Who needs broadcast tv when you have an apple and a over the air antenna?
Getting all the broadcast TV channels in NYC has been all that great since 9/11, because the broadcast antenna was atop one of the towers. Some of the networks kept a spot on the Empire State building antenna, and quickly switched to it whereas others had given up their spot. Those had to lease a spot on antennas on Long Island or NJ, so areas of the city would get good reception on one and not the other depending on which antenna you lived closest to.
How is grabbing a open broadcast signal stealing? Those people who have only their "local" stations broadcasting openly, they are stealing according to you.
Don't be ridiculous. Aereo was reselling content that they did not own. The TV stations broadcast over the air so the public can receive it free, not for some other company to resell it.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
Because it is for your own personal use, you are not reselling it.
I think it matters on if the credit cards are shared. That is how I understand it.
well none of our accounts are link to credit cards, we load them with itunes card we buy at a discount. I get all my itunes card with airmiles so they are free actually.
I think one iTunes account will have financial responsibility for all purchases (Apple mentioned "same credit card"). While all purchases will be paid for by that "master account", if someone leaves the family, they take the purchases they initiated, with them. But while a part of the "same family", all purchased content is available to all members of the family.
How is grabbing a open broadcast signal stealing? Those people who have only their "local" stations broadcasting openly, they are stealing according to you.
Don't be ridiculous. Aereo was reselling content that they did not own. The TV stations broadcast over the air so the public can receive it free, not for some other company to resell it.
Your understanding of the Aero model is as confused as the courts. Ultimately we have to blame Aero and their attorney's for not doing a better job explaining it to all of you.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/180892/supreme-court-side-with-networks-rules-that-aereo-flouts-copyright#post_2555386 layout=inline]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?</span>
[/CONTENTEMBED]
Because it is for your own personal use, you are not reselling it.
You are renting a tuner and antenna from Aero, how can that possibly be different.
As much as I despise the cable companies (I cut the cord back in 2010) and the current TV industry in general, I think this is a good ruling. As the other poster mentioned, this wasn't so much about innovative technology as it was about innovative legal gymnastics to get around existing copyright law and rebroadcast rights.
Aereo was reselling content that they did not own. The TV stations broadcast over the air so the public can receive it free, not for some other company to resell it.
This is unrelated to the topic but I finally decided to give my wife imac/iphone/ipad her own AppleID on her devices. I will link her AppleID to my AppleID when iOS8 is out so we can share apps/music/TV/movies purchased.
Why wait?
You can get her her own AppleID and share apps now.
As much as I despise the cable companies (I cut the cord back in 2010) and the current TV industry in general, I think this is a good ruling. As the other poster mentioned, this wasn't so much about innovative technology as it was about innovative legal gymnastics to get around existing copyright law and rebroadcast rights.
Pretty much this. If the cable companies are subject with their technology structure, which is after all also an antenna and a re-transmission, then Aereo would appear to not be different enough to escape the same coverage.
Apartment rooftop shared antennas are passive, the Aereo tech was an active participant in the transmission of other people's content, just like "cable" companies. What they "billed" for would be less of an issue than what they actually did, in my view.
Your understanding of the Aero model is as confused as the courts. Ultimately we have to blame Aero and their attorney's for not doing a better job explaining it to all of you.
I'm not confused. I'm just not convinced.
Do you honestly believe that this tiny piece of wire buried somewhere inside of a data center can actually tune in HDTV over the airwaves?
When antennas are in close proximity to other antennas their ability to receive a signal is greatly decreased, yet thousands of these packed into an circuit board are somehow not adversely affected.
If I put one of these on my roof would I be able to receive TV signals with it?
I do believe that the copyright rights include "distribute" as well so yeah Aereo is at fault. Pretty obvious really.
Which is not to say that change isn't needed but their tact was not the right one. We need the FCC etc to change the rules of play. Kill the oligopoly, etc
Another ruling designed to crush the consumer and uphold the antiquated ways of the evil corporations. I live in the mountains where, even though I am only 20 miles from downtown Denver as the crow flies, I cannot get TV via an antenna. And even cable conveniently stops a few hundred feet from my neighborhood so my only option was to get locked into a long-term, expensive contract with a satellite company. Aereo was a godsend. Figures that somebody would find a way to shut it down. Irritating.
I have no sympathy for you, because you CHOOSE to live in a remote location.
Until this morning, I was on the side of Aereo, taking the position that if I can plant an antenna on my own roof in Minneapolis, why can't I rent a house in Los Angeles and plant an antenna on that roof, routing the signal to my TV in Mpls. All Aereo did was miniaturize the process.
Today, I realized that is not quite true. By renting the house in LA, presumably spending a few weeks a year there, I have partial residency there, and THAT grants me the right to view the broadcast signals there. Because the broadcast rights are sold/granted to the networks for intended viewing by residents of a specific geography. It's entirely reasonable for them to expect that their broadcast in LA will not be strong enough to reach residents of Mpls. If I become a part-time resident of LA, they can then expect me to access that broadcast. But merely renting an antenna does not give me residency status. And apparently, neither does it give me the privilege of watching LA broadcasts.
I see this as a balanced decision, and a just one.
If you want to improve reception in the backwaters of CO, then you need to either get a better antenna on your roof, or MOVE. As it should be.
Sorry to say, technically many things are illegal then... your DVR... Reproduces (copies to it's hard drive), rebroadcasts (replay's), re-streams (to other boxes in your house or to your mobile device(s)), everything without paying any copyright fees. Your Mobile device, cable company's have the "watch anywhere" app's, and if your have it playing on your mobile device anywhere at all, your rebroadcasting.
No and no.
DVR is covered, so long as it is just your personal use, under the fair use exemption that goes back to the Betamax days.
Those apps were set up by the copyright holders per their rights.
