Aereo and the Supreme Court

[aja8888]

Small point of what is... is.
I get same day clips from ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, History Channel, A&E full programs, news programs and many primetime series, full episodes, via free Plex.

I tried loading Plex on my XP Professional box (latest SP's installed). Won't load...says the MSI installer is not up to date. There is no newer one.

 

[pb4uski]

I recently switched to Dish network after the initial teaser rate for year it is going to be $55/month for TV only which seems reasonable to me. It automatically records all the network shows and has really nifty commercial skipping technology. The convenience factor is worth it.

We have Dish as well. Best option given no OTA. Much less expensive than cable in our area and just as good IMO. Only downside it every once in a blue moon I have to go out and brush heavier snows off the dish.

 

[imoldernu]

Decision due on Aereo case in the Supreme Court.

A Preview of Possible Outcomes in Aereo Supreme Court Case - Disruptive Competition Project

The Court’s Aereo decision will issue on a Thursday or Monday between now and June 30. The case could be resolved as early as tomorrow morning, but the fact that it was argued so late in the term may produce a correspondingly late decision date.

My guess: Vacatur/Remand... with the current SCOTUS, anyone's guess.

Whaddya think?

 

[RockyMtn]

Personally I think that the broadcasters will win. Copyright and intellectual property rules/laws will outweigh Aereo's claims that it is just an antenna with a DVR in the cloud.

 

[Chuckanut]

I think Aereo will win. Think about it. All it does is let a local person who lives in the broadcast area of a station, get the signals that it broadcasts to local people. It is the person's choice as to what broadcasts he/she receives. And we get those signals when they are broadcast. Granted people can record the information for later playback, just like people used to do with a tape VCR. All perfectly legal and consistent with material broadcast over the public air waves.

Now if Aereo were to record the broadcasts and say, put them together into a weekend of binge watching a show that would be different. Or if Aereo where to time shift shows so that it could pit various shows against each other when they aren't normally broadcast at the same time, that would be a different story. Or if Aereo replaced the commercials with their own commercials, that again would be different.

Consumer choice is the driving factor. That's the key

 

[bUU]

I see little reason to believe that the SCOTUS will be driven by consumer choice rather than intellectual property law. But stranger things have happened.

If it was me, I would simply order Aereo to leave the signal unchanged in format, ATSC from antenna to customer. That would prove that all they're doing is just giving the consumer an antenna.

 

[pb4uski]

I personally hope Aereo wins in that it would be a big help to those of us who do not get good OTA signal to cut the cable.

While I see Aereo's business model of providing both antenna and DVR service to consumers as fine, if it is found to be in violation I suspect it would be possible to "simply" move the DVR to the customer's house as bUU suggests.

If Aereo is simply providing me with better OTA signal which is freely available to people who live closer to broadcast towers and I am willing to pay them for that service, I don't see how the broadcaster's intellectual property is violated. It is substantively the same as my friend who lives in an area with good OTA signal can do with a digital antenna and TiVo.

Either way, the broadcaster is providing me programming in exchange for advertising.

 

[DayDreaming]

I hope Aereo wins.

And at the same time the Supreme Court should declare Comcast in the wrong for taking HD OTA signals, rebroadcasting them as SD, and trying to sell HD and an "extra" feature. (I know that's not part of this court case but it sure makes me mad!)

 

[Chuckanut]

I hope Aereo wins.

And at the same time the Supreme Court should declare Comcast in the wrong for taking HD OTA signals,

One thing I love about OTA free TV is the quality of the signal. Most people I know who have cable are in awe of the picture my $40 antenna delivers.

Of course, with HD digital, if the antenna can't deliver a great picture, all you get is garbage, or nothing at all. Thus the need for a service like Aereo if one lives on the wrong side of a hill, or near another interfering object.

Yup, I would be happy to buy my own recorder if that's the price for keeping Aeroe alive.

 

[bUU]

While I see Aereo's business model of providing both antenna and DVR service to consumers as fine, if it is found to be in violation I suspect it would be possible to "simply" move the DVR to the customer's house as bUU suggests.

It's not the DVR that is the issue. It is the fact that the violation is retransmission. For what Aereo is doing to be transmission instead of retransmission, they'd have to be delivering the same signal that they received, i.e., ATSC, instead of taking the signal, changing it into something that they can cheaply transport, and then providing it to you. That isn't what they're doing.

 

[pb4uski]

What does that matter? They would be providing me with the same end result that any other individual can get OTA if they have good signal - the technical form may be different to facilitate the transfer from the antenna farm to me, but the substance is the same... no more, no less. It would be no different than if I had a friend with great OTA signal at his house set up a digital antenna and slingbox at his house and then I grabbed the slingbox contents over the internet.

 

[explanade]

The networks and TV stations get billions in retransmission fees every year.

