Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Supreme Court blocks Internet breach of broadcast TV

Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:23 am
Posted by Winkface
Member since Jul 2010
34377 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:23 am
LINK

quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked an innovative Internet streaming service Wednesday from potentially upending the way Americans watch television.

The justices sided, 6-3, with the nation's major TV networks and cable companies against Aereo, an Internet startup that rebroadcasts live programs to subscribers without paying retransmission fees.

The broadcasters had warned that if one company was allowed to avoid those fees, others -- from Dish Network to DirecTV -- surely would follow. That would risk billions of dollars in revenue that broadcasters plow back into creating new programs. Retransmission fees brought in an estimated $2.37 billion in 2013.

Now, however, new technologies such as cloud computing may be hampered by fears that traditional content providers will demand fees for services that are now free, such as cloud storage. During oral arguments in April, Aereo's attorney, David Frederick, said "the cloud-computing industry is freaked out about this case."

Aereo, backed by media mogul Barry Diller, co-creator of Fox Broadcasting, operates in 11 major cities and had plans to expand rapidly. The court's ruling threatens to put it out of business.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the decision. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The company had argued that it differed from cable and satellite services because each subscriber is assigned an individual, dime-sized antenna, often stored on rooftop circuit boards. But a majority of justices saw those antennas as just a way around copyright laws.

Aereo offers TV viewers an enticing package: For $8 or $12 a month, they can get a couple dozen live channels and 20 to 60 hours of remote storage space on cloud-based DVRs. By contrast, cable packages that include scores of seldom-watched channels can cost $100 or more.

The business model, however, was always suspect. Patterned after home antennas, which remain legal for consumers who don't mind limited service and poor reception, Aereo assigns a tiny antenna to each subscriber. That way, it argued, no two customers receive the same "public performance."

It was an argument that had won support from lower federal courts in New York. By the time the case arrived at the Supreme Court, however, Aereo had attracted a wide array of opponents: broadcast networks, cable companies and professional baseball and football leagues, to name a few.

The Obama administration also sided with broadcasters. It argued that licensed services such as Netflix and Hulu prove that cloud-based systems can pay copyright holders.

A federal judge in Utah ordered Aereo to cease operations in six other states in February, calling its business model indistinguishable from that of a cable company, which must pay broadcasters for content. As a result, customers in Denver and Salt Lake City lost their service.

The company operates in New York, Boston, Atlanta, Detroit, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Miami and four cities in Texas.
Posted by Byron Bojangles III
Member since Nov 2012
51614 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:25 am to
damn
Posted by ZereauxSum
Lot 23E
Member since Nov 2008
10176 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:25 am to
Dammit you beat me by literally seconds

I was sad to hear this. Thought they would win. I tried he service out last fall and it's not bad, especially if you're trying to cut the cord.

ETA: The argument against sounds like bullshite. Basically, "everyone else pays licensing fees so you do too". Sounds pretty silly.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 9:28 am
Posted by HubbaBubba
F_uck Joe Biden, TX
Member since Oct 2010
45685 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 5:06 pm to
quote:

The argument against sounds like bullshite. Basically, "everyone else pays licensing fees so you do too". Sounds pretty silly.
This, and as Justice Alito said, a decision based on a very shaky premise.

I look at the decision like this. Now maybe they can set up a national grid of these and charge guys like me who travel all across the country for the service to be available wherever I go.
Posted by NELA LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2011
1167 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 5:37 pm to
Bad news for the consumer - big win for cable companies. They've got a death grip on much of the country. Thank goodness for satellite.
Posted by drizztiger
Deal With it!
Member since Mar 2007
36695 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 6:04 pm to
I'd have to read more to have an educated opinion on this.

Just on face value though, seems like the correct decision. If cable companies are forced to pay redistribution fees, then a competitor charging a subscription to membership should also have to pay redistribution fees. It may be different IMO if it was a free service re-broadcasting free signals.

I don't see how this effects cloud-computing though. To me, streaming services aren't cloud-computing and they pay for licensed content to distribute.

For basic cloud-computing, the pipe and the service storage are all that matter IMO.

But then again, I would need to read more.
Posted by shawnlsu
Member since Nov 2011
23682 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 7:04 pm to
quote:

If cable companies are forced to pay redistribution fees, then a competitor charging a subscription to membership should also have to pay redistribution fees. It may be different IMO if it was a free service re-broadcasting free signals.

