The Aereo Battle (and other streaming discussion)

[Thundershock MN 169]

Copied from the Sinclair Again Thread:

 

Why would Fox file suit? They don't even own KSTU anymore. Nexstar has already said they don't care about Aereo and don't see it as a threat (can't find the article but Perry Sook said so in an interview).

 

I think this is stupid though. Hope Aereo wins. They should be able to retransmit the stations that be received over the air. Broadcasters are just trying to get more retrans revenue out of this but I don't think their strategy will work.

1. Answer as to why Fox would be a party in the suit is below.

 

2. No, they shouldn't. You can't just rip-off people's content. Come hell or highwater the broadcasters will win, period. They will fight tooth and nail to protect their content.

 

 

It was mentioned in another thread, but FOX handled LocalTV's FOX affiliate retransmission negotiations, so that could be a reason why. Also, Tribune hasn't taken over the Local TV portfolio, so i'm not sure how much legal authority they would have to sue Aereo.

1. Yes, Fox handled retrans for LocalTV's Fox stations by proxy.

 

2. Last time I checked Fox is the copyright holder for the Fox Network Programming (ie: Fox prime-time, sports, etc.). As the copyright holder they should be allowed to be a party to the claim.

[sanewsguy 509]

Sorry but I completely disagree. Notice they filed this in Utah, not in NYC, because the broadcasters know if they file it in NYC they will lose. Just like Hearst filed their complaint in Boston, not NYC like they usually would.

 

The court already said it is legal for them to do what they're doing, let them.

 

 

2. No, they shouldn't. You can't just rip-off people's content. Come hell or highwater the broadcasters will win, period. They will fight tooth and nail to protect their content.

 

How are they ripping off their content? I support the broadcasters but they are obviously trying too hard. I understand ad revenue is not as profitable as it once was and so that's why they're doing this now, going after Aereo and the Dish Hopper. It has nothing to do with "protecting their content" and everything to do with squeezing more money out of these companies that dare retransmit their signal without consent. This didn't happen even ten years ago. And now it's just ridiculous with the retrans thing. Ugh...

[AaronQ 260]

Aereo win a lawsuit against WCVB-TV, but WCVB is having plans to appeal the ruling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/aereo-lawsuit_n_4078740.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[tyrannical bastard 3487]

I think Aereo is a novel idea....but they are clearly violating the rights of stations that opt for retransmission consent.

 

Aereo is receiving content and re-transmitting it to their customers for a fee in a way that consumers cannot do themselves.

 

Now if a station opts for "must-carry"....then Aereo is well within their rights to re-transmit the signal since the station is encouraging as much coverage possible by law.

 

 

Now if Aereo starts playing by the rules that ALL cable and satellite companies live and abide by....then we may have something here...

 

The same can be said if Aereo changes their model to be a hosting company, where the consumer receives the signal themselves with their own antenna on their premises, and pays Aereo to "host" the content so it can be ported to the consumers' devices for their own personal and non-commercial use.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Sorry but I completely disagree. Notice they filed this in Utah, not in NYC, because the broadcasters know if they file it in NYC they will lose. Just like Hearst filed their complaint in Boston, not NYC like they usually would.

 

How are they ripping off their content? I support the broadcasters but they are obviously trying too hard. I understand ad revenue is not as profitable as it once was and so that's why they're doing this now, going after Aereo and the Dish Hopper. It has nothing to do with "protecting their content" and everything to do with squeezing more money out of these companies that dare retransmit their signal without consent. This didn't happen even ten years ago. And now it's just ridiculous with the retrans thing. Ugh...

This suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah becuase that is where the affected stations are located. Neither, Sinclair & Local TV have stations stations in NYC. Fox inserted themsleves as a party to the suit by being the copyright holder to KSTU's network programming. Hearst filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for the same reason.

 

They are ripping off their content by taking copyrighted content without permission.

 

I'm willing to debate the Hopper dispute, too if you would like. I think I'd mostly side with you on that one. I think the Hopper has some "issues". But, really is a fruitless effort on the part of the broadcasters.

 

The court already said it is legal for them to do what they're doing, let them.

