Supreme Court Kills Aereo

[bergmann620]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/medi...html?hpt=hp_t2

Ever since Aereo was introduced in early 2012, its biggest financial backer, Barry Diller, has said that there is "no plan B" if the courts concluded that it was operating illegally.
He did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CNN, but he told CNBC that he thought the ruling was a "big loss for consumers who seek alternatives to the cable bundle. "We did try, but now it's over," he told CNBC.

Fueling the feeling that Aereo was David battling Goliath, the Justice Department and the United States Copyright Office took a public position against Aereo and called it "clearly infringing."
"What Aereo is doing is really the functional equivalent of what Congress in the 1976 [Copyright] Act wanted to define as a public performance," Malcolm Stewart, a deputy solicitor general at the Department of Justice, told the Supreme Court justices during oral arguments in April.
Aereo and its supporters strongly disagreed -- they said the service was expressly created to abide by the law.
"Aereo is, essentially, simply an antenna device that replaces technologically what you used to have to do — to go up to your rooftop and erect an antenna," Diller said.

While I haven't seen the briefs, it appears 3 of the conservative judges offered a dissent.

[Masark]

The Supreme Court basically ruled that Aereo is a cable TV provider, and thus has to pay the broadcasters for retransmittal rights.

The odds of them being able to acquire said retransmital rights are approximately zero, given that the broadcasters are typically owned by the cable companies. Go go horizontal integration.

[Gheld]

You should be happy Bergmann this is a TEA party victory!

[Stormdash]

I'm a big fan of IP rights, but I also think we've really let the copyright regime exceed its charter, providing effectively perpetual protection. I'm kinda agnostic about this ruling, though. Close case to me.

[Reeve]

Wait wait wait. They're taking what's already a free service (broadcast TV), not cable, and retransmitting it in an easier to consume package for a small fee? Why is that illegal? Those signals are available for free to anyone with an antenna. You might as well make it illegal to sell antennae.

There's a reason broadcast TV is advertising supported.

[Gheld]

For the first half of my life, I watched our society advance into the cyber-age.

And so far in the second half of my life I've watched billionaires fight with each other over who should control the power and money while the infrastructure that made the cyber-age possible crumbles in neglect.

[Masark]

Why is that illegal?

Because Congress wrote a dumb law 22 years ago. As I said in my post, the Supremes ruled that Aereo is a cable TV providers, and thus they're subject to this law and the requirement to get retransmittal rights from the broadcasters.

[Gheld]

Why do people still talk about laws?

In the "magical capitalist happy dream world" money represents human initiative.

It doesn't matter what the law says. It matters only who has the money.

[Felya]

Wait wait wait. They're taking what's already a free service (broadcast TV), not cable, and retransmitting it in an easier to consume package for a small fee? Why is that illegal? Those signals are available for free to anyone with an antenna. You might as well make it illegal to sell antennae.

There's a reason broadcast TV is advertising supported.

Yep, you can get a 50$ USB dongle and a 30$ HD Anttena to accomplish the exact same thing. I think the problem is that they charge for the service, without paying Goliath...

[Wells]

Having people pay the company for the service pretty obviously makes it a public performance as far as the law is concerned.

[Reeve]

Because Congress wrote a dumb law 22 years ago. As I said in my post, the Supremes ruled that Aereo is a cable TV providers, and thus they're subject to this law and the requirement to get retransmittal rights from the broadcasters.

OK, based on a cursory examination from that wikipage, the law says:

1) Cable providers MUST provide access to broadcast channels
2) Cable providers MAY NOT charge broadcasters for the right to be on their service.

It does not seem to say Cable providers MUST pay broadcasters to rebroadcast their already advertising supported free service.

[Masark]

Yep, you can get a 50$ USB dongle and a 30$ HD Anttena to accomplish the exact same thing.

Assuming you're in an area where you can get a signal worth a damn.

[Gheld]

Having people pay the company for the service pretty obviously makes it a public performance as far as the law is concerned.

What the law says and how it should be interpreted has already happened by the Supreme court.

I think the issue at hand is whether or not the law and it's intended purpose is stupid. Which it is.

[Reeve]

Yep, you can get a 50$ USB dongle and a 30$ HD Anttena to accomplish the exact same thing. I think the problem is that they charge for the service, without paying Goliath...

So does the seller of the dongle and antenna.

[Masark]

OK, based on a cursory examination from that wikipage, the law says:

1) Cable providers MUST provide access to broadcast channels
2) Cable providers MAY NOT charge broadcasters for the right to be on their service.

It does not seem to say Cable providers MUST pay broadcasters to rebroadcast their already advertising supported free service.

Read the "impact" section.

"The Congress' passage of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 authorized broadcast stations to demand payment from cable systems that carry them."

You don't accede to said demands for payment, you don't get to carry the channel.

[Reeve]

Read the "impact" section.

"The Congress' passage of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 authorized broadcast stations to demand payment from cable systems that carry them."

You don't accede to said demands for payment, you don't get to carry the channel.

Yeah see, that's just stupid. Their broadcasts are already being paid for by the advertising. That's why they can broadcast it free of charge. I don't think the idea of public performance should be applied to something that's already being thrown out to the world to anyone with an antenna for free, so long as that broadcast isn't modified to remove advertising or other content.

[bergmann620]

Having people pay the company for the service pretty obviously makes it a public performance as far as the law is concerned.

If that were the case, having an antenna and a TiVo makes your home a public performance, and thus you should be liable to pay for 'rebroadcast' under the law.

- - - Updated - - -

You should be happy Bergmann this is a TEA party victory!

Not real sure how those things are connected.

[Gheld]

Yeah see, that's just stupid. Their broadcasts are already being paid for by the advertising. That's why they can broadcast it free of charge. I don't think the idea of public performance should be applied to something that's already being thrown out to the world to anyone with an antenna for free, so long as that broadcast isn't modified to remove advertising or other content.

I feel like I should point out that modern North American culture is built on a foundation of left-over elements of Feudalism utilizing technological advances and scientific innovations, on top of their already stuffed pockets in order to seize monopolistic control over the new "governing force" of consumers and their interests.

The very framework of our culture is built to support this monstrosity. As long as most people are flying a dollar sign flag behind their SUV and shouting "North, 'Murica!" on their way to spend the majority of their waking hours at work (almost every job of course being centered around reinforcing the status quo), and taking whatever tiny little scraps they are thrown back by the monopolizers in order to quell their temper over the fact that either they or somebody else around them is getting fucked on a regular basis then this news story is just another drop of spit in the ocean.

And there's nowhere to run, because I see Europeans on here staring over at North America with rose coloured glasses wishing they could become a "millionaire too".

And you have your Tea partiers pointing at North America, and then pointing over at China, or some communist southeast asian breakaway republic where everybody lives their lives as slaves, and saying "This is the opposite of what we have, now quit bitching"... That's bullshit. That's just the other side of one single culture. And you might be sipping the margaritas now but you better pray to god the people with all the money don't one day decide they'd rather have the factories here and sell the goods over there. Because then you'll all be fucked.

[Reeve]

If that were the case, having an antenna and a TiVo makes your home a public performance, and thus you should be liable to pay for 'rebroadcast' under the law.

Only if you're charging people to watch your TiVo'd broadcasts at your house.

[belfpala]

For the first half of my life, I watched our society advance into the cyber-age.

And so far in the second half of my life I've watched billionaires fight with each other over who should control the power and money while the infrastructure that made the cyber-age possible crumbles in neglect.

I would put this as my facebook status if it wasn't possible to out me that way.