or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Official AEREO Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 2

post #31 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

OTA is free to resell as you see fit? LIft some songs off of an HD radio and set up a website where you sell them for 50 cents a pop. See how long that lasts. Even if you do it one song at a time for one client at a time (essentially the Aereo model), the RIAA is going to have your man apples on a platter.
.

Yeah, this is why I'm surprised by these rulings. That type of behavior has always been considered unlawful but just didn't rise to a level that the rights holders deemed to be worth fighting. Kind of like "leakage" from a retail store. Yeah the employees are stealing the product, but it's just not worth the effort to prosecute all of them just to reduce the leakage by a couple of percent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

On the other side of the coin, the TV stations are making the same mistake the recording industry is making by fighting this. The better tact is to get out in front of it. Antitrust fears notwithstanding, a dozen stations in a single market forming a coalition to provide this very service would knock Aereo out of their market. And they can offer it with a direct feed and a number of other features (on-demand, instant news, weather, etc) that Aereo cannot. Sell banner ads and undercut Aereo. Game over.

I've considered that, but I think the problem is lot more complex than you're making it.

First, I suspect that there are terms in their contracts with the cable companies that prevent them from competing against the cable company in that manner since that would essectially make them a cable tv provider.

Second, that's a boatload of bandwidth to have to serve up and would cost the broadcaster a fortune unless they also want to get into the business of being a level 3 internet provider and get in on the bandwidth sharing agreements. A bunch of AM and FM radio broadcasters tried to do their own servers and they couldn't afford it even though their bandwidth requirements are a tiny fraction of what's needed for video.
post #32 of 474
The studios and broadcast industry is stuck in the 20th century. We're in the 21st century and things are different. Look up what Charlie Ergen, head of Dish Network, had to say about younger viewers (or non-viewers). People want streaming, no or few ads, and low prices. Sometime soon the studios are going to have to face the reality that if I can rent a BD at Redbox for $1.50 why am I paying $4 or more on a streaming service where there is no COG? Streaming prices need to drop too for those PPV releases which may take a while to show up on subscription services like Netflix WI if at all.

The studios and networks will argue you it costs a lot of money to make those technically proficient but low on storyline series. Then pay less for production and more for story.
post #33 of 474
It isn't about technical advances. It's about content ownership. And that argument has survived nearly all technological advancements. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to pay Redbox or Netflix at all.

The broadcasters might lose this fight, but as soon as Hollywood smells money, it's over.
post #34 of 474
To be nitpicky, it's a new technical advance (I'm going to pretend for a moment that I actually believe Aereo's claim of one antenna per customer) and clever use of the internet that is raising yet another content ownership issue.

When the courts set up all these definitions of private vs public transmissions and what constitutes an illegal "copy" of a work, they were trying to balance the rights of the content owners and broadcasters against the practicality of issues such as every apartment dweller having to have their own antenna and the possibility of not being able to get any reception at all because they are on the wrong side of the building or in a multipath hell. So along with other compromises, they decided to let apartment building owners put up a single antenna and provide a feed to everyone in the building and not be liable for licensing fees for distributing content since the court figured they weren't really profiting to a significant degree and the other option of lots of apt. dwellers with no reception at all was a worse outcome.

And as usual with these kinds of compromised rulings you end up with a bunch of flyspecking shysters looking for ways to profit from any way that the ruling can be exploited.

But in general I agree this is really a content ownership issue. Aereo has taken content it neither owns or licenses and has redistributed it for profit to a large number of people. It seems to me that it's no different than if I went to a library and checked out book scanned it into a computer and distributed it to one person and then kept going back and checking out that book again for each customer that wanted a copy. The only difference that I can see is that the Library scheme is impractical but not illegal under the Aereo ruling.

After all, the library is distributing the book for free just like OTA. But they have agreements with the rights holders about how often a book is lent before its destroyed or sold, just like OTA has a limit on the number of times they can broadcast the content they license. The fact that the library lends out books for free and to only one person at a time doesn't change the court rulings that say I can't legally scan the book and then give it to someone else for a fee because they recognize I made an illegal copy. Just ask Google how well book scanning worked out for them and they weren't even providing complete copies of book to users, they were only allowing the content to be searched for keywords.

