Just consider how many people are unable, for whatever reason, to use an antenna to get local broadcast stations that they are legally entitled to get for free. Wouldn't it be the same as me putting an antenna on my roof and "leasing" it to my next door neighbor?
Originally Posted by ProjectSHO89
Ever try carrying your antenna with you when on the go? Aereo uses the internet, so it's available to subscribers anywhere high speed internet is available.
At least until the lawyers get done with it... The Appeals Court didn't sound like they were impressed with Aereo's arguments...
I see Aereo's legal position - they are renting antennas, not reselling content.
As for "It's kind of like constructing your business affairs to avoid taxes. Right?", I refer to this quote:
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.”
— Judge Learned Hand, federal appeals court judge, 1934.
I think any station would jump at the chance to have someone provide a free translator for their station, thus increasing their audience. Why is providing a "translator" via internet that much different? Especially here in Utah, where one big stupid mountain can shut down any chance of OTA TV. I do think that providing a DVR service that stores all content on Aereo's servers certainly is a troubling aspect as far as copyrights is concerned, but that issue could be easily resolved by having users record content to their own individual computers.
That said, I would still prefer to get my local TV stations OTA. OTA TV doesn't require me to pay for anything - not internet or "leasing an antenna". OTA doesn't have bandwidth caps, nor does it require me to have a computer or Roku box for each TV in my house.Edited by Vegas_Vic - 1/12/13 at 6:00am