Supreme Court side with networks, rules that Aereo flouts copyright

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 92
    vaporlandvaporland Posts: 358member
    "What many consider to be "public" airwaves, are actually privately owned "licensed" radio spectrum purchased from the FCC."

    Nope. Licensed, yes. Privately owned, purchased, no, not even close.

    You can't "own" airwaves / frequencies in the USA; they are public properly, leased via spectrum auctions and FCC regulation.

    In the olden days, you had to prove that your broadcasts contributed to common public good, or you'd lose your broadcast license.

    Today I'm not sure how Hollywood Whorsewives, Hiney Boo Boo and Dr Oz's Traveling Medicine Show contribute anything positive, except to the bottom line.
  • Reply 62 of 92
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    darklite wrote: »
    It's not every day that Scalia comes out with a sane opinion.

    He didn't this time either. It's no surprise that he and Thomas would be on the wrong side. I vote with mstone on this one. Aereo was profiting from someone else's IP.

    It's a simple but broad ethical question that is alien to the Scalia/Thomas style of mind. They frequently rule with the picayune legalistic side on such questions.
  • Reply 63 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post




    According to this video, the founder of the company explains that when you use the Aereo app to decide what to watch, the antenna's electrical properties are changed to tune to the proper frequency for that broadcast. So, how does that allow you to record two shows at the same time as is described on their website? Seems to me like either the electrical properties are not really changed or that the dedicated antenna is just a myth.

  • Reply 64 of 92
    vaporlandvaporland Posts: 358member
    "What you call Free Broadcast Television, is the equivalent of signing up for Facebook or Google's services, in exchange for sending targeted ads to an audience through a device that is licensed to receive those targeted ads (the equivalent of a television channel). Television is a distribution channel of paid programming backed by advertising dollars. It is free to the audience who will see these ads and will potentially buy. The contract is the license to see this "local" programming on a specific radio frequency that is limited to a local "regional" market that has been demographically profiled - which allows advertisers to send targeted ads to a particular audience who is believed to watch specified programs."

    More BS. I don't recall clicking a big EULA in the sky agreeing to any of this. You work for Scamcast?

    Since people use DVRs to skip commercials; shall NBC take them all to civil court?
  • Reply 65 of 92
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mstone wrote: »
    I be willing to bet that it is all a smoke screen. I wouldn't be surprised if it is eventually discovered that the antenna is fake and the DVR is one single application which addresses a database on a disk array. They may tell you you have your own physical discrete equipment but do you really think if 100,000 people are watching the same channel at the same time that they are going to have 100,000 simultaneous encoding streams that are all exactly the same and they are going to write to 100,000 HDD discrete storage partitions? Personally I doubt it is even possible.

    They have been inspected several times to make sure what they claim they're doing is exactly what they're doing.
  • Reply 66 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    They have been inspected several times to make sure what they claim they're doing is exactly what they're doing.


    Do you have any links? I can't find anything because the news of the court ruling has clogged up all the search terms.

  • Reply 67 of 92
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mstone wrote: »
    According to this video, the founder of the company explains that when you use the Aereo app to decide what to watch, the antenna's electrical properties are changed to tune to the proper frequency for that broadcast. So, how does that allow you to record two shows at the same time as is described on their website? Seems to me like either the electrical properties are not really changed or that the dedicated antenna is just a myth.
    You lease a second antenna.
  • Reply 68 of 92
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,916member
    flaneur wrote: »
    Aereo was profiting from someone else's IP.

    Aereo was profiting from selling a service. That service allowed you to record and stream someone else's IP.

    Doesn't SlingBox do the same thing? They profit from selling hardware that allows you to record and stream someone else's IP.
  • Reply 69 of 92
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mstone wrote: »
    Do you have any links? I can't find anything because the news of the court ruling has clogged up all the search terms.

    Search previous AI articles. When I get a chance I'll look some up.
  • Reply 70 of 92
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Aereo was profiting from selling a service. That service allowed you to record and stream someone else's IP.

    Doesn't SlingBox do the same thing? They profit from selling hardware that allows you to record and stream someone else's IP.

    And software, the app was initially $30, but it's $15 now. You can also watch Slingbox from anywhere in the world whereas with Aereo you cannot watch anything once you're out of the broadcast area.
  • Reply 71 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    You lease a second antenna.


    Sounds reasonable however that is not how it is stated on the website.

     

    Quote:

     Our basic monthly membership is just $8 a month, plus tax. That gets you 20 hours of DVR space to record your shows. Or, for $4 more, you can upgrade to 60 hours of DVR space and the ability to record two shows at once. Both plans include 24/7 access to a remote antenna to access the live television broadcasts in your home coverage area, subject to capacity.


  • Reply 72 of 92
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    You cannot watch a broadcast from LA in Minneapolis on Aereo. If you ever used the mobile app it won't work unless you first turn on location service and it verifies that you are indeed within the broadcast area that you're trying to access. They were very thorough in making sure that they didn’t violate geographical limitations.

