Aereo - "supreme" court hearing arguments

[JimKiler]

If I lived in a large building, would I be allowed (legally; not including what the building owner would allow) to put an antenna and DVR on the roof, set it to record OTA broadcasts of my choosing, and then stream them from the DVR to my apartment 3 stories below?

I believe the answer to this is yes.

Then, how about if instead of purchasing the antenna and DVR, I rent them from a company who sets them up for me on my roof. It's streamed ONLY to me from that DVR.

Have I stepped over some legal gray area yet?? I don't think so.


Now, how about if the owner of my building is a prick, but I put the antenna and DVR on the adjacent building (with permission) and stream from the DVR only to me (not broadcast to other people) the content that I chose to have it record?

I still don't see a problem.

Now, instead of me purchasing the equipment and installing it on another building, I lease the equipment from Aereo...

At no point to I see where I've crossed some legal gray area. And that's all that Aereo does. Though, DCal claims that their antenna are insufficient. I've yet to hear that complaint from the broadcasters, hence either all the news I've read overlooked that, else DCal is way smarter than the collective of the broadcasters (unlikely). Therefore, I think it's safe to conclude that they are being honest about their model of one antenna & one DVR per customer.

Further, you can only sign up if you're in the area of the city where you're getting the OTA broadcast. That is, in NYC, I can't have Aereo set up an antenna and DVR for me in Los Angeles; I'd have to be in the NYC metro area.

Oh, re: bluff that broadcasters will stop OTA. If I were an advertiser, knowing that umpteen thousands of people were watching my ad via OTA, I wouldn't be willing to pay as much if the broadcaster suddenly decided to reduce the audience for my commercials.

I concur, why would broadcasters care about something to boosts their audiences? People care about things too much.

 

[HumblePie]

Here is my take on this.

Supreme court already ruled that people can use antennas to capture broadcast signals. The law doesn't state that the antennas must be "owned" by the person that is receiving the signal. Nothing in the law prohibits those antennas and any other equipment required to be "rented' from someone else instead.

So Aereo is doing an equipment rental business. Big deal. It gets more viewers than those broadcasts may otherwise have. Which means more advertisment penetration. Which means eventually more revenue for those companies on the back end. Anyone arguing against this setup is fucking brain dead.

 

[Wreckem]

Even if Aereo wins the court case, the issue isn't settle. The question is, will Congress legislate a fix for the broadcasters if Aereo wins. I think that is very likely. What Aereo does isn't illegal, but its against the spirit of the law, so I actually see Congress fixing the issue sooner or later.

One thing is for certain. If Aereo wins there will be no more sports on broadcast channels. Although the trial playoff game is just a precursor to that inevitability.

 

[shira]

If I lived in a large building, would I be allowed (legally; not including what the building owner would allow) to put an antenna and DVR on the roof, set it to record OTA broadcasts of my choosing, and then stream them from the DVR to my apartment 3 stories below?

I believe the answer to this is yes.

Then, how about if instead of purchasing the antenna and DVR, I rent them from a company who sets them up for me on my roof. It's streamed ONLY to me from that DVR.

Have I stepped over some legal gray area yet?? I don't think so.


Now, how about if the owner of my building is a prick, but I put the antenna and DVR on the adjacent building (with permission) and stream from the DVR only to me (not broadcast to other people) the content that I chose to have it record?

I still don't see a problem.

Now, instead of me purchasing the equipment and installing it on another building, I lease the equipment from Aereo...

At no point to I see where I've crossed some legal gray area. And that's all that Aereo does. Though, DCal claims that their antenna are insufficient. I've yet to hear that complaint from the broadcasters, hence either all the news I've read overlooked that, else DCal is way smarter than the collective of the broadcasters (unlikely). Therefore, I think it's safe to conclude that they are being honest about their model of one antenna & one DVR per customer.

Further, you can only sign up if you're in the area of the city where you're getting the OTA broadcast. That is, in NYC, I can't have Aereo set up an antenna and DVR for me in Los Angeles; I'd have to be in the NYC metro area.

I also thought of the argument you're using, but it's obviously NOT true that Aereo is renting ONE antenna to ONE subscriber. How do I know this? Well consider that those dime-sized antennae are placed together in the hundreds or thousands in a large array. In the photos I've seen, these tiny antennae aren't independently steerable. In other words, the entire array must be steered. But if they steer the big array to optimize the signal for the specific station I want, then what would happen to the signals collected by the other 10,000 (or whatever) tiny antennae residing on the same physical array as my antenna? Clearly, everyone else renting antennae on that same array, and who don't want to watch the same channel as I do at this instant in time, will suffer a degraded signal, possibly a totally degraded signal, and the quality of the channel they want to watch would become bad or perhaps totally unwatchable.

So I think that what Aereo actually does is to optimize each array to collect the optimum signal for a particular channel, and when a subscriber chooses a channel, the subscriber is dynamically allocated to one of the little antennae on the array optimized for that channel.

In other words, each person is renting a dynamically-assignable little antenna, not a statically-assigned antenna. And that approach is clearly not the same as in the cases you described.

 

[DCal430]

I don't know why you claim the broadcasters don't question of Aereo operates a single antenna or truly is 1 to 1. When they clearly complained that it wasn't 1 to 1.

This is from their expert testimony in the lower court trial:

"does not see the loops as separate elements, but rather as one continuous piece of metal," the function of which is further aided by a common metal substructure formed by the circuit boards and the metal rails."

So if you actually looked at the documents of the trial you would have seen this complaint.

 

[poofyhairguy]

And with that, receiving OTA broadcasts is not some unaliable right that Aereo is providing the people.

Neither is the right that the broadcasters getting exclusive access to a public spectrum.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Anyone arguing against this setup is fucking brain dead.

It is very simple.

CBS broadcasts OTA for free. CBS also gets paid for its channel per month by the cable companies. As more people have shifted to cable, this have become a big revenue source for CBS:

If Aereo is declared legal, then rather than pay for CBS the cable company can just setup a micro antenna and get it for free.

Hence why it will be declared illegal probably.

 

[michal1980]

I don't know why you claim the broadcasters don't question of Aereo operates a single antenna or truly is 1 to 1. When they clearly complained that it wasn't 1 to 1.

This is from their expert testimony in the lower court trial:

"does not see the loops as separate elements, but rather as one continuous piece of metal," the function of which is further aided by a common metal substructure formed by the circuit boards and the metal rails."

So if you actually looked at the documents of the trial you would have seen this complaint.

of course the broadcasters dont.

 

[werepossum]

I find it hard to care either way. Broadcast tv has become almost unwatchable. Commercials have to be near a third of their content by now, add in the generally poor content and there is very little reason to watch anymore. News has been particularly hard hit as they struggle to build story's out of nothing.

Yep. There are maybe half a dozen shows I'll watch at any given time. Luckily for me most of those (Big Bang Theory, Modern Family, Rules of Engagement, Raising Hope, Mike and Molly) are popular enough to be in syndication virtually 24/7. Add in that stupid driver/skateboarder/nutshot show with Bonaducci and that's about all I can watch anyway. As for news, Robin Meade's headline news morning show is about all I can take. And honestly, the only other thing I would watch if I had more time is maybe that morning thing with Michael Strahan (sp?.) I never cared for Kelly Ripa and not being a sports fan had no idea who Strahan was, but they are freakin' hilarious together.

And the commercials are so damned LOUD.

 

[smackababy]

And the commercials are so damned LOUD.

I read years ago that the sound frequency the commercials were broadcast on made them seem louder and regulation was put in place to stop this. However, I always have to turn up the show and then mute it during the commercials. They are still much louder than the shows themselves.

 

[Thebobo]

How is this broadcast? And they don't seem to have much in the way of content.

Anyone remember these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet_(Internet_service)

 

[werepossum]

I read years ago that the sound frequency the commercials were broadcast on made them seem louder and regulation was put in place to stop this. However, I always have to turn up the show and then mute it during the commercials. They are still much louder than the shows themselves.

When Congress passed that law, commercials were normal volume on our Comcast cable for literally one day, then returned to shouting level. It's ironic since if they at an acceptable volume we'd just watch them, but because they are so loud we either mute them or change the channel.

 

[CZroe]

When Congress passed that law, commercials were normal volume on our Comcast cable for literally one day, then returned to shouting level. It's ironic since if they at an acceptable volume we'd just watch them, but because they are so loud we either mute them or change the channel.

I think it's meant to catch those who walk out to make a sandwich or use the bathroom during commercial breaks.

 

[Darwin333]

Even if Aereo wins the court case, the issue isn't settle. The question is, will Congress legislate a fix for the broadcasters if Aereo wins. I think that is very likely. What Aereo does isn't illegal, but its against the spirit of the law, so I actually see Congress fixing the issue sooner or later.

One thing is for certain. If Aereo wins there will be no more sports on broadcast channels. Although the trial playoff game is just a precursor to that inevitability.

With more and more people ditching cable these days I highly doubt you will see sports disappear from broadcast TV, especially over this bullshit. How exactly does this cost the NFL money in the first place?

 

[DrPizza]

With more and more people ditching cable these days I highly doubt you will see sports disappear from broadcast TV, especially over this bullshit. How exactly does this cost the NFL money in the first place?

