Aereo was just put out of business by the Supreme Court

[HumblePie]

That was a large implication. The OTA networks would lose a ton of revenue because cable companies could easily replicate such a set up.

And before cable how did those companies make money? If cable TV decided not to use OTA at all, they would lose the same money. Just because a company is losing a potential revenue stream doesn't make that fact they are some sort of criminal activity. If so, I better start a business soon to start losing money so I can sue people over my losses.

 

[SurelyYouJest]

It seems to me that if sling box is legal then the entity owning the equipment is what matters. If this is the case Aereo could just sell the equipment (antenna, dvr,programing ect.) to their customer and then have an agreement to charge for setup, space to store it, and maintenance.
If needed they could have a clause in the sales contract that says they get first chance to buy the equipment back when the maintenance/space rental agreement is terminated.

 

[HumblePie]

It seems to me that if sling box is legal then the entity owning the equipment is what matters. If this is the case Aereo could just sell the equipment (antenna, dvr,programing ect.) to their customer and then have an agreement to charge for setup, space to store it, and maintenance.
If needed they could have a clause in the sales contract that says they get first chance to buy the equipment back when the maintenance/space rental agreement is terminated.

That as well.

 

[SunnyD]

I have no problem with this ruling. Aereo has failed to demonstrate they are actually using a nonsustainable business model to circumvent the spirit of broadcast law. The SCOTUS decided that even if they were using said technology, it is irrelevant because a loophole is a loophole and they are setting a precedent of closing it.

Thank you for coming out and saying it - even you agree that Aereo was in the right. Right there, bolded and underlined. Spirit of the law does not the letter of the law make.

This was a bullshit ruling, bought and paid for, completely protectionist. Nothing more, nothing less. And the problem with it is there's absolutely no way the law will ever get changed within the current political climate in Washington.

And by the way, you went from changing your story from "they failed to prove their technology" to "they failed to prove their business model". Which is it. The former is a big one. The latter... who gives a fuck?

 

[boomerang]

nm

 

[Phoenix86]

If you get two computers to calculate Pi using SuperPi to 1m decimal places, will they give the same result? I bet they will.
Because it's two identical systems doing the same processes to the same source.

Your argument proves nothing other than software can consistently do the same thing to the same source data when run on the same hardware.

No two analogue->digital recording will be exact because of variances in the source.

Are you suggesting every user has a dedicated device that converts their recordings, and stores them, again per device per user?

LOL

From their FAQ:
Can I upgrade or downgrade my plan?
Yes, you can change your plan at any time from your Account Details page. Changes take effect immediately.

Nice, they have techs available to image your existing dvr'd files to a new drive/device. Immediately. I must figure out what tech they are using to transfer GBs of data and hot swap, that allow the new drive to be used immediately. This will help on my next server swap.

 

[sportage]

So what about Tivo? Some of their boxes allow recording of free OTA signals after first paying Tivo a monthly fee for service. Seems the same-o to me. Will the court shut down Tivo as well?

 

[smackababy]

Thank you for coming out and saying it - even you agree that Aereo was in the right. Right there, bolded and underlined. Spirit of the law does not the letter of the law make.

This was a bullshit ruling, bought and paid for, completely protectionist. Nothing more, nothing less. And the problem with it is there's absolutely no way the law will ever get changed within the current political climate in Washington.

And by the way, you went from changing your story from "they failed to prove their technology" to "they failed to prove their business model". Which is it. The former is a big one. The latter... who gives a fuck?

They failed to prove their business model follows their claimed technology, which was ruled to circumvent the law with technology. Their business model, if following their claim, was fucking stupid to begin with and completely unsustainable, as Phoenix86 points out.

So what about Tivo? Some of their boxes allow recording of free OTA signals after first paying Tivo a monthly fee for service. Seems the same-o to me. Will the court shut down Tivo as well?

The difference with TIVO and other DVR systems is you are capturing the signal yourself and not charging admission for others to view.

 

[Hacp]

The difference with TIVO and other DVR systems is you are capturing the signal yourself and not charging admission for others to view.

Tivo is charging you for this service.