    Having never used Aereo, I did not know this. The piss-poor news services in the USA do not provide the level of detail necessary for an ordinary citizen to understand what is being decided in this case.  It has always been implied that Aereo was providing TV access to a different market, as well as a local market. People WANT to know, and they TRY to learn, but our media outlets just do not provide the information. Thanks for your comment.

  • Reply 73 of 92
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member
    How is this different to the free EyeTv sevice where you can watch free to air TV that is steaming on your home network, away from your home over the internet using the EyeTv app?
  • Reply 74 of 92
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    I be willing to bet that it is all a smoke screen. I wouldn't be surprised if it is eventually discovered that the antenna is fake and the DVR is one single application which addresses a database on a disk array. They may tell you you have your own physical discrete equipment but do you really think if 100,000 people are watching the same channel at the same time that they are going to have 100,000 simultaneous encoding streams that are all exactly the same and they are going to write to 100,000 HDD discrete storage partitions? Personally I doubt it is even possible.


     

    Even if Aereo intends that each user gets their own private antenna signal, it is quite possible that the engineers will have compression algorithms that will combine and re-parse that data.  Just as photocopiers were found to be digitally cheating, a few years ago.

    http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning

  • Reply 75 of 92
    kkerstkkerst Posts: 330member
    mstone wrote: »
    I be willing to bet that it is all a smoke screen. I wouldn't be surprised if it is eventually discovered that the antenna is fake and the DVR is one single application which addresses a database on a disk array. They may tell you you have your own physical discrete equipment but do you really think if 100,000 people are watching the same channel at the same time that they are going to have 100,000 simultaneous encoding streams that are all exactly the same and they are going to write to 100,000 HDD discrete storage partitions? Personally I doubt it is even possible.

    I've often pondered the same question. The Verge has a good article on how they ran out of capacity awhile ago.
  • Reply 76 of 92
    inteliusqinteliusq Posts: 111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vaporland View Post



    "What you call Free Broadcast Television, is the equivalent of signing up for Facebook or Google's services, in exchange for sending targeted ads to an audience through a device that is licensed to receive those targeted ads (the equivalent of a television channel). Television is a distribution channel of paid programming backed by advertising dollars. It is free to the audience who will see these ads and will potentially buy. The contract is the license to see this "local" programming on a specific radio frequency that is limited to a local "regional" market that has been demographically profiled - which allows advertisers to send targeted ads to a particular audience who is believed to watch specified programs."



    More BS. I don't recall clicking a big EULA in the sky agreeing to any of this. You work for Scamcast?



    Since people use DVRs to skip commercials; shall NBC take them all to civil court?

     

    It seems that you misunderstood this concept called "Over The Air Television".

     

    The paragraph you quoted was an explanation of this concept.

     

    Let me simplify it for you:

     

    Every television radio receiver is an FCC licensed device designed to receive transmitted broadcast content regulated by the FCC. When you turn on the television, you are virtually agreeing to the FCC license built into the television radio receiver, by virtue of the fact that the television radio receiver is legally receiving licensed content authorized by the FCC.

     

    By the way, the End User License Agreement (EULA) is only for proprietary software.

     

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/television+receiver

     

    Wikipedia - History of Television

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

     

    Wikipedia - All Channel Receiver Act

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Channel_Receiver_Act ;

     

    Wikipedia - End User License Agreement

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement

  • Reply 77 of 92
    moreckmoreck Posts: 187member
    I'm surprised that that Scalia & Thomas are actually standing up for consumer rights.
  • Reply 78 of 92
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mike1 View Post

     

    Like it or not, the court is correct. Courts have long ruled against entities that are trying to skirt the intent of a law through various legal technicalities. That is exactly what Aereo is trying to do. Face it, if that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have had to invent a system that uses thousands (eventually millions) of tiny antennas to make the system work. Their legal loophole clearly violates the intent of the law. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law, since this is not a constitutional issue. The solution is for Congress to change the law and have a president sign it into law.


     

    “It is not the role of this court to identify and plug loopholes,” Scalia wrote. “It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes.”

     

     

  • Reply 79 of 92
    kpomkpom Posts: 657member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Bunch of sad, old codgers that have no clue about how and where technology is headed. Pathetic ruling.


     

    Oddly enough, it was Scalia, Thomas, and Alito who would have given Aereo a fighting chance. They, too, were skeptical that Aereo wasn't infringing on copyrights, but on secondary liability grounds, rather than primary liability grounds. A nuance, but an important one. The SCOTUS majority ruled that Aereo was like a cable company and was "performing" infringing works. The 3 dissenters argued that Aereo is more akin to a copy shop or VCR that potentially enables others to infringe, but doesn't directly infringe itself.

  • Reply 80 of 92
    kpomkpom Posts: 657member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post





    Aereo was profiting from selling a service. That service allowed you to record and stream someone else's IP.



    Doesn't SlingBox do the same thing? They profit from selling hardware that allows you to record and stream someone else's IP.

     

    I think the difference with SlingBox is that you are streaming a signal that you have a contractual right to receive. You connect it to your own cable/satellite/antenna signal, and then it streams it to your location online.

Sign In or Register to comment.