Aereo was just put out of business by the Supreme Court

[HumblePie]

Wat?



So... what you're saying is Netflix doesn't have to pay for content that wasn't broadcast OTA, but has to pay for content that was broadcast? Or, that since it wasn't them recording it, they then have to pay a fee?

If you are not rebroadcasting the live feed within seconds of it originally airing, it is considered a new performance. And, to broadcast a new performance to the public, you have to either own the content or have permission from the owner of the content.

That is so simple to understand. Big cable can't record and broadcast on a delay to skirt the laws. Especially, now that the SCOTUS has deemed the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law.

No dingleberry. Netflix has two types of content.

Content that has never been broadcast OTA, and content that has been.

In both cases, Netflix pays the company that created or at least "owns" the created content to use their recorded version of that content. Netflix does not capture any content on their own. At all. They just pay for the right to use already recorded content, regardless of the type (OTA or non-OTA).

Cable companies are re-transmitting the OTA broadcast TV at the same time as they are being broadcast. They aren't recording it for a later airing at all.

The law specifically states that in both those cases, the company that is either retransmitting, or is using a program that was recorded by the owner has to pay for its usage. Scalia points out the loophole in that there is nothing in the law that prevents any company from recording the OTA broadcasts on their own and then retransmitting it later. Did you fucking read the dissent?

The reason the retransmission law was written was specifically for cable providers that were rebroadcasting the OTA channels and doing it to everyone in the public at once. That word the "public" was what also had the most of the lower federal courts rule in favor of Aereo as well as the dissenters on SCOTUS. The ones in SCOTUS that ruled against Aereo said that their rebroadcast of OTA content was to "public" people although it technically to a private person on demand. They didn't make that distinction and use a bad interpretation of the law.

Scalia points out that bad interpretation as well as point out the loophole that would allow Aereo and others like it to go right back into business if they restructure according to how the majority wrote their decision based on not trying to rule against cloud storage and transmission.

 

[Phoenix86]

But saying they are paying fees because it wasn't aired OTA, isn't hyperbole?

BTW, no category comprises more than 50% of their content, as I stated above they have a broad array of content. Stop focusing on the word "most" and try looking at the far more important words "paying fees because it wasn't aired OTA", when if fact plenty of their content was aired OTA and they are paying for it.

 

[HumblePie]

But saying they are paying fees because it wasn't aired OTA, isn't hyperbole?

BTW, no category comprises more than 50% of their content, as I stated above they have a broad array of content. Stop focusing on the word "most" and try looking at the far more important words "paying fees because it wasn't aired OTA", when if fact plenty of their content was aired OTA and they are paying for it.

No, they are paying fees for pre-recorded programming from the owner of that pre-recorded media. That is what I said. It doesn't matter that programming was at one point put OTA, because what netflix streams isn't OTA programming. It's recorded programming, and some of it just happens to also be broadcast OTA.

The law says they would have to pay for either pre-recorded programming or retranmission of OTA programming done live to a public performance. Which is exactly what Scalia was saying was just dumb. Because it doesn't stop a company from instead just capturing the OTA content while it is being broadcast, recording it themselves, and then streaming what they recorded out of sync with the live OTA broadcast. He said based on the letter of the law for this case, and the cloud storage case before it, and the interpretation of the majority in this ruling, that would in effect be perfectly legal to do.

 

[Phoenix86]

No, they are paying fees for pre-recorded programming from the owner of that pre-recorded media. That is what I said. It doesn't matter that programming was at one point put OTA, because what netflix streams isn't OTA programming. It's recorded programming, and some of it just happens to also be broadcast OTA.

The law says they would have to pay for either pre-recorded programming or retranmission of OTA programming done live to a public performance. Which is exactly what Scalia was saying was just dumb. Because it doesn't stop a company from instead just capturing the OTA content while it is being broadcast, recording it themselves, and then streaming what they recorded out of sync with the live OTA broadcast. He said based on the letter of the law for this case, and the cloud storage case before it, and the interpretation of the majority in this ruling, that would in effect be perfectly legal to do.

I think I understand what you are saying, finally.

The content netflix is airing isn't the actual OTA recording, it's a digital recording provided to them, that was also aired OTA. I can see how that's a significant difference because they aren't rebroadcasting the original OTA signal.

Your first few posts made that difference as clear as mud.

 

[HumblePie]

I think I understand what you are saying, finally.

The content netflix is airing isn't the actual OTA recording, it's a digital recording provided to them, that was also aired OTA. I can see how that's a significant difference because they aren't rebroadcasting the original OTA signal.

Your first few posts made that difference as clear as mud.

You were too busy conflating too different things in my post to break it down.

