- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Aereo: How can anyone argue this is anything other than theft?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:21 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:21 am
LINK
Basically: They capture network broadcast signal. Rebroadcast it to users and charge for it (without paying royalties to the original content creator/provider).
Seriously?
It's cheaper b/c they aren't paying for the content. Jesus!
Basically: They capture network broadcast signal. Rebroadcast it to users and charge for it (without paying royalties to the original content creator/provider).
quote:
The company Aereo has installed untold thousands of tiny computer-chip like devices that they are calling television antennas. Each customer has his own chip/antenna, and Aereo then broadcasts the signal from that unique chip to its customer. They believe that a customer can send the signal under its own antenna (which it pays Aereo to maintain) to its own computers.
A single master antenna that broadcast the same signal to hundreds of thousands of users would infringe copyright law. But what if each user is not sharing a master antenna, but using its own, unique antenna?
Seriously?
quote:
Why use this system instead of cable? It’s cheaper. They charge $8 a month to access all of the local television signals. Aereo is not paying the broadcast networks, which is why they are being sued for copyright infringement. If Aereo wanted to pay a royalty, this new business model would rise or fall based on whether they could pay royalties and still compete at a reasonable price. But Aereo says free airwaves free airwaves.
It's cheaper b/c they aren't paying for the content. Jesus!
16
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:23 am to a want
I guess you can argue that it is technically theft, but I don't really have an issue with this for some reason.
Are they cutting out commercials or anything like that ?
Are they cutting out commercials or anything like that ?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:25 am to a want
I agree with this solely because it is to the detriment of cable companies who are allowed to monopolize entire geographic areas due to government interference.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:28 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
guess you can argue that it is technically theft, but I don't really have an issue with this for some reason.
Should 1 person be able to buy 1 copy of a record album, then distribute to the rest of the world? for free? for profit?
Do you not see the problem, here?
I'm no lawyer but it seems like copyright infringement to me.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:29 am to SG_Geaux
Not really theft. If they are sending free signals Luke they always have, why is it theft to receive the signal and have it send to one of your devices?
The chip is owned by the custoner. I can put an antenna up on my land today and receive network tv for free. Why couldn't I put the antenna I OWN anywhere I want? As ling as I can run "a wire" to my house from it?
The tv company's problem is they have sent the signal for 50 years for free to as many as possible to make advertisement money. Now they are kissed because someone has built a better antenna method.
In days past, it was never a problem with tv companies if 5 houses shared an antenna. Why is it now? The only difference is the wire to the antenna is now invisible. Aero isn't charging for the signal, they are charging for antenna maintenance! Brilliant!
The chip is owned by the custoner. I can put an antenna up on my land today and receive network tv for free. Why couldn't I put the antenna I OWN anywhere I want? As ling as I can run "a wire" to my house from it?
The tv company's problem is they have sent the signal for 50 years for free to as many as possible to make advertisement money. Now they are kissed because someone has built a better antenna method.
In days past, it was never a problem with tv companies if 5 houses shared an antenna. Why is it now? The only difference is the wire to the antenna is now invisible. Aero isn't charging for the signal, they are charging for antenna maintenance! Brilliant!
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 8:39 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:31 am to GeeOH
But they're charging for the rebroadcast!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:31 am to a want
But it is free to begin with.
This is nothing like music piracy.
This is nothing like music piracy.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:32 am to a want
I don't watch enough television to give a shite about this chip and the argument before the Supremes.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:33 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
But it is free to begin with. This is nothing like music piracy.
It's exactly like music piracy. Except they're profiting off the rebroadcast.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 8:34 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:37 am to a want
quote:
They charge $8 a month to access all of the local television signals.
Set up your own antenna. I don't pay for local stations either. That's the way it used to be before cable or satellite.
Surely there's someone on this board that has participated in relaying responses between someone watching TV and the person turning the antenna. "OK OK GOOD..Good...Better...Good...WORSE!!!"
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:39 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
But it is free to begin with.
Exactly. Local stations pay big bucks to send out their signal to you for free. Same with radio stations.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:40 am to a want
Cable company broadcasts free signal I could install an antenna to capture. I'm lazy, so I pay a company to install and maintain an antenna for me.
How is this, in any way, like pirating music?
How is this, in any way, like pirating music?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:41 am to a want
If Aereo is not paying the creator of the original content for use of the content, then it is clearly copyright infringement.
If they win, then the next big question will be this: since Aereo does not have to pay, then why do cable and satellite dish companies have to pay? They could then tell the content creators to go pound sand, and then they would be able to drop their prices, which would take away Aereo's current financial advantage over cable and dish companies.
If they win, then the next big question will be this: since Aereo does not have to pay, then why do cable and satellite dish companies have to pay? They could then tell the content creators to go pound sand, and then they would be able to drop their prices, which would take away Aereo's current financial advantage over cable and dish companies.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:42 am to a want
quote:
Should 1 person be able to buy 1 copy of a record album, then distribute to the rest of the world? for free? for profit?
Good point, but I think your missing part of the point. Yes, you are allowed to play that music you buy for anyone who wants to listen! Like a niteclub, you arent charging the customer to hear the music, you are charging them for building maintenance (cover charge).
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 8:47 am
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:44 am to a want
Yeah. It's stealing.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:45 am to a want
quote:
But they're charging for the rebroadcast!
WRONG! The customer owns the antenna! The custoner is paying Aereo to maintain his antenna. The customer's antenna that he owns is sending the signal to HIS OWN device. It's his antenna, his device. Do you get it now?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:46 am to a want
quote:I didn't realize people who receive over the air signals from local TV stations have to buy those signals.
Should 1 person be able to buy 1 copy of a record album, then distribute to the rest of the world? for free? for profit?
Change your example to "Should 1 person who is given a record album for free......."
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:47 am to GeeOH
quote:
Good point, but I think your missing part of the point. Yes, you are allowed to play that music you buy for anyone who wants to listen! Like a niteclub, you are charging the customer to gear the music, you are charging them for building maintenance (cover charge).
But the nightclub pays royalties for playing the song in their nightclub!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:49 am to a want
my folks got a check for the shale extraction process because supposedly when you own a plot of land, you not only own the surface but the earth several hundreds of feet below the surface as well. So I wonder if the same goes for airwaves above ground, so long as it passes through the imaginary plane of the grid which is above someone's land.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:49 am to a want
quote:Are you sure about that?
But the nightclub pays royalties for playing the song in their nightclub!
Page 1 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News