Aereo and the Supreme Court

[REWahoo]

Yep, sounds like you're a real pro at crastinating.

 

[ls99]

My prediction failed, Aereo lost. Bummer.

 

[yakers]

I am unhappily surprised that Aereo lost. I want to cut the cord (Dish, in my case) It sounds easy enough to connect an antenna but not sure about a DVR with a usable interface. Then I would want to add Apple TV or Roku. My next project sometime in July.

 

[REWahoo]

I want to cut the cord (Dish, in my case) It sounds easy enough to connect an antenna but not sure about a DVR with a usable interface.

I've mentioned before that I cut the cord and am using an antenna along with a 'combination' DVR: a SiliconDust HDHomeRun DUAL High Definition Digital TV Tuner and Windows Media Center which is part of Windows Vista, 7, and 8. The software lets you see a schedule of future programming two weeks out and opt to record individual shows or an entire series. You can also get a remote to operate the system.

Unless you want to watch everything on your computer monitor you'll need the capability to hook up your TV as a second monitor. I have my 60" plasma connected and we've been really happy with the set up.

 

[ziggy29]

I am unhappily surprised that Aereo lost. I want to cut the cord (Dish, in my case) It sounds easy enough to connect an antenna but not sure about a DVR with a usable interface. Then I would want to add Apple TV or Roku. My next project sometime in July.

I wish I was surprised. I really thought (IANAL, obviously) they dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. But I also think the default these days is to protect Big Business, and you need a ridiculously solid argument to beat them. It wasn't solid enough.

The DVR thing is the problem, at least if you don't want to give TiVo $15 per month. I've toyed with Windows 7's Media Center (running on a 2009 Mac Mini!) with the stations I can get with an indoor antenna (surprisingly many with an indoor antenna, being 50 miles away from the tower, but passing cars momentarily kill the signal) but haven't really tested it hard. I think I want to play with it more to test it as a proof of concept.

 

[W2R]

I'd go for that too, except we're in between several rocks and the hard place.

Only OTA channel available with indoor antenna, is a religious channel. Even with a good rooftop antenna, nearest channels are 95 to 100+ miles away. Intermittent at that... We're not allowed outside antennas. Our only source for internet is Comcast or Hughes satellite.. and for TV... Directv, Dish, Comcast . ergo... Comcast...

No Tyranny of Choice here...

That is sad!!! You must live in a smaller town or out in the countryside. I am getting 31 channels for free, by using a homemade indoor antenna that cost about $10 in parts and is completely hidden behind my 60" HDTV. I guess that is one advantage of living in town.

I've mentioned before that I cut the cord and am using an antenna along with a 'combination' DVR: a SiliconDust HDHomeRun DUAL High Definition Digital TV Tuner and Windows Media Center which is part of Windows Vista, 7, and 8. The software lets you see a schedule of future programming two weeks out and opt to record individual shows or an entire series. You can also get a remote to operate the system.

Unless you want to watch everything on your computer monitor you'll need the capability to hook up your TV as a second monitor. I have my 60" plasma connected and we've been really happy with the set up.

Sounds like a terrific setup.

I have a link on my laptop computer to a TV guide that lists programming for OTA channels here. I never used my DVR when I had one, so no need for that (but a variety of OTA DVR's such as yours do appear to be available for purchase online).

I know I said it before - - but I love having "cut the cord" by cancelling cable television service! Best decision so far this year, I do believe.

 

[bUU]

I was surprised that the Aereo decision made only a very slight comment about the illegality of the retransmission inherent in Aereo's service (i.e., the technical aspect of their violation). The bulk of the decision is that it is illegal to attempt to avoid the laws regarding retransmission via technicality. Aereo is a MVPD because everything about their service works, on the outside, like an MVPD.

So the real question now is this: With Aereo's transgressively opportunistic approach declared illegal, will cord-cutters support legitimate innovation? Or was cord-cutting never about independence and choice and always just about profiting from violating IP rights of others?

 

[ziggy29]

So the real question now is this: With Aereo's transgressively opportunistic approach declared illegal, will cord-cutters support legitimate innovation? Or was cord-cutting never about independence and choice and always just about profiting from violating IP rights of others?

Another question is: Are you looking for legitimate discussion or, given your choice of language, hoping to pick a fight?

I don't quite buy the "violating IP rights" argument because these are picking up *free* signals over the airwaves. I guess the main difference between this and (say) OTA TiVo is that the latter is unquestionably ONLY providing the DVR service since the antenna and cables are presumably on your own property rather than off in a distant building and sent into a "cloud" -- and TiVo is not sending the broadcast signal itself. But the legitimacy of OTA TiVo suggests that merely offering time-shifting of free TV signals is not a violation of IP rights.

 

[Meadbh]

This has happened before.

iCraveTV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ziggy29]

This has happened before.

iCraveTV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But did that entity have individual antennas for each subscriber?