Anyway, the Supremes are going to have to put another coat of spackling and paint on the banged up definitions of "copy" and "public performance" and "private performance" because technically the circuit courts aren't supposed to do it.

As I sort of implied in one of my previous posts, I think the point at which Aereo transcodes and then repacks the data in TCP/IP packets it should have been considered a new "copy" of the work and at that point they've created an illegal unlicensed copy. I think that would be the simplest change the Supremes could make that would leave intact the ability of apt. owner to provide feeds to their tenents since to the best of my knowledge they aren't doing anything similar. But I'm sure as soon as I post this someone will be flyspecking this idea looking for holes in it. wink.gif
post #35 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post

A bunch of AM and FM radio broadcasters tried to do their own servers and they couldn't afford it

Radio.com. IHeartradio. We can not only afford it, but it's a revenue stream. Unless you meant individually. Which is why other station groups joined one or the other.

Interesting note on both is that we have to shell out royalties AGAIN.
post #36 of 474
Broadcasters will lose this fight because Aereo has won by playing a different game. What you are really getting from Aereo are rights to borrow their antenna, and their storage space. You're renting an antenna and storage. For those of you who don't think Nielsen can and already is getting this usage data, you don't know what Nielsen does or even how it does it. So, this is a win for broadcasters, a win for advertisers and a win for Aereo. They're renting their antennas. Game over.
post #37 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

Broadcasters will lose this fight because Aereo has won by playing a different game. What you are really getting from Aereo are rights to borrow their antenna, and their storage space. You're renting an antenna and storage. For those of you who don't think Nielsen can and already is getting this usage data, you don't know what Nielsen does or even how it does it. So, this is a win for broadcasters, a win for advertisers and a win for Aereo. They're renting their antennas. Game over.

We have been down this road before and this is why the networks will lose. Remember about thirty years ago the networks were battling Sony and JVC over a certain device that was becoming more and more popular. The battle went all the way to SCOTUS and the networks lost. They subsequently learned to embrace that technology and then when it become obsolete they embraced the new technology. Anybody that has owned a videocasette recorder (and now DVR) can thank SCOTUS for the ability to have this technology.

As far as Aereo goes, they will succeed because they are not breaking copyrights. Furthermore, the networks have embraced the model by putting up the VOD model online and through the DVR (and making money off the advertising). What will happen is that the subscribers of Aereo will eventually be counted by Neilsen and additional advertising revenue will be generated.
post #38 of 474
This thread has given me a great idea.

Instead of paying NBC for the rights to let my station carry their programming, I.m going to claim that each viewer has their own piece of my satellite dishes. I'm not re-broadcasting anything from NBC, I'm simply letting a viewer use my antenna for a while.

Am I a genius, or what? rolleyes.gif
post #39 of 474
Does the "renting an antenna (that happens to be too small to work anyway, even if it wasn't inside of a metal rack in a server farm)" seem like a great subject for "MythBusters"?

The FCC and the Courts ought to be able to force AEREO to bring one of those antennas to the courtroom (or, FCC lab), and prove it actually works.
post #40 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post

Does the "renting an antenna (that happens to be too small to work anyway, even if it wasn't inside of a metal rack in a server farm)" seem like a great subject for "MythBusters"?

The FCC and the Courts ought to be able to force AEREO to bring one of those antennas to the courtroom (or, FCC lab), and prove it actually works.
Exactly.

Someone should go there with 2 smart phones, bring up Aereo while standing on the roof and say, "which is my antenna for this one phone?" and make them pull it. If the signal drops on one and not the other, then they've proven single user access. If neither drops, then down they go.

The sticky wicket legally here is the web aspect of it.

Every copyright has the "no retransmission or distribution without consent" clause in it. If it were just a matter of renting an antenna in a reasonable spot to get line of sight, they'd be OK. The problem is, they're putting it on the internet, which creates a new broadcast in a new medium that wasn't provided by the broadcaster or the content owners. That's re-transmission.
post #41 of 474
On the Topic of Aereo Supported Decives, Specifically Xbox 360. Answer: It Does Not Work, Yet frown.gif


- There is no official Aereo App for Xbox (as of this post)
- Using the Xbox IE App as a work around does not work, either
- Pairing an iPad with the app Twonky Beam to, well beam, the Aereo content from an iPad to the Xbox failed for me also.

