Aereo was just put out of business by the Supreme Court

[poofyhairguy]

What you are advocating is basically every existing provider scrap their entire model and start new.

What I am advocating is that cord cutters need to focus on new content and not old content locked to old distribution methods no matter their popularity or quality.

I agree with 100% that networks aren't in a position to go that route, and I would add with record levels of cable participation they have little reason to. For now cord cutting is a fridge phenomenon, and even long term the desire for their traditional media offerings (or sports) isn't going to wane. I think this will be a slow gradual process, even if basically everyone can see the end game of on demand content today.

Honestly I think Aereo was a poor loophole to begin with. The answer isn't OTA. The answer is a wave of education and the strengthening of cord cutting communities via social media.

 

[Ns1]

What I am advocating is that cord cutters need to focus on new content and not old content locked to old distribution methods no matter their popularity or quality.

I agree with 100% that networks aren't in a position to go that route, and I would add with record levels of cable participation they have little reason to. For now cord cutting is a fridge phenomenon, and even long term the desire for their traditional media offerings (or sports) isn't going to wane. I think this will be a slow gradual process, even if basically everyone can see the end game of on demand content today.

Honestly I think Aereo was a poor loophole to begin with. The answer isn't OTA. The answer is a wave of education and the strengthening of cord cutting communities via social media.

Cord cutters don't want new content, they want mainstream content with no bills.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't recall any free service they are giving to Americans in trade either.

We did get one benefit out of it... any Verizon phone that uses the 700MHz spectrum (any Verizon LTE phone) must be unlocked.

 

[smackababy]

Cord cutters don't want new content, they want mainstream content with no bills.

And in every cord cutter thread how many of them say "I use Netflix and pirate the rest!". If cord cutters were more willing to go without, maybe people would take them seriously.

 

[glenn1]

Cord cutters don't want new content, they want mainstream content with no bills.

No, more like they want mainstream content available at the location and device of choice at a reasonable price and not be locked into a particular cable provider to do so.

 

[HumblePie]

Again, scalia pointed out how the loophole for rebroadcast transmission law, and the current SCOTUS precedent can make it even stupider. As cable companies now can just off-sync broadcast times and get around not paying fees according to the law. Just record them, and let viewers watch them at a time that is later than the actual air time.

 

[smackababy]

Again, scalia pointed out how the loophole for rebroadcast transmission law, and the current SCOTUS precedent can make it even stupider. As cable companies now can just off-sync broadcast times and get around not paying fees according to the law. Just record them, and let viewers watch them at a time that is later than the actual air time.

No. As recording them and playing them at a later time is a new performance, that is still covered. Do you really think Netflix can just not pay the fees for all those "previously recorded" shows they have?

 

[BoberFett]

Cord cutters don't want new content, they want mainstream content with no bills.

Bullshit. I'm more than happy to wait until things get to streaming or DVD, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Screw OTA and cable.

 

[Markbnj]

Cord cutters don't want new content, they want mainstream content with no bills.

Crap, to be honest. In our case it was 100% being sick of paying $200+ for 400 channels of commercials and the occasional network show that someone was interested in.

Seriously, you expect us to record or actually sit down and watch media content at a time when the media gods deign to broadcast it to our homes? There's nothing in Comcast's entire digital line-up worth $200 month so fuck them and the so-called "content providers." They can all embrace the new world or die. I don't care which they ultimately do.

 

[HumblePie]

No. As recording them and playing them at a later time is a new performance, that is still covered. Do you really think Netflix can just not pay the fees for all those "previously recorded" shows they have?

No, netflix isn't the one recording them. Netflix is paying for per-recorded content that wasn't broadcast OTA which is why they pay fees. Most of the programming presented on Netflix has never even been broadcast OTA. Several significant differences. And that was exactly what Scalia said in regards to the current law and SCOTUS interpretation of it.

 

[Ns1]

Bullshit. I'm more than happy to wait until things get to streaming or DVD, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Screw OTA and cable.

So what you're saying is...you want mainstream content...

 

[DCal430]

it was proven through all levels of the regional/district courts that they found a legitimate loophole.

Supreme court came in and said fuck that. This is what they meant, not what was written. Whether you agree with the decision is a different matter. Supreme Court made a bad precedence because they decided to close the loop hole on their own self interest beholdened to the companies rather than strictly uphold the law as it was written.

