AEREO loses

[OBLAMA2009]

i cant even believe that this was a fuggen court case. thats obviously just stealing other peoples stuff and reselling it. aerola is just the video version of napster

 

[CU]

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.

I don't see them as rebroadcasting the material. They are storing it for you and only letting you watch it. It is a cloud based DVR for OTA TV. What does it matter if it is local or in the cloud?

Also personal DVR's do manipulate the signal. If it receives HD then downsamples it back to SD for an old CRT TV it has manipulated the signal.

 

[CU]

i cant even believe that this was a fuggen court case. thats obviously just stealing other peoples stuff and reselling it. aerola is just the video version of napster

A lot of people disagree even judges based on previous rulings. What you see is as stealing, I see as cloud based DVR. Which to me is no different than local based DVR.

 

[smackababy]

I don't see them as rebroadcasting the material. They are storing it for you and only letting you watch it. It is a cloud based DVR for OTA TV. What does it matter if it is local or in the cloud?

Also personal DVR's do manipulate the signal. If it receives HD then downsamples it back to SD for an old CRT TV it has manipulated the signal.

The thing is, it is a rebroadcast. Recording something, and then transmitting that recording to someone else is rebroadcasting. You can't argue that. However, since Aereo does it in near real time (there is a few second delay), it got lucky and they ruled it was the same performance.

It wasn't the fact that it was a cloud based DVR for OTA so much as it was the fact that this was a company getting the single and then allowing you access to a DVR of it. You, yourself, could set up something identical, and since the media copy laws say, you would be just fine. But, I can't copy a performance and then charge you for it (in fact, I can't even give it to you legally).

 

[theeedude]

What I don't understand is how Aereo convinced its investors that they were going to prevail with this scheme. Even if they won under current law, the big media would use all its lobbying muscle to change the law to ban what Aereo is doing.

 

[smackababy]

What I don't understand is how Aereo convinced its investors that they were going to prevail with this scheme. Even if they won under current law, the big media would use all its lobbying muscle to change the law to ban what Aereo is doing.

Yeah, they had to be like "hey, we found a loophole in the current copyright laws! Give us money please?" I can't believe people didn't say "Hmm, corporations and networks with billions of dollars are just going to let you do this?"

 

[cubby1223]

What I don't understand is how Aereo convinced its investors that they were going to prevail with this scheme. Even if they won under current law, the big media would use all its lobbying muscle to change the law to ban what Aereo is doing.

Or it was investors with their own plans to profit big on their own projects if Aereo fights and wins the legal battle.

 

[CU]

The thing is, it is a rebroadcast. Recording something, and then transmitting that recording to someone else is rebroadcasting. You can't argue that. However, since Aereo does it in near real time (there is a few second delay), it got lucky and they ruled it was the same performance.

It wasn't the fact that it was a cloud based DVR for OTA so much as it was the fact that this was a company getting the single and then allowing you access to a DVR of it. You, yourself, could set up something identical, and since the media copy laws say, you would be just fine. But, I can't copy a performance and then charge you for it (in fact, I can't even give it to you legally).

But they are not recording something and transmitting it someone else. You are telling the hardware that they manage to record something and transmit it to you. Or, is that not what they do? Or, do they record every channel 24/7 and allow users to access that one file per channel? I could see where sharing a file might get sticky even if it is just to save space. But, after going through the trouble of having an antenna for each person, I would think they wouldn't forget that everyone needs their own storage also.

I understand I can't copy a performance and give it to you or charge you for it. But can you pay me to keep a DVR and antenna at my house that only you can access? If not, why does it matter where it is located? You are only paying me to manage it for you. What if it was at your house and you paid me to manage it?

 

[smackababy]

But they are not recording something and transmitting it someone else. You are telling the hardware that they manage to record something and transmit it to you. Or, is that not what they do? Or, do they record every channel 24/7 and allow users to access that one file per channel? I could see where sharing a file might get sticky even if it is just to save space. But, after going through the trouble of having an antenna for each person, I would think they wouldn't forget that everyone needs their own storage also.

I understand I can't copy a performance and give it to you or charge you for it. But can you pay me to keep a DVR and antenna at my house that only you can access? If not, why does it matter where it is located? You are only paying me to manage it for you. What if it was at your house and you paid me to manage it?