Lot of money riding on this decision and this Court has tended to favor moneyed interests over upstarts.

 

[bUU]

What does that matter?

Transmission is legal; retransmission without paying a licensing fee is not. The "matter" is money due to the copyright holder.

the substance is the same

By that logic, the substance is the same as cable television. QED.

It would be no different than if I had a friend with great OTA signal at his house set up a digital antenna and slingbox at his house and then I grabbed the slingbox contents over the internet.

Effectively correct: What your friend would be doing would be a similar violation, especially if he charged you for it like Aereo.

 

[imoldernu]

The Supreme Court closes for the summer on June 30. Aereo is one of the decisions due.
Here's an article that lists the Ten major Decisions that are due, along with some educated guesses as to the outcomes. Aereo is last on the list.

And Then There Were 10: Final SCOTUS Decisions May Finally Divide Court - Forbes

Enjoy your vacation, judges

 

[ERD50]

What does that matter? ...

I pretty much agree with your view, but I don't think our view matters. This will be decided on legal technicalities and lawmakers that may be allowing themselves to be influenced.

Aero actually uses a separate physical antenna for each customer - now that makes no practical sense at all, it is clearly legal maneuvering.

So here's a parallel - imagine I have a friend who lives nearby, but he gets poor reception due to a metal building nearby and physical restrictions to putting up an effective antenna. So I tape his favorite shows, commercials and all, and he picks them up each day and watches them.

I don't see how this could make any difference at all to the broadcaster. We are both watching the shows we want, and their commercials are there which pays their bills. The difference in reception is just a technicality. Of course, a recording facilitates commercial-skipping, but that has been the case for decades. Broadcasters are adapting, and mingling the advertising with the show itself (product placements, etc).

-ERD50

 

[RockyMtn]

I believe the broadcasters will prevail and Aereo will be required to pay for copyrighted content just as any other distributor does.

As predicted down goes Aereo!

Here is a link to the ruling. Will be interesting to see if this spells the end of Aereo or if they will attempt to negotiate with broadcasters to be able to continue to offer a service of any kind.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

Broadcasting stocks up nicely on the news.

 

[easysurfer]

I support both rulings. The one on Aero and on cell phone privacy.

 

[explanade]

They were going to protect the business models of big media companies against any upstart.

 

[imoldernu]

The decision is in, and Aereo is (effectively) no more.

Contrary to what most might believe, the 6-3 decision was not what might have been expected.

Dissenting opinions from Robert, Scalia and Alito, while convoluted, will be interesting to legal types.

As always, prepare to pay more, for less.

Watch for another, very long battle over the legal aspects of "the cloud".

One would have thought that our forefathers might have eliminated all of the discord by establishing guidelines to cover this... or earlier, that the basics might have been included in the ten commandments.

 

[explanade]

One thing they called right though, that the police can't search your phone without a warrant.

I keep my phone locked.

 

[Chuckanut]

With Aereo out, I now must concentrate on improving my ability to receive and record OTA television. There are only about 5 shows I am interested in receiving and often just one or two of them in a given week.

I think I have solved the antenna problem with a flat antenna from Costco for about $40. Now to work on recording the signal.

Every cloud has a silver lining. The Supreme Court has saved me probably $100 a year that I would have spent on Aereo. I can now spend that on my own equipment.

 

[imoldernu]

Every cloud has a silver lining. The Supreme Court has saved me probably $100 a year that I would have spent on Aereo. I can now spend that on my own equipment.

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...

 

[Chuckanut]

I bought one of the Winegard FlatWave AMPED antenna's from Costco for $40 and it works much better than my old rabbit ears. I pick up stations I never knew existed. However, I am relatively near the broadcast antennas for my area, though my line of sight is not very direct.

I am amused by the way the antenna is marketed: No Monthly Fee, No Subscription, No Contract. This is quite normal to me, but I I imagine there are some younger folks who know they must pay the necessary tribute to the cable companies to watch TV.

 

[ziggy29]

We're still procrastinating about getting an outdoor antenna up at the house here. We think we know where we'll put it and it's pretty simple to just repurpose a couple of the cables coming from the dish that go into the house (it's regular RG-6 and there are no boxes or switches downstream from the grounding blocks.) Our church owns the house so we just need to get their approval -- we'll even pay for it all, it should pay for itself within 3 months of missing satellite bills. We'll miss some stuff, but between Hulu, Amazon Prime and Netflix together with getting all the local networks OTA, we should be fine. We just need to pull the trigger, and every time big money networks and cable/satellite providers "win" it motivates me a little bit more...

 

[ziggy29]

As always, prepare to pay more, for less.

It never fails to amaze me how entities like the cable/satellite industry and the networks can spin this as a "victory for consumers". And yet they always do. Just like mergers in an increasingly uncompetitive market are touted as being "good for our customers."