 

[SunnyD]

They failed to prove their business model follows their claimed technology, which was ruled to circumvent the law with technology. Their business model, if following their claim, was fucking stupid to begin with and completely unsustainable, as Phoenix86 points out.


The difference with TIVO and other DVR systems is you are capturing the signal yourself and not charging admission for others to view.

Nice backtrack. Not quite what you said, but whatever. Show me where they failed to prove their claimed technology. Honestly, did you read the ruling? The ruling even admits that Aereo's technology claim was genuine, so you can stop harping on that already.

So how about if they change their wording from "admission" to "rent" (presumably for antenna facility space, internet transit, etc). Would that satisfy you? If not, then any tenant using existing OTA equipment would be in violation of this ruling as well.

 

[squarecut1]

I have had these broadcast channels through Comcast and through over the air (in better quality than Comcast). In either case, I hardly ever watched them

Blatant propaganda and trivial nonsense in the name of news. Plus American Idol, Dancing with the Stars. No thanks.

But clearly I am not the typical case. There must be a lot of money to be made for the case to go all the way to SC

 

[smackababy]

Tivo is charging you for this service.

Tivo still relies on you getting the content yourself, either via OTA antenna or cable receiver. It then records it locally and their service gives you access to that device from anywhere. Aereo was obtaining the OTA content themselves, which is why they were ruled to function like a cable company and thus are infringing upon copyrights.

Nice backtrack. Not quite what you said, but whatever. Show me where they failed to prove their claimed technology. Honestly, did you read the ruling? The ruling even admits that Aereo's technology claim was genuine, so you can stop harping on that already.

So how about if they change their wording from "admission" to "rent" (presumably for antenna facility space, internet transit, etc). Would that satisfy you? If not, then any tenant using existing OTA equipment would be in violation of this ruling as well.

The ruling doesn't admit Aereo's technology was genuine, it says that regardless, they function similar enough to a cable company they are to be treated like one. They "perform" copyrighted works, regardless of the technology they are using. They are not simply amplifying the signal, but copying and redistributing to a subscriber.

 

[Hacp]

But copying and redistributing to a subscriber.

Isn't Tivo copying and redistributing to a subscriber as well? In theory , you could rent an antenna from your landlord and use TIVO's service. The functionality would be the same. You're using other people's equipment and paying them a fee in order to watch and record tv.

 

[Lonyo]

Tivo still relies on you getting the content yourself, either via OTA antenna or cable receiver. It then records it locally and their service gives you access to that device from anywhere. Aereo was obtaining the OTA content themselves, which is why they were ruled to function like a cable company and thus are infringing upon copyrights.



The ruling doesn't admit Aereo's technology was genuine, it says that regardless, they function similar enough to a cable company they are to be treated like one. They "perform" copyrighted works, regardless of the technology they are using. They are not simply amplifying the signal, but copying and redistributing to a subscriber.

The ruling said they didn't care about the technology and cared whether they felt the underlying premise was similar.
They basically said it's illegal because they felt it should be illegal. They didn't even consider whether it does what it says. They said it doesn't matter what it does because the input is A and the output is Z, therefore it must be illegal, ignoring the fact that the whole point of Aereo's system is what happens between A and Z.

Given Aereo's overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

The first quoted analogy is close - you're leaving out that aereo only sells its service to people in that particular market. So, if you were in San Francisco, you wouldn't be able to listen to a NYC station online due to their service. This is one of your bigger misunderstandings. And your second analogy gets closer to your other misunderstanding. It's more like you downloading free software and burning it to a CD, and selling that CD to another user - and charging only for the convenience of having that put on a CD for a customer who may not be able to download it themselves due to a poor internet connection.

And even if all the antennas worked independently, they then had to have multiple (thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of individual DVRs for each subscriber as well. Even if they had a way to virtualize this, it is still at such a ridiculous scale, it is hard to believe they weren't recording a single feed from each area and broadcasting off that.

Why would they need more than one DVR per customer? Further, why would they need to be separate DVRs? It could be one giant, super-fast DVR; with them recording many copies of many shows simultaneously; provided there was a 1 to 1 customer to recording ratio.

