or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Broadcasters petition Supreme Court to hear case over iPad TV streamer Aereo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Broadcasters petition Supreme Court to hear case over iPad TV streamer Aereo

post #1 of 72
Thread Starter 
Broadcasters in the United States have made good on their threat against Aereo, which rebroadcasts television content to iPad and iPhone owners, by petitioning for their case to be settled by the nation's highest court.



On Friday, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that Fox, ABC, Telemundo, NBC, PBS, and CBS had petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their ongoing case against Aereo, following failures to win injunctions against the service in the lower courts. The broadcasters allege unfair competition on the part of Aereo, as well as illegal appropriation of their content for Aereo's own purposes.

Aereo uses an array of micro-antennas to capture television broadcasts, which it then streams to iOS devices and PCs through a web portal. Aereo charges its subscribers $8 per month for access to the service. The broadcasters claim that this constitutes an infringement of their copyrights, as well as a violation of their performance rights.

The broadcasters' petition (embedded below) holds that Aereo's service is an illegal "public performance" of their protected content. Aereo claims that the thousands of antennas it assigns to each subscriber yield the same effect as if those subscribers had gone out and purchased an antenna for themselves.

Illustrative of the difficulties some content holders have had in adjusting to the decline of the standard distribution model, the case has resulted in wins and losses for both sides. For the most part, though, Aereo has been able to expand its offerings to new metropolitan areas with impunity. In April, a New York federal appeals court upheld a ruling that denied a prior motion by the broadcasters to shut Aereo down. Soon after, Aereo began expanding its service to even more locales. It is already available in New York, Miami, and Houston, and the company plans to be available in 20 more cities by the end of 2012.

post #2 of 72

Here's hoping the broadcasters lose. I recently said b-bye to cable/satellite.

I love free over-the-air HD broadcasts (without Aereo) but would like someday to view broadcasts in other markets besides where I live. Right now, Aereo only offers service to local areas from local broadcasters, but if the company survives the present battle, I would expect it to expand its business into wide-area distribution of program material.


Edited by Cpsro - 10/11/13 at 2:52pm
post #3 of 72
What a bunch of cry babies.
post #4 of 72
There should be no public television regulated by government. All spectrum should be auctioned off.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Here's hoping the broadcasters lose. I recently said b-bye to cable/satellite.

I love free over-the-air HD broadcasts (without Aereo) but would like someday to view broadcasts in other markets besides where I live.

Me too. I cut the cable 5 years ago and really miss watching F1.

 

But the cable companies charge way too much. Online viewing, Netflix, ATV...aren't quite there yet. I mainly rent DVD's from Redbox at a $1.00 ea.

 

I live in the mountains and can't over the air reception. So I hope Aereo works out.

post #6 of 72
Aero isn't useful for me as I'm not in one of their target markets but I use a video capture system to save what I want to see on my network drive and can then watch it wherever I want to. That said, I've only recorded three movies because there really isn't much I want to watch.
post #7 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
 

But the cable companies charge way too much. Online viewing, Netflix, ATV...aren't quite there yet. I mainly rent DVD's from Redbox at a $1.00 ea.

Public libraries often have broad selections of DVDs to borrow for free, and many sporting events are available to view on-line for free.

 

I might* have kept the cable/satellite if a service plan in the $30/month range had been offered, but I was assured no service level cheaper than about $50 per month was available... until after I had committed myself to dropping the service--at which point, I was offered $30/month.

 

*$360 per year is still too much when all I really need/want is my local channels. (I was paying $1,000 per year.)

post #8 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Public libraries often have broad selections of DVDs to borrow for free, and many sporting events are available to view on-line for free.

 

I might* have kept the cable/satellite if a service plan in the $30/month range had been offered, but I was assured no service level cheaper than about $50 per month was available... until after I had committed myself to dropping the service--at which point, I was offered $30/month.

 

*$360 per year is still too much when all I really need/want is my local channels. (I was paying $1,000 per year.)

 

Comcast offers a "Limited Basic" package for about $15. They don't advertise it and they don't want to give it to you, but my understanding is that they are required by law to offer it if you ask for it. I had it for years and it suited my needs just fine. About a year ago, however, they started encrypting even these channels requiring everyone to have one of their stupid boxes, rendering DVRs (especially computer-based, as very few of them provide cable card support) and built-in tuners (including multi-tuner PnP and built-in guide support) completely inert.

