AEREO loses

[shira]

I thought that AEREO would lose, but for a different reason: That they really weren't leasing individual antennae to users, but instead switching between many different antennae depending on the channel the user selected. But the SCOTUS (stupidly, in my opinion) looked at the effect of the AEREO service, not on the actual technology.

SCOTUS rules against AEREO

The Supreme Court delivered a major victory Wednesday to the nation’s television networks, ruling that an upstart Internet company was violating copyright laws by transmitting their programs without paying for them.

The case had been dubbed as deciding the “future of television.” But in a 6 to 3 ruling, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Aereo’s use of modern technology to stream broadcast television was not much different than cable systems that must pay the networks for its content.

The differences “concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service,” Breyer wrote. “We conclude that those differences are not adequate to place Aereo’s activities outside the scope of” the Copyright Act.

He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, saying the majority had twisted the statute to “produce a just outcome.”

He said it should be up to Congress to decide whether the Copyright Act “needs an upgrade” in order to take note of modern technology. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Breyer acknowledged that the case raised difficult questions about technology, such as cloud computing, but said those should be decided in another case where they were more central.

The networks contended that Aereo violates a part of the copyright law that requires network permission for the right to transmit to the public “public performances” of their work. The networks receive more than $4 billion in annual fees from satellite and cable companies for the rebroadcasting rights.

But Aereo uses a multitude of small antennas to capture live over-the-air television signals and directs them to subscribers, where the content can be watched on computers or other devices.

Because individual antennas are dedicated to individual subscribers, the firm says it is not transmitting the program to the public, but only allowing the individual to capture what is available free over the airwaves. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with Aereo.

ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and PBS, among others, are all parties to the suit. Local broadcasters, the National Football League and Major League Baseball support the networks.

Aereo agreed that the high court should hear the case because it said its plans for future expansion would be hampered by lingering legal questions. It has said it has no “plan b” for the future if the court ruled against it.

 

[Matt1970]

I would think any network that makes money of their advertising would want that network broadcast anywhere they could. More viewers = higher value for commercial slots. IMHO Aereo should be charging the networks.

 

[nehalem256]

I would think any network that makes money of their advertising would want that network broadcast anywhere they could. More viewers = higher value for commercial slots. IMHO Aereo should be charging the networks.

For some reason though Bob's New York Autoworld isn't interested in reaching potential customers in say Paris France and therefore is unwilling to pay for such advertising.

 

[smackababy]

I would think any network that makes money of their advertising would want that network broadcast anywhere they could. More viewers = higher value for commercial slots. IMHO Aereo should be charging the networks.

Except, nothing was reported from Aereo. So, telling commercial providers "well, the value for that slot has increased because of some imaginary thing" isn't going to work.

And, there is the fact that what Aereo was doing was illegal.

 

[Brainonska511]

And, there is the fact that what Aereo was doing was illegal.

As another article pointed out:

The six-justice majority believed that Congress specifically ruled out such an argument. Before cable was widespread, Community Antenna Television (CATV) systems, which simply re-broadcast programs into areas with poor reception, were found legal by the Supreme Court. When Congress amended copyright law in 1976, it made clear that the community antenna systems were having a "public performance" because they "both show the program's images and make audible the program's sounds."

They thought Aereo was much like CATV systems, legal before 1976, but Congress specifically made them 'public performances' in the copyright law of 1976.

 

[glenn1]

Won't save the broadcast TV networks, their business model is dying just as surely as landline phone is. This ruling just bought them a bit of time and if anything will make them more complacent and prevent them from evolving into something which can survive long-term.

 

[cubby1223]

I thought that AEREO would lose, but for a different reason: That they really weren't leasing individual antennae to users, but instead switching between many different antennae depending on the channel the user selected. But the SCOTUS (stupidly, in my opinion) looked at the effect of the AEREO service, not on the actual technology.

It was the right way to look at it.

Laws were written and approved by congress. New advanced technology provided a "loophole" around the law, and the Supreme Court chose to reenforce the intent of the law instead of nullifying it due to changes in technologies over the years.

I would take up the complaint with congress, not the court system.

 

[fskimospy]

It was the right way to look at it.

Laws were written and approved by congress. New advanced technology provided a "loophole" around the law, and the Supreme Court chose to reenforce the intent of the law instead of nullifying it due to changes in technologies over the years.

I would take up the complaint with congress, not the court system.

While I agree with this ruling, it's interesting to see that the conservatives in this case saw that the intent of the legislation here was the important thing, not the letter. In say... recent cases involving guns they effectively decided that the intent of the legislation was irrelevant.

Regardless, this was a pretty slam dunk ruling to me. If they hadn't done this I imagine the broadcasters would have eventually simply stopped OTA broadcasts.

 

[Cerb]

Won't save the broadcast TV networks, their business model is dying just as surely as landline phone is. This ruling just bought them a bit of time and if anything will make them more complacent and prevent them from evolving into something which can survive long-term.

Landline phones are still needed for practical reasons (they offer service levels yet to be guaranteed by cell). The TV networks are in no such demand.