1) Netflix only streams pre-recorded programming. Even if the programming also happens to be programming that is also broadcast OTA, it doesn't make a lick of difference because Netflix doesn't capture in anyway that broadcast. They go to the content owner and pay for the recorded version, not the broadcast version. Which at times can actually differ a bit.

2) Netflix programming is a mixture of programs that are also available OTA and have never been broadcast OTA at all. The majority of the programming that Netflix has available to consumers though is programming that has never been broadcast OTA.

 

[smackababy]

You were too busy conflating too different things in my post to break it down.

1) Netflix only streams pre-recorded programming. Even if the programming also happens to be programming that is also broadcast OTA, it doesn't make a lick of difference because Netflix doesn't capture in anyway that broadcast. They go to the content owner and pay for the recorded version, not the broadcast version. Which at times can actually differ a bit.

2) Netflix programming is a mixture of programs that are also available OTA and have never been broadcast OTA at all. The majority of the programming that Netflix has available to consumers though is programming that has never been broadcast OTA.

You continue to harp on this, as if it matters. Whether a company captures their own stream or is given the digital content by the owners matters zero.

 

[HumblePie]

You continue to harp on this, as if it matters. Whether a company captures their own stream or is given the digital content by the owners matters zero.

WRONG!!!!!

That is specifically the difference according to the law. It is exactly why it matters in this case. You wanting it to not matter has no relation on the law or its majority interpretation by SCOTUS.

 

[SunnyD]

Aaaaand Fox files against Dish for Hopper (Slingbox) citing Aereo.

Dish counters with "There's at least one major fundamental difference here... we're already paying retransmission fees to Fox."

So, someone care to tell me what this bullshit is all about then? It's definitely not about retrans fees. It's about broadcasters wanting to have their cake and eating it too.

 

[smackababy]

WRONG!!!!!

That is specifically the difference according to the law. It is exactly why it matters in this case. You wanting it to not matter has no relation on the law or its majority interpretation by SCOTUS.

No. It is only a matter in this case in determining whether or not it is a new performance of the content (and therefore illegal) or if they were acting like a CATV system, which was illegal. The technical aspects of how they acquired the content and rebroadcast it was decided to not matter, as their intent was the same as CATV, and they had found a loophole in the law using new technology.

 

[HumblePie]

No. It is only a matter in this case in determining whether or not it is a new performance of the content (and therefore illegal) or if they were acting like a CATV system, which was illegal. The technical aspects of how they acquired the content and rebroadcast it was decided to not matter, as their intent was the same as CATV, and they had found a loophole in the law using new technology.

Dude, did you even read the ruling?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...VGOjLz1ocHTSFNQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k&cad=rja

Ruling link in PDF above.

Several opinion blogs about the ruling in the link below.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/

The found that the only reason Aereo was in the wrong was because it was "publically" broadcasting OTA transmission at the same time those OTA transmissions were being broadcast. Which is part of the way the law is worded to prevent public broadcasts. Aereo contends that by only allowing a single subscriber to watch the broadcast if they chose to, and don't broadcast if not requested, that the consumer isn't the "public" which is what most of the Federal courts held.

SCOTUS took their own interpretation to that term "public" and said that it applies even to a single consumer if the consumer is watching the same performance through Aereo at the same time as the OTA broadcast.

It's a very distinct difference. When objections were made by the Cloud computing lawyers at the time, the majority opinion is that the law doesn't apply to captured OTA broadcasts later streamed to a "private" audience such as how TIVO works. Which then Scalia contended that basically all Aereo has to do to be "legal" is to not allow their consumers to watch what they capture at the same time.

So no, you are not right. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Here is the quote by Scalia I was refering to for reference.

Making matters worse, the Court provides no criteriafor determining when its cable-TV-lookalike rule applies.Must a defendant offer access to live television to qualify?If similarity to cable-television service is the measure, then the answer must be yes. But consider the implications of that answer: Aereo would be free to do exactly what it is doing right now so long as it built mandatory time shifting into its “watch” function.6 Aereo would not be providing live television if it made subscribers wait to tune in until after a show’s live broadcast ended. A subscriber could watch the 7 p.m. airing of a 1-hour programany time after 8 p.m. Assuming the Court does not intend to adopt such a do-nothing rule (though it very well may), there must be some other means of identifying who is and is not subject to its guilt-by-resemblance regime.

 

[Kneedragger]

Let's see how fast the lawsuits start rolling in.
http://theverge.com/2014/6/27/5850034/fox-using-aereo-defeat-as-ammunition-against-dish

 

[smackababy]

Dude, did you even read the ruling?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...VGOjLz1ocHTSFNQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k&cad=rja

Ruling link in PDF above.

