Broadcasters take their case against Aereo to the Supreme Court & Win

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by Athlon646464, Oct 11, 2013.

  1. Jul 1, 2014 #181 of 196
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    No, no. no. They are nothing like the digital converter boxes that just tuned to FREE OTA broadcasts. You talking about re-transmission from satellite, not an OTA tuner box.
     
  2. Jul 1, 2014 #182 of 196
    bflora

    bflora Legend

    222
    10
    Nov 5, 2007
    The irony is that they pay big bucks to expand their coverage area with taller more powerful transmitters and sue a company that does it for them for free. I am not commenting on the legal or moral aspects of it. Just the IRONY of it.
     
  3. Jul 1, 2014 #183 of 196
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Aereo had no relationship with the stations and they never released hard subscriber data, any extended coverage area gained by Aereo was useless as they can't use that data for ratings which is used to set advertising rates. With the way Nielsen does their math, the entire DMA is already part of your coverage area, even if the only way to get the OTA signal is a deep fringe directional antenna on a mast to overcome an obstruction.

    Oddly enough if an Aereo user was in the Nielsen survey it could have hurt the station ratings wise if they were watching a program via Aereo instead of something that could be used by the Nielsen box or if in the process of transcoding the OTA signal the embedded signal used by the Nielsen box was lost.
     
  4. Jul 1, 2014 #184 of 196
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    If I was reading Herdfan correctly, though, he was talking about a special scenario... wherein Dish (for example) would repurpose old receivers as usable only for the LiLs... and would allow users of those receivers access to the LiLs completely for free (outside of the cost of purchasing the receiver of course)... which in that scenario would be the same as if a customer bought a digital converter box and had no further costs. As long as Dish gave access to those retransmissions for free, then I could see the broadcasters allowing them to retransmit their signal. Dish would still need to get permission, but as long as Dish had no hidden charges, broadcasters would be foolish not to agree in Herdfan's proposed scenario. He can correct me if I misread his post.

    But they wouldn't be suing them for "doing it for free"... IF the cable/satellite companies actually did it for free and didn't charge their customers and profit from it... then the broadcasters likely would not sue them for it. That's why it is a disingenuous example. saying "they are suing them for helping them" is obscuring the truth of the situation. That would be like if someone robs me, neighbors donate money to help me in excess of what I lost from the robbery, but I press charges against the thief when he is caught and someone accuses me of pressing charges against a person who helped me make money and said it was "ironic"... when it isn't.
     
  5. Jul 2, 2014 #185 of 196
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,616
    2,795
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Wouldn't that be nice? I disagree with your opinion. While there would be stations that are happy to get their content distributed (they elect Must Carry and do not charge satellite or cable for carriage) the bigger stations, read: any station with network programming, will want payment even if retransmitted for free.

    It doesn't matter how much or how little the rebroadcaster is making or even if they are losing money ... the broadcasters want control of their signal and the big broadcasters want payment for retransmission.

    I'd love to see a rebroadcaster call the bluff of your local stations - because that is exactly what their offer was, a bluff. I have no expectation that any station who can charge under the current scheme would cease charging just because a rebroadcaster ceased charging.
     
  6. Jul 2, 2014 #186 of 196
    bflora

    bflora Legend

    222
    10
    Nov 5, 2007
    To say it isn't ironic is like saying something isn't funny. To me it is "ironic". To you, obviously not.
     
  7. Jul 2, 2014 #187 of 196
    cypherx

    cypherx Hall Of Fame

    3,721
    112
    Aug 27, 2010
    PA - Berks...
    But TV manufacturers and Digital Converter manufacturers all profit from selling equipment that has the ability to tune OTA. So couldn't broadcasters sue these companies because they are making profit on something that can tune their signals?

    Or are these companies paying royalties to some broadcast alliance for each country they sell in?
     
  8. Jul 2, 2014 #188 of 196
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I don't pretend to know the logistics of it... but without TVs and digital converters, nobody would be able to watch OTA broadcast... so they obviously have to "allow" such products to be sold. Now in the UK there is a TV tax where you pay for each TV you have, and that goes to fund the programming. Here in the US we don't have such a system, but I can't say for 100% that there isn't somehow a tie-in for TV/converter manufacturers that in some way funds the FCC.
     
  9. Jul 2, 2014 #189 of 196
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,616
    2,795
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Don't give broadcasters any ideas! The ability to tune OTA is not a violation of law. While some broadcasters may WANT to charge a fee at every opportunity, the TV/tuner industry is not one of those opportunities.


    No payment is required. TVs do not copy, tuners do not copy. The devices do not require any royalty to be bought, owned or used.

    (Stewart's comment about UK Television licenses refers to a tax that funds public broadcasting ... not privately owned broadcast stations or networks.)
     
  10. Jul 2, 2014 #190 of 196
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Yeah... I probably should have clarified that since the UK also has some non-public-funded channels as well. It was the closest thing I could think of, though, where in some country there was a fee related to the TV itself.
     
  11. Jul 2, 2014 #191 of 196
    cypherx

    cypherx Hall Of Fame

    3,721
    112
    Aug 27, 2010
    PA - Berks...
    Ok so tuners do not copy (unless you buy a DVR, but they are pretty good at "marrying" the recordings to the DVR it was made on).

    My mind can remember a show I watched OTA and I can sort of "play it back" in my head. When are they going to start taxing my brain? Heck, our society already sells canned air and bottled water!
     
  12. Jul 2, 2014 #192 of 196
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,616
    2,795
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Hopefully playing it back in your head is "personal use". Unless there are other people living inside your head ...

    It wouldn't be a tax but a rights fee (although all of our brains may be physically taxed by some of the discussion in this thread). If you were to publicly perform the copyrighted work you may be liable for copyright violation.

    So remember - when you stand around the watercooler giving your synopsis of your favorite show please keep quoted material to a responsible "fair use" level. Do not quote the entire show word for word (giving a public performance of copyrighted material). :)
     
  13. Jul 3, 2014 #193 of 196
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,541
    617
    Dec 2, 2010
    Monterey...
    Word for word!? :) The only show in modern times that I could do that with would be the The Dancer (A mute dancer teaches movement to adoring kids and wins the dance contest every Saturday night at a cavernous Brooklyn disco, makes the final cut for a Broadway show but is dismissed when.....) or that other one with the French guy, the name of which has left the building—I think there's one word of dialog.... :)
     
  14. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Yada Yada Yada DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,046
    530
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Update: Judge formally bans Aereo from streaming live TV to devices

    (engadget.com) - Aereo can no longer relay TV shows to its customers using its teeny-tiny antennas (for now, that is), according to US District Judge Alison Nathan. It's been a while since the Supreme Court decided that the service violates the law by "transmitting performances of copyrighted work to the public," but it's only now that a judge has issued a temporary ban order.

    Wondering what's next for Aereo? Well, the jury's still out on whether it can record and store programs to be aired at a later time. The judge didn't grant TV networks their request to stop the company from doing so, since they didn't include it as part of their demands when they first filed a lawsuit. She's currently investigating whether she should grant that request, though...

    Full Story Here

    [​IMG]
     
  15. SeaBeagle

    SeaBeagle Legend

    1,222
    22
    May 7, 2006
    Good Aereo would not let me even sign up.


    Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app
     
  16. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Again, Aereo's purpose was NOT to let people get any market they want, at no point did they claim otherwise. Unless their antennas were setup in your market you could NOT get service.

    Their purpose was to cater to cord cutters who couldn't get reliable OTA reception as well as those who wanted to watch local TV on the go since all those pocket TVs became obsolete with the digital transition.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements