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

Official AEREO Discussion Thread - Page 16

post #451 of 492
The wide variance in speeds is reported by the AEREO speed test (settings top right).

The Aereo speed test is a very quick one, lasts less than a second. So not a lot of data is being downloaded. And the I think the Aereo speed test goes back to their servers. So if I get the variance, it could be their servers.

Other speed test results by ROKU, Comcast, Speakeasy, and others report a consistent 7Mbps.

I had the Comcast 25Mbps service earlier and downgrades. Even at the higher speed Comcast connection, way too many artifacts were visible.

My question to Aereo subscribers really is about their visibility of artifacts when watching LIVE shows withe lots of scene changes, or motion in the background or when the camera pans.

If someone could watch Wheel of Fortune live on a large screen TV, and report back - that would be great. I especially notice artifacts when the camera is showing a close up of the turning wheel. (Not that I watch that show a lot. But I found the the artifacts really show up majorly on that show, even when Vanna walks back and forth in front of the letter board.)



Thanks much.
post #452 of 492
Aereo is Currently Unavailable in Denver

Due to a recent ruling by the Federal District Court in Utah, Aereo is currently unavailable to customers in the Denver Metro Area.
We are extremely disappointed that the court in Utah has chosen to take a different path than every other court that has reviewed the Aereo technology. Consumers have a fundamental right to watch over the air broadcast television via an antenna and to record copies for their personal use. The Copyright Act provides no justification to curtail that right simply because the consumer is using modern, remotely located equipment.
We are very sorry for the effect this ruling has on our valued customers and we will pursue all available remedies to restore your ability to use Aereo. We are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to take up this matter and have every confidence that the high court will validate and preserve a consumer’s right to access local over-the-air television with an individual antenna, make a personal recording with a DVR, and watch that recording on a device of their choice.

In the meantime, we will automatically suspend any future charges to your credit card and will be issuing refunds for the current billing cycle. Please be patient as we process these transactions.

Please follow blog.aereo.com for any updates on this issue. We will notify you via email as soon as your ability to use Aereo is restored.

Thank you for your patience and support.

Sincerely,
The Aereo Team
post #453 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by hadron21 View Post


The Aereo speed test is a very quick one, lasts less than a second. So not a lot of data is being downloaded.
Then it's not a real test. Any ISP will let small data packets through without rate shaping. You have to have a large packet test to stress the cinnection enough to either see it fail to reach the rated maximum due to the path it jumps through or due to ISP filtering.

Even then, it won't tell you if rate shaping takes place during sustained transfers.
Quote:
And the I think the Aereo speed test goes back to their servers. So if I get the variance, it could be their servers.
Not necessarily.

The path isn't likely to change dramatically enough to remove intermediate switches and routers that might slow things down. There's absolutely zero chance that there isn't at least a few jumps between you an Aereo.

What that means is, you could be fine, Aereo could be fine, but some switch in Albuquerque could be a bottleneck.
post #454 of 492
This is a mute point at this time - I am in Denver, and Aereo has been shut down.
post #455 of 492
Aereo is a nice idea for those who can't get decent OTA. But, it is internet based so that will be the limiting factor for a lot of reasons.
post #456 of 492
Interesting commentary on why DOJ weighed in... I hope it's true.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleswarner/2014/03/11/aereo-makes-strange-bedfellows/
post #457 of 492
Sorry, although I can see that there is reasoning behind your position, I see holes in your argument.

Quote:
...having someone else put it there for you - and selling you access to it.

Again, no one but me put it there. If I subscribe to Aereo, but don't ever schedule a recording, or watch something, then *no* content is ever generated.

Quote:
With Aereo, people are accessing content provided to them by a business that didn't get permission to provide...


They don't need permission, as the permission is implicit in the long-standing covenant embodied in terrestrial OTA broadcasts. I think you are fixating on the format of the content.

In fact, let's suppose that Aereo's model was based on a different format, say DVD recordings - ie you schedule a recording, and Aereo's automated machinery burns it for you onto a DVD, which they then mail to you to consume/watch.

Would that be allowable?
post #458 of 492
From a technical aspect, is there a separate copy made for each request? ie Ten thousand people "record" "Big Bang Theory" are there 10,000 identical copies recorded - or is one (or a small number) made and each subscriber given access on demand?