It actually was the correct decision based on exactly this
Posted by HubbaBubba
F_uck Joe Biden, TX
Member since Oct 2010
45685 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:12 pm to
quote:

It actually was the correct decision based on exactly this
Difference of opinion here. The redistribution idea was not correct. The service I pay (was) for is to receive signals on my rented antenna (same as putting up my own) and then tuning the signal to have it appear on my device. What difference really does it make if I do it with a big bulky antenna on my home or a tiny one somewhere close by? The fact is, this was a huge consumers right issue and consumers got the shaft.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 9:23 pm
Posted by drizztiger
Deal With it!
Member since Mar 2007
36695 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:30 pm to
quote:

What difference really does it make if I do it with a big bulky antenna on my home or a tiny one somewhere close by?
Because you're paying a company that is making revenue from that signal when they have no right to do so.

quote:

The fact is, this was a huge consumers right issue and consumers got the shaft.
This IMO has less to do with consumers and more to do with copyright laws and profit-oriented corporations.

Simply to me, they were taking a free signal intended to be free within range and re-signaling and charging customers, while every other re-signaling company has to pay fees to do the same thing.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 9:33 pm
Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:50 pm to
quote:

The company had argued that it differed from cable and satellite services because each subscriber is assigned an individual, dime-sized antenna, often stored on rooftop circuit boards. But a majority of justices saw those antennas as just a way around copyright laws.


Can anyone explain the function of the "dime-sized antenna"?

I get they're a cloud-based DVR, but what was the link between the user receiving a broadcast signal and the program being made available on the DVR?

I'm pretty sure I could create my own private Aereo based at my home using WMC or even perhaps XBMC nowadays, an HD HomeRun tuner, and any of several client apps that would stream the media over the Internet to various devices. SiliconDust itself makes an app to stream Live TV that doesn't even require a computer, and it uses DTCP-IP which means protected content on cable systems is available assuming you've got a Prime and CableCard.
Posted by drizztiger
Deal With it!
Member since Mar 2007
36695 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:56 pm to
quote:

Can anyone explain the function of the "dime-sized antenna"?
I would say it's for show.

Hey look, we just sell antenna's for $8-12/month subscription fee. We'll give you some DVR storage as well with that fee. Never mind that we're breaking copyright laws. It's all about the consumer.
Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:06 pm to
So the customer is not actually receiving the OTA broadcast, and it is Aereo that is doing this and storing it for them in their cloud?

If that's the case, they must have had some pretty stupid lawyers or paid some smart ones to give them the stupid advice they wanted.
Posted by LSU316
Rice and Easy Baby!!!
Member since Nov 2007
29277 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:22 pm to
Goodbye Aereo....
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51416 posts
Posted on 6/25/14 at 11:32 pm to
quote:

So the customer is not actually receiving the OTA broadcast, and it is Aereo that is doing this and storing it for them in their cloud?


Correct. Aereo was taking advantage of wording that defined broadcasters and private citizens prior to the advent of the internet and streaming.

I liken it to radio in that a business (say... Taco Bell) can't play a local radio station over their speakers unless they are paying BMI and ASCAP dues as the FCC sees this as the business using the music as a selling point to get you in and buying. If courts have found in the FCC's favor that this is (although many steps indirect) making money (at least in part) from other peoples' copyrighted works then there was no way in hell the SCOTUS would find any other decision in a case that is much more clear cut.
Posted by ZereauxSum
Lot 23E
Member since Nov 2008
10176 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 6:49 am to
quote:


I would say it's for show.

Hey look, we just sell antenna's for $8-12/month subscription fee. We'll give you some DVR storage as well with that fee. Never mind that we're breaking copyright laws. It's all about the consumer.


I don't know. They actually did what they said they were doing with the atenna. They would only stream to you if you lived in that area. I actually tried it once on my laptop when I was out of town and it wouldn't stream.

I'm wondering if they would have faired better if they didn't offer the DVR service, that way, they could have just said they were renting an atenna out to people and that's pretty much it.
Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 6/26/14 at 1:05 pm to
quote:

I'm wondering if they would have faired better if they didn't offer the DVR service, that way, they could have just said they were renting an atenna out to people and that's pretty much it.


I don't think it would've helped. They'd still be doing the same thing cable companies do, rebroadcasting copyrighted material. You don't have to rent a DVR, and you still benefit from not needing an antenna and perfect reception.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram