Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Thought there might be some people who would be interested in this. I think they're hearing arguments today. Some links: LA Times: Aereo fights for future before the Supreme Court WaPo: Supreme Court to decide on Aereo, an obscure start-up that could reshape the TV industry Background: (At least as I understand it). What Aereo does is, for every customer, they have a TV antenna, which receives broadcast TV signals. (at present, they only offer service in, I think, six cities.) They receive free, broadcast signals, and digitize them. A subscriber who has any device with an internet connection and appropriate software can connect to Aereo's servers, and can stream, live, any broadcast signal. Aereo also provides each subscriber with enough hard disc space to record up to 60 hours of content. Numerous content providers are suing, claiming violation of copyright, or other contracts. Aereo's main legal defenses of their business model is that they are only providing access to things which the subscriber already has access to, anyway, via over the air free broadcast. They point out that each subscriber has his own antenna, and his own DVR space, so there is never a case of one signal or one copy of something being streamed to multiple subscribers. They claim that all they're doing is to allow a subscriber to watch TV on his tablet, that he could be watching, for free, on his TV, if he were home. ---------- My opinion? Yes, this service represents a legal use of the broadcast consumer's fair use rights. IMO, yes, content providers certainly have rights. (Despite what some people would like to assert.) But consumers have rights, too. We've already established, in I think it was called Sony v Betamax, that consumers do have the right to record copyrighted materials, and to watch them later. It's subject to restrictions (like, they can only do so for their own use). But the right is there. And I would assert that consumers also have the right to take copyrighted material which they "own" (they don't own the copyright, but they do own that, individual, copy), and to use technological means to view that content on another device or another location. ---------- Now, if Aereo suddenly begins allowing people who live in location X, to subscribe in location Y? Then I can see a problem. Although I'm not certain that it should be illegal, either. For example, how many people on this board would sign up right now, to pay $8 a month, to stream local DC television broadcasts? Think that might cut in to the revenue streams of the NFL and Direct TV? ---------- Assume that the actual legal arguments are going to be way over my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I'm rooting for Aereo TV, but don't hold out much hope. The money wants them gone and the money usually gets what the money wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I agree with HOF44. I don't know if their case is compelling enough to overcome the combined clout of the companies they're going up against. Do you have a right to see the TV program you want, when you want it, no matter where you are? I don't really think that falls into the category of a "right", although we've come to expect it as a populace. For example, if I go camping out of the range of any RF/satellite signal I'm clearly going to lose any ability to view a cable subscription that I may already have paid for. I think we can all agree that's the price you pay for that kind of vacation - your provider isn't expected to grant you a credit or make the programming available just because you left town. So one question is where that line is drawn...where do you give up an expectation of receiving programming, free or otherwise? By the way, how does this work with print copies of works that are in the public domain? When a book of a Shakespearean play is sold, the publisher makes money even though they put zero (or relatively little) work into the intellectual property side of it, right? In some ways I see that as roughly similar. Company X is taking something that is freely available and essentially charging a fee for convenience/distribution. Are the publishers required to include some added content (like notes or suggestions about how to run the play) in order to sell the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 If they win or lose, the TV game is going to have to change regardless. But if they win, it's going to force that change to happen much quicker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 For example, if I go camping out of the range of any RF/satellite signal I'm clearly going to lose any ability to view a cable subscription that I may already have paid for. I think we can all agree that's the price you pay for that kind of vacation - your provider isn't expected to grant you a credit or make the programming available just because you left town. but in this case, it's not a case of "the provider isn't required to hand deliver a signal to your camp site". It's a case of "the provider IS providing it, free, to my house, and I have paid for the means to carry it from there, and the provider wants to prohibit me from doing so". To stick to the VCR analogy, can they prohibit me from making a VHS (or a burned DVD) of Spongebob, so that the kids can watch it in the back of the car, while we're driving to Disney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 We also can't forget that these entities were given FREE spectrum by our gov. to broadcast their content, insert commercials, and make a fortune. As part of the bargain it was broadcast free over the air. If they want to go all cable and internet and turn that spectrum back over to us I'd have less problem with their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 