This is unrelated to the topic but I finally decided to give my wife imac/iphone/ipad her own AppleID on her devices. I will link her AppleID to my AppleID when iOS8 is out so we can share apps/music/TV/movies purchased.
My question is this: Can I link my father AppleID to ours if is home address is different than ours?
Only if your Father's account uses the same credit card. I believe that is the true test that is used. It was mentioned in the keynote I believe.
Comments
Getting all the broadcast TV channels in NYC has been all that great since 9/11, because the broadcast antenna was atop one of the towers. Some of the networks kept a spot on the Empire State building antenna, and quickly switched to it whereas others had given up their spot. Those had to lease a spot on antennas on Long Island or NJ, so areas of the city would get good reception on one and not the other depending on which antenna you lived closest to.
How is grabbing a open broadcast signal stealing? Those people who have only their "local" stations broadcasting openly, they are stealing according to you.
Don't be ridiculous. Aereo was reselling content that they did not own. The TV stations broadcast over the air so the public can receive it free, not for some other company to resell it.
Because it is for your own personal use, you are not reselling it.
I think it matters on if the credit cards are shared. That is how I understand it.
well none of our accounts are link to credit cards, we load them with itunes card we buy at a discount. I get all my itunes card with airmiles so they are free actually.
I think one iTunes account will have financial responsibility for all purchases (Apple mentioned "same credit card"). While all purchases will be paid for by that "master account", if someone leaves the family, they take the purchases they initiated, with them. But while a part of the "same family", all purchased content is available to all members of the family.
I was thinking the same thing. I hate when I am forced to agree with him.
Your understanding of the Aero model is as confused as the courts. Ultimately we have to blame Aero and their attorney's for not doing a better job explaining it to all of you.
You are renting a tuner and antenna from Aero, how can that possibly be different.
There was a fine line between "reselling content" and "charging for the Aereo service"
Unfortunately... the courts ruled in favor of the former rather than the latter.
Aereo argued that they were simply renting you an antenna for your personal use.... but the courts didn't see it that way.
You can get her her own AppleID and share apps now.
As much as I despise the cable companies (I cut the cord back in 2010) and the current TV industry in general, I think this is a good ruling. As the other poster mentioned, this wasn't so much about innovative technology as it was about innovative legal gymnastics to get around existing copyright law and rebroadcast rights.
Pretty much this. If the cable companies are subject with their technology structure, which is after all also an antenna and a re-transmission, then Aereo would appear to not be different enough to escape the same coverage.
Apartment rooftop shared antennas are passive, the Aereo tech was an active participant in the transmission of other people's content, just like "cable" companies. What they "billed" for would be less of an issue than what they actually did, in my view.
Edit: Misread your post
I'm not confused. I'm just not convinced.
Do you honestly believe that this tiny piece of wire buried somewhere inside of a data center can actually tune in HDTV over the airwaves?
When antennas are in close proximity to other antennas their ability to receive a signal is greatly decreased, yet thousands of these packed into an circuit board are somehow not adversely affected.
If I put one of these on my roof would I be able to receive TV signals with it?
I'm not confused. I'm just not convinced.
Do you honestly believe that this tiny piece of wire buried somewhere inside of a data center can actually tune in HDTV over the airwaves?
If I put one of these on my roof would I be able to receive TV signals with it?
There's only one way to find out!
Which is not to say that change isn't needed but their tact was not the right one. We need the FCC etc to change the rules of play. Kill the oligopoly, etc
If I'm not mistaken the array of antennas is indeed on a rooftop, at least in NYC it is.
Because it is for your own personal use, you are not reselling it.
Yeah, it's like a Hackintosh. If you build one for your own personal use, Apple doesn't really care.
If you start up a business selling them, as a few others have done in the past, then you will be in big trouble.
Another ruling designed to crush the consumer and uphold the antiquated ways of the evil corporations. I live in the mountains where, even though I am only 20 miles from downtown Denver as the crow flies, I cannot get TV via an antenna. And even cable conveniently stops a few hundred feet from my neighborhood so my only option was to get locked into a long-term, expensive contract with a satellite company. Aereo was a godsend. Figures that somebody would find a way to shut it down. Irritating.
I have no sympathy for you, because you CHOOSE to live in a remote location.
Until this morning, I was on the side of Aereo, taking the position that if I can plant an antenna on my own roof in Minneapolis, why can't I rent a house in Los Angeles and plant an antenna on that roof, routing the signal to my TV in Mpls. All Aereo did was miniaturize the process.
Today, I realized that is not quite true. By renting the house in LA, presumably spending a few weeks a year there, I have partial residency there, and THAT grants me the right to view the broadcast signals there. Because the broadcast rights are sold/granted to the networks for intended viewing by residents of a specific geography. It's entirely reasonable for them to expect that their broadcast in LA will not be strong enough to reach residents of Mpls. If I become a part-time resident of LA, they can then expect me to access that broadcast. But merely renting an antenna does not give me residency status. And apparently, neither does it give me the privilege of watching LA broadcasts.
I see this as a balanced decision, and a just one.
If you want to improve reception in the backwaters of CO, then you need to either get a better antenna on your roof, or MOVE. As it should be.
No and no.
DVR is covered, so long as it is just your personal use, under the fair use exemption that goes back to the Betamax days.
Those apps were set up by the copyright holders per their rights.
iOS 8 family sharing limitations question:
This is unrelated to the topic but I finally decided to give my wife imac/iphone/ipad her own AppleID on her devices. I will link her AppleID to my AppleID when iOS8 is out so we can share apps/music/TV/movies purchased.
My question is this: Can I link my father AppleID to ours if is home address is different than ours?
Only if your Father's account uses the same credit card. I believe that is the true test that is used. It was mentioned in the keynote I believe.