Aereo win a lawsuit against WCVB-TV, but WCVB is having plans to appeal the ruling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/aereo-lawsuit_n_4078740.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

The court has not said it's legal, the cases are all still pending. What they did was deny the broadcasters request for a preliminary injunction. This has happened three times now. Once in US District Court for NY that was upheld by the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The third is the latest decision handed down by U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the WCVB/Hearst case. The threshold to recieve a preliminary injunction is quite high. So, this isn't all that shocking, to me at least. The courts niether ruled it was illegal or legal they simply allowed Aereo to continue operating until the case(s) come to trail and a decision is rendered.

 

Aereo didn't win the lawsuit against WCVB/Hearst. The case is still pending awaiting trial. As stated, they just staved off a preliminary injunction.

[AaronQ 260]

This suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah becuase that is where the affected stations are located. Neither, Sinclair & Local TV have stations stations in NYC. Fox inserted themsleves as a party to the suit by being the copyright holder to KSTU's network programming. Hearst filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for the same reason.

 

They are ripping off their content by taking copyrighted content without permission.

 

I'm willing to debate the Hopper dispute, too if you would like. I think I'd mostly side with you on that one. I think the Hopper has some "issues". But, really is a fruitless effort on the part of the broadcasters.

 

 

 

The court has not said it's legal, the cases are all still pending. What they did was deny the broadcasters request for a preliminary injunction. This has happened three times now. Once in US District Court for NY that was upheld by the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The third is the latest decision handed down by U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the WCVB/Hearst case. The threshold to recieve a preliminary injunction is quite high. So, this isn't all that shocking, to me at least. The courts niether ruled it was illegal or legal they simply allowed Aereo to continue operating until the case(s) come to trail and a decision is rendered.

 

Aereo didn't win the lawsuit against WCVB/Hearst. The case is still pending awaiting trial. As stated, they just staved off a preliminary injunction.

Oh, I must of misread the article. Thanks for the correction.

[sanewsguy 509]

Aereo CEO and founder Chet Kanojia said in a statement, “Today’s decision, coupled with the decisions in favor of Aereo in the Southern District of New York (July 11, 2013) and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (April 1, 2013 and July 16, 2013), shows that when you comply not only with the letter, but the spirit of the law, justice will prevail.”

Keep fighting the good fight Mr. Kanojia. (yes, this is a serious comment)

[T.L. Hughes 760]

The issue with Aereo and the similar FilmOn (which I use) is mainy over the distribution of the service, and whether its legal. A lot of the issue here is that broadcasters want to keep revenue from retransmission consent, something these services don't offer. The key point that the services are driving here is that the government desiginates that the broadcast airwaves belong to the public, and that they should reserve the right to broadcast these signals using that argument, since it uses antennas (albeit different from the kind that one can purchase from any store that sells electronics) to transmit the signal (that part is considered legal, the transmitting of the signal via antenna part). The issue here is whether the companies reserve the right to transmit the signals online and without compensation, despite the second outlined point. They may also see these services as a threat of cannibalizing their traditional television audiences, since Nielsen's audience tracking through online streaming is limited only covers those watching a program after the network or distributor has provided it to a service like Hulu.

 

However, the main issue why Aereo and FilmOn are fighting the broadcasters is that they provide a lower-cost service, and their belief is that if they have to pay to transmit the signals like cable, satellite and telco providers do, it would hamper such a model and in turn, drive up subscription costs and lower revenue. The fact that they don't have to pay retransmission compensation however is a plus, since it prevents them from the problems with station owners using the continued carriage of stations as leverage for the companies to pay the broadcasters more. This means that local stations cannot be pulled for that reason.

 

Broadcasters, however, are hesitant to provide station signals in what they would consider a legal manner; only ABC does this, but Watch ABC only allows live streams of local stations if you are an authenicated cable/satellite/telco subscriber. The other networks, which are behind in offering such services would just do the same thing as ABC if they provided their own services that stream their O&Os and affiliates, which might not benefit them if more pay TV subscribers cord-cut. Syncbak only streams programming that stations are cleared to broadcast, which may not include network shows. Right now, few television stations stream anything other than locally produced programs online (and even that may be subject to restrictions, since sports segments may be blacked out due to restrictions imposed by sports leagues that both make streaming of newscasts complicated for many though not all stations - since some do stream sports highlights within their newscasts - and the fact that these rules have yet to evolve with the boom of streaming). I know of only two major network stations that stream programs other than local news online (KTLA and WCCB, although it is limited to select syndicated programs mainly and one network show - The Bill Cunningham Show - in KTLA's case).