What Aereo was doing was they had an array of antennas that were able pick up individual channel streams and these we all connected to a large "DVR server". A subscriber then activates a free antenna and the feed is recorded by the server. A couple seconds after the recording starts, it is broadcast to that customer. It is individual files (or so they say) that can only be accessed by individual customers. However, they also can allow you to record another stream, while you watch a different one, and watch that later. That is rebroadcasting.

Now, the idea of me having an antenna and a DVR and renting that to you is illegal. I am providing a service. If you did it yourself, such as you owned the equipment and captured the feed, recorded, and watched yourself, it is fine (and small enough of an operation nobody cares anyway). However, Aereo was basically providing a DVR service for OTA, and that was shown to be exploiting a loophole in the copyright act. Congress ruled the spirit of the law prevents this, even if the technology skirts it. Even the dissent says it is illegal, and only dissents the language used and "modification" of the original copyright act, rather than a separate law.

 

[CU]

What Aereo was doing was they had an array of antennas that were able pick up individual channel streams and these we all connected to a large "DVR server". A subscriber then activates a free antenna and the feed is recorded by the server. A couple seconds after the recording starts, it is broadcast to that customer. It is individual files (or so they say) that can only be accessed by individual customers. However, they also can allow you to record another stream, while you watch a different one, and watch that later. That is rebroadcasting.

Now, the idea of me having an antenna and a DVR and renting that to you is illegal. I am providing a service. If you did it yourself, such as you owned the equipment and captured the feed, recorded, and watched yourself, it is fine (and small enough of an operation nobody cares anyway). However, Aereo was basically providing a DVR service for OTA, and that was shown to be exploiting a loophole in the copyright act. Congress ruled the spirit of the law prevents this, even if the technology skirts it. Even the dissent says it is illegal, and only dissents the language used and "modification" of the original copyright act, rather than a separate law.

Does rebroadcasting not mean to retransmit to the general public or large group of people?

So what makes it illegal, where the DVR and antenna are located at or that I pay someone to manage it for me? Location would make OTA cloud DVR's illegal. Management would make it illegal for you to pay someone to fix the computer you use as a DVR. Both seem wrong to me as storage is storage no matter where it is located at and what does it matter who I pay to manage the device whether it is myself paid by spending my time or someone else paid in cash.

 

[smackababy]

Does rebroadcasting not mean to retransmit to the general public or large group of people?

So what makes it illegal, where the DVR and antenna are located at or that I pay someone to manage it for me? Location would make OTA cloud DVR's illegal. Management would make it illegal for you to pay someone to fix the computer you use as a DVR. Both seem wrong to me as storage is storage no matter where it is located at and what does it matter who I pay to manage the device whether it is myself paid by spending my time or someone else paid in cash.

What makes it illegal is that what Aereo was doing is not specifically against the law (or wasn't) according to the letter of the law. However, SCOTUS decided that using technology to find a loophole is breaking the spirit of the law, and therefore illegal.

OTA could DVRs aren't illegal, so long as you are capturing the stream yourself and are the only person with access to both the upstream and downstream, if I understand this correctly. Paying someone to manage it isn't an issue either. Paying me to capture the stream for you and then give you access, however, is.

 

[CU]

What makes it illegal is that what Aereo was doing is not specifically against the law (or wasn't) according to the letter of the law. However, SCOTUS decided that using technology to find a loophole is breaking the spirit of the law, and therefore illegal.

OTA could DVRs aren't illegal, so long as you are capturing the stream yourself and are the only person with access to both the upstream and downstream, if I understand this correctly. Paying someone to manage it isn't an issue either. Paying me to capture the stream for you and then give you access, however, is.

So basically the law said it is legal, but the SCOTUS decided that it really should mean it is illegal. Awesome. That is their right, but in mine and a few other judges' opinions they are wrong.

What do you mean by capture yourself? I am capturing it myself whether a I tell a local DVR to record something or a remote cloud based DVR to record something. Either way I am in control of what it records and only I have access to both up and down streams. No one at Aereo was paid to capture it. They were paid to manage it. The user controls what is recorded not Aereo.

 

[Brainonska511]

So basically the law said it is legal, but the SCOTUS decided that it really should mean it is illegal. Awesome. That is their right, but in mine and a few other judges' opinions they are wrong.

What do you mean by capture yourself? I am capturing it myself whether a I tell a local DVR to record something or a remote cloud based DVR to record something. Either way I am in control of what it records and only I have access to both up and down streams. No one at Aereo was paid to capture it. They were paid to manage it. The user controls what is recorded not Aereo.

