own the copyrighted content), they probably won't. There's not enough money to be made by charging a relatively small number of subscribers in areas that are fairly spread out and/or remote a reasonable fee when they can easily make more selling the rights to Cable and Satellite companies, who can then recoup the costs by charging a substantially higher fee for a basic cable/satellite subscription.

Last edited by HockeyoAJB; 06-25-2014 at 02:06 PM.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #148 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Grabbing free over the air transmissions and selling a service for watching them? This should have been heard at the local level and not consumed the Supreme Courts time. Of course it's illegal.

For those who don't understand that, i will use this analogy,

I download free over the air broadcast and sell them to you.

How is that not viewed as anything but piracy and copyright infringement?

If Aereo paid the broadcasters for there content, like local TV station and cable/satellite companies do, it would not have landed in court, same thing with Kaleidescape. To many of these companies are trying to make a buck off of someone else game plan, and not pay the content creators there fair share.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #149 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 589
retransmission fee wins : )

I support the supreme court decision. I suspect the real issue is in the roots (infrastructure, licensing, first sale doctrine applicability in an internet age, net neutrality, etc)
mo949 is offline  
post #150 of 162 Old 06-25-2014, 01:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 179 Post(s)
Liked: 459
The real question is this:

What is more important to the Networks: killing Aereo or getting retransmission fees? If the latter is more important, they may still yet make a deal for money.

If the money is what they want, then in a weird way, it is a victory for consumers because Aereo gets to not only continue, but can expand without the big lawsuit monkey on their back that not only kept them out of certain markets, but probably made people wary of subscribing.

If, however, the goal was only to kill Aereo, then we can only hope this will encourage the creation of a legal version of the service. While it might suck in the short term, it might be the cattle prod needed to get this sort of service going - if even through the stations themselves.
NetworkTV is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off