If it is 10.000, then it would seem to be a private recording and performance to me. If there are only a few recorded copies, then that sounds like retransmission ala Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/VOD etc.
post #459 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsrHulot View Post

Sorry, although I can see that there is reasoning behind your position, I see holes in your argument.
Again, no one but me put it there. If I subscribe to Aereo, but don't ever schedule a recording, or watch something, then *no* content is ever generated.
Actually, yes there is.

What came off the tower is ATSC MPEG2 video. What Aereo creates for you is re-compressed MPEG4 video that is encrypted and converted to IP data. They're creating something that didn't exist before they created it for you.
Quote:
They don't need permission, as the permission is implicit in the long-standing covenant embodied in terrestrial OTA broadcasts. I think you are fixating on the format of the content.
Actually, they really do. By restricting access only to subscribers, they are creating a closed circuit feed of the content that causes them to become an MSO. It's already been shown that a multi-channel service provider needs station consent to relay their signals.

The problem here is, doing this for multiple subscribers, even if it's controlled by each subscriber, has established case law against it based on radio stations being able to prevent essentially the same thing in legal disputes.
Quote:
In fact, let's suppose that Aereo's model was based on a different format, say DVD recordings - ie you schedule a recording, and Aereo's automated machinery burns it for you onto a DVD, which they then mail to you to consume/watch.

Would that be allowable?
No.

Someone already tried that and it was shut down as piracy. Selling physical copies of content that wasn't legally purchased for each copy being viewed is established as a no-no. Now, if they bought DVD sets of the shows, they could lend, rent or sell them as they see fit.
post #460 of 492
Quote:
What came off the tower is ATSC MPEG2 video. What Aereo creates for you is re-compressed MPEG4 video that is encrypted and converted to IP data. They're creating something that didn't exist before they created it for you.

Yes, but they created it at my behest. Without me, they wouldn't have created it *at all*. This is the crucial piece that makes this a private performance, and therefore allowed.

Quote:
Actually, they really do. By restricting access only to subscribers, they are creating a closed circuit feed of the content that causes them to become an MSO. It's already been shown that a multi-channel service provider needs station consent to relay their signals.

The problem here is, doing this for multiple subscribers, even if it's controlled by each subscriber, has established case law against it based on radio stations being able to prevent essentially the same thing in legal disputes.

I expect they will argue that it's not a relay - we use the service for time-shifting purposes, which likewise has case law on its side. Also, is it closed circuit if it's not a real-time broadcast, or at least a predefined feed, outside of the control of the subscribers? With Aereo, all subscribers all watch different content (channels) at different time

Quote:
Someone already tried that and it was shut down as piracy. Selling physical copies of content that wasn't legally purchased for each copy being viewed is established as a no-no. Now, if they bought DVD sets of the shows, they could lend, rent or sell them as they see fit.

Ah fascinating, I have a vague memory of that. In that case I don't think Aereo will argue on that point at all. biggrin.gif

In the end I see enough for Aereo to make a good case, and I'm hopeful they will succeed, but I'm by no means certain of the outcome. If nothing else, I'm grateful to them for shaking up the old model.
post #461 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsrHulot View Post

Yes, but they created it at my behest. Without me, they wouldn't have created it *at all*. This is the crucial piece that makes this a private performance, and therefore allowed.
No, the key is that THEY created it, not you. It doesn't matter if you asked for it or not.

If someone starts making "Big Macs" on a street corner, they're still violating McDonald's trademark, even if they've stolen nothing, used their own cooking gear and ingredients and only made them upon request to people who don't live close to a McDonald's restaurant. It's still an unauthorized copy.
Quote:
I expect they will argue that it's not a relay - we use the service for time-shifting purposes, which likewise has case law on its side. Also, is it closed circuit if it's not a real-time broadcast, or at least a predefined feed, outside of the control of the subscribers? With Aereo, all subscribers all watch different content (channels) at different time
By definition, any video feed (or feeds) or video system that is designed to be viewed by a specified or authorized set of individuals and is intended to be viewed by anyone else is a closed circuit feed. That includes security cameras (live, buffered or recorded), internal TV channels (such as a high school TV station or other similar operations) as well as cable and satellite TV services. All those things can include live, buffered or recorded content from any number of sources.