Originally, antenna capture systems followed by redistribution (community antenna aka CATV) was legal. The reworking of the copyright act in 1976 specifically made this illegal without the original broadcaster's consent. The SCOTUS felt that Aereo was just like these systems which had been specifically made illegal without broadcaster consent. Under the laws enacted by Congress, the SCOTUS ruled correctly. To ask them to do otherwise would be tantamount to asking them to redefine the law from the bench to whatever you wanted the law to actually be. The appropriate venue to address this issue is through pushing for a change in the law itself.

Perhaps you should read the opinion to find out why they ruled the way they did. It is only 35 pages (only 22 pages if you just want the dominant opinion, and they are not full pages, more like small-booklet pages): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

Congress also enacted the Transmit Clause, which specifies that an entity performs when it “transmit . . . a performance . . . to the public.” Ibid. The Clause makes clear that an entity that acts like a CATV system itself performs, even when it simply enhances viewers’ ability to receive broadcast television signals.

---
To quickly address your DVR comment: when you use your DVR to timeshift or stream to your personal device, it isn't considered a performance to the public (which is an important part of this ruling). Aereo was found to be performing to the public, which is in violation of the law. Transmitting (aka, performing) content you legally acquired to yourself or close acquaintances (eg: sitting in your living room watching tv is considered a performance under the law, but it would not be to the public) would be okay.

 

[CU]

Originally, antenna capture systems followed by redistribution (community antenna aka CATV) was legal. The reworking of the copyright act in 1976 specifically made this illegal without the original broadcaster's consent. The SCOTUS felt that Aereo was just like these systems which had been specifically made illegal without broadcaster consent. Under the laws enacted by Congress, the SCOTUS ruled correctly. To ask them to do otherwise would be tantamount to asking them to redefine the law from the bench to whatever you wanted the law to actually be. The appropriate venue to address this issue is through pushing for a change in the law itself.

Perhaps you should read the opinion to find out why they ruled the way they did. It is only 35 pages (only 22 pages if you just want the dominant opinion, and they are not full pages, more like small-booklet pages): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

---
To quickly address your DVR comment: when you use your DVR to timeshift or stream to your personal device, it isn't considered a performance to the public (which is an important part of this ruling). Aereo was found to be performing to the public, which is in violation of the law. Transmitting (aka, performing) content you legally acquired to yourself or close acquaintances (eg: sitting in your living room watching tv is considered a performance under the law, but it would not be to the public) would be okay.

That is just it, Aereo was not like CATV. It was not a community antenna. Every user had their own hardware. It was just like a personal DVR, but located at there house. It shouldn't matter what they felt only what is fact. They are changing the law on the bench, by trying to close a loop hole. And other judges felt the same way.

But, why is me telling the hardware I rent from Aereo to play something that I told it to record considered a performance to public when I am the only person receiving it or watching it? But, me telling the hardware sitting in my house (which could also be rented) to play something that I told it to record not considered a performance even if I show it to 25 close friends?

 

[Brainonska511]

That is just it, Aereo was not like CATV. It was not a community antenna. Every user had their own hardware. It was just like a personal DVR, but located at there house. It shouldn't matter what they felt only what is fact. They are changing the law on the bench, by trying to close a loop hole. And other judges felt the same way.

The majority noted that, but they just don't see a substantial difference between what Aereo was doing and what CATV was doing. Aereo was clearly trying to use a technical means to go around the spirit and wording of the Copyright Act of 1976, which specifically banned what CATV was legally doing prior to 1976. I really suggest you read the opinion, as it pretty clearly explains their logic overall.

 

[smackababy]

That is just it, Aereo was not like CATV. It was not a community antenna. Every user had their own hardware. It was just like a personal DVR, but located at there house. It shouldn't matter what they felt only what is fact. They are changing the law on the bench, by trying to close a loop hole. And other judges felt the same way.

But, why is me telling the hardware I rent from Aereo to play something that I told it to record considered a performance to public when I am the only person receiving it or watching it? But, me telling the hardware sitting in my house (which could also be rented) to play something that I told it to record not considered a performance even if I show it to 25 close friends?

People continue to say "every user had their own hardware" and by Aereo's admission that was false. Every user had access to a single antenna while they were using it, however, once they left, another user was free to grab that antenna for their own use. It isn't like for every subscriber the get their own personal hardware. It was a community array with limited access.

 

[CU]

People continue to say "every user had their own hardware" and by Aereo's admission that was false. Every user had access to a single antenna while they were using it, however, once they left, another user was free to grab that antenna for their own use. It isn't like for every subscriber the get their own personal hardware. It was a community array with limited access.