 

Viewers want to be able to watch their favorite programs whenever they want to, and FilmOn and Aereo provide that service; most people may not be at home when their favorite shows are on (for example, what if you are a New Yorker and want to watch NCIS but are flying to Dallas, if you have a FilmOn account that allows you to watch WCBS and other New York stations, you can watch it live or DVR it to watch after your flight has taken off).

 

FilmOn and Aereo have one valid point, but broadcasters have another of their own. It will be interesting to see if and how the Supreme Court rules on this, I would hope that Aereo prevails in such a decision but then again it might not turn out well for them. But if these and other streaming services played by the broadcasters' rules, expect some conflicts with programming and other issues. The thing is broadcasters need to think about what happens if the occurrance of cord-cutting reaches a point that would significantly decrease their revenue from pay television services; networks provide series to services like Hulu to Netflix, there needs to be a service that streams station signals as a supplement to traditional television but without the requirement that you have to subscribe to a conventional pay television service to be given access.

[Jterry 43]

CBS, NBC, ABC, & Fox just filed a petition to the Surpreme Court on Aereo. Let's see if they are willing to take the case though.

[broadcastfan9751 136]

 

CBS, NBC, ABC, & Fox just filed a petition to the Surpreme Court on Aereo. Let's see if they are willing to take the case though.

 

Here's the story from Deadline: http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/broadcasters-petition-supreme-court-to-review-aereo-case/

[Thundershock MN 169]

...This didn't happen even ten years ago. And now it's just ridiculous with the retrans thing. Ugh...

I thought I replied to this portion. But, must have deleted it while cleaning up before hitting post.

 

Anyway, it wasn't exactly 10 years ago. But, cable's " Community Antenna Television (CATV)" they used in their early days is similar to the current Aereo situation. Oddy enough the settling of and creation of rules surrounding CATV & cable is what gave us the birth of must carry/retransmission consent. Washington communications lawyer, Michael D. Berg, wrote a column for TvNewsCheck awhile back outlining the various cases against Aereo and making the comparision to the early days of cable.

 

 

I think Aereo is a novel idea....but they are clearly violating the rights of stations that opt for retransmission consent.

 

Aereo is receiving content and re-transmitting it to their customers for a fee in a way that consumers cannot do themselves.

 

Now if a station opts for "must-carry"....then Aereo is well within their rights to re-transmit the signal since the station is encouraging as much coverage possible by law.

 

 

Now if Aereo starts playing by the rules that ALL cable and satellite companies live and abide by....then we may have something here...

 

The same can be said if Aereo changes their model to be a hosting company, where the consumer receives the signal themselves with their own antenna on their premises, and pays Aereo to "host" the content so it can be ported to the consumers' devices for their own personal and non-commercial use.

"Must-carry" isn't a blanket license to take copyrighted content and reuse it without permission. Yes, "Must-carry" would allow for use of said content at no charge. However, both parties would still need to agree to terms of use for said content.

 

For example, Lakeland Public Television (KAWE/KAWB) broadcasts Bemidji State Men's Hockey games. However, to the best of my knowledge the online streaming rights have been withheld by the schools/WCHA. This year they have sold them to America One who is reselling them as a PPV package. Again to the best of my knowledge Lakeland Public Television doesn't own the online streaming rights just OTA. So, in this hypothetical Lakeland Public Television could offer their content to a service like Aereo with the terms of use containing a condition that these games are blacked out as they are not the straming rights holder.

 

Other than that I agree with the rest of your post.