Several opinion blogs about the ruling in the link below.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/

The found that the only reason Aereo was in the wrong was because it was "publically" broadcasting OTA transmission at the same time those OTA transmissions were being broadcast. Which is part of the way the law is worded to prevent public broadcasts. Aereo contends that by only allowing a single subscriber to watch the broadcast if they chose to, and don't broadcast if not requested, that the consumer isn't the "public" which is what most of the Federal courts held.

SCOTUS took their own interpretation to that term "public" and said that it applies even to a single consumer if the consumer is watching the same performance through Aereo at the same time as the OTA broadcast.

It's a very distinct difference. When objections were made by the Cloud computing lawyers at the time, the majority opinion is that the law doesn't apply to captured OTA broadcasts later streamed to a "private" audience such as how TIVO works. Which then Scalia contended that basically all Aereo has to do to be "legal" is to not allow their consumers to watch what they capture at the same time.

So no, you are not right. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Here is the quote by Scalia I was refering to for reference.

I did read it, and Scalia is wrong in his quote. It is already against the law to record and then retransmit the broadcast. That would be considered a prior performance, and an easy win in court. The network were claiming Aereo was broadcasting a prior performance, not the new performance. And, since they assumed arguendo (for the sake of argument, and had they determined that it was a prior performance, Aereo would lose immediately) that Aereo was correct in their claim it was the new performance, and not a prior, they still violated the transmit clause enacted in 1976 against CATVs, even if they used technology to technically not be a CATV.

The fact that Scalia doesn't understand this has zero bearing. If they added a time delay (which means recording and then broadcasting), they would lose immediately.


So, I will ask: Did you read the ruling?

Their opinion and scope of the public could be seen as possibly an issue later on, but really, Aereo's technology is identical in function to how a CATV works. They collect a broadcast and then retransmit it to you, regardless of their claim of a "1 to 1" ration. Which, btw, it isn't. Their array is a community array of node antennas, only assigned to a current user while that user uses it.

 

[Ns1]

Need cliffnotes: is smackbaby trying to argue against the supreme court right now? lost track of this thread, just jumping back in now.

 

[smackababy]

Need cliffnotes: is smackbaby trying to argue against the supreme court right now? lost track of this thread, just jumping back in now.

Not at all. I think the ruling fit the law. I am aruging with Humble that this ruling doesn't allow someone to do the exact same thing, but simply delay the content. Technically, I am arguing with a portion of the dissent of the SCOTUS, because it completely ignores established copyright law of prior performances (which a recording of an OTA broadcast would fall under). I cited Netflix as a perfect example, and Humble continues to argue because the source of which the recording of the prior performance seems to be something he is fixated on.

 

[Ns1]

got it. i'll put my pitchforks away now.

 

[HumblePie]

I did read it, and Scalia is wrong in his quote. It is already against the law to record and then retransmit the broadcast. That would be considered a prior performance, and an easy win in court. The network were claiming Aereo was broadcasting a prior performance, not the new performance. And, since they assumed arguendo (for the sake of argument, and had they determined that it was a prior performance, Aereo would lose immediately) that Aereo was correct in their claim it was the new performance, and not a prior, they still violated the transmit clause enacted in 1976 against CATVs, even if they used technology to technically not be a CATV.

The fact that Scalia doesn't understand this has zero bearing. If they added a time delay (which means recording and then broadcasting), they would lose immediately.


So, I will ask: Did you read the ruling?

Their opinion and scope of the public could be seen as possibly an issue later on, but really, Aereo's technology is identical in function to how a CATV works. They collect a broadcast and then retransmit it to you, regardless of their claim of a "1 to 1" ration. Which, btw, it isn't. Their array is a community array of node antennas, only assigned to a current user while that user uses it.

Sorry, I was gone for the weekend, but again you are wrong per the ruling for TIVO and cloud storage.

TIVO and slingbox allow people to record OTA broadcasts to rebroadcast them later. Many other systems allow the user to store that broadcast on a cloud based storage system. That was deemed LEGAL. So no, you are incorrect in what you just said. Scalia pointed out that if Aereo did what TIVO/slingbox does that they would be legal. Which is to allow a user to record the OTA broadcast to be viewed at a later time out of sync per the cloud base storage ruling for private consumers.

Which is why the ruling is so stupid because it clashes with a previous ruling and opens that ruling up to be re-pushed through the courts. As it is now being done by FOX with the Dish Network.

http://consumerist.com/2014/06/30/b...-to-try-to-shut-down-dishs-streaming-service/


Dish Network is allowing customers to stream their recorded OTA broadcasts they captured through their own DVR and recorded on the cloud storage with Dish to be streamed to any device they own. Which previously had been ruled LEGAL. Which is what Scalia was pointing out. The recent ruling with Aereo clashed completely with that previous held ruling and opens the door for more crap like the lawsuit against Dish from the broadcasters.

