Aereo and the Supreme Court

[ziggy29]

Then makes the bypass illegal. Problem solved.

I still don't see how this makes Aereo illegal. Less profitable for broadcasters, yes.

The distinction in law may (I don't know, IANAL) come down to the difference between sending signals via a physical cable and sending them wirelessly.

If I put up an antenna on my property and ran the cable to a neighbor's house so they could get free OTA television, I'm pretty sure that's within the law. Even if I were to run miles of cable, with the consent of the people on whose land the cable ran (signal loss aside), if they had a dedicated antenna that fed their home I'm pretty sure that would be legal as well. So does the law change when the transmission medium is wireless signals rather than a cable? I guess that's a key test. Maybe it's considered a rebroadcast or retransmission when done wirelessly, but not when it's a long dedicated wired connection?

I suppose it points to a change in business model. Once upon a time -- like more than 30 years ago, perhaps -- broadcasters would be thrilled with entities willing to send their programming (with all the commercials) into more households; more viewers meant more money. But perhaps now they are planning on making more money from retransmission agreements with cable and satellite providers than from advertisers, and they are hostile to such an idea.

 

[ERD50]

Related to all this, and I am not a sports fan, but I seem to recall some notice during OTA sports broadcasts that any use of this program for commercial purposes is prohibited.

But any bar had 'the game' on for their paying customers (I'm talking back when OTA was the only option). Wasn't that a violation?

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

If I put up an antenna on my property and ran the cable to a neighbor's house so they could get free OTA television, I'm pretty sure that's within the law. Even if I were to run miles of cable, with the consent of the people on whose land the cable ran (signal loss aside), if they had a dedicated antenna that fed their home I'm pretty sure that would be legal as well.

Perhaps you're a bit too young to recall, but what you're describing is called CATV. Those companies were the beginning of what is now known as the cable TV industry.

 

[photoguy]

The bar may have a had a license for the tv broadcast anyway (they wouldn't get a separate stream without the warning). It looks like the rules/regulations around this are somewhat complicated:

http://www.tmroe.com/blog/copyright-licensing-for-bar-clubs-and-restaurants-what’s-required

Note: I can't vouch for the accuracy of the blog post.

 

[aja8888]

I watch Aereo here in Houston via a Roku box. It's damn good quality. I have it on the local news channel and DW thinks its Comcast with a better picture. One of these days I'll let her in on the secret.

 

[Chuckanut]

Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, people will continue to cut the cable cord. It's just to expensive for many people.

 

[bUU]

Very true, and I think reflexively, OTA television broadcasters are going to continue to drive their program schedule from scripted to less costly unscripted programming. Every consumer-facing industry has to deal with the pressures for margin from investors and the pressures on prices from customers. With television it works a little differently but just a little. Industry is going to exploit whatever opportunities it has to foster revenue growth.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see OTA employ more and more non-linear video advertising (the overlays we see presented while programs are being broadcast). Right now, that's mostly advertising is for other programs on the channel, and on OTA, pretty limited in terms of how much of the screen it overlays. Some of the overlays on cable are quite large. As pressure for revenue growth continues, I see OTA employing these measures we see on cable today, and not just for program notes, but for products and services. Free television - we'll eventually get pretty-much what we pay for.

 

[ziggy29]

Cost is why I think some of the networks love reality TV. You have a bunch of ordinary people getting almost nothing for a chance to win the "grand prize" which is less than one big star can make for one *episode*, let alone an entire season.

 

[bUU]

Reserving first-run scripted programming for pay services would also make the pay services more financially attractive.

 

[audreyh1]

Cost is why I think some of the networks love reality TV. You have a bunch of ordinary people getting almost nothing for a chance to win the "grand prize" which is less than one big star can make for one *episode*, let alone an entire season.

Reality TV is what ultimately drove me away from regular TV - broadcast and cable. Too many prime time shows doing the reality thing - off. So many times I switched to the Food Network or do-it-yourself type network to get stuck in some super obnoxious competition - TV off! Ironically MTV seemed to be the first to succumb - where'd the music go? Jersey (or wherever) housewives - please! I thought this was The Weather Channel - I guess it's The Scary Weather History Channel from the "common man's" perspective. I don't even dare to switch to any of the "nature" channels anymore. Can't remember the last time I dared watch a travel channel - and I used to be a junkie.

It's just amazing thinking back to all what I used to watch and enjoy and how it mostly got replaced with cr@p.

I doubt I'm alone.