From the ruling:

Congress would as much have intended to protect a copyright holder from the unlicensed activities of Aereo as from those of cable companies.

In other words, "it's a loophole that Congress wouldn't have wanted to be open. So, we're going to close it."

 

[HumblePie]

The ruling said they didn't care about the technology and cared whether they felt the underlying premise was similar.
They basically said it's illegal because they felt it should be illegal. They didn't even consider whether it does what it says. They said it doesn't matter what it does because the input is A and the output is Z, therefore it must be illegal, ignoring the fact that the whole point of Aereo's system is what happens between A and Z.

The ruling was based on "similar to a cable company" basically saying they think their business felt like a cable company to them so they should doing what a cable company does which is pay for OTA.

Cable companies always capture OTA programming and always stream it constantly. A subscriber just changes the channel to the proper channel and starts watching the "live" stream of the OTA broadcast. Aereo technically collected no OTA transmissions nor recorded anything until a subscriber actually pushed "watch" on their particular antenna. It is a substantial difference in tech and business model that was completely disregarded by the majority but pointed out by the minority dissent.

Which is why the dissent, written by Scalia, said based on the ruling at SCOTUS that if Aereo has instead just recorded all OTA broadcasts but only allowed users of their service to watch the programming out of "sync" from real time of the broadcasts they would be "legal" according to the current ruling today with conjunctions to rulings made for cloud storage/streaming.

 

[Phoenix86]

The ruling said they didn't care about the technology and cared whether they felt the underlying premise was similar.
They basically said it's illegal because they felt it should be illegal. They didn't even consider whether it does what it says. They said it doesn't matter what it does because the input is A and the output is Z, therefore it must be illegal, ignoring the fact that the whole point of Aereo's system is what happens between A and Z.

It's not the ruling it's the Law.

From the link in the OP.

No. 13–461. Argued April 22, 2014—Decided June 25, 2014
The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the “exclusive righ[t]” to “perform the copyrighted work publicly.” 17 U. S. C. §106(4). The Act’s Transmit Clause defines that exclusive right to include the right to “transmit or otherwise communicate a performance . . . of the [copyrighted] work . . . to the public, by means of any deviceor process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance . . . receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” §101.

They can make this argument because the law does not limit it to specific technology or devices (nor should it).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Hell, I'm surprised the word digital even made it in the text.

 

[Phoenix86]

The ruling was based on "similar to a cable company" basically saying they think their business felt like a cable company to them so they should doing what a cable company does which is pay for OTA.

Cable companies always capture OTA programming and always stream it constantly. A subscriber just changes the channel to the proper channel and starts watching the "live" stream of the OTA broadcast. Aereo technically collected no OTA transmissions nor recorded anything until a subscriber actually pushed "watch" on their particular antenna. It is a substantial difference in tech and business model that was completely disregarded by the majority but pointed out by the minority dissent.

Which is why the dissent, written by Scalia, said based on the ruling at SCOTUS that if Aereo has instead just recorded all OTA broadcasts but only allowed users of their service to watch the programming out of "sync" from real time of the broadcasts they would be "legal" according to the current ruling today with conjunctions to rulings made for cloud storage/streaming.

Which is re-broadcasting. It's available on demand, and very near live TV. Consider turning a channel=tuning the antenna. It's technically different, but technical difference don't matter. They really, really don't (here). The end result is the same. You can watch live (slight delay, but even cable isn't synched) OTA TV from a provider (Aereo). That provider functions as a cable company in this regard.

I honestly don't see why people's panties are in a bunch over this. Their model, from the start, was squarely against the law. If people desire this model, it has to be legislated first.

Or just keep pounding on SCOTUS, 'cause why not.

 

[smackababy]

The first quoted analogy is close - you're leaving out that aereo only sells its service to people in that particular market. So, if you were in San Francisco, you wouldn't be able to listen to a NYC station online due to their service. This is one of your bigger misunderstandings.

This was never a misunderstanding. It has zero to do with the case at hand. The fact they are keeping it localized has little to do with them still doing more than simply amplifying a signal. They are taking in a signal from an antenna, recording it, and broadcasting that recording to users.