The key is, it's a closed system that is designed to only be access by authorized users. Over the air TV broadcasts are not.
Quote:
Ah fascinating, I have a vague memory of that. In that case I don't think Aereo will argue on that point at all. biggrin.gif

In the end I see enough for Aereo to make a good case, and I'm hopeful they will succeed, but I'm by no means certain of the outcome. If nothing else, I'm grateful to them for shaking up the old model.
No doubt, I think we need something like this, even if it's offered through the local stations directly or through traditional providers.

The point here, though, is there are laws of copyright. Those who own those copyrights have the right to protect themselves from those who would profit from them without permission.

Call the networks and studios greedy or whatever, but it's their content and their right to protect their business interests. The fact is, the very reason this content gets made and is available to customers is that there is money to be made from it. If others can come in and erode that on the backs of the very people that create it, we'll soon have a system that has very little worth watching.

The one thing that also seems to be lost among those that support Aereo doing this is there are a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on the jobs they have at the studios, networks and small production companies. Those jobs exist because the networks and studios are able to generate enough revenue to finance the shows they air. If the revenue drops, the amount they'll spend on a show drops. It will become much easier to avoid taking a chance on a high profile drama and go with a cheap reality show instead.

It's easy to say, "let them fail" when it's not your job on the line. The fact is, the real ones hurt by this will be the small production companies that create the stuff for the studios and networks in the first place.
Edited by NetworkTV - 3/18/14 at 8:51am
post #462 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post



The one thing that also seems to be lost among those that support Aereo doing this is there are a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on the jobs they have at the studios, networks and small production companies. Those jobs exist because the networks and studios are able to generate enough revenue to finance the shows they air. If the revenue drops, the amount they'll spend on a show drops. It will become much easier to avoid taking a chance on a high profile drama and go with a cheap reality show instead.

It's easy to say, "let them fail" when it's not your job on the line. The fact is, the real ones hurt by this will be the small production companies that create the stuff for the studios and networks in the first place.

It is well documented what side you are on, the one that writes your check. That said, I take exception to the above quoted comment. The assumption you are making there is questionable. If we are looking at an advertising based system how is having more eyeballs on the ads a determent? Is that not what the people paying the money want? We know for a fact that the millennials will not watch broadcast TV, or even own a TV for that matter. However they WILL watch content on their phone or tablet if it appeals to them. Aereo is attracting customers because there is a need to fill. I do not have any supporting numbers but I'd bet people are not dropping cable or SAT in droves to switch to Aereo, it's simply a nitch market. As stated earlier in the thread it's more about the cablcos using Aereo as a tool to avoid paying for retransmission, that quite honestly is a whole separate issue.

As to jobs, I live in Flint MI so I know all about the job loss situation. Quite honestly I see no reason broadcast should be exempt from tech and social change - you are no different than the 10,000's of people here who lost their jobs do to changes in the market.
post #463 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

The assumption you are making there is questionable. If we are looking at an advertising based system how is having more eyeballs on the ads a determent?
Ah, but it's NOT totally advertising-based. If Aereo "wins" then retransmission fees for cable and DSS are called into question. The lost of those would be catastrophic for local television stations. As for the advertising on tablets and phones, who's gonna measure that? Granted, I'm not THAT well versed on Neilsen's television methods, but for it to even matter, there'd have to be an independent way to measure it.

Forget that for a second. With no retrans fees to negotiate, broadcasters don't have a play in stopping Aero from developing a Hopper-like service. All the commercials on everything you watch nicely edited out for you. Which kills your additional eyeballs for ads theory.

The loss of revenue for local television stations would result in the same sort of consolidation for TV that radio's experienced. Transmitters and towers with centrally-located management and regional advertising sales. If they stay on at all. Many would go dark. Means car dealers and the Big Three would find it more expensive and more difficult to advertise on television, the number one ad medium for vehicles. Car sales go down, dealerships downsize, production lines shut down, the bars and restaurants in car-making cities shut down ...Flint goes back in the dumper, again. Not as much of a long shot as it seems.