If the law said Tshirts were illegal, and a company said okay, cut off the sleeves and make it a tanktop. Go through all the courts, courts all see that this is true. No longer a T Shirt. Corporation panics, sues the company in Supreme Court which has less integrity. The SC said, fuck that all shirts are illegal.

Wrong this was never proven. Aereo kept claiming it, but the other experts repeatedly stated it wasn't. So no it was never proven.

 

[Phoenix86]

No, netflix isn't the one recording them. Netflix is paying for per-recorded content that wasn't broadcast OTA which is why they pay fees. Most of the programming presented on Netflix has never even been broadcast OTA. Several significant differences. And that was exactly what Scalia said in regards to the current law and SCOTUS interpretation of it.

WAT?

House, American Dad, Arrow, Bones, Lost, Scrubs, New Girl, etc. All showing right now.

 

[Ns1]

WAT?

House, American Dad, Arrow, Bones, Lost, Scrubs, New Girl, etc. All showing right now.

and I can assure you Netflix paid out all of those distributors for the right to stream it on Netflix.

 

[Phoenix86]

and I can assure you Netflix paid out all of those distributors for the right to stream it on Netflix.

Of course they did, they paid for all their content. Where did I say otherwise?

I was responding to the bolded comment that said most netflix shows haven't been OTA, which is just completely wrong. There's a broad array of content from OTA producers (ABC, NBC, etc.), basic cable (FX, TNT, etc.), premium tier (HBO, SHO, etc.) and independents.

 

[Ns1]

Of course they did, they paid for all their content. Where did I say otherwise?

I was responding to the bolded comment that said most netflix shows haven't been OTA, which is just completely wrong. There's a broad array of content from OTA producers (ABC, NBC, etc.), basic cable (FX, TNT, etc.), premium tier (HBO, SHO, etc.) and independents.

ah I see.

 

[Robert Thomas]

Can anyone who's followed the reasoning closely comment about whether the the act of storing captured OTA programming oneself, transmitting this captured programming over the internet to a remote storage location and then retrieving it for viewing at a later time would likely constitute a prohibited "retransmission"?

 

[jpiniero]

Seriously, you expect us to record or actually sit down and watch media content at a time when the media gods deign to broadcast it to our homes?

If you want it for free, yes?

 

[Markbnj]

If you want it for free, yes?

Who says I want it for free? And what is free about Comcast? Or OTA for that matter (unless your time is worthless).

 

[Accord99]

Crap, to be honest. In our case it was 100% being sick of paying $200+ for 400 channels of commercials and the occasional network show that someone was interested in.

Why is it that cord-cutters always use to have the most expensive cable plans, even as they complain about how there was nothing worth watching?

 

[HumblePie]

WAT?

House, American Dad, Arrow, Bones, Lost, Scrubs, New Girl, etc. All showing right now.

Most, not all. Netflix has a crap ton of programming that has never been broadcast OTA. Don't use hyperbole here.

 

[Markbnj]

Why is it that cord-cutters always use to have the most expensive cable plans, even as they complain about how there was nothing worth watching?

Ha, cool, I'm in a category. Actually we weren't on anything like the most expensive plan, but we had multiple TVs with multiple STB/DVRs, and that added up.

It might be worth it, to me personally, if I got everything for $40-50 a month. Bottom line is I just don't care enough to pay more than that. And apparently neither do the other four people who live here. What the cable cos should really worry about is the reaction from my three teen aged daughters. Not one fuck was given.

 

[smackababy]

Most, not all. Netflix has a crap ton of programming that has never been broadcast OTA. Don't use hyperbole here.

Wat?

No, netflix isn't the one recording them. Netflix is paying for per-recorded content that wasn't broadcast OTA which is why they pay fees. Most of the programming presented on Netflix has never even been broadcast OTA. Several significant differences. And that was exactly what Scalia said in regards to the current law and SCOTUS interpretation of it.

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.

 

[Phoenix86]

Most, not all. Netflix has a crap ton of programming that has never been broadcast OTA. Don't use hyperbole here.

Netflix is paying for per-recorded content that wasn't broadcast OTA which is why they pay fees.

 

[HumblePie]

Go look at the full netflix library. The majority is stuff not ever broadcast OTA. They do have of course almost all the OTA broadcasts, certainly all the popular ones, but that is not to say that is all they offer for streaming. To think that is stupid. Over 50% of the content available on netflix has never been broadcast OTA. All the anime, many movies, disney content, hbo stuff, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Saying most (which is what the majority means) isn't using hyperbole unlike your comment.