And your second analogy gets closer to your other misunderstanding. It's more like you downloading free software and burning it to a CD, and selling that CD to another user - and charging only for the convenience of having that put on a CD for a customer who may not be able to download it themselves due to a poor internet connection.

Selling the CD would be redistribution of the software. My second analogy might not be the best, as I was trying to avoid already established copyright laws such as redistribution, as it isn't exactly relevant to OTA broadcasts.

Why would they need more than one DVR per customer? Further, why would they need to be separate DVRs? It could be one giant, super-fast DVR; with them recording many copies of many shows simultaneously; provided there was a 1 to 1 customer to recording ratio.

A separate system, no. A separate process to record and redistribute? Yes. They are claiming 1 to 1 to the customer. Why are they even recording it? Do they offer "on demand" type services for this content or the ability to pause, rewind, fast forward? Why aren't they simply processing each individual signal into the format require for them to stream? That is one of the reason they were found guilty IMO.

The ruling was based on "similar to a cable company" basically saying they think their business felt like a cable company to them so they should doing what a cable company does which is pay for OTA.

Cable companies always capture OTA programming and always stream it constantly. A subscriber just changes the channel to the proper channel and starts watching the "live" stream of the OTA broadcast. Aereo technically collected no OTA transmissions nor recorded anything until a subscriber actually pushed "watch" on their particular antenna. It is a substantial difference in tech and business model that was completely disregarded by the majority but pointed out by the minority dissent.

Which is why the dissent, written by Scalia, said based on the ruling at SCOTUS that if Aereo has instead just recorded all OTA broadcasts but only allowed users of their service to watch the programming out of "sync" from real time of the broadcasts they would be "legal" according to the current ruling today with conjunctions to rulings made for cloud storage/streaming.

It wouldn't be legal. It would be separate "performance", and thus still copyright infringement, if I understand correctly. The dissent was that the direct infringement by Aereo isn't correctly expressed and simply using "cable company-like" is too confusing. It is even stated in the dissent he believed Aereo was breaking / circumventing the law, just that the Copyright Act should not be redefined in this case in the way it was.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I honestly don't see why people's panties are in a bunch over this.

Because the legislators and regulators are bought and paid for, so the best hope of industry disruption was a free reign to run through the loopholes in the laws on the books.

Funny thing is that a positive ruling would have helped the cable companies, who are the big bad guys on the other side of the cord-cutting universe with the whole Net Neutrality thing.

 

[Phoenix86]

Because the legislators and regulators are bought and paid for, so the best hope of industry disruption was a free reign to run through the loopholes in the laws on the books.

Funny thing is that a positive ruling would have helped the cable companies, who are the big bad guys on the other side of the cord-cutting universe with the whole Net Neutrality thing.

This isn't the distribution model to fight for.

 

[Hacp]

Which is re-broadcasting. It's available on demand, and very near live TV. Consider turning a channel=tuning the antenna. It's technically different, but technical difference don't matter. They really, really don't (here). The end result is the same.

So if I rent someone else's computer remotely and use their TV turner, it is considered illegal as well?

 

[glenn1]

Which is re-broadcasting. It's available on demand, and very near live TV. Consider turning a channel=tuning the antenna. It's technically different, but technical difference don't matter. They really, really don't (here). The end result is the same. You can watch live (slight delay, but even cable isn't synched) OTA TV from a provider (Aereo). That provider functions as a cable company in this regard.

I honestly don't see why people's panties are in a bunch over this. Their model, from the start, was squarely against the law. If people desire this model, it has to be legislated first.

Or just keep pounding on SCOTUS, 'cause why not.

It's going to be a pyhrric victory anway. Just like Napster, shutting down the service won't do away with customer demand to receive content via a different distribution model than what the current incumbents are comfortable with. Instead of all rallying around an evolving standard (Aereo) they could have helped mold to their liking, this ruling will just fracture the market into smaller, harder to control slivers. The OTA broadcast television company is a dead man walking with its current business model.

 

[TwiceOver]

Well when your boss comes down and says "Hey guys, I don't like what this Aereo company is doing, but you make your own decision..."

 

[who?]

So my TIVO is legal because it's in my home and therefore not transmitting or "performing" the signal to me.