Originally Posted by Sammy2
The business model of OTA TV Stations may be under attack but there is not an issue with copyright violation here. To use copyright law to protect profits is not what was intended either. It is supposed to be for "limited time". That little mouse and all his cohorts are responsible for this as he was about to come into the public domain and Disney paid congress to do their bidding and renewed the copyright for yet another limited time of 99 years. As I've said, this is not what was intended to happen.
This has nothing to do with when I'll be able to sell my own Mickey Mouse tshirts.
Aereo is essentially operating as an MSO. They are retransmitting these channels in a given area and charging a fee to watch them. That's what Comcast, Cox, Charter, etc all do and pay they pay for the ability to offer them. The original cable companies in the US did almost exactly what Aereo is doing - they stuck an antenna up on a hill and allowed all houses in the valley to hook onto the signal that they could not have received from their houses.
Aereo is trying (brilliantly so) to skirt fees and is not obtaining the consent that their "competitors" have to get. Its the exact definition of a disruptive technology. It's easy for me to look at it and say "hey, Aereo is just providing me my own Slingbox. Instead of the antenna and Slingbox at my house, its at theirs." But all the existing laws were not written with this kind of technology in mind.
And if they don't want to be broadcasters anymore and don't want to play by the "new rules" what the problem? NBC IS a cable empire. So is Fox and Disney. If they think that kind of business model is going to deliver the most value to their shareholders then that should be their goal.Edited by pittsoccer33 - 4/10/13 at 9:35am