Wonder how Aereo would feel if the use of their service was restricted only to those who could demonstrate they couldn't get a signal at their homes the way the DSS waiver system worked.
post #464 of 492
Newbie here -
Read much of this multi-page thread, but have questions.

1. How is the PQ? We get very good Netflix streaming. Is this as good or better?
2. We have homes in 2 cities. Can we make use of a VPN to watch city #1 channels in city #2?
3. This would mean (using a VPN) you could watch any American TV overseas.
4. Xfinity to go lets you watch several cable channels from anywhere. HBO2Go does the same. I'll try accessing them via VPN on my tablet next month when out of country.
post #465 of 492
If your VPN is set up through your router at location #1, I don't see why that wouldn't work at location #2 since at Aereo's end you would appear to be connected from location #1. If you use a paid (or possibly a reliable free) third-party VPN, that might work as well, but the VPN you connect to would have to be traceable back to the market associated with your Aereo account, plus there is a possibility that Aereo could look at access logs and block known VPNs from connecting (though having subscribed to a multi-country VPN service for nearly five years now, I can say very few georestricted services have ever done this). The bigger issue you would probably run into is getting sufficient speed and network performance through the VPN to stream video without routine buffering. This would be of particular concern overseas since the farther away from the VPN server you are, the less speed through the server you are likely to get. This is without even taking into account the speed of the connection used to connect to the VPN, which naturally also plays a big role in VPN speed.

Now with all of that said, installing a Slingbox at location #1 would also let you watch the channels anywhere, but without the need to connect to a VPN or pay a monthly fee to Aereo.
post #466 of 492
It is really interesting to see who is supporting Aereo and who isn't. http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/aereo-attracts-support-from-dish-network-eff-more-for-upcoming-scotus-hearing/

It does make sense that Dish supports Aereo. Here is their colorful argument:

The technology, and others including Dish’s, “are like dumbwaiters, incapable of delivering a pail of water without the thirsty person tugging on ropes and pulleys. If an individual uses that dumbwaiter to fetch himself a video he recorded of Breaking Bad, the dumbwaiter manufacturer does not infringe a copyright in the show.”
post #467 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowcat View Post

It is really interesting to see who is supporting Aereo and who isn't. http://www.deadline.com/2014/04/aereo-attracts-support-from-dish-network-eff-more-for-upcoming-scotus-hearing/
I think it largely comes down to a split between content providers and service providers. Some, like Comcast, fall into both categories. But I have full faith that a technically savvy SCOTUS will have the wisdom to understand the implications of their decision. I heard rumor that one member even has an electric typewriter now.
post #468 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post

Ah, but it's NOT totally advertising-based. If Aereo "wins" then retransmission fees for cable and DSS are called into question. The lost of those would be catastrophic for local television stations. As for the advertising on tablets and phones, who's gonna measure that? Granted, I'm not THAT well versed on Neilsen's television methods, but for it to even matter, there'd have to be an independent way to measure it.

Forget that for a second. With no retrans fees to negotiate, broadcasters don't have a play in stopping Aero from developing a Hopper-like service. All the commercials on everything you watch nicely edited out for you. Which kills your additional eyeballs for ads theory.
+1

Isn't Aereo's argument still the technicality of "renting " hardware? Is the antenna per subscriber still a central issue? Internet streams are still pretty much one per user, but there are laws currently protecting content from being streamed without consent.

Since most viewers now get their content via a service provider, I wonder how may stations would prefer to give up the transmitter with its associated costs and headaches. It would also circumvent Aereo. Add on top the Government's possible plans of enticing TV broadcasters to hand back their spectrum. That could be another incentive for smaller stations to just cash in or just go service provider only. Would networks allow affiliates to do that, especially if Aereo wins? At that point what defines a service area?

At this point Aereo seems to be a large market issue. They appear to allow mobile usage. ATSC M/H seems to be going nowhere. Mobile internet streaming may become vital for a station's future, and some smaller stations support Aereo. Streams from service providers, such as Dish's agreement with Disney, may be a better alternative for stations. Other challenges may lie ahead for the network affiliates. CBS's Moonves has mentioned forming a combined network streaming service if Aereo wins. That doesn't sound good for the affiliates unless they're involved somehow.

