Aereo was just put out of business by the Supreme Court

[SunnyD]

Just goes to show you, there's no problem for big content that money can't solve.

 

[Zee]

Supreme court is pretty goddamn biased and in some ways corrupt. That is a branch of gov't that really needs to be overhauled.

the dissent:

Unlike video-on-demand services, Aereo does not provide a prearranged assortment of movies and television shows. Rather, it assigns each subscriber an antenna that — like a library card — can be used to obtain whatever broadcasts are freely available. Some of those broadcasts are copyrighted; others are in the public domain. The key point is that subscribers call all the shots: Aereo’s automated system does not relay any program, copyrighted or not, until a subscriber selects the program and tells Aereo to relay it.

majority opinion:

Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly. Congress would as much have intended to protect a copyright holder from the unlicensed activities of Aereo as from those of cable companies.

 

[smackababy]

I agree what Aereo was doing is illegal. They could provide no evidence they were operating how they claimed; providing each individual with a rented antenna for local content. They were, instead, simply collecting the OTA feeds and rebroadcasting them over the internet for profit.

If you really thought they would win, you're an idiot.

 

[CPA]

They were not put out of business by the SCOTUS, the were put out of business by the copyright laws in this country. Now, if you want to argue whether those laws are valid/over-reaching, well, then that's another topic.

 

[SunnyD]

I agree what Aereo was doing is illegal. They could provide no evidence they were operating how they claimed; providing each individual with a rented antenna for local content. They were, instead, simply collecting the OTA feeds and rebroadcasting them over the internet for profit.

If you really thought they would win, you're an idiot.

Funny, all except one federal district court seems to be an idiot as well.

The Supreme Court, imho, is worthless at this point in time in modern government. They are just as lobbied and biased as everyone else in Washington.

 

[02ranger]

I agree what Aereo was doing is illegal. They could provide no evidence they were operating how they claimed; providing each individual with a rented antenna for local content. They were, instead, simply collecting the OTA feeds and rebroadcasting them over the internet for profit.

If you really thought they would win, you're an idiot.

Seems pretty clearly illegal to me as well. Its just like buying a DVD at the store and then charging people admission to come watch it in your home theater, if I understand it correctly, which I admittedly might not be understanding it correctly.

 

[mmntech]

For an industry so reliant on technology, the media is highly resistant to any sort of technological change. People want to be able to stream television so they can watch it anywhere. Yet they offer nothing, then fight tooth and nail when a competitor jumps in to give the people what they want. That's why they're losing money. Failure to adapt. Same thing happened to the music industry during the days of Napster.

The problem with the US government is the whole lobbying industry built up by these people. Strict donation limits would put the breaks on that real quick, but it's a sham democracy so I don't see that happening soon.

 

[RGUN]

Seems pretty clearly illegal to me as well. Its just like buying a DVD at the store and then charging people admission to come watch it in your home theater, if I understand it correctly, which I admittedly might not be understanding it correctly.

You don't understand it correctly.

In your example it would be like a DVD being freely distributed and available to watch if you lived in a certain neighbourhood. Then you rented access to your house in that neighbourhood so that people could watch the DVD. Except that while at your house, they recorded it and went to watch it in their house.

 

[KeithTalent]

Meh, would have been shocked to see them win this one. Looked shady and probably illegal.

The court definitely got this one right:

A unanimous Supreme Court ruling today gives a victory to privacy advocates by limiting police ability to search cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest and without a warrant. In a 9-0 decision, the justices said smartphones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement. Generally such searches are permitted if there is "probable cause" a crime has been committed, ensuring an officer's safety, or preventing the destruction of evidence.

:thumbsup:

KT

 

[DCal430]

Funny, all except one federal district court seems to be an idiot as well.

The Supreme Court, imho, is worthless at this point in time in modern government. They are just as lobbied and biased as everyone else in Washington.

Aereo never was able to show to a satisfactory level that its technology worked like it claimed. It was clearly in violation of the law.

 

[02ranger]

You don't understand it correctly.

In your example it would be like a DVD being freely distributed and available to watch if you lived in a certain neighbourhood. Then you rented access to your house in that neighbourhood so that people could watch the DVD. Except that while at your house, they recorded it and went to watch it in their house.

That's not what the article said they're doing, though. I know Aereo said they're renting antennae so you can watch local content, but the article said they're capturing content and retransmitting it over the internet. Or am I still missing something?

 

[NoCreativity]

If cable companies have to pay re-broadcasting fees, why shouldn't Aereo have to do the same?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Meh, would have been shocked to see them win this one. Looked shady and probably illegal.

The court definitely got this one right:

Agreed. The Supremes are bought and paid for just like any other government officials, but sometimes votes get bought by the party that's in the right. Aereo was stealing and they deserved to get smacked down.

 

[Printer Bandit]

why do we have to watch commercials if we have to pay monthly for cable service?

 

[Zee]

As per the dissent, this is why it was not a public performance that deserved a retransmission fee:

Unlike video-on-demand services, Aereo does not provide a prearranged assortment of movies and television shows. Rather, it assigns each subscriber an antenna that — like a library card — can be used to obtain whatever broadcasts are freely available. Some of those broadcasts are copyrighted; others are in the public domain. The key point is that subscribers call all the shots: Aereo’s automated system does not relay any program, copyrighted or not, until a subscriber selects the program and tells Aereo to relay it.

Almost all the lower courts right through the powerful court of appeals saw that Aereo did follow the letter of the law as it is written.

