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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    cpsro wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 22 of 71
    applguyapplguy Posts: 235member
    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.
  • Reply 23 of 71
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 71
    Aereo is $8 per month.
  • Reply 25 of 71
    ingelaingela Posts: 217member
    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.
  • Reply 26 of 71
    thejdthejd Posts: 37member
    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.

  • Reply 27 of 71
    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).

  • Reply 28 of 71
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    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.

  • Reply 29 of 71
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 30 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    freerange wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 31 of 71
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    allenbf wrote: »
    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.
    allenbf wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 71
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 33 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    allenbf wrote: »
    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.
    400
  • Reply 34 of 71
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 71
    "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.
  • Reply 36 of 71
    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 :-))))
  • Reply 37 of 71
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    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.

  • Reply 38 of 71
    allenbfallenbf Posts: 993member
    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.



     

  • Reply 39 of 71
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    allenbf wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 71
    focherfocher Posts: 687member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
    Actually not. Aero has won every single court battle, including at the appellate level. The important distinction is that Aero uses a different micro-antenna for every subscriber. That's what makes it private. The analogous case law involves the cable companies and their central DVR functionality and the "music locker" providers. In both those scenarios, the separate subscriber storage was the critical distinguishing factor. As long as the provider was essentially duplicating what the subscriber had the right to do, it is permissible. In the Aero situation, they are doing nothing more than you are already permitted to do yourself.
Sign In or Register to comment.