 

Between ludicrous and needless policies such as this and rampant over-billing and dishonoring contracts, Comcast are nothing more than a bunch of rooster pricks who eat their young.

post #9 of 72
The broadcasters have their business built on an early 1900s radio model that's nearly 100 years old. Tech has moved on, yet these bastions of mediocrity want the country to forego any movement into this new century. They will lose.

"Some industries are born mediocre, some industries achieve mediocrity, and some broadcast industries have mediocrity thrust upon them. With this group of Luddites it had been all three"
post #10 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN View Post

Aero isn't useful for me as I'm not in one of their target markets but I use a video capture system to save what I want to see on my network drive and can then watch it wherever I want to. That said, I've only recorded three movies because there really isn't much I want to watch.

But there's a difference between you capturing something for your own use and someone capturing it for rebroadcast.

I'm actually surprised that the broadcasters lost - there must be some loophole that Aereo uses. Ordinarily, you can not rebroadcast shows without violating the copyright. I'll have to read the details of the previous decisions to see why Aereo was able to get away with it.

ETA:
I reviewed the complaint and it's just what I expected. The law is quite clear that public rebroadcast of copyrighted work is not allowed. Aereo is claiming that they're not publicly rebroadcasting the copyrighted work, but are rather sending private broadcasts to tens of thousands of users. That claim appears to be patently ridiculous and it's not at all clear why the lower courts accepted it.

I'd say there's a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts' decisions. The fundamental question is "is Aereo's business model a public rebroadcast or a private one?" If the court says that it's public, the broadcasters will win.
Edited by jragosta - 10/11/13 at 3:39pm
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #11 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post

Comcast offers a "Limited Basic" package for about $15. They don't advertise it and they don't want to give it to you, but my understanding is that they are required by law to offer it if you ask for it.

Right, that's the case in California. Some governing of FCC regulations is done at the state level. In my state, regulators in the pocket of business determined adequate competition exists between cable and satellite providers, so the regulators declared there is no need to provide low-priced, basic service. The FCC allows this behavior. Consequently, the cable/satellite providers in my state are under no obligation to offer a low-priced plan with just the basic/local channels, even if you ask for it.

(My state also declined Federal assistance to help with implementation of the Affordable Care Act.)

post #12 of 72
The Supreme Court typically hears about 1% of all cases that are petitioned. I highly doubt they will even bother with this one.

I dropped cable a year ago in favor of Netflix, AppleTV, and a $10 antenna and never looked back. I hope the television market makes a huge shift towards users being able to purchase just want they want to watch AND for programs - including sporting events - to be broadcasted over the internet without ridiculous restrictions and blackout rules.

AT&T has been fighting this exact same thing in their wireless division for a while now... trying to recoup money lost to technology that is evolving while they sit idle. AT&T CEO: "If you're using iMessage, you're not using one of our messaging services, right? That's disruptive to our messaging revenue stream."

Until these companies decide to stop fighting for what they USED to have and start creating the services and experiences that customers want, organizations such as Aereo will continue to flourish.
post #13 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Right, that's the case in California. Some governing of FCC regulations is done at the state level. In my state, regulators in the pocket of business determined adequate competition exists between cable and satellite providers, so the regulators declared there is no need to provide a low-priced, basic service. The FCC allows this behavior. In my state, the cable/satellite providers are under no obligation to offer a low-priced plan with just the basic/local channels, even if you ask for it.

(My state also declined Federal assistance to help with implementation of the Affordable Care Act.)

 

Too bad - I thought (and hoped) there was a federal regulation requiring this. Given the choice between paying a minimum of $70 (plus another $20 in taxes and regulated charges) and not watching TV, I'd choose not watching TV any day. There just isn't enough good content to justify that kind of ripoff. But for $15/month, at least I could watch local news and sports.

post #14 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

I hope the television market makes a huge shift towards users being able to purchase just want they want to watch AND for programs - including sporting events - to be broadcasted over the internet without ridiculous restrictions and blackout rules.