Because teams in the NFL say, "okay, I think you're worth 100 million dollars to play a game 16 days a year." And then they say, "hey television station. Pay us a shitload of money if you want to broadcast our game." The television station says "sure!" Then, the television station says, "hey cable, pay us a shitload of money to broadcast our football games." The cable company says, "oh noooes! We can't pay you lots more money <wink wink> our viewers will get pissed at the higher rates." And, so the cable companies say "hey viewers. They want wayyyyy too much money for their station, so we're not going to have their station temporarily until they back down." 2 days later, the viewers demand that they come to an agreement with the station, because, "we want our football game!" So, the station gets more money (though not quite as much as they wanted initially <wink wink>), the cable company gets more money, and the viewers pay even more money. 1970, there were no big cable conglomerates. Football players didn't make 500 times the average person's salary, nor did sitcom actors make 20 times the average person's annual salary for just one episode. Slowly, the public has been duped into paying exorbitant salaries for these primadonnas.

And, if people return to watching it over the air, the new model is going to collapse.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

wow....wow Dr. Pizza dropping a knowledge bomb. Good work!

 

[DCal430]

of course the broadcasters dont.

What are you talking about, the expert clearly says Aereo isn't 1 to 1. They clearly do question it. This is the broadcasters expert during the trial.

 

[michal1980]

What are you talking about, the expert clearly says Aereo isn't 1 to 1. They clearly do question it. This is the broadcasters expert during the trial.

Of course the broadcasters expert would say that.

Just like Aereo's expert will say its 1:1.

Both 'experts' are paid to support their bosses.

 

[Ichinisan]

Broadcasters were able to support themselves exclusively by ad revenue before they got greedy. There were even lots of great quality shows (like Seinfeld). Producing programming has only gotten cheaper since the proliferation of "reality" programming.

There's no excuse for broadcasters extorting retransmission fees from TV service providers that retransmit the same signal the broadcasters are already sending over-the-air for free. Helping broadcasters reach more customers only increases ratings and ad revenue; and the broadcasters don't have to maintain the cable/satellite distribution system at all.

Broadcasters now show more ads than ever (less TV content) and more content produced is MUCH cheaper "reality" TV. Even if reality programming is less popular and produces poorer ratings, bigwigs are factoring retransmission consent (extortion) fees into their process of making programming decisions to maximize profits -- deliberately producing poorer material to maximize profit and raise TV subscription costs for everyone.

Retransmission consent fees need to be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED -- not used as precedent to screw consumers even more.

Dependence on RTC rates must end or else we consumers need to take back that wireless spectrum and use it for something that actually benefits the public.

 

[HumblePie]

It is very simple.

CBS broadcasts OTA for free. CBS also gets paid for its channel per month by the cable companies. As more people have shifted to cable, this have become a big revenue source for CBS:

If Aereo is declared legal, then rather than pay for CBS the cable company can just setup a micro antenna and get it for free.

Hence why it will be declared illegal probably.

Difference, cable is changing the transmission from OTA to a different medium. Cable is not OTA. To change the medium means that CBS can then negotiate with the cable companies.

Just because a company wants to make money off it doesn't always mean they'll get a law that makes anything but them making money illegal. Not saying that hasn't happened, but I haven't seen a case that hit the supreme court that helped private companies in that regard.


The argument that just because broadcast channels make money and can charge cable companies to publish their content through a different medium is worse than comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I do not see Aereo winning this case due to the fact they do not own the rights to the shows they broadcast, the respective broadcast companies do. The same is true for sporting events, the teams/league own the rights to their respective broadcast and broadcast companies pay for the exclusive rights to broadcast these events.

 

[Ichinisan]

I do not see Aereo winning this case due to the fact they do not own the rights to the shows they broadcast, the respective broadcast companies do. The same is true for sporting events, the teams/league own the rights to their respective broadcast and broadcast companies pay for the exclusive rights to broadcast these events.

You're missing the distinction in the fact that Aereo does not "broadcast" the signal. Each user has his/her own dedicated antenna and tuner in Aereo's regional facility. The signal from your reserved antenna is received and routed only to you...not to the other customers. It's not a "broadcast" any more than place-shifting with your own personal Slingbox device.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I hear what you're saying but I don't think the law backs up your view as the antenna is not on your property.

 

[CZroe]

I hear what you're saying but I don't think the law backs up your view as the antenna is not on your property.

I rent, therefore, neither is my Slingbox on my own property.

Even with a standard TV, the antenna being on your property was never a requirement. Lots of places share antennas (buildings, apartment complexes).

US sat receiver box/card hacking was popular in Canada for a long time because there was no paid service there despite reception being possible. There was no legal protection for the signal because it was broadcast freely. That's probably why they didn't offer service in the first place, but it's clear that broadcasters are in a similar boat here. The DMCA changes nothing because it's not encrypted/protected from duplication like sat signals are.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You rent so the property is legally under your control.