Just opinion, but I don;t see that as being really important. Now, I do understand that, a long time ago, and far, far, away (legally), the law of the land used to be that when a copyright owner allowed their material to be broadcast, then they voluntarily relinquished copyright. That the act of literally authorizing someone to have out free copies of your material to anybody who wants it, constitutes releasing your material to the public domain. Obviously, that is no longer the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Obviously, that is no longer the case. Of course not, it's not good for big businesses. Just like those copyrights that are supposed to expire keep getting extended because we can't let the Disney corporation lose sole control of Mickey Mouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Generation Like... Everything should be free. If its not, evil corporation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 Generation Like... Everything should be free. If its not, evil corporation. Was that sarcasm? Cause I certainly haven't seen anybody in this thread come remotely close to saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I think Aero is a good service, as long as they aren't profiting off of it as a subscription. Otherwise, I see no difference between that and an antenna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 I think Aero is a good service, as long as they aren't profiting off of it as a subscription. Otherwise, I see no difference between that and an antenna. I certainly ASSUME they're profiting off of it. Or at least have plans to do so. Wondering why them profiting from something changes your opinion of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I certainly ASSUME they're profiting off of it. Or at least have plans to do so. Wondering why them profiting from something changes your opinion of it. Let me rephrase that. I have no problem if they are profiting off of a one time sale. If they sell you a box or a program or whatever that's cool with me. Something similar or a Chromecast or a Roku. If that's the case then it would be just like buying an antenna. They are enabling you to watch over the air TV, which is free. I do have a problem if they are charging a subscription to a service. If they are charging you for something that they get for free (and you could as well) then I think it should be illegal. It's like someone charging a service fee for listening to radio because you don't have a radio antenna. Now ideally this won't matter in the future with a la cart TV viewing. I watch a lot of TV on the Internet these days. Much of what used to be "appointment viewing" is now just binge watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 Let me rephrase that. I have no problem if they are profiting off of a one time sale. If they sell you a box or a program or whatever that's cool with me. Something similar or a Chromecast or a Roku. If that's the case then it would be just like buying an antenna. They are enabling you to watch over the air TV, which is free. I do have a problem if they are charging a subscription to a service. If they are charging you for something that they get for free (and you could as well) then I think it should be illegal. It's like someone charging a service fee for listening to radio because you don't have a radio antenna. Now ideally this won't matter in the future with a la cart TV viewing. I watch a lot of TV on the Internet these days. Much of what used to be "appointment viewing" is now just binge watching. Now, I do believe that there are boxes that do something like that. I think there's something called slingbox? But I would assume it has a monthly charge, as well. But Aero? They're renting you a huge server farm and one hellacious Internet connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Now, I do believe that there are boxes that do something like that. I think there's something called slingbox? But I would assume it has a monthly charge, as well. But Aero? They're renting you a huge server farm and one hellacious Internet connection. As far as I know a Slingbox doesn't charge a monthy fee. Ok, I understand that Aero has overhead to pay for. If they are charging a service fee for the content they supply then they should be subject to any charges a cable company has to pay for the OTA available content they supply. If Verizon, Comcast and DirectTV have to pay CBS, ABC, NBC, etc for rights to broadcast their content then why shouldn't Aero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 22, 2014 Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 If Verizon, Comcast and DirectTV have to pay CBS, ABC, NBC, etc for rights to broadcast their content then why shouldn't Aero? Because Aero isn't broadcasting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Because Aero isn't broadcasting it? What's the difference between someone paying Aero for NBC and someone paying Verizon for NBC? What stops Verizon from capturing an OTA broadcast and distributing it to its customers for a monthly fee while not paying anything? What stops Aero from capturing DirecTV satellite feeds and distributing those to its customers for a monthly fee while not paying anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 What's the difference between someone paying Aero for NBC and someone paying Verizon for NBC? What stops Verizon from capturing an OTA broadcast and distributing it to its customers for a monthly fee while not paying anything? What stops Aero from capturing DirecTV satellite feeds and distributing those to its customers for a monthly fee while not paying anything? What Aereo is selling you is a service, not content. They are essentially holding onto your antenna and DVR for you in a remote location, and then they stream your own content to you. With DirecTV, it would be a legitimate comparison if in your comparison they paid a subscription for each customer and streamed that content that belonged to that customer to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 23, 2014 Author Share Posted April 23, 2014 What's the difference between someone paying Aero for NBC and someone paying Verizon for NBC? What stops Verizon from capturing an OTA broadcast and distributing it to its customers for a monthly fee while not paying anything? What stops Aero from capturing DirecTV satellite feeds and distributing those to its customers for a monthly fee while not paying anything? 