The real question here is as to whether or not a streaming, Cloud or DVR service can operate *at all* if they also provide the signal to the end user. It sounds like the Court may be suggesting that *any* service that also provides the actual OTA signals, even if they claim they are not charging for them, are in fact retransmitting them in a for-profit entity. Yes, the Court's decision was a very narrow one, but that seems to be the suggestion to me.

 

[bUU]

Another question is: Are you looking for legitimate discussion or, given your choice of language, hoping to pick a fight?

Well, I suppose I could say the same thing about a number of the comments posted in opposition to the SCOTUS ruling, above, including sarcasm such as, "No Tyranny of Choice here..." and insinuations that "They were going to protect the business models of big media companies against any upstart," thereby implying that the decision was not made on substantive grounds. Let's just go with the idea that we disagree, and so each other's characterizations of the SCOTUS decision will naturally appear alien to each other.

I don't quite buy the "violating IP rights" argument because these are picking up *free* signals over the airwaves.

"Free" subject to terms and conditions. Aereo's model violated the legitimate, and now ratified, terms and conditions.

The real question here is as to whether or not a streaming, Cloud or DVR service can operate *at all* if they also provide the signal to the end user.

Of course they can. They just have to pay a retransmission fee.

 

[ls99]

I wonder if there are precedents for the supreme court overturning their decisions.

This one seems a little loopy. I do like Scalia's dissenting opinion explaining the flaws and inconsistencies in the decision.

 

[bUU]

The question is why didn't Scalia point out the inconsistencies between his dissent and his own prior opinions.

 

[ls99]

If I get to meet him, I'll pass along the question.

 

[RockyMtn]

This has happened before.

iCraveTV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it will happen again! When will entities realize that stealing copyrighted content is illegal?

 

[Chuckanut]

Give people true competition, at least three real choices for Internet, TV, etc, and all this fussing will go away. As long as cable type services are a monopoly or duopoly, people are going to be fighting them. Copyrighted content is just the guy caught in the middle. Sort of like Poland being between Germany and Russia in the 1930's.

 

[ERD50]

...
So the real question now is this: With Aereo's transgressively opportunistic approach declared illegal, will cord-cutters support legitimate innovation? ...

I'm at a loss to understand what this SCOTUS decision has to do with whether 'cord-cutters support legitimate innovation' or not.

I think most consumers recognize it is illegal to tap into their neighbor's cable connection, or sip from their ISP (even with neighbor's knowledge). Some will do it knowing it is illegal, but the vast majority just go out and pay for cable if they want it, or contract their own ISP.


I also think that most consumers would have trouble understanding why they couldn't use some alternate means of picking up an OTA broadcast in their area, if their only obstruction to getting that signal was that they couldn't put up the proper antenna, or some building was in their way - and the OTA broadcaster would be happy if that consumer had a good antenna, watched the OTA shows and was exposed to the commercials. Who is being harmed?

Who's is against innovation here? The decision appears to me to be a legal technicality that few consumers understand.

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

I'm at a loss to understand what this SCOTUS decision has to do with whether 'cord-cutters support legitimate innovation' or not.

I think most consumers recognize it is illegal to tap into their neighbor's cable connection, or sip from their ISP (even with neighbor's knowledge). Some will do it knowing it is illegal, but the vast majority just go out and pay for cable if they want it, or contract their own ISP.


I also think that most consumers would have trouble understanding why they couldn't use some alternate means of picking up an OTA broadcast in their area, if their only obstruction to getting that signal was that they couldn't put up the proper antenna, or some building was in their way - and the OTA broadcaster would be happy if that consumer had a good antenna, watched the OTA shows and was exposed to the commercials. Who is being harmed?

Who's is against innovation here? The decision appears to me to be a legal technicality that few consumers understand.

-ERD50

This is why I feel SCOTUS did the right thing.

I'm sure there are some differences, but Aereo reminded me a lot of Napster when the question was if all the music sharing was legal or not.

The main reasoning may be because Areo profited from rebroadcasting free OTA signals. It's kinda like if you repackage freeware software that says cannot be sold, and sell it.

 

[ERD50]

This is why I feel SCOTUS did the right thing.

I'm sure there are some differences, but Aereo reminded me a lot of Napster when the question was if all the music sharing was legal or not.

The main reasoning may be because Areo profited from rebroadcasting free OTA signals. It's kinda like if you repackage freeware software that says cannot be sold, and sell it.

Then SCOTUS ruling may have been a correct legal decision, I do not know.

But I don't follow your reasoning at all. The music sharing sites took CDs that were for sale, and shared them with others that had not purchased that CD.

Aero took a signal that was meant to be distributed for 'free' (exposure to commercials being the only 'cost') to everyone in the area. So if you are in the area, sharing with another in the area seems to pass the common sense test.

I don't think there are any restrictions on selling freeware - if someone wants to pay me for a CD loaded with freeware that they can download themselves, that is a simple financial agreement between two individuals. Though one cannot sell it claiming it is their own work, they must leave proper credits intact etc.

Another analogy - sometimes a band makes a CD or puts music on the web, and does not charge for it. They want people to 'share' it, to build recognition for the band. To me, this is similar to OTA with commercials - the broadcasters would seem to want people to see it and share it (if they didn't, why broadcast it w/o encoding it and requiring a subscription?) - they gain more eyeballs on their advertising.

-ERD50

 

[pb4uski]

+1 Broadcast stations provide their programming free to those who get OTA. Why should those of us who can't get OTA due to geography be prevented from getting it free as well? Since the technology is now available, stream it live so I can cut the cord.

 

[Texas Proud]

Then SCOTUS ruling may have been a correct legal decision, I do not know.

But I don't follow your reasoning at all. The music sharing sites took CDs that were for sale, and shared them with others that had not purchased that CD.

Aero took a signal that was meant to be distributed for 'free' (exposure to commercials being the only 'cost') to everyone in the area. So if you are in the area, sharing with another in the area seems to pass the common sense test.

I don't think there are any restrictions on selling freeware - if someone wants to pay me for a CD loaded with freeware that they can download themselves, that is a simple financial agreement between two individuals. Though one cannot sell it claiming it is their own work, they must leave proper credits intact etc.

Another analogy - sometimes a band makes a CD or puts music on the web, and does not charge for it. They want people to 'share' it, to build recognition for the band. To me, this is similar to OTA with commercials - the broadcasters would seem to want people to see it and share it (if they didn't, why broadcast it w/o encoding it and requiring a subscription?) - they gain more eyeballs on their advertising.

-ERD50

The problem that I see with how you describe it is ratings... IOW, when it is being broadcast, the program gets a rating which had a direct impact on the amount they can charge for the commercials... if Aero is recording that signal for their subscribers to view at a later date.... they are not picked up as viewers.... hence, less money to the OTA broadcaster... that is why cable has to pay for rebroadcasting.... it make up for the money they do not get from the businesses buying commercials...


I have watched some OTA shows on the computer... from the site that originally broadcast it... and it has commercials... so again, if you can watch Aero, they do not get that money....

 

[Texas Proud]

+1 Broadcast stations provide their programming free to those who get OTA. Why should those of us who can't get OTA due to geography be prevented from getting it free as well? Since the technology is now available, stream it live so I can cut the cord.

You can get a lot of shows streamed.... you just have to go to their site and watch...

 

[clifp]

The problem that I see with how you describe it is ratings... IOW, when it is being broadcast, the program gets a rating which had a direct impact on the amount they can charge for the commercials... if Aero is recording that signal for their subscribers to view at a later date.... they are not picked up as viewers.... hence, less money to the OTA broadcaster... that is why cable has to pay for rebroadcasting.... it make up for the money they do not get from the businesses buying commercials...


I have watched some OTA shows on the computer... from the site that originally broadcast it... and it has commercials... so again, if you can watch Aero, they do not get that money....

That is exactly the way I see it also. TV shows are expensive to produce some one needs to pay for the cost of this production. In the early TV years advertisers have paid for the cost and we consumer have agreed to watch their ads. Then cable companies came along and charged us a fee to deliver better quality signal, (especially with HD) and provides us with huge variety TV channels. Some of the revenue that cable companies got from us went to the content producers.

Aero and similar service are attempting to take all of the money they get from consumers and pass on none to the content providers. Regardless of the technicalities of the copyright laws, the clear intent of the laws is to enable those who produce intellectual property to benefit financially from those consume it.

The advertising model for TV shows is rapidly becoming obsolete. In this century I moved from watching some commercial and ignore most, to DVR pretty much everything and fast forward through most commercial but still watching an occasional one . I switched to DISH a few months ago their DVR Hopper technology is so good that it almost perfectly skips over the major network commercials (while recording all prime time TV shows). I haven't even been exposed to commercial, on NBC, ABC, CBS, or Fox for the last 3 months.

We are increasingly moving to a world where a large group of people (especially young people and consumer in developing countries) are unwilling to pay for almost any content, because they can always pirate it.
I don't see any difference between Aero and Napster.

 

[photoguy]

I don't think there are any restrictions on selling freeware - if someone wants to pay me for a CD loaded with freeware that they can download themselves, that is a simple financial agreement between two individuals. Though one cannot sell it claiming it is their own work, they must leave proper credits intact etc.

If by freeware, you mean something like GPL, I think that's because the copyright owner's explicitly allow one to redistribute the software/code (and charge for it or not). Without explicit permission you would be in copyright violation (unless it falls under fair use).

It's also possible for a copyright owner to license their work under multiple schemes. One could distribute code via GPL for free (in price but with many other restrictions) and then turn around and license that same code for $$$.

 

[easysurfer]

If by freeware, you mean something like GPL, I think that's because the copyright owner's explicitly allow one to redistribute the software/code (and charge for it or not). Without explicit permission you would be in copyright violation (unless it falls under fair use).
...

+1

That's what I was getting to in a previous post. Some freeware specifically says okay for use and redistribution but not for sale for profit.

Many software says free for personal use but not for business use. A person may think "What's the difference? The software is free and out there?" But using for business use still violates the intended purchase.