Since we're in the major league baseball post-season, let's talk about those blackout rules. For a sizable fee, MLB allows customers to watch every game live on-line, except all of their home team's games--even when their home team is playing away. And except games that start on a Saturday afternoon.

Lucky people living in Iowa have the Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, and St. Louis Cardinals all in their "home" viewing area.

post #15 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


But there's a difference between you capturing something for your own use and someone capturing it for rebroadcast.

I'm actually surprised that the broadcasters lost - there must be some loophole that Aereo uses. Ordinarily, you can not rebroadcast shows without violating the copyright. I'll have to read the details of the previous decisions to see why Aereo was able to get away with it.

ETA:
I reviewed the complaint and it's just what I expected. The law is quite clear that public rebroadcast of copyrighted work is not allowed. Aereo is claiming that they're not publicly rebroadcasting the copyrighted work, but are rather sending private broadcasts to tens of thousands of users. That claim appears to be patently ridiculous and it's not at all clear why the lower courts accepted it.

I'd say there's a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts' decisions. The fundamental question is "is Aereo's business model a public rebroadcast or a private one?" If the court says that it's public, the broadcasters will win.

 

You may want to read it a little more closely.  I've been following Aereo for well over a year and it isn't rebroadcasting, which is why the courts have ruled in their (Aereo's) favor.  It makes perfect sense if you think about it.  Aereo is essentially renting out antennas and storage (DVR) to individuals.  Each person has their own antenna, 2 actually.  Instead of having my antenna on my TV or roof, they house it for me and just feed me the signal.  Is it a loophole? Yeah, maybe, but a legal one.  Smart people disrupt by finding those loopholes.  It's not rocket science.

 

Besides, the broadcasters have lost in one district, even on appeal.  The case out west is still in flux because it's going through appeals.  I have serious doubts the Supreme Court will even review this case.

 

post #16 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

The Supreme Court typically hears about 1% of all cases that are petitioned. I highly doubt they will even bother with this one.

I dropped cable a year ago in favor of Netflix, AppleTV, and a $10 antenna and never looked back. I hope the television market makes a huge shift towards users being able to purchase just want they want to watch AND for programs - including sporting events - to be broadcasted over the internet without ridiculous restrictions and blackout rules.

AT&T has been fighting this exact same thing in their wireless division for a while now... trying to recoup money lost to technology that is evolving while they sit idle. AT&T CEO: "If you're using iMessage, you're not using one of our messaging services, right? That's disruptive to our messaging revenue stream."

Until these companies decide to stop fighting for what they USED to have and start creating the services and experiences that customers want, organizations such as Aereo will continue to flourish.

 

Agree, doubt they'll review the case at all.

 

Personally, Aereo is slated to arrive in my area this fall.  Nearly everything my wife and I watch are broadcast channels, I'll be supplementing Aereo with Netflix, iTunes and maybe Hulu Plus.  Direct TV can go to...

 

post #17 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post
 

Too bad - I thought (and hoped) there was a federal regulation requiring this.

Right, the FCC regulation requires an affordable basic service plan--unless a state deems a sufficiently competitive environment exists.

post #18 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Here's hoping the broadcasters lose. I recently said b-bye to cable/satellite.
I love free over-the-air HD broadcasts (without Aereo) but would like someday to view broadcasts in other markets besides where I live. Right now, Aereo only offers service to local areas from local broadcasters, but if the company survives the present battle, I would expect it to expand its business into wide-area distribution of program material.

I don't believe that they would ever do that. Their saving grace right now is that they're transmitting what people can see for free, if they start transmitting cross regions/markets it could lead to the broadcasters getting a win.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post

Too bad - I thought (and hoped) there was a federal regulation requiring this. Given the choice between paying a minimum of $70 (plus another $20 in taxes and regulated charges) and not watching TV, I'd choose not watching TV any day. There just isn't enough good content to justify that kind of ripoff. But for $15/month, at least I could watch local news and sports.

I beg to differ, the quantity of quality content has increased dramatically in the last 5 years.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #20 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I don't believe that they would ever do that. Their saving grace right now is that they're transmitting what people can see for free, if they start transmitting cross regions/markets it could lead to the broadcasters getting a win.