 

 

The issue with Aereo and the similar FilmOn (which I use) is mainy over the distribution of the service, and whether its legal. A lot of the issue here is that broadcasters want to keep revenue from retransmission consent, something these services don't offer. The key point that the services are driving here is that the government desiginates that the broadcast airwaves belong to the public, and that they should reserve the right to broadcast these signals using that argument, since it uses antennas (albeit different from the kind that one can purchase from any store that sells electronics) to transmit the signal (that part is considered legal, the transmitting of the signal via antenna part). The issue here is whether the companies reserve the right to transmit the signals online and without compensation, despite the second outlined point. They may also see these services as a threat of cannibalizing their traditional television audiences, since Nielsen's audience tracking through online streaming is limited only covers those watching a program after the network or distributor has provided it to a service like Hulu.

The issue isn't strictly retransmission consent. It's about the use of copyrighted content without premission (and, if that permission is needed). Yes, I'm not nieve enough to think the big boys wouldn't ask for retrans dollars in exchange for the rights to use their copyrighted content. And, yes part of it is about protecting said retrans dollars being received from MVPD's now and the neilsen tracking, etc., etc. But, at it's heart it is about the copyrighted content and controlling it's use.

 

WNET was one of the first to sue Aereo. Their suit WNET et al. v. Aereo, Inc. (of which PBS was also a plaintiff) was later consolidated with ABC, Inc. et. al. v. Aereo, Inc. in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Why would WNET (or PBS) care? They cannot receive retrans dollars. Neilsen numbers matter little to them. No real ad dollars to protect. So, why bother....because it is about the copyrighted content and controlling it's use. The example above to tyrannical bastard's post is a example of this and why it is still important that both parties agree to the terms of use surrounding copyrighted content.

 

 

Broadcasters, however, are hesitant to provide station signals in what they would consider a legal manner; only ABC does this, but Watch ABC only allows live streams of local stations if you are an authenicated cable/satellite/telco subscriber. The other networks, which are behind in offering such services would just do the same thing as ABC if they provided their own services that stream their O&Os and affiliates, which might not benefit them if more pay TV subscribers cord-cut. Syncbak only streams programming that stations are cleared to broadcast, which may not include network shows. Right now, few television stations stream anything other than locally produced programs online (and even that may be subject to restrictions, since sports segments may be blacked out due to restrictions imposed by sports leagues that both make streaming of newscasts complicated for many though not all stations - since some do stream sports highlights within their newscasts - and the fact that these rules have yet to evolve with the boom of streaming). I know of only two major network stations that stream programs other than local news online (KTLA and WCCB, although it is limited to select syndicated programs mainly and one network show - The Bill Cunningham Show - in KTLA's case).

I wouldn't say they are hesitant to do provide streaming signals. The streaming boom has come on quick and as you note evolution of streaming complicates things due to the many different rights holders. Trying to aquire or re-aquire said rights is no easy task. Unlike a national cable outlet where they control the rights nationwide, you have 200+ markets where various groups own the rights to differing syndicated programming, newscasts, etc., etc. Even some of the cable outlets have trouble. ESPN, who by all accounts has been at the forefront of the streaming boom couldn't show various MLB highlights via WatchESPN until a little over a year ago. ESPN still won't be able to show MNF on mobile phones until at least 2022. And, TBS & TNT had a some trouble securing streaming rights to some syndicated content. They only negotiate these things once now try to coordinate this amongst/with 200+ affilates...Lots of moving parts. And, even then you might still end up with some content blacked out or substituted.

 

I think they understand the importance of mobile/streaming. ASTC M/H still exists, although the focus in it's rollout and marketing has been a bit muddled. Syncbak will eventually have national content. Again it's a matter of aquiring the rights to this content. Neither, of these require authentication.

 

I tend to go back and forth a bit on the content being "authenticated" and the merits of it being available without authentication. So, I'm kinda neutral as I see valid cases on both sides.

[TVIntheDesert 183]

 

I think they understand the importance of mobile/streaming. ASTC M/H still exists, although the focus in it's rollout and marketing has been a bit muddled. Syncbak will eventually have national content. Again it's a matter of aquiring the rights to this content. Neither, of these require authentication.

 

I think the ATSC M/H cheerleaders (the NAB, Dyle, Mobile 500) have just about botched up their product introduction the way iBiquity and the HD Radio Alliance did for IBOC digital radio. While the broadcasters look at how to add extra revenue streams to their over-the-air signals, the consumer electronics and automotive industries has made up its mind and has decided that Internet-based mobile broadcasting is the future.