1). Copyright law. Aero is not turning one copy into multiple copies. Aero allows Joe Blow to record the show he wants, and then okay back the recording which had made. Nobody else gets that copy. 2). Copyright law (making only copy then handing out multiple copies if it) and DMCA. (DirectTv is encrypted. It's illegal to decrypt it unless you have permission from Direct tv). Now, do you have anything to actually say about the actual case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 If I could, from Sacramento, CA, pay a monthly fee to receive broadcast signals of the local DC/Maryland broadcast channels, in order to watch Redskins games, hell yes I'd rather do that then pay for NFL ticket. The old C-band satellites have this ability. I know a local few sports bars that have this ability because they air all the preseason games live (Not the NFL network reruns) They have the coordinates of where they need to point the dish in order to tap into whatever city's local networks required to get the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm fine with Aero charging a monthly fee. How is it different than me paying a guy to come clean my antenna once a month? It's a maintenance fee. All they are doing is using free content, the TV that is broadcostfor free. Verizon distributes a signal that isn't free, like non-network channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 1). Copyright law. Aero is not turning one copy into multiple copies. Aero allows Joe Blow to record the show he wants, and then okay back the recording which had made. Nobody else gets that copy. 2). Copyright law (making only copy then handing out multiple copies if it) and DMCA. (DirectTv is encrypted. It's illegal to decrypt it unless you have permission from Direct tv). Now, do you have anything to actually say about the actual case? What I think about the actual case? I'm no lawyer. I hope they rule in Aereo's favor because it will hypothetically make it better for consumers. I like the prospect of getting all broadcast TV digitally over te Internet. I like the idea of having local TV available over a device like a Chromecast. I don't necessarily think it's right (and cable companies get screwed in the process). Another thought I had was about the radio world. Why hasn't this happened there yet? You'd think that it would be easier to stream audio. Yet the only services out there are ones owned by the parent companies of the radio station as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 What I think about the actual case? I'm no lawyer. I hope they rule in Aereo's favor because it will hypothetically make it better for consumers. I like the prospect of getting all broadcast TV digitally over te Internet. I like the idea of having local TV available over a device like a Chromecast. I don't necessarily think it's right (and cable companies get screwed in the process). Another thought I had was about the radio world. Why hasn't this happened there yet? You'd think that it would be easier to stream audio. Yet the only services out there are ones owned by the parent companies of the radio station as I understand it. Considering that you can generally stream radio stations free online, I don't think there's any need for a third party. The real question is why can't we stream free broadcast video online? (I mean in some ways it's not a question - there are higher bandwidth requirements for video, the NFL and other leagues would hate it, etc.) But the framework is there if providers actually choose to turn over that rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 The real question is why can't we stream free broadcast video online? (I mean in some ways it's not a question - there are higher bandwidth requirements for video, the NFL and other leagues would hate it, etc.) But the framework is there if providers actually choose to turn over that rock. I think it's because at the time cable came around streaming was unknown. So the networks sold rights to the cable companies to broadcast their content. This became insanely profitable and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the paradigm. Even though now they could stream their own content, to do so would undercut the cable deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Prior to the arguments, I used to come out on the "Aereo should be legal" side of the argument. After listening to the arguments and reading the law, I think my mind is changed. Simply put: just because it's fair-use for me to buy an antenna and DVR from you and use in my own house doesn't mean you can provide me from content from your antenna and DVR. I think that Aero is re-transmitting without a license and runs afoul of the law. I really would hope that the Supreme Court counts these transmissions as "private performances", but the first question in the arguments was something like, "Isn't Aereo just like a cable company?" So I ask everyone here, "isn't Aereo a cable company?" Why should they not have to pay the same re-transmission fees that cable companies do simply because they have an antenna farm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.