Is that in the link above? I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I hope to tonight though. A quick google search tells me they had their own antenna.

 

[smackababy]

Is that in the link above? I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I hope to tonight though. A quick google search tells me they had their own antenna.

The way Aereo explains the technology is they have an array of tiny nodes able to be tuned to a specific wavelength at a time, allowing you to pick a single channel. However, every user doesn't have a specific dedicated node. Rather, Aereo has a large array of any number of nodes(I don't have a specific number, so I can't even guestimate how many). When a subscriber logs in and says "I want to watch this channel" a free node is assigned to them and the content is downloaded to their servers then streamed (with a couple second delay) to the subscriber. When the subscriber is finished, that node becomes available for use by any other subscriber.

So, it isn't really a situation where you rent a specific antenna, but that you rent the ability to be assigned an node at random on a large array. This is directly from Aereo.

 

[smackababy]

Also, Fox has filed against Dish network for the Hopper, specifically citing the Aereo case.

 

[sontakke]

Actually, the entire reason for the company was to take advantage of the loophole. Even in the made up technology, they only used a dime sized antenna per active customer/stream. They don't bother to include an actual individual tuner/demodulator in their made up design. The so called dime sized antennae are complete fake. The company never ever demonstrated a matchbook sized device containing their antennae and associated hardware which could be hooked up to laptop/ipad/iphone and show it capturing the off the air programs. If their technology was real (physically impossible for the dime sized antenna to pick the the broadcast channels), they would have demonstrated it in the court. They did not.

 

[smackababy]

They did not have to demonstrate it, for the SCOTUS, at least. They didn't care, as the technology was simply to abuse a loophole, regardless if it was real or not.

 

[CU]

The way Aereo explains the technology is they have an array of tiny nodes able to be tuned to a specific wavelength at a time, allowing you to pick a single channel. However, every user doesn't have a specific dedicated node. Rather, Aereo has a large array of any number of nodes(I don't have a specific number, so I can't even guestimate how many). When a subscriber logs in and says "I want to watch this channel" a free node is assigned to them and the content is downloaded to their servers then streamed (with a couple second delay) to the subscriber. When the subscriber is finished, that node becomes available for use by any other subscriber.

So, it isn't really a situation where you rent a specific antenna, but that you rent the ability to be assigned an node at random on a large array. This is directly from Aereo.

Got a link to it?

 

[CU]

Also, Fox has filed against Dish network for the Hopper, specifically citing the Aereo case.

Not cool. I think my AT&T uverse boxes do the same thing as Hopper. Guess if they win against Dish they will go after AT&T and everyone else next.

Edit: Looks like Hopper is better than AT&T. It will stream outside your home network to another device. AT&T will only stream as far as your wireless receiver will broadcast. But still win the easier case first then go after the next. The only difference between the two is the distance the signal goes.

 

[smackababy]

Not cool. I think my AT&T uverse boxes do the same thing as Hopper. Guess if they win against Dish they will go after AT&T and everyone else next.

Edit: Looks like Hopper is better than AT&T. It will stream outside your home network to another device. AT&T will only stream as far as your wireless receiver will broadcast. But still win the easier case first then go after the next. The only difference between the two is the distance the signal goes.

I can't find the link, but it was in one of the other threads and likely on the Aereo site itself (blocked at work for me).

The reason the Hopper is unlikely to lose is because YOU are making a copy and broadcasting to yourself. You are paying for the service of allowing the Hopper to act as a server and give you remote access to those files. The networks (and music industry, and movie industry) have continuously lost battles against home recording and transitioning between formats, which is what you would be doing. The Hopper isn't broadcasting to the public, even in the definition outlined by the Aereo case.

 

[Cerb]

i cant even believe that this was a fuggen court case. thats obviously just stealing other peoples stuff and reselling it. aerola is just the video version of napster

OK, let me get this straight:
1. I broadcast a signal, in the clear, in all directions, explicitly for the purpose of being seen by potential viewers.
2. You live in the service area for that signal.
3A. You get the signal well. You can hook up your own local tuner and DVR, and are, "not stealing."
3B. You get the signal poorly. If you pay for what amounts to a repeater, you would be, "stealing," freely broadcast content, which was broadcast for the purpose of your watching it.

I get the SC's ruling (not necessarily agree, but it does make sense, and is quite specific), but you're just full of it. Is paying a delivery service stealing, as well?