[broadcastfan9751 136]

Now Nexstar has filed a lawsuit against Aereo seeking to stop it from retransmitting KTVX and KUCW.

[Thundershock MN 169]

The NFL & MLB have jumped in filing amicus briefs with SCOTUS against Aereo.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

The NFL & MLB have jumped in filing amicus briefs with SCOTUS against Aereo.

 

These groups (all of the ones who have sued them) just want to deny Aereo of a long-term future. It is not against the law to watch TV and so I hope ultimately if it does go this far, the Supreme Court will be in favor of it.

[broadcastfan9751 136]

The Supreme Court will hear the case.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/broadcasters-get-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-bid-to-stop.html

[Thundershock MN 169]

Bumped up as things heat up in the run up to SCOTUS hearings on April 22nd. This past week has been rough on Aereo. First, The Solicitor General filed a joint amicus brief on behalf of the DOJ & US Copyright Office siding with the Broadcasters. The Canadians also got in on the action, a group of unions representing actors, musicians, etc. also filed a amicus brief. And, lastly after the Broadcasters in the Utah suit were granted a preliminary injunction last month Aereo was forced to shut down in Salt Lake City & Denver. After the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied a stay of the injunction on Friday, Aereo then was forced to stop providing service in Salt Lake City & Denver. And, as the injunction covers the 10th Circuit this effectively stops Aereo from providing service within the 10th Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah & Wyoming) for the time being.

[DirtyHarry 719]

 

Bumped up as things heat up in the run up to SCOTUS hearings on April 22nd. This past week has been rough on Aereo. First, The Solicitor General filed a joint amicus brief on behalf of the DOJ & US Copyright Office siding with the Broadcasters. The Canadians also got in on the action, a group of unions representing actors, musicians, etc. also filed a amicus brief. And, lastly after the Broadcasters in the Utah suit were granted a preliminary injunction last month Aereo was forced to shut down in Salt Lake City & Denver. After the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied a stay of the injunction on Friday, Aereo then was forced to stop providing service in Salt Lake City & Denver. And, as the injunction covers the 10th Circuit this effectively stops Aereo from providing service within the 10th Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah & Wyoming) for the time being.

 

 

 

 

This article will explain better than I can:

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140303/17554626416/us-solicitor-generals-office-run-former-top-mpaa-lawyer-shockingly-sides-with-broadcasters-over-aereo.shtml

 

and

 

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120830/13260820222/how-copyright-has-driven-online-streaming-innovators-insane.shtml

 

=============

 

The key issue in the case is whether or not Aereo is retransmitting to the public. As we've explained multiple times, Aereo's setup is technologically insane, but legally sensible, given just how stupid copyright law is today. Because it's recognized as legal that you can place shift legally accessible TV (a la a Slingbox) and that you can watch over-the-air TV via a personal antenna (duh), Aereo has set up "individual antennas" for each customer, connected to the equivalent of a Slingbox, such that you can "subscribe" and get access to over-the-air channels. It's technically no different than you setting up an antenna and Slingbox in your home, except that the distance of the cable between the antenna/Slingbox combo and your TV is much longer with Aereo (across the internet) than in your home. However, broadcasters and other supporters of them (now including the US government) argue that this longer cable somehow, magically, turns this individual antennainto a public broadcast for which Aereo should be expected to pay ridiculously steep retransmission fees.

 

The arguments put forth by the US government are basically a carbon copy of what the broadcasters are saying. They completely reject the length of the cable argument by basically saying that, what really matters, is how this might undermine the retransmission fees broadcasters get. Specifically, they say that it doesn't matter that people at home can create their own Aereo legally, what matters more is that Aereo looks too much like cable retransmission:

 

Respondent observes that, from the subscriber's perspective, respondent's service provides substantially the same functionality that consumers could obtain by purchasing equipment for their homes. In enacting the 1976 Copyright Act amendments, however, Congress overrode decisions of this Court that drew on the same analogy. In applying the Copyright Act in its current form, the more important functional equivalence is between respondent and the cable systems that the 1976 Congress brought within the Copyright Act's purview.