It's the Money = People biased Supreme court that decided that it doesnt matter what the letter of the law states. They FEEL it's not right and struck the company down. Their children and relatives are probably employees of comcast/nbc, etc

 

[poofyhairguy]

For an industry so reliant on technology, the media is highly resistant to any sort of technological change. People want to be able to stream television so they can watch it anywhere. Yet they offer nothing, then fight tooth and nail when a competitor jumps in to give the people what they want. That's why they're losing money. Failure to adapt. Same thing happened to the music industry during the days of Napster.

You have it all wrong. These people aren't losing money. They all are making money hand over fist. Everyone has to pay $120+ a month cable bills to get access to "everything" instead of paying a reduced amount in some À la carte system for "just what they watch." So the cable company makes money. And the cable companies kick some of that back to the networks, where before they only got ad money. Everyone gets paid.

What they don't want, more than anything, is what happened in the music industry after Napster- there was no practical response so it all fell to pieces until Apple put it all back together and charged everyone a toll for modernizing their business.

The video content companies are more prepared- they are going to use every trick of the law, the distribution system, and the cable oligarchy to prevent some sort of low-margin Spotify "pay a low fee and watch every movie or TV show you want from a central portal" system like the music industry has had to agree to.

Aereo challenged one of their strongest control mechanisms- distribution. As long as that stays a pile of walled gardens with little competition they can continue to divide and conquer.

What the people "want" is to pay less and have everything. So they will fight to the end.

This ruling is a huge win for the established system, and it means mainstream cord cutting won't happen for 20+ years.

 

[DCal430]

As per the dissent, this is why it was not a public performance that deserved a retransmission fee:

Unlike video-on-demand services, Aereo does not provide a prearranged assortment of movies and television shows. Rather, it assigns each subscriber an antenna that — like a library card — can be used to obtain whatever broadcasts are freely available. Some of those broadcasts are copyrighted; others are in the public domain. The key point is that subscribers call all the shots: Aereo’s automated system does not relay any program, copyrighted or not, until a subscriber selects the program and tells Aereo to relay it.

Almost all the lower courts right through the powerful court of appeals saw that Aereo did follow the letter of the law as it is written.

It's the Money = People biased Supreme court that decided that it doesnt matter what the letter of the law states. They FEEL it's not right and struck the company down. Their children and relatives are probably employees of comcast/nbc, etc

Aereo never was able to show that its technology worked like that at all. It only claimed it did.

 

[Phoenix86]

I agree with this ruling, it's the laws that need to change (and not necessarily to allow this type of service).

I'm sorry, anyone arguing that these devices weren't made to rebroadcast copyrighted content is asinine. This isn't a case where "a knife can be used to kill but that's not it's main purpose".

If they only wanted to limit broadcasting of copyrighted content it could be setup to do so. It isn't, because that's exactly what the device is used for. There wouldn't be a viable market w/o this feature.

 

[Zee]

Aereo never was able to show that its technology worked like that at all. It only claimed it did.

what?

the point is. the supreme court redefined the law. The law had a legitimate loophole. whether it was good or bad is another matter but it existed.

Supreme court basically rewrote the law and invalidated Cloud computing by adding to the existing law and saying the 1-to-1 technology doesnt matter.

At this point, the only way for customer advocates and cloud advocates to give the customer this choice would be for congress, which is already deeply in the lobbyist pockets to write up a new law that states exactly what's what. This will never happen so basically this is a huge loss

 

[SMOGZINN]

This is the exact reason that I think that we need to burn the the entire copyright system to the ground and start over. The system has become hopelessly corrupted and serves no purpose anymore then to be used as a big hammer for major corporations to smash any innovation that threatens them.

 

[Phoenix86]

This is the exact reason that I think that we need to burn the the entire copyright system to the ground and start over. The system has become hopelessly corrupted and serves no purpose anymore then to be used as a big hammer for major corporations to smash any innovation that threatens them.

While I agree it needs some change, I really doubt it needs to be blown up. I also think this is a good case of copyright WORKING.

I think your issue is with broadcast laws, because that's the heart of the matter.

 

[smackababy]

what?

Aereo's claim was they were not simply capturing and rebroadcasting over the internet local content. They claimed they had individual antennas for every user, who was paying a fee to access that; similar to if I let you, my neighbor, put an antenna on my house and charged you a small fee for access. They never proved they were doing anything other than mass capture and pay to rebroadcast. That is illegal and that is why they got ruled against.

It would be like me capturing OTA radio stations and then charging you access to a stream of them on the internet. Or, me downloading free software and charging you access to use it.

 

[mmntech]

You have it all wrong. These people aren't losing money. They all are making money hand over fist. Everyone has to pay $120+ a month cable bills to get access to "everything" instead of paying a reduced amount in some À la carte system for "just what they watch." So the cable company makes money. And the cable companies kick some of that back to the networks, where before they only got ad money. Everyone gets paid.

Not cable, but broadcasters. They are losing money. Ad revenue has been steadily declining over the last few years. I work in the industry.

 

[Ns1]

Good

 

[Zee]

Aereo's claim was they were not simply capturing and rebroadcasting over the internet local content. They claimed they had individual antennas for every user, who was paying a fee to access that; similar to if I let you, my neighbor, put an antenna on my house and charged you a small fee for access. They never proved they were doing anything other than mass capture and pay to rebroadcast. That is illegal and that is why they got ruled against.

It would be like me capturing OTA radio stations and then charging you access to a stream of them on the internet. Or, me downloading free software and charging you access to use it.

Kind of like that but the difference is, it's not a rebroadcast. the subscriber chooses and controls the content much like changing the channel on their own tv connected to their own rabbit ears.