1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

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

  1. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    Aug 11, 2008
    BigTech is worth far more than BigHollywood right now. A decision against Aereo could have negative implications on cloud providers.

    What will SCOTUS decide? Will be close. The ruling allowing consumer recordings of TV programs (Universal v Sony) was a 5-4 decision.
  2. comizzou573

    comizzou573 Legend

    Aug 6, 2007
    So I can basically get a virtual private network (vpn), and change my region to new york to subscribe to the New York locals. I hope this law passes then satellite companies can provide distant networks through them.
  3. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    You need your credit card billing address in New York for the NY locals on Aereo. I just signed up last week because they offer our Dallas locals and that's one of their verifications.
  4. kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    All it would "allow" the local broadcasters to do is, fill more time with useless "stories" about "apps", and run more and more goofy YouTube "Viral Videos" about kittens, puppies and babies".
    Producing real news costs a lot of money. That's why stations with no major network affiliation (and the ratings that come with it) rarely produce local news programming. And, the ones that do, are usually owned or operated by a network affiliate, which already has a news department.
  5. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    Mar 18, 2006
  6. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Diller says it's over.......

    Barry Diller says “We did try, but it’s over now”, Aereo investor Barry Diller told CNBC following this morning’s Supreme Court ruling that Aereo violates TV station copyrights when it streams their over-the-air signals without their permission.
  7. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
    Not surprised.
  8. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    Just saddened that it had to go this way when the most logical solution would have been for the FCC to fix the loophole that created this mess.
  9. Jtaylor1

    Jtaylor1 Legend

    Jan 27, 2008
    That's a deathblow to free online streaming. Goodbye Youtube and Dailymotion.
  10. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    Nov 1, 2010
    Do you even know what this case is about? Youtube and the likes have little to do with that.
  11. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    And reading the dissent, those who don't agree with the ruling aren't necessarily on Aereo's side.

    "I share the Court’s evident feeling that what Aereo is
    doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks’ copyrighted
    programming ought not to be allowed. But perhaps we
    need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it. "
  12. Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    Is it a loophole created by the FCC or is it Congress?
  13. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    Dec 6, 2006
    How? The issue here was copyright infringement. If online streamers are paying for the content from the providers and then reselling, there is no issue. Aereo wasn't doing that, thus the issue. If Aereo were to provide this service and pay CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC to do so and compensate them for their content, becomes a non-issue in my opinion. Though, the whole individual antenna concept vs antenna array is still an interest to me and my primitive understanding of how all that works. Not sure based on the engineering buddies I have if I ever bought into them truly having an individual antenna for each subscriber as claimed. Others may disagree and my knowledge is limited on this.
  14. Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    Aereo was clearly violating the intent of the law while, IMO, complying with the letter of the law. The way to fix outdated law or to close loopholes should be to pass new corrected or updated laws, not for the Supreme Court to interpret the intent of the law and act as if that were the letter of the law.
  15. dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    May 30, 2007
    That's not a debate I'm going to go into, my point really was to say that even though it was 6-3, it doesn't mean the three found for Aereo. Not everyone may know it's not black and white.
  16. nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    Jul 11, 2006
    Well, it may go back to something like this. For those old enough to remember TV station sign ons and sign offs (from 1964):


    WCBS, signed off at 6:00 AM (After the "Late Late Show") and signed back on at 6;15 AM. This also included the National Anthem.

    The announcement does state that programs cannot be retransmitted, recorded or be charged a fee without express written permission. Back, in 1964, cable TV existed in a very minimal form. Only TV show recording was pretty much done by the TV stations themselves.

    Aereo, effectively violated all three provisions of the law. The charged a fee, retransmitted programming and provided the ability to record it. And never gained permission from any TV station to do so.
  17. PK6301

    PK6301 Legend

    May 16, 2012
    Erie, PA
    Just for giggles I went to their website
    1. it still is active
    2. They are charging you $12 a month for access to the "Free" tv programs, oh they give you 60 hours of cloud dvr service ( I guess that's the charge)
    3. in NY city you have access to 35 channels of which I would only use about 15
    4. by the time you factor in the cost of service, your internet access, your cell phone access, "is it all worth the price for 15 channels of entertainment ?"
  18. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    Nov 18, 2006
    Aereo was selling what you can get for free but in the processe they sold you NFL and MLB games and that is a copyright problem. I can't see how the outcome could heve been any deferent. As for cloud storage there should be no change as you payed for the content,
  19. Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    Let's start with the "recorded" part. That was struck down in the Sony VCR case 30+ years ago. We're all allowed to record programming.

    Aereo's argument was that what they were actually doing was renting an individual antenna to a customer, which allowed the customers who live within the broadcast radius of a given channel to receive the OTA broadcast of that channel which could then be viewed on the device of their choice.

    If Aereo's business model was to install an antenna on your roof, that they would rent to you on a monthly basis, which would allow you to watch OTA programming and possibly record it on another device that Aereo would rent to you, there would be absolutely no reason why Aereo would need to pay royalties to the broadcasters who transmit the over the air signals. They would be charging for the rental of equipment that allows you to receive programming that is broadcast freely over public airwaves. They would not be charging for the programming.

    What Aereo did was to take advantage of new technology which allowed for extremely small antennas, which would be assigned to individual customers (which replaces the roof antenna) and used the Internet as the mechanism to carry the signal from that antenna to the viewing device (which replaces the coax from the roof antenna to the TV).

    The individual antenna per customer is the "loophole" that Aereo was exploiting. When the law was written, they didn't anticipate the ability for a company to setup an antenna array that could be used in the manner in which Aereo did, nor did they consider the creating of the World Wide Web as a content delivery methodology.

    As I wrote earlier, Aereo was violating the spirit of the Copyright laws. They were not violating the letter of the Copyright laws. That's what the justices who dissented were talking about in the quote that dpeters posted.

Share This Page