If Aereo survives the present challenge, it makes complete sense to expand. The program content they currently send over the Internet quite conceivably arrives at its destination by transiently leaving the local viewing area. One antenna per customer still applies. By taking baby steps through the legal system, the company establishes legal precedents and builds a revenue stream to fund expansion and defend itself.

post #21 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I beg to differ, the quantity of quality content has increased dramatically in the last 5 years.

Duck Dynasty FTW!!!!!!!!!

 

(ack, choke, puke)

post #22 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Duck Dynasty FTW!!!!!!!!!

(ack, choke, puke)

That's one funny show, and more entertaining than most current sitcoms, but I was thinking more along the lines of Boardwalk Empire, GoT, The Walking Dead, Homeland, and Luther on BBC is great.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #23 of 72
The phrase rebroadcast is incorrect. What Aereo does is essentially allow users to rent a very small antenna. There is one antenna per user thus an individual and unique connection for each user. This is quite different than other attempts which capture one signal and rebroadcast to many. This is absolutely against the law. I don't see the broadcasters winning this since the signal is in the open.
post #24 of 72
I can tell you this: as an Aereo subscriber, it's great and it's the future.

The Supreme Court needs to listen to public opinion and be cognizant of the changing technical world.

The writing is on the wall for broadcasters and the cable companies: watch and learn.

Copy Aereo perhaps. Do it better (if you can) and do it even cheaper (if you can).

In the mean time, you can only get my Aereo by pulling it from my cold, dead hands.
post #25 of 72
Aereo is $8 per month.
post #26 of 72
A service like Aereo is the future of broadcasting. They better get used to it. Sure, having an undisturbed monopoly is good and all, but the time has come. Technology has made their service obsolete.

...actually, I hope, they are stubborn enough to fight it all the way and win, giving Netflix and all other new alternatives a head start and let broadcasters burry themselves.
post #27 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post
 

 

You may want to read it a little more closely.  I've been following Aereo for well over a year and it isn't rebroadcasting, which is why the courts have ruled in their (Aereo's) favor.  It makes perfect sense if you think about it.  Aereo is essentially renting out antennas and storage (DVR) to individuals.  Each person has their own antenna, 2 actually.  Instead of having my antenna on my TV or roof, they house it for me and just feed me the signal.  Is it a loophole? Yeah, maybe, but a legal one.  Smart people disrupt by finding those loopholes.  

 

Agreed.  It is a very fine line Aero is walking with their business model.  I do wonder where the courts will fall with their decision.  When all is said and done, though, I think the success of Aero indicates a revenue stream which the major media outlets are missing.  That said, the media moguls do have a 100 year business model that is proven, not conceptual.  The problem they must solve is how to make money when people want to pick and choose content a la carte regardless of time or location or device.  Cable and satellite used to solve that problem by providing choice in channels but throw an iPad in the mix and you have a whole new paradigm.  I'm not saying they're going about it the best way, but they still have to make money to pay their licensing to pay the studios and actors and producers and directors and residuals and the rest of it, dependent upon contracts and, yes, copyrights.

 

Apple had it easy with the music industry.  There are infinitely more moving parts in the motion picture side.

post #28 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That's one funny show, and more entertaining than most current sitcoms, but I was thinking more along the lines of Boardwalk Empire, GoT, The Walking Dead, Homeland, and Luther on BBC is great.

 

Point taken - there are some great shows. I haven't seen Boardwalk Empire or Luther, but I love the other three. I also just finished up Broadchurch (another great British drama) and loved it. There are definitely a handful of great shows, but I have preferred to ala carte them via AppleTV/iTunes. It's cheaper than paying for cable, there are no commercials, and I basically own the rights to re-watch them when I want. Unfortunately, some of the great shows (like GoT) are not available via iTunes until well after the season has completed. I'd gladly pay $10 a month (maybe even more) for unlimited access to a service like HBO Go to keep up with current shows and to go back and watch some of the other great shows I never finished (like John Adams and Rome).

post #29 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
 

Me too. I cut the cable 5 years ago and really miss watching F1.

 

But the cable companies charge way too much. Online viewing, Netflix, ATV...aren't quite there yet. I mainly rent DVD's from Redbox at a $1.00 ea.

 

I live in the mountains and can't over the air reception. So I hope Aereo works out.

You miss F1?

 

The only good F1 has going for it right now is that its a good substitute for sleeping pills.

 

Oh, and I currently have Aereo in the Houston area. Love it.

post #30 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

But there's a difference between you capturing something for your own use and someone capturing it for rebroadcast.

I'm actually surprised that the broadcasters lost - there must be some loophole that Aereo uses. Ordinarily, you can not rebroadcast shows without violating the copyright. I'll have to read the details of the previous decisions to see why Aereo was able to get away with it.

ETA:
I reviewed the complaint and it's just what I expected. The law is quite clear that public rebroadcast of copyrighted work is not allowed. Aereo is claiming that they're not publicly rebroadcasting the copyrighted work, but are rather sending private broadcasts to tens of thousands of users. That claim appears to be patently ridiculous and it's not at all clear why the lower courts accepted it.

I'd say there's a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts' decisions. The fundamental question is "is Aereo's business model a public rebroadcast or a private one?" If the court says that it's public, the broadcasters will win.

Nonsens! They are not rebroadcasting, they are simply a wireless antenna. It is the industry that is at fault for not investing in antennas that provide ubiquity to their own signal strength. They don't see a need to keep investing in equipment when the majority are on cable, and they charge the cable companies to carry their broadcast - something that should be free.
post #31 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Nonsens! They are not rebroadcasting, they are simply a wireless antenna. It is the industry that is at fault for not investing in antennas that provide ubiquity to their own signal strength. They don't see a need to keep investing in equipment when the majority are on cable, and they charge the cable companies to carry their broadcast - something that should be free.

In NYC the antenna used to broadcast the networks signal was atop one of the World Trade Center towers and since 9/11 the city hasn't had good reception as the backup antennas were on smaller buildings, and in some cases were over the river in NJ. Aereo was born almost out of necessity.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

You may want to read it a little more closely.  I've been following Aereo for well over a year and it isn't rebroadcasting, which is why the courts have ruled in their (Aereo's) favor.  It makes perfect sense if you think about it.  Aereo is essentially renting out antennas and storage (DVR) to individuals.  Each person has their own antenna, 2 actually.  Instead of having my antenna on my TV or roof, they house it for me and just feed me the signal.  Is it a loophole? Yeah, maybe, but a legal one.  Smart people disrupt by finding those loopholes.  It's not rocket science.

It's not that clear - for two reasons:

1. They don't make it clear whether it's one antenna dedicated to an individual subscriber or whether the antennae are shared. If the antennae are shared, it's more problematic. If each subscriber gets their own antenna that is used only for that person - and if there's no mixing of signals, then I would agree with you.

2. Even if it's a dedicated antenna, though, they will record the show and then send it to you later via the Internet. To me, that would be rebroadcasting - even if it's one antenna dedicated to one subscriber. It might be OK for them to get away with calling it a private rebroadcasting, though - but only if it's a dedicated antenna - which their literature doesn't say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Besides, the broadcasters have lost in one district, even on appeal.  The case out west is still in flux because it's going through appeals.  I have serious doubts the Supreme Court will even review this case.

Actually, the appeal was for a preliminary injunction. I don't believe the case has been heard on appeal yet.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #33 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's not that clear - for two reasons:

1. They don't make it clear whether it's one antenna dedicated to an individual subscriber or whether the antennae are shared. If the antennae are shared, it's more problematic. If each subscriber gets their own antenna that is used only for that person - and if there's no mixing of signals, then I would agree with you.

2. Even if it's a dedicated antenna, though, they will record the show and then send it to you later via the Internet. To me, that would be rebroadcasting - even if it's one antenna dedicated to one subscriber. It might be OK for them to get away with calling it a private rebroadcasting, though - but only if it's a dedicated antenna - which their literature doesn't say.
Actually, the appeal was for a preliminary injunction. I don't believe the case has been heard on appeal yet.

Correct on the last point.

The CEO has stated many times that the antennae are never shared. It's the only thing that keeps Aereo in the clear. Like I said, it's a loophole for sure. But at least for now, a legal one. I hope it remains so.
post #34 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Correct on the last point.