The advancements of the internet look to be challenging the concept of free public airwaves. While free to view programming has increased with the digital cut-over, wireless providers are hungry for spectrum. Internet service, whether wired or wireless, is usually not free (unless you're in a backyard tent using your neighbor's WiFi for movie night) which becomes a subscription layer. Obviously cable and sat are not free. In California in 1964 there was Proposition 15 created by theater owners to stop pay TV which passed but was overturned. Eerily the predictions fifty years ago in this ad pose a growing modern question: Can free over-the-air TV survive?

Add me on the side to defeat Aereo's concept of carriage without consent. As the old saying goes, nobody rides for free.
Edited by TVOD - 4/5/14 at 4:17am
post #469 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post

... I wonder how may stations would prefer to give up the transmitter with its associated costs and headaches...
I was pretty close friends with the general manager of a FOX affiliate, some years ago (he's elsewhere, now). He echoed your thoughts exactly. His thinking was that over-the-air only served people who couldn't afford cable/DSS or lived rural. Neither group was as likely to have the discretionary income to spend with his local advertisers or make the haul in to visit one. Therefore, maintaining a transmitter cost more than it brought in. He noted that it would often be half an hour before the first phone call came in complaining they were off the air. Since they fed cable and DSS via fiber, those viewers never lost the signal. He said that's when it hit him that the transmitter was basically worthless.
post #470 of 492
If you knowingly and willingly throw a $100 gold piece in my yard, is it now mine to use as I desire?
post #471 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distorted View Post

If you knowingly and willingly throw a $100 gold piece in my yard, is it now mine to use as I desire?
Depends. Did I steal it? Then no.

Not sure what your point is, but equating precious metals with copyrighted works is more than a bit of a reach wink.gif
post #472 of 492
Regardless of the legal arguments/implications-it is nice to see innovation in the broadcast / content delivery market.

When established entities refuse to adapt and evolve to give consumers what they want, others will enter the market if there is an incentive...

Time will tell.
post #473 of 492
My point is that if something of value is intentionally placed onto my property by its owner or by a licensee with the owner's knowledge they must be charged with the knowledge that the owner of the property has the authority to use what was abandoned to him. I would draw the line only on sale and/or redistribution to others for their use. You can't use my property for your transport and tell me to ignore it whether your trash, treasure or transmissions. If you want to retain control and complete ownership you must pay me for the easement or retain the right upon transfer of the real property.

My view is that a satellite TV transmission onto my property is mine if I can recover it, for instance. The sat companies think so too, which is why they only lease the means to capture the signals and retain the processes. No such safe-guards have been undertaken by OTA transmission companies. They obviously intend use by those to whom they are transmitting.
Edited by Distorted - 4/6/14 at 11:49am
post #474 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distorted View Post

I would draw the line only on sale and/or redistribution to others for their use.
So then you agree that Aereo should not redistribute to others for their use.
post #475 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post

I think it largely comes down to a split between content providers and service providers. Some, like Comcast, fall into both categories. But I have full faith that a technically savvy SCOTUS will have the wisdom to understand the implications of their decision. I heard rumor that one member even has an electric typewriter now.

The case will be heard on Tuesday. Perhaps Justice Alito has disposed of his typewriter rolleyes.gif because he is no longer recusing himself from the case. Should remove the possibility of a 4-4 split. Here is a link to an article that describes the some of the history leading up to the case starting with the Copyright Act of 1909. (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/argument-preview-free-tv-at-a-bargain-price/#more-208238) The recent arguments have been discussed on this forum, but the article pulls it together nicely in several pages.
post #476 of 492
Recent interview w/ Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia on Cordkillers. The interview runs 25 mins.

http://youtu.be/bi3y0io2tmA
post #477 of 492
An amicus brief has been filed by a group of 36 law professors that specialize in copyright and IP law. They make a compelling argument that under current law Aereo should prevail.

They argue that the broadcasters are trying to extend the scope of the copyright law through the courts and that "the public performance right is the wrong tool" to pursue Aereo. Their point is that the "performance" is the playback of the recording that is controlled by an individual subscriber (person or family) and thus is private. The broadcasters could have pursued Aereo under the "reproductions" portion of copyright law (where Aereo might be found secondarily liable), but chose not to. The key portions are the Summary of Argument on pages 1-4 and the section One Viewer Is Not “The Public” starting on page 24.
post #478 of 492
I’m sure my sentiments have already been expressed somewhere in this thread but, I just wanted to chime in anyway.

