Aereo and the Supreme Court

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut The companies that make the TVs we use to watch over the air TV also profit from the broadcaster's product, but they don't have to pay a cent to the broadcasters.

Actually, there is mutual benefit there. Unlike with Aereo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Doesn't Aereo limit each customer to those stations within his/her local broadcast area?

Another poster earlier in the thread alluded to how that can be bypassed.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Once upon a time the broadcasters would be thrilled to have another service offer to send their signal and their advertising to many more people. But I guess they discovered the joys of reselling signals to cable and satellite, and that's what they want people to do. Look, I don't side with Aereo here -- my main point was that many of the same arguments the broadcasters are making can be used *against* them as well. And I understand the law makes a difference, but we all know the law is sometimes unjust, inequitable, unevenly applied, and sometimes not even moral. So from the standpoint of *principle* -- the broadcasters are doing the same thing they are accusing Aereo of doing in some ways -- using the property of others to profit without their consent and without compensating them.

In many ways this reminds me of the debate when Dish Network was trying to assert the satellite business model. People reading this thread (if there are any left) should know that the lower courts have sided with Aereo and the SC would need to reverse their decisions. The burden here is on the broadcasters, not Aereo.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU Actually, there is mutual benefit there. Unlike with Aereo. Another poster earlier in the thread alluded to how that can be bypassed.

Then makes the bypass illegal. Problem solved.

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

[Chuckanut]

Interesting articles about the issues and tech behind Aereo.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busi...8b65a4b05374ef

Inside Aereo’s Houston facility - TechBlog

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I still don't see how this makes Aereo illegal.

They're using the service the broadcasters provide contrary to its legitimate terms and conditions. Their use is not protected because Aereo is retransmitting the signals instead of simply passing them through to the customer directly.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 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-...2%99s-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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 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/ar...bargain-price/

[Brett_Cameron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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." 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.