Aereo has no official Xbox App as of now, however support for consoles is stated to be coming later. After the Roku and AppleTV, I believe.

I attempted to use Xbox's IE 9 App as a work around, however, this hits a snag when Aereo.com attempts to determine my location. After some searching I've discovered that Location Services is void from; the console settings, IE App settings, and from Xbox support online. Activating location services seems not doable. (Note: I am within the covered NYC Metro area.)

I then turned my attention to the Twonky Beam App that supports beaming 'some' content from an a phone/tablet. Twonky supports iPad to Xbox beaming. I downloaded the app. Went to Youtube from within the app to prove the beaming works. Then turned my attention to Aereo.com from within the Twonky Beam app. Unfortunately, I recieved an error when attempting to beam the live feed of 30 Rock to my Xbox. This is not a solution, either.


Thanks,
- ( With Subdued Excitement) David
post #42 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Radio.com. IHeartradio. We can not only afford it, but it's a revenue stream. Unless you meant individually. Which is why other station groups joined one or the other.

Interesting note on both is that we have to shell out royalties AGAIN.

Yes, I meant individually. And yeah, offloading the expense on another company is why they grouped together.
post #43 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish View Post


The FCC and the Courts ought to be able to force AEREO to bring one of those antennas to the courtroom (or, FCC lab), and prove it actually works.

It should have already been brought up by the broadcasters at the trial court level. At the appelate level they aren't allow to bring new evidence, just argue that someone was done wrong in the trial court.

But the coverage of this issue has been confusing to say the least. To the point that I'm not sure if these court cases have only been about getting a preliminary restraining order or if they've already had the trial. We really need someone with PACER access to post the court records so that we can figure out what the hell is going on.

Anyway, I'm not sure if the broadcasters were incompetent at the trial or if we haven't gotten to that stage yet.
post #44 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post

Aereo is a lot like the Slingbox. Aereo provides an antenna for each customer and that signal is then sent to that customer via the internet.

I've read a number of articles about Aereo, and for the life of me, I still don't get what is going on here. Is the customer's "antenna" picking up some digital or analog signal that is on the wire, but not running on top of the TCP/IP protocols?

I guess this makes no sense, since Aereo works over wireless networks. What the heck is this "antenna" doing electrically?
Edited by Richard Burger - 4/15/13 at 8:29pm
post #45 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

As an Aereo sub, you don't pay the TV stations, you pay Aereo. Aereo pockets all the money. TV stations gets zip. Why is this so hard for people to understand that Aereo is taking something of value and reselling it and NOT sharing the proceeds with the originator? In any other instance this would be called stealing and all of you would be screaming it from the highest mountains. But since this is the evil, rich TV stations, outright thief is perfectly OK. It is STILL STEALING. Period.

I disagree with your logic. The advertising dollars still flow to the TV station. You say the TV stations don't get paid by subscribers - but that is the way it works ALREADY! We are talking about over the air broadcasting, no subscribers. Having their broadcasts distributed further only increases the value of the critical service that the tv station continues to provide - originating the transmission.

The people who are getting screwed are the programming networks, cable companies and other distributors who derive income directly or indirectly from subscribers.
post #46 of 474
I have to agree, the broadcast stations are getting eyes that they may not have been getting without Aero. If the stations had their way they would get their hooks into my antenna and make me pay to watch them.

The way I see it the broadcast stations are anachronistic. They once served a useful purpose now I see little reason for them existing. ABC, NBC, CBS, and others could simply be a cable station as is TNT, CNN and DIY. They could also create a pay stream for those without cable or SAT service. I don't see them providing any real service to the community anymore, I'm sure some here will disagree.

Some will say what about the local news -- well I think a prime example of the uselessness happened last week. Major Detroit station, WXYZ ABC lead their noon news with people complaining about water in their basements. It had been raining for 2 or 3 days and it's spring in Michigan, that is not news. Water in basements is not news. They even dragged in a representative of a national damage repair company stating that "yeah we've had 6 or 7 calls in the last day or so for water damage". Duh. Lead story? Major metropolitan news outlet? Public service?