We just cut the cord a few weeks ago, something I thought I’d never do because I love live sports, especially college football and MLB. Unfortunately, all our bills continue to rise higher and higher but, I haven’t received a raise in 2 years so, we had to start cutting some fat. One of our most expensive bills was DirecTV. We were not even done with our 2 year commitment and it was already over $100, it was going to reach almost $140 when all our discounts disappeared. I just think that it is crazy that we have to pay so much for the 15 to 20 channels we watch consistently just to support the 180+ that we could care less about. It is past time for things to change.

I hope Aereo is the first company in a long line of companies that will force the broadcasters to change their business model. I’m not even sure I’d subscribe to the service if it was available in my area but, I support any company that is willing to challenge the status quo. We now only pay about $25 for Netflix, Hulu+ and Amazon Prime; this covers about 85% of the shows we watch. For the rest we could buy them from iTunes if we really feel the need to watch them.

Then there are these apps, like WatchESPN, WatchDisneyJR, WatchABC, HBO GO, History Channel app etc. This is where I have a huge hatred for cable/sat and the broadcasters. To use these apps you are forced to have a cable/sat subscription but why does it have to be this way, especially for something like the ABC app? I get ABC for free OTA but I can’t use the app unless I pay a cable company $100 a month, seems kind of stupid IMO.

Why can’t networks like ESPN, Disney and HBO sell app subscriptions directly to the consumer, there should be no reason why they can’t do this. I’d gladly pay $10, even $15 a month for access to WatchESPN, which would cover about 85% of my live sports fix. That’s more money per subscription then they get from cable/sat. Same goes for HBO GO, I’d gladly pay a reasonable fee to access their app. We all know why they don’t do this, the cable/sat companies would file lawsuit after lawsuit and, of course, it is probably in their contracts that they can’t sell directly to consumers.

In the spirit of full disclosure, cutting the cord was made easier for us because I have some family and friends that we very generous and allowed us to use their cable/sat logins to access all the apps I mentioned above. My point remains the same though and I would gladly pay for access to some of these apps if the option was available.

I do not know what the long term results would be if Aereo wins but, I just hope that this could be the start of a major shakeup in the television industry. It’s long overdue.
Edited by rolltide1017 - Yesterday at 8:56 am
post #479 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolltide1017 View Post

In the spirit of full disclosure, cutting the cord was made easier for us because I have some family and friends that we very generous and allowed us to use their cable/sat logins to access all the apps I mentioned above. As long as they keep their cable subscriptions, we will have access to those apps but, some are already talking about fallowing our lead.

I would be cautious about posting that kind of information. I was slapped by the mods for posting something similar a long time ago. Their reasoning was that cable/sat operators do cruise these posts from time to time and a post like that is promoting illegal use of a paid service, and they don't want AVS to appear to be in agreement with that practice.
post #480 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distorted View Post

If you knowingly and willingly throw a $100 gold piece in my yard, is it now mine to use as I desire?
It depends. Can the owner prove he tossed it there if he wants it back?

The thing is, though, that's not how OTA works.

OTA doesn't target anyone. It's not just to you and doesn't shut off even when you aren't watching. It's not targeted to one person, like cell phone transmissions, which is why they aren't encrypted.

OTA is more like a tree that overhangs muliple properties. The owner of the property it resides on is the only one with the authority to cut down the tree for any reason other than safety. However, the other property owners whose property the branches overhang do have some leeway in trimming branches that interfere with their use of their own property. They also have the right to use the shade from the tree for their own enjoyment.

That's how fair use works: you have limited personal use for non-business purposes, but you don't have unlimited access. In other words, you can make a backup copy, you can watch it on any device you choose and you can watch it as many times as you want assuming doing so is through established legal means. The key is, it's your personal use, not use of an unauthorized retail distribution of the content. Obtainign a device to tranfer that content to another device is legal. Obtaining the content via a device it was not sent out to is not.

Copyright rules do allow the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of news reporting, critical analysis or parody, though the copyright owner does have the ability to prohibit or places limits on uses even under those rules.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Official AEREO Discussion Thread