 

[aja8888]

Reality TV is what ultimately drove me away from regular TV - broadcast and cable. Too many prime time shows doing the reality thing - off. So many times I switched to the Food Network or do-it-yourself type network to get stuck in some super obnoxious competition - TV off! Ironically MTV seemed to be the first to succumb - where'd the music go? Jersey (or wherever) housewives - please! I thought this was The Weather Channel - I guess it's The Scary Weather History Channel from the "common man's" perspective. I don't even dare to switch to any of the "nature" channels anymore. Can't remember the last time I dared watch a travel channel - and I used to be a junkie.

It's just amazing thinking back to all what I used to watch and enjoy and how it mostly got replaced with cr@p.

I doubt I'm alone.

We have Comcast (not by choice in this location). DW wants it vs. OTA . We have 400 channels and she watches 3, maybe. I watch 2, news at 6:00 PM and one DVR'd car show at 11:00 PM. What a waste of money.

 

[bUU]

There are many people who think that television wasn't worth watching until it got real. Reality television ascends not only because it is inexpensive, but also because it often gets ratings better than many scripted offerings. The inescapable truth is that we're a very diverse population. The only thing we can count on is that we're all - each and every one of us - in a small minority with regard to our television preferences.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here's a good summary of the legal issues.

"Each side in this new case has tried, often with considerable energy, to make it easy for the Court to decide this new case: the broadcasters want the focus entirely on what Aereo itself does and how it operates its system from the top down; Aereo wants the focus entirely on the choices that its customers make from the bottom up."


http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/argument-preview-free-tv-at-a-bargain-price/

 

[Brett_Cameron]

Here's a good summary of the legal issues.

"Each side in this new case has tried, often with considerable energy, to make it easy for the Court to decide this new case: the broadcasters want the focus entirely on what Aereo itself does and how it operates its system from the top down; Aereo wants the focus entirely on the choices that its customers make from the bottom up."


Argument preview: Free TV, at a bargain price? : SCOTUSblog

Thanks, good link.

 

[RockyMtn]

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

 

[RockyMtn]

An interesting story that frames the issue quite well. The quote at the end pretty much sums it up....“Aereo is certainly not the first company to think about doing this,” Flynn says. “It’s really hard to do, which is why it hasn’t happened.”

Aereo's Supreme Court Showdown Won't End TV as We Know It - Businessweek

 

[aja8888]

I have a trial subscription to Aereo and it's quite nice. Much better than Crapcast which is sucking way too much money out of us for 300 worthless channels.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's an easy to understand primer on Aereo and the legal case it faces What is Aereo? - Everything you need to know about the Aereo case - Vox

 

[aja8888]

Here's an easy to understand primer on Aereo and the legal case it faces What is Aereo? - Everything you need to know about the Aereo case - Vox

Thanks, I'll pass it along.

 

[ls99]

IMHO Aereo will win.

In the past there was a case of community antenna/re-broadcasting.
Antennas for us all: How Aereo wound up at the Supreme Court | Ars Technica
"
1976: Different views

In their briefs, Aereo and the broadcasters present competing versions of the history that led up to this case.
What they agree on is surprising. Legal challenges to the concept of a “remote antenna” aren’t new. In a 1968 court case, Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, copyright holders said their “public performance” rights were infringed by “community antennas,” which received signals from five televisions stations, converted them to different frequencies, and re-broadcast them. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that re-broadcasting of a signal wasn’t a performance at all. "

 

[clifp]

Megan McCardle a economics blogger had an interesting column today about Aereo.

Basically she thinks the broadcasters will win primarily cause IP law tends to support the status quo/property holders.

 

[pb4uski]

I think and hope Aereo will win.

I live in an area where, principally due to topography, I can't get OTA broadcasts even though the major network broadcast towers are only 30 miles away. In fact, people I know whose place I can see from my front window can get OTA.

It seems to me that what Aereo is doing is no different than if I arranged with a friend in the area with good reception to put an antenna on his property and transmit the OTA signal to me via the internet where I would then decide what to watch or record.

 

[Chuckanut]

I am rooting for Aereo also, though I think the Supreme Court ruling is a toss-up at this point.

I live within the broadcast area of many TV stations in a large metropolitan area. All broadcast antennas are within 20 miles of my home. But, I often get pixelation and/or 'weak signal' messages if the weather is poor or for some reason I can't figure out. One station has never had a strong enough digital signal so I don't get it at all.

Aereo would help me watch more of the broadcast TV shows including the commercials. I assume that would be a benefit to them since more viewers can mean higher advertising rates. Instead, I usually watch last season's shows via disk rentals or streaming, with NO commercials.

Hmmm... Maybe I am better off with no broadcast TV and no commercials.

 

[imoldernu]

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.

 

[clifp]

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.