Comment Re:It's not retransmission (Score 1) 93
That's retransmission for one person (you). Aereo was doing mass retransmission -- also known as redistribution.
No.... it's OTA. The content is being distributed freely over the air.
So, it's like gpl -- once in the air, it's becomes free to anyone who can read it? Well then, anyone should able to record it and sell DVDs of tv shows too, right?
Some viewers have difficulty receiving the OTA content over the air at the quality they want using their own equipment, or the investment is too much, or they lack the expertise to build large antenna structures and setup gateways to stream their content to themselves over the internet, so they are inclined to subscribe to a service to maintain equipment to receive over the air on their behalf and provide them the technical assistance to receive the freely available content in the manner the end user wants.
So why can't your service provider pay for the content it is rebroadcasting for a profit? Aereo thinks it should be able to profit from somebody else's content, but the content providers should not profit from their own content? The OTA broadcast is only for individual consumption -- rebroadcasting or commercial use requires a new license and fees.
The charges that OTA channels get to charge cable companies a purely a protection racket. THAT is what should have been made illegal, not Aereo!
How, so? The content is a product and the cable companies profit from that product, and should therefore pay the OTA broadcasters for its use.
The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home,
The spectrum may be public, but the public does not own the data in the spectrum, (just as roads may be public, but the public don't own the cars on the roads).
A little over three years ago, our team embarked on a journey to improve the consumer television experience, using technology to create a smart, cloud-based television antenna consumers could use to access live over the air broadcast television.
Why didn't you obtain retransmission rights for the copyrighted content? Was it to save your company a lot of money?
So your position is that using Slingbox or a DVR over the Internet (a shared non dedicated connection per user) makes you a CATV company and a copyright infringer as well?
Retransmitting copyrighted content, like a tv show, without permission, over the internet, is copyright infringement. However, viewing a show from your slingbox is allowed as fair use.
However, if your slingbox retransmits tv shows to your multiple friends, that's copyright infringement. Aereo is kinda like an antenna connected to a slingbox which in turn transmits content to many viewers. That's redistribution of copyrighted content, which is illegal without permission.
I can erect an antenna across town and back haul the signal on the internet...
Except in this case, you're not erecting the antenna and hauling equipment (decoders and servers), Aereo is. You are renting their equipment to watch TV. Once the TV signal leaves "your" Aereo antenna and enters shared equipment like decoders and servers, it becomes content on just another video site like youtube. Face it, Aereo is like a cable company delivering video via the internet. It doesn't have equipment to deliver dedicated internet connection per user, rather it uses a big upload pipe (just like a video website), to deliver copyrighted content to the user.
Oh yeah totally nailed it, except for where people are paying, and the product is freely available to them anyway.
They're paying a lot less than basic cable. What if Aereo had to pay retransmission fees to the copyright holders? Won't Aereo then jack up the monthly subscription fees to cover that cost?
No. When you activate the Aereo service, you are assigned a dedicated (not shared) antenna and the video is streamed from that antenna to your device. There is no storing or sharing of anything.
LOL, antennas can't convert TV signal into an internet video stream. You need a computer with a video decoder and a shared internet service to transmit the video stream to your millions of customers. Unless they have a also have a dedicated DVR per user, a dedicated internet connection for each user, and the user owns all the above equipment and services, they are renting out a TV show transmitting service which is similar to cable TV service.
The justices were openly hostile to Aereo and saw it as basically someone setting up a cable company without following the rules set up for cable companies
That's your opinion, but others may say Aereo wants something (TV shows) for nothing, which is same as stealing/copyright infringement. Aereo and many of its customers have no problem giving the financial shaft to the owners and creators of the TV shows, but without profit, no one is going to create more quality TV shows.
I'm all for copyright and IP reform, but tell me how exactly that's fair.
Aereo has no intention of being fair. I think I read somewhere that they're just exploiting a loophole in the broadcast law that states something like "one antenna per customer to prevent copyright infringement." They're just exploiting an antiquated law that has not been updated for the Internet. So they have one antenna per customer to satisfy that law, but the rest of its broadcast equipment is shared by all users.
antenna -> video decoder -> server -> internet upload service -> client
In the ascii diagram above, only the antenna and client device is owned by the customer. The remaining equipment is shared by multiple customers, making it very similar to a video site like youtube or a cable tv service.
If it requires a login/password and a user account, how is that "publicly transmitting"?
Aren't Aereo antennas storing TV signal content on servers and retransmitting/uploading that content to multiple members of the public? That's what's prohibited by copyright law, according to the broadcasters.
Would the judge also declare that when I'm watching Netflix via wi-fi, I'm also "publicly transmitting"?
What if the content were encrypted so only you can watch it? Would it still be public transmission? Cable TV shows are being broadcast to all cable subscribers, but you get to view the channel only if have subscribed (and paid for) it.
How is it holding public space hostage?
X is currently occupying a parking space. He plans to leave in 5 mins because his task in that area has been completed. Random stranger Y is close by and looking for a parking spot. Instead of Y getting it, X sells the spot using the phone app to Z, who is much farther away than Y. X then squats at the parking spot until Z arrives. X and Z are hogging the parking spot and holding it hostage by not allowing a person close to the parking spot, (such as Y) to use it.
So we shouldn't have kids in a vehicle or speak to the passengers then?
You could/should, because your awareness does not exit the car. Talking on the cellphone is like daydreaming, your mind's GPS location is not the same as your physical body's GPS location. So it takes more time to react to potentially dangerous traffic situations while using your phone.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