 

While this filing is careful to state that it is not trying to undermine the important precedent set in the Cablevision case (which said a remote DVR controlled by a cable company is legal), which was a key reason why the lower courts sided with Aereo, it's important to note that back when the Cablevision case was up for appeal to the Supreme Court, Verrilli's predecessor sided with innovation over claiming infringement. It's just now that the Solicitor General who has a long history of representing Hollywood is in control, that the administration seems to be happy to side with copyright maximalism, over innovation. The one potential saving grace: the prior solicitor general who sided with Cablevision and against the broadcasters? Elena Kagan... is now a Justice on the Supreme Court.

[Thundershock MN 169]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article will explain better than I can:

 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140303/17554626416/us-solicitor-generals-office-run-former-top-mpaa-lawyer-shockingly-sides-with-broadcasters-over-aereo.shtml

 

and

 

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120830/13260820222/how-copyright-has-driven-online-streaming-innovators-insane.shtml

 

=============

 

The key issue in the case is whether or not Aereo is retransmitting to the public. As we've explained multiple times, Aereo's setup is technologically insane, but legally sensible, given just how stupid copyright law is today. Because it's recognized as legal that you can place shift legally accessible TV (a la a Slingbox) and that you can watch over-the-air TV via a personal antenna (duh), Aereo has set up "individual antennas" for each customer, connected to the equivalent of a Slingbox, such that you can "subscribe" and get access to over-the-air channels. It's technically no different than you setting up an antenna and Slingbox in your home, except that the distance of the cable between the antenna/Slingbox combo and your TV is much longer with Aereo (across the internet) than in your home. However, broadcasters and other supporters of them (now including the US government) argue that this longer cable somehow, magically, turns this individual antennainto a public broadcast for which Aereo should be expected to pay ridiculously steep retransmission fees.

 

The arguments put forth by the US government are basically a carbon copy of what the broadcasters are saying. They completely reject the length of the cable argument by basically saying that, what really matters, is how this might undermine the retransmission fees broadcasters get. Specifically, they say that it doesn't matter that people at home can create their own Aereo legally, what matters more is that Aereo looks too much like cable retransmission:

 

Respondent observes that, from the subscriber's perspective, respondent's service provides substantially the same functionality that consumers could obtain by purchasing equipment for their homes. In enacting the 1976 Copyright Act amendments, however, Congress overrode decisions of this Court that drew on the same analogy. In applying the Copyright Act in its current form, the more important functional equivalence is between respondent and the cable systems that the 1976 Congress brought within the Copyright Act's purview.

 

While this filing is careful to state that it is not trying to undermine the important precedent set in the Cablevision case (which said a remote DVR controlled by a cable company is legal), which was a key reason why the lower courts sided with Aereo, it's important to note that back when the Cablevision case was up for appeal to the Supreme Court, Verrilli's predecessor sided with innovation over claiming infringement. It's just now that the Solicitor General who has a long history of representing Hollywood is in control, that the administration seems to be happy to side with copyright maximalism, over innovation. The one potential saving grace: the prior solicitor general who sided with Cablevision and against the broadcasters? Elena Kagan... is now a Justice on the Supreme Court.

 

 

Umm...For starters I'm a bit skeptical of the whole "individual antenna" thing. Their antennas are part of an Array. Heck, It's even in the title of their patent. These dime sized elements within the array are addressable. However, to get a decent signal these individual elements need the effects of the entire array. So, customers are paying for a very small element on a shared antenna. And, the elements aren't specific to each user as they are dynamically assigned/released based upon what RF channel is being tuned.

 

In fact the articles you linked to omit the portion of the DOJ's summary outlining this. This article points out these passages.

"The proper resolution of this dispute is straightforward. Unlike a purveyor of home antennas, or the lessor of hilltop space on which individual consumers may erect their own antennas . . ., [Aereo] does not simply provide access to equipment or other property that facilitates customers’ reception of broadcast signals. Rather, [Aereo] operates an integrated system—i.e., a “device or process”—whose functioning depends on its customers’ shared use of common facilities. The fact that as part of that system [Aereo] uses unique copies and many individual transmissions does not alter the conclusion that it is retransmitting broadcast content “to the public.” Like its competitors, [Aereo] therefore must obtain licenses to perform the copyrighted content on which its business relies."