The CEO has stated many times that the antennae are never shared. It's the only thing that keeps Aereo in the clear. Like I said, it's a loophole for sure. But at least for now, a legal one. I hope it remains so.

I don't believe that. Their rooftops would look like this.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 72
The broadcasters went to the Supreme Court because they lost twice in the lower federal courts. But this doesn't mean the Court will agree to hear their case -- and it shouldn't.
Aereo has a limited market share; it makes no sense now to stifle a technology before it takes hold. Besides, Aereo offers some relief against monopolies we had to deal with for years.
post #36 of 72
"ETA:
I reviewed the complaint and it's just what I expected. The law is quite clear that public rebroadcast of copyrighted work is not allowed. Aereo is claiming that they're not publicly rebroadcasting the copyrighted work, but are rather sending private broadcasts to tens of thousands of users. That claim appears to be patently ridiculous and it's not at all clear why the lower courts accepted it.

I'd say there's a very good chance the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts' decisions. The fundamental question is "is Aereo's business model a public rebroadcast or a private one?" If the court says that it's public, the broadcasters will win."

There not rebroadcasting copyrighted work. I'm receiving TV video from my own antenna that just happens to be far away from my home instead of on my roof. For that convenience I pay Aereo a month fee to setup and look after my antenna. Had Aereo used only one antenna to capture local TV signals for all their customers and then share the one signal to all their customers that would be rebroadcasting since the customers wouldn't own the antenna.
post #37 of 72
Ok, living on the other side of the pond here ( actually a Scot living in Frankfurt)... Not to sure if i can figure this one out so can someone explain to me... If these are public broadcasters then where is the harm in expanding their viewing audience regardless of what screen it is on. They get funded by Advertisers No..???? or Why cant they bring out a similar service.. Also my only recent reference to joy of owning Cable in America is recent South Park episode and the general comments about it being close to some sort of servitude from podcasts such as Tested.com and Stuff You Should Know ( best Podcast out there)....
Why is Cable so bad...???
Having grown u with the BBC, and how they have pushed the envelope of technology towards the second screen ( BBC iPlayer) cant understand why these companies seem to be cutting off at what seems like an easy way to expand their viewership... Up the rebels n all that.. With the current Shenanigans in Washington DC im glad we decided that you should keep the Colonies :-))))
post #38 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


I don't believe that. Their rooftops would look like this.

 

Not sure if serious.  Have you seen the antennae?  They're the size of a dime, all built into a single array.

post #39 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirWaterSnow View Post

Ok, living on the other side of the pond here ( actually a Scot living in Frankfurt)... Not to sure if i can figure this one out so can someone explain to me... If these are public broadcasters then where is the harm in expanding their viewing audience regardless of what screen it is on. They get funded by Advertisers No..???? or Why cant they bring out a similar service.. Also my only recent reference to joy of owning Cable in America is recent South Park episode and the general comments about it being close to some sort of servitude from podcasts such as Tested.com and Stuff You Should Know ( best Podcast out there)....
Why is Cable so bad...???
Having grown u with the BBC, and how they have pushed the envelope of technology towards the second screen ( BBC iPlayer) cant understand why these companies seem to be cutting off at what seems like an easy way to expand their viewership... Up the rebels n all that.. With the current Shenanigans in Washington DC im glad we decided that you should keep the Colonies :-))))

 

They don't mind the expanded viewership.  Where it pinches the broadcasters is the redistribution deals (future negotiations) with cable companies who are bundling local channels.    Cable companies are paying through the nose for the rights to rebroadcast the local channels, while Aereo is doing what anyone can do - grabbing the signal through the air.  Only they're doing it smarter and getting paid to do so.

 

post #40 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Not sure if serious.  Have you seen the antennae?  They're the size of a dime, all built into a single array.

I have serious doubts of a dime size antenna being able to pick up all the broadcast channels. All the HD antennas I've seen are many times bigger than a dime.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Broadcasters petition Supreme Court to hear case over iPad TV streamer Aereo
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Broadcasters petition Supreme Court to hear case over iPad TV streamer Aereo