Aereo's loss makes sense, but at the same time, it's a case of dinosaurs using the legal system to crush the upstarts. They are only getting a temporary reprieve, until someone comes up with another clever business model that doesn't involve $50-150/mo for cable or satellite service per user .

 

[Matt1970]

While I agree with this ruling, it's interesting to see that the conservatives in this case saw that the intent of the legislation here was the important thing, not the letter. In say... recent cases involving guns they effectively decided that the intent of the legislation was irrelevant.

Regardless, this was a pretty slam dunk ruling to me. If they hadn't done this I imagine the broadcasters would have eventually simply stopped OTA broadcasts.

Ya, we are kinda more for the actual outcome of legislation.

 

[fskimospy]

Ya, we are kinda more for the actual outcome of legislation.

Unless it involves guns, haha.

 

[Matt1970]

Unless it involves guns, haha.

Especially if it involves guns.

 

[sportage]

THANKS for at least posting this thread in the "correct" area of the forums. Unlike some others fail to do.

 

[Knowing]

Interesting that things mere humans broadcast are free to parse by anyone for any purpose, but things that companies broadcast are protected from being consumed by even local customers by any means other than an approved antenna.

I cut the cord last week and found that the local stations that still want me to watch their advertisements care enough to provide their content via other media.

 

[smackababy]

Interesting that things mere humans broadcast are free to parse by anyone for any purpose, but things that companies broadcast are protected from being consumed by even local customers by any means other than an approved antenna.

I cut the cord last week and found that the local stations that still want me to watch their advertisements care enough to provide their content via other media.

What? Anything YOU create gets an implied copyright. If you have a free podcast or internet radio station, nobody can legally rebroadcast it without your consent. The only difference is you don't have millions of dollars to appeal this to the supreme court.

 

[Knowing]

What? Anything YOU create gets an implied copyright. If you have a free podcast or internet radio station, nobody can legally rebroadcast it without your consent. The only difference is you don't have millions of dollars to appeal this to the supreme court.

Everything I create is not the same as everything I emit.

 

[smackababy]

Everything I create is not the same as everything I emit.

You could argue your farts are art and sue anyone caught bottling them for other than personal use.

 

[Victorian Gray]

For some reason though Bob's New York Autoworld isn't interested in reaching potential customers in say Paris France and therefore is unwilling to pay for such advertising.

Twit. That's not what they were doing. Broadcasts were local to each city they were set up in.

 

[Knowing]

You could argue your farts are art and sue anyone caught bottling them for other than personal use.

Care to explain what low brow fart jokes have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[CU]

So what is to keep them from renting the dime sized antennas and a small DVR device to their current customers that do the something only locally. I mean you can already do this with MythTV and the like. Even streaming live TV to a mobile device across the internet. But your average Joe isn't going to set that up. But, they might just rent a device that does it.

 

[smackababy]

So what is to keep them from renting the dime sized antennas and a small DVR device to their current customers that do the something only locally. I mean you can already do this with MythTV and the like. Even streaming live TV to a mobile device across the internet. But your average Joe isn't going to set that up. But, they might just rent a device that does it.

The ruling will only allow something similar to a signal amplifier, or repeater. They are finished.

Care to explain what low brow fart jokes have to do with the price of tea in China?

Wtf are you on about? What exactly do you "emit" that isn't something YOU create?

 

[Knowing]

Interesting that things mere humans broadcast are free to parse by anyone for any purpose

Broadcast

Everything I create is not the same as everything I emit.

Emit

Wtf are you on about? What exactly do you "emit" that isn't something YOU create?

Aereo leased each user an individual remote antenna,[6][7][8] allowing subscribers to view live broadcast television and allowed users to record the broadcasts for later viewing.[6]

Stingray cellphone interceptors

I was trying not to be an ass about it, but if someone can't leverage context clues...

 

[lamedude]

What does this mean Cablevision's network DVR? That was the ruling that created the loophole.

Except, nothing was reported from Aereo. So, telling commercial providers "well, the value for that slot has increased because of some imaginary thing" isn't going to work.

Nielsen tracks streaming now.

 

[CU]

The ruling will only allow something similar to a signal amplifier, or repeater. They are finished.

What do you mean it would only allow for something similar to a signal amplifier or repeater? Are they saying a DVR for OTA TV is only legal if the content is pushed across coax?

 

[smackababy]

What do you mean it would only allow for something similar to a signal amplifier or repeater? Are they saying a DVR for OTA TV is only legal if the content is pushed across coax?

No, a DVR for OTA TV is only legal if you are recording the original (or simply repeated without manipulating) signal for your personal use. A company cannot do this unless they have a license to broadcast that copyrighted material. Since Aereo was found to be not having a new "performance" (which I disagree with, receiving, transcoding, and then rebroadcasting should count as a new performance as you're altering the original in some form, but whatever), but they function in a "cable company like" manner close enough that they should be treated like one. They found a loophole in the current, albeit dated, copyright laws and the SCOTUS decided that loopholes aren't in the spirit of the law.