 

The processes Aereo uses are outlined in patents here, here and here. It's not as simple as an antenna, slingbox, remote DVR and a really long cable (ie: the internet.) There are a lot of shared resources Aereo uses. Aereo is more then welcome to prove me and other skeptics of their dime-sized antenna wrong. I'd love to see one of these work stand alone. If they really did invent some miracle antenna as claimed that's only the size of a dime and can overcome multipath in a dense environment, cover the wide swath TV frequencies are broadcast on without issues why not market the damn antenna. Heck, you could make a mint selling that to every apartment dweller, pc card maker, cell phone manufacturer, etc. etc.

 

WRT, the RS-DVR portion. The DOJ took great care to point out that the courts don't need to throw out the Second Circuit's ruling regarding Cablevision's RS-DVR. And, I expect that Remote Storage will be upheld either directly or indirectly.

 

The crux of it is Aereo building their business on reselling/taking copyrighted content without permission. I've always used the free newspapers around town to describe Aereo's business "model". It's not the best comparison but, I think it makes the point. The newspapers are "free", like OTA tv. So, my hypothetical business would for a nominal fee offer you a digital copy and offer to archive them as well in the cloud. Said hypothetical business would obtain one physical copy for each customer, like an exclusive use antenna would for OTA tv. Said hypothetical business would then through a "process" digitize each copy and store them separately in the cloud only accessible by each individual subscriber, like an RS-DVR. So, nothing an individual couldn't do with some time to obtain the paper(s), a scanner, and a cloud storage locker. Doing so should keep one within the ground of "fair use" as long as it's for exclusive use. So, using that logic why wouldn't my business be legal, too? My hypothetical business just offers to do the same thing an individual can do on their own just like Aereo claims their business does. Again, it's not the greatest comparison but, I think it makes my point. And, This article makes a better comparison using OTA radio to illustrate the point I'm attempting to make. But, the issue is that just because something is "free", in this case copyrighted content, doesn't give someone a license to use it however they please without permission. It's copyrighted content and you need to obtain permission plain and simple.

[24994J 5280]

I'm sorry, but Les Moonves makes me laugh. If he were at the helm of NBC or ABC or heading up a failing CBS, he'd been seen as a complete buffoon.

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/moonves-says-cbs-could-go-all-internet-if-aereo-wins_b116982

[WAVY 10 Fan 232]

 

I'm sorry, but Les Moonves makes me laugh. If he were at the helm of NBC or ABC or heading up a failing CBS, he'd been seen as a complete buffoon.

 

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/moonves-says-cbs-could-go-all-internet-if-aereo-wins_b116982

 

I'm with you on this; and I'd love to see someone call his bluff on this statement.

[StabelliA 2]

I think the guy who runs the number one broadcast network shouldn't be saying crap like that. Wow.

[Thundershock MN 169]

Bumping as today is the big day for the SCOTUS hearing. For those interested C-SPAN will be attempting to provide coverage of proceedings this afternoon.

[tyrannical bastard 3487]

http://m.deadline.com/2014/04/aereo-supreme-court-hearing-arguments-broadcasters-lawsuit/

 

For the chief justice of the supreme court to tear Aereo a new one this early, Aereo in its current form is a goner and the broadcasters will prevail.

[Rusty Muck 4225]

The telecommunication giants have hated innovation in general, dating back to when RCA head David Sarnoff literally destroyed the inventor of FM transmissions, Edwin Armstrong.

 

Broadcasters are almost assuredly going to win this case (although Chief Justice Roberts' behavior on the bench does not necessarily predict how he rules on a case, as opponents of Obamacare infamously found out) but it will amount to a Pyrrhic victory. Those that stand to lose their Aereo subscriptions will most likely not turn back to cable, or OTA TV in general, but will look for different sources of content delivery.

 

Innovation always finds a way. And Disney, Comcast, CBS and Fox didn't even bother to consider that Aereo was meant to be a lifeline for them. Their loss.