I think local broadcasters are fighting a loosing battle. They will be downsized and reinvented just as the Auto Industry has.
post #47 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

I think local broadcasters are fighting a loosing battle. They will be downsized and reinvented just as the Auto Industry has.
I don't quite see it this way. Local broadcasters still offer local news and sports, and they are a mechanism for advertisers to reach local market. Aereo is a boon for them. Maybe you are right that they will need to transform and downsize.

I think the cable companies are the real dinosaurs. They should get out of the content business completely and just focus on delivering the pipes.
post #48 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

I don't quite see it this way. Local broadcasters still offer local news and sports, and they are a mechanism for advertisers to reach local market. Aereo is a boon for them. Maybe you are right that they will need to transform and downsize.

I think the cable companies are the real dinosaurs. They should get out of the content business completely and just focus on delivering the pipes.

Then those locals should consolidate & have one OTA channel when can be then watched by OTA, have it distributed for free on cable/satellite/telco or have new companies like Aereo distribute it in a new way. That way the those frequencies can be re-utilized in a better way.

IMO, FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS should do what they want to....ie become a cable station & be happy that now they are getting paid for their channel rather then worry abt if someone is actually watching their channels or not.
post #49 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

As an Aereo sub, you don't pay the TV stations, you pay Aereo. Aereo pockets all the money. TV stations gets zip. Why is this so hard for people to understand that Aereo is taking something of value and reselling it and NOT sharing the proceeds with the originator? In any other instance this would be called stealing and all of you would be screaming it from the highest mountains. But since this is the evil, rich TV stations, outright thief is perfectly OK. It is STILL STEALING. Period.

I disagree with your logic.

Disagree all you want. That doesn't change how the system works. What I stated is not logic, but reality. You might want to read on how the industry actually works. It isn't what you think.
post #50 of 474

As a two-time cord cutter (currently a couple of years) I see both sides of this arrangement. For starters I think subscription free (OTA) TV has real value. I managed to come up with 40 series that are scheduled via WMC and my list of recordings (I haven't gotten to) hasn't been empty in a long time. So for selfish reasons I'm fine with the OTA structure remaining as is.

 

Local networks employ thousands of people and create unique content for their market. Examples here include The Brain Game, High School Championship games (Basketball, Football. etc) and they support local businesses through local advertising. Creating value on many fronts.

 

Admittedly, I receive my content over my antenna (for free) and the local networks have to rely on advertising for their revenues. I certainly wouldn't be against them charging for their content and if I didn't think it worthwhile I would simply not subscribe. I don't feel I have a right to receive free entertainment.

 

Now when someone else (a third party) is going to step in and take their value (resell it regardless of how you look at it) and make money off of their value (product) I can see why they are upset. Certainly, to a large degree they benefit by reaching more people however at the same time I think they deserve a portion of the increased value (of their service) as it is sold. Beyond the larger number of viewers as that doesn't give them payment for the value the third party has generated based on their content.

 

As an (really bad) example. A nearby city has a wellspring where the public can go and fill all the bottles they want for free. If a company came along the started bottling the water and selling it I feel the city should be able to prevent it or charge the company a fee based on their revenues. Just like OTA it's available to everyone but once it's being sold the provider should be able to share in the generated revenues directly (not just increased viewers with OTA) which are solely based on the content they are providing.

 

Another bad example. The post office had (still does?) moving booklets which contain coupons for various retailers. These started showing up on eBay and were being sold. One can say the retailer will make money with each sell they gain accordingly which might just be the case. However, I still think the retailer and post office should have a right as to how the booklets are distributed. And at the same time be able to share in the revenues they generate (in and of themselves). 


Edited by Charles R - 4/16/13 at 8:00am
post #51 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

You might want to read on how the industry actually works.
It works?
post #52 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by rajmarie View Post

Then those locals should consolidate & have one OTA channel when can be then watched by OTA, have it distributed for free on cable/satellite/telco or have new companies like Aereo distribute it in a new way. That way the those frequencies can be re-utilized in a better way .

