Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?
This is basically what the whole case is about. The decision will answer your question.
Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?
They wouldn't have to. Because the ad rates are different based on delivery medium (newspaper, magazine, broadcast tv, radio, Internet) the broadcasters in this case could argue successfully that they are losing revenue because these Aereo streams would not get counted in their ad "impressions" for broadcast tv and therefore not be charged off at the higher broadcast rate, or even not at all. Since broadcast tv exists on ad revenues they could win that point, but the issue could be worked around by kicking back to the broadcasters based on stream/antenna numbers. That would get passed onto the consumer like Netflix's price hike due to bandwidth extortion by the ISPs, so if Aereo loses this point they could flounder. I will be watching this case closely as the outcomes affect some of my projects in the works. If Aereo loses this case it will be a long time before the broadcasters' cabal comes down, especially with the courts still backing the content providers and politicians are on the take even more with recent SCOTUS decisions.
experimenting with 15 inch golf holes the size of pizzas to stop people from quitting the game.
Why not make the entire green the hole? People would never be able to quit.
Spoken like someone who has never played golf. Even making the whole green the target/objective, it may still take most novices three to five strokes to get to the green, let alone land on it. It's why the 15" hole suggestion is laughable. Putting is only a part of the game that adds to your score, and it's typically not the hardest part to master, either.
You are the one who doesn't understand how money is made with open source software, or even most closed source software for that matter.
You seem fixated on the mistaken notion that paying for software is what drives the business, open or closed. it does not.
And you don't seem to understand how truly rare successful, not-for-profit software is. I have been involved with software start-up companies since 1994. If there is no money to be made its chances for success are slim to none. Sure, there are some labors of love that have lasted for years, but their usage and continued existence are limited. Of all the projects you can name, or even Google, there are thousands for each one that have failed or been abandoned. Money is made on open source software the same as any other, supply and demand. If there's no charge for the software then something related must be monetized, e.g., support, upgrades, etc. in order for supply to keep up with demand. Red Hat monetizes both support and upgrades (RHEL) for its Linux distros. Google monetizes data about their customers to sell ads. Two of the most successful open source companies anybody can name. Labors of love can monetize by donation, but that's usually the same as monetizing upgrades should donation lead to continued suppression of any nagware feature going forward through successive versioning of the application. How many labor of love projects are used by more than a niche in the world of users? I guess if you have limited metrics of success any labor of love project is a crowning achievement. Bound in a nutshell and master of infinite space and all, but to speak as if all open source software is developed intentionally for free and only for the enjoyment of the developers is beyond naive of how the world works. Sure open source software has helped a lot of people make their own money and not a lot has been given back to some of those developers, but if all software was open source there'd be a lot less people interested in developing it. Which is why so few people actually develop open source software, because they need to pay the bills. I did not say that paying for software drives a business. If there's no commerce (an exchange of goods or services for a fee, goods or services) there really isn't business, is there? If you develop a piece of software and just put it out there you're not doing business. Business requires an exchange. If all I do is download your software I am not doing business with you. If I send you an email about a bug and you fix it, I am still not doing business with you. If you don't see how giving software away is disruptive to the actual monetized software business then you and the rest of the masters of infinite space that mod you up are truly lost because you don't even understand what you're doing. This was a stupid poll. I should really stop coming here for this stuff. You probably haven't read the new Dice terms for this site! Amateurs!
Quite. Its amazing how many people today still think the internet = the web. Mention stuff like ftp, gopher, archie or WAIS and you just get blank looks.
Bah! They glaze over at telephone modem. They would think a BBS was an early Facebook. Of course, they'd be right, but Zuck probably doesn't know about the BBS days, either.
instant access to computers around the world
Actually, in 1981 the internet existed, you could FTP and use email, as long as you knew the bang path routing.
It wasn't for 2 more years after 1981 that I learned of it, but I knew people that were using it in the late 70's even. Contrary to what seems to be the popular public belief, the internet didn't start in the 1990's. That's just when the masses became aware of it, largely due to the influx of AOLers.
Granted it was much smaller then as far as number of connected machines.
Well, it was also a DARPA (ARPnet) project back then and only participating universities, govt contractors and govt agencies could get on. It was not publicly available. What was publicly available then was modem Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs). Those had chat forums, localized email and file sharing. If you were lucky and "knew a guy" or a guy who knew a guy, you could get on a networked BBS that exchanged files with other boards around the world via nightly sync or even luckier if you had someone from one of those universities or other running a board that also bridged to ARPAnet. That's where a lot of old usenet content got started. Those were the good ole days of social media. BBS meet and greets were fun. A lot less scary than now, fore sure and for a lot of new and different reasons.
"it's also a smart visual explanation of why the future of technology so often bears so little resemblance to anyone's predictions"
No, it's not an explanation at all. It was intended as a metaphor for miniaturization of electronics. Noone in their right mind would take a full QWERTY keyboard with keys the size of pin heads literally.
Except for the pinheads!
A real nerd would know how to calculate Pi from scratch, no shotgun required...
Pi = (4/1) - (4/3) + (4/5) - (4/7) + (4/9) - (4/11) + (4/13) - (4/15)
Gaaaa! What? How about 22 / 7 . Way closer, less painful. Nerds do it more efficiently and more accurately. That was about as bad as the shotgun method, maybe worse. I stopped doing the math at (4/15) when the result was 3.01[something] and adding (4/17) was 3.25[something]
a gun to calculate Pi value...
Not only are they Canadian, they're French Canadian. Calling them American is worse than calling them Canadian as the Québecers would rather be their own country all together. I just think they're smoking something to not use simple long division to calculate Pi, especially as a university research mathematician. I mean, really! 22 / 7 = closer to Pi than their stupid shotgun embarrassment.