 

[SunnyD]

And Aereo now relents, says "SCOTUS says we're a cable company, so we're a cable company." Broadcasters say, "Wait, no you're not..."

Now, Aereo has—given no other choice—embraced the ruling and seeks to change its business model. In a letter (PDF) to Judge Alison Nathan, who is overseeing the litigation between TV broadcasters and Aereo, the company says that it shouldn't be forced to shut down. Rather, since the Supreme Court said it's similar to a cable company, Aereo is asking to be treated exactly like a cable company. That would mean it's allowed to pay "statutory royalties" set by the government (rather than through negotiation with broadcasters) and to retransmit content.
"If Aereo is a 'cable system' as that term is defined in the Copyright Act, it is eligible for a statutory license, and its transmissions may not be enjoined," writes Aereo in the letter.

The same letter includes a section from the TV broadcasters, who insist that Aereo's business should be enjoined from operating.

"t is astonishing for Aereo to contend the Supreme Court's decision automatically transformed Aereo into a 'cable system' under Section 111 given its prior statements to this Court and the Supreme Court," write the plaintiffs, which include all four major TV broadcasters: ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. Aereo has long claimed it is not a cable company in order to avoid paying retransmission fees.

This should be fun. Aereo is calling out the SCOTUS (edit and the broadcasters.

 

[Markbnj]

And Aereo now relents, says "SCOTUS says we're a cable company, so we're a cable company." Broadcasters say, "Wait, no you're not..."



This should be fun. Aereo is calling out the SCOTUS.

Ha, it does seem like the broadcasters now want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

 

[master_shake_]

service providers are fighting tooth and nail to make sure their old business model is still relevant.

that explains all the bs that has to do with net neutrality violations and bandwidth caps.

face it cable companies, your model is not sustainable and the internet is a better deliverer of content.

it won't be long until you are replaced by a more flexible method of content delivery. you like the mighty dinosaur are about to become extinct.

 

[Squeetard]

I fucking hope so.

 

[poofyhairguy]

service providers are fighting tooth and nail to make sure their old business model is still relevant.

that explains all the bs that has to do with net neutrality violations and bandwidth caps.

face it cable companies, your model is not sustainable and the internet is a better deliverer of content.

it won't be long until you are replaced by a more flexible method of content delivery. you like the mighty dinosaur are about to become extinct.

Why do they have to face anything? 80+% of America has cable and they expect TV to be distributed in that fashion. The cable companies look like they are going to win the net neutrality struggle and keep their hand on the wheel. Their monopoly is both entrenched on the consumer expectation side and on the regulatory side.

Just because tech savvy nerds stream everything via Netflix and can imagine a Spotify for TV doesn't mean we will actually see that future within the next 25 years.

The media companies and the cable companies watched how the internet basically ruined the music industry and terrestrial radio- they no longer control competition, content, distribution or pricing. The video media creators and distributors will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent this from happening to them.

An al-a-carte future is just as likely as an AOLized internet. We should be careful assuming big cable already lost.

 

[SunnyD]

The media companies and the cable companies watched how the internet basically ruined the music industry and terrestrial radio

wat?

This is the first year reported in a long while (decades) that the music industry had a decline in revenue, and it was in the sub-single digit percentage range if I remember correctly. Ruin not found.

 

[vi edit]

wat?

This is the first year reported in a long while (decades) that the music industry had a decline in revenue, and it was in the sub-single digit percentage range if I remember correctly. Ruin not found.

Huh? It's been on a death spiral since about Y2K.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2

 

[SunnyD]

Huh? It's been on a death spiral since about Y2K.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2

Conveniently BI's report stops at 2009.

http://76.74.24.142/2463566A-FF96-E0CA-2766-72779A364D01.pdf (This is a link directly from the riaa.org website)

(Total US Revenue)
2010 - $7.0 billion
2011 - $7.1 billion
2012 - $7.0 billion
2013 - $7.0 billion

Overall, this was a decrease of 0.3% versus 2012
revenues (at wholesale, the industry was $4.8 billion, up
1.9% versus 2012).

The increase in digital sales was driven by streaming
music services, which at $1.4 billion were up 39% versus
2012.

Hardly seems like a death spiral to me. In fact, it seems to me like the recording industry is finally adjusting to the modern marketplace. About damn time.

The death of the music industry has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[vi edit]

The death of the music industry has been greatly exaggerated.

If you were making $75,000 a year in 1999 and you flatlined at making $25,000 for the last several years would you consider it an exaggerated loss of income? (inflation adjusted numbers)

They've stabilized the massive volume of sales loss they've had. Subscription services make up some of that. Oddly concert revenue has been very strong over the last several years and helped make up some of the bag of hurt retail sales have seen.