Ya, this is what I was thinking. I don't know actually how things will evolve, but the local content should be separated, no need to carry the national networks. I assume the local content will continue to be supported by local advertising, in that sense it is "distributed free."
post #53 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Disagree all you want. That doesn't change how the system works. What I stated is not logic, but reality. You might want to read on how the industry actually works. It isn't what you think.
I'm sure there are gaps in my knowledge. But your theory that Aereo is cutting the local broadcasters out of the chain makes no sense. You might try elaborating.
post #54 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Now when someone else (a third party) is going to step in and take their value (resell it regardless of how you look at it) and make money off of their value (product) I can see why they are upset. Certainly, to a large degree they benefit by reaching more people however at the same time I think they deserve a portion of the increased value (of their service) as it is sold. Beyond the larger number of viewers as that doesn't give them payment for the value the third party has generated based on their content.

OK, but you need to think carefully about who is "losing value." It is first and foremost the national networks. The value they are provide to cable and satellite distributors is being degraded. Consumers can bypass the middlemen, they have less incentive to sign satellite and cable contracts. CBS and FOX will have to lower fees to the distributors.

The cable & satellite are likewise negatively impacted, they directly rely on fees from subscribers.

But the local broadcasters? How are they hurt? They don't collect fees, they only benefit from their advertising being propagated further.
post #55 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post


But the local broadcasters? How are they hurt? They don't collect fees, they only benefit from their advertising being propagated further.

 

If you don't understand either example I can't make it any clearer (I think it's rather clear). If one generates revenues one should be able to control who arrives the associated benefits from such and one should be able to (directly) control what portion of the revenues they receive. It's a subtle belief but to me rather obvious right the content provider should own.

post #56 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Disagree all you want. That doesn't change how the system works. What I stated is not logic, but reality. You might want to read on how the industry actually works. It isn't what you think.
I'm sure there are gaps in my knowledge. But your theory that Aereo is cutting the local broadcasters out of the chain makes no sense. You might try elaborating.

Please open your eyes. This is Econ 101. You build something. You make it available to the masses without charge to the masses and with no intent of charging the masses for it. I come along and take all your inventory and sell it not giving you anything from my profits. In any other situation this is called stealing. But for some reason, for TV stations, this is completely and totally acceptable.

If you can't see it, then by all means, please live in Utopia. You are probably better off there.
post #57 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

If one generates revenues one should be able to control who arrives the associated benefits from such and one should be able to (directly) control what portion of the revenues they receive.

This describes the case of the cable tv company and networks. They are being cut-out of revenues collected in fees.

The local broadcasters are ALREADY giving-away their content for free! Their revenue is entirely through advertising, whether customers receive their broadcast OTA or on a cable makes zero difference to them.
post #58 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng View Post

Please open your eyes. This is Econ 101. You build something. You make it available to the masses without charge to the masses and with no intent of charging the masses for it. I come along and take all your inventory and sell it not giving you anything from my profits.

I see your point. You think the local broadcasters have a moral right to a cut of the action.

But in bigger picture, you are ignoring the fact that the LOCAL broadcasters have a business model built around giving stuff away for free. They thrive by giving MORE stuff away for free. So the local broadcasters are in effect getting a piece of the action. It's only the networks and distributors whose content is getting cheapened.
post #59 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Burger View Post

The local broadcasters are ALREADY giving-away their content for free!

 

The fact they are giving it away (for free) in one circumstance is irrelevant. If one can't understand the concept one can't... so be it. Just because it's free doesn't mean you don't have related rights.

post #60 of 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

The fact they are giving it away (for free) in one circumstance is irrelevant. If one can't understand the concept one can't... so be it. Just because it's free doesn't mean you don't have related rights.

Well, I see your perspective that the local broadcasters, who produce content, ought to have some control over how that content is distributed, as a matter of principle.

From a strictly financial perspective, it is relevant that their business model is to give away that content for free. They are unharmed financially from Aereo expanding the exposure of their content, in fact they benefit.

It's like blaming a website for increasing clicks to your own website without authorization. Clicks are good.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Official AEREO Discussion Thread