SusqySkin Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/18/technology/nfl-mlb-aereo/index.html NEW YORK (CNNMoney)Broadcast television networks now have two big allies in their fight against Aereo: the National Football League and Major League Baseball. The two sports leagues said Aereo could even cause them to stop airing games on free TV.TV broadcasters want the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Aereo, a startup that lets users stream or record live broadcast TV content for $8 a month. The NFL and MLB filed a legal brief to the court in support of the petition last week, as Variety first reported. The NFL and MLB warned in their brief that if Aereo isn't shut down, they could be forced to air games on cable channels like Disney-owned ESPN or TNT -- instead of the free networks -- "where Aereo-like services cannot hijack and exploit their programming without authorization." (TNT is owned by CNNMoney parent company Time Warner (TWX, Fortune 500).)Twenty-First Century Fox (FOX)made a similar threat in April, saying it would make Fox a pay-TV channel if Aereo stays in business.Aereo's lack of authorization from broadcasters -- and whether the startup legally needs that approval -- is at the heart of the controversy.Aereo houses thousands of tiny antennas in its data centers. It assigns each customer a unique antenna -- which the startup says works just like a DVR and makes Aereo legal. Broadcasters say that's an unfair dodge, and that Aereo should have to pay them to retransmit their programming just like cable and satellite companies do.The networks -- including ABC parent Disney (DIS, Fortune 500), CBS (CBS, Fortune 500), Twenty-First Century Fox and Comcast's (CMCSA, Fortune 500) NBC Universal -- have filed lawsuits against Aereo in various states since its launch, but the courts have favored Aereo so far. The networks filed a petition to the Supreme Court last month.The NFL and MLB reiterated the networks' request for the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying that a ruling from the high court would "restore clarity and certainty in this area." The leagues also wrote that Aereo is employing "technological chicanery" to erode the rights of content owners.NFL games are aired on a variety of networks. CBS and Fox split the majority of games on Sundays, while NBC airs the Sunday-night game. The only two weekly games not aired on a broadcast network are Thursday-night games on the NFL's own network and Monday Night Football on ESPN.Many baseball games already air on cable channels in local markets. But Fox airs a "game of the week" on Saturdays as well as some playoff games. TNT and fellow Turner network TBS also have broadcast agreements with MLB.The debate over retransmission fees bubbles up frequently in the TV industry, as it's typically at the crux of battles between cable companies and broadcasters. Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) yanked CBS from the air for a month in August, and the cable company revealed last month that some of the 306,000 subscribers it lost during that quarter fled due to that blackout. What do you think? Do you think that you would use this service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I think the law suite is great advertising for Aereo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Not totally sure I get this. Networks are still getting their ad revenue and the content they broadcast for free possibly gets wider distribution which should make the companies buying the ads happier. As long as there's no watch on demand action I'm not sure what the broadcasters are losing. Now, I can see why cable companies would hate this, but not the networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Not totally sure I get this. Networks are still getting their ad revenue and the content they broadcast for free possibly gets wider distribution which should make the companies buying the ads happier. As long as there's no watch on demand action I'm not sure what the broadcasters are losing. Now, I can see why cable companies would hate this, but not the networks. I'm sure Comcast, which now owns NBC and their cable channels, may be influencing the opinions of the other broadcast networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinswillwin06 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 People already illegally stream games for all these sports. Not sure how this is any different. I guess it's more mainstream? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 This seems like similar arguments made in the lawsuit against VCR manufacturers. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html#445 I guess the difference is private rebroadcast and some kind of commercial rebroadcast. Though I don't exactly know what this service does. It sounds like slingbox to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 The issue is that FOX and CBS and NBC and ABC all broadcast through affiliates. Aero rebroadcasts the affiliate without permission and streams to the customers. They are basically intercepting a proprietary broadcast signal and selling access to the signal for $8/month. This seems like similar arguments made in the lawsuit against VCR manufacturers. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/417/case.html#445 I guess the difference is private rebroadcast and some kind of commercial rebroadcast. Though I don't exactly know what this service does. It sounds like slingbox to me. Slingbox doesn't make any money on what you watch remotely from your own home. Aero makes money on what you watch. Basically, the broadcast affiliates are offering a broadcast for free and Aero is turning around and profiting from the same broadcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I think it's a stretch to call it a rebroadcast when it is a single antenna per customer being recorded and transmitted. An individual customer today could rent space to place an antenna on someone else's property in order to view a broadcast. Aereo is making a business out of that due to a technical innovation and possibly sidestepping illegality in the process. Is it a big deal for revenue if over the air broadcasts go away? What percentage of anyone's target audience today doesn't subscribe to cable or access content via streaming services which pay licensing fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I think it's a stretch to call it a rebroadcast when it is a single antenna per customer being recorded and transmitted. An individual customer today could rent space to place an antenna on someone else's property in order to view a broadcast. Aereo is making a business out of that due to a technical innovation and possibly sidestepping illegality in the process. Is it a big deal for revenue if over the air broadcasts go away? What percentage of anyone's target audience today doesn't subscribe to cable or access content via streaming services which pay licensing fees. If I were to DVR a show on broadcast television, and then charge people to watch it, would I be violating the law? Latest figures state that 10% of the TV market is over the air only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I've thought about getting Aereo. I live in the Los Angeles market, but live in an apartment and my location requires that I put up a 20-ft antenna to get over the mountains and valley's from the LA antennas to here. Why should I get "blacked out" of the free TV market simply because I can't get an antenna up? The way I view the costs, $1 to lease an antenna, and then $8 for the DVR service. NFL and MLB are carrying the water for their network partners. There's nothing to this threat. Someone tell me why I can watch Sunday Night Football on NBC streamed over nbcsports.com (and I believe they stream everything they show over-the-air))? How come Fox, CBS, and ABC don't have the same model? The way I see it, individuals would simply pay something like $4/month to have "premium subscriptions" to NBC, Fox, CBS, and ABC "live content" over the Internet. I think even most of the major sports league offer a live premium package as well (except the NFL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 If I were to DVR a show on broadcast television, and then charge people to watch it, would I be violating the law? If it is a recording for an individual, perhaps not. And not according to the Cablevision ruling which allowed remote DVRs for individual subscribers. This is the broadcasters trying to protect their revenue model against a breakthrough technology (and I don't blame them). If I were to rent space on my neighbors property and place an antenna on it and DVR, would I be breaking the law if only I watched the recording? Software companies are always changing their licensing and delivery models as new technology platforms come along. Content providers do the same. This may be a case where the broadcasters decide to shut down one of their methods of distribution because the loss of local OTA viewers doesn't exceed the losses due to services like Aereo taking paying customers from streaming services that license content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 It sounds to my untrained ears to a legal gray area. I could probably be convinced in either direction. However, I'm glad it's happening. TV companies, both cable and broadcast, are five years behind the times at least. I'm all for anything that pushes their business model into this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 However, I'm glad it's happening. The Redskins, both defense and special teams, are five years behind the times at least. I'm all for anything that pushes their game planning into this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 I think the law suite is great advertising for Aereo. Read the OP. Never heard of them. First thing I did was go to their website and sign-up for an email alert when Austin is added, which should be in the next few weeks/months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Maybe this should be its own thread, but who here has "cut the cord" all together? What are the services like, and are you able to get the live TV you want? I just saw this recently as well: http://reviews.cnet.com/video-players-and-recorders/channel-master-dvr/4505-6463_7-35833139.html Any advice on cutting the cord would be appreciated. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.