- 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
re: Aereo: How can anyone argue this is anything other than theft?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:15 am to mtntiger
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:15 am to mtntiger
quote:
If it only involved LOCAL stations re-broadcasting network content that is paid for by the local station, then Aereo should win.
It is only in the city they are in...Aereo is only in a few cities. For example, I cant purchase access to any other city then the one in which I reside.
0
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:18 am to GeeOH
quote:
Because they charge for the signal! And they do it to sell their programs!
Totally different business model! My God would you all quit using different business models to argue a FREE siganal situation!
Easy there Nancy. I didn't know any of this. I made an assumption which i thought was correct. If this is the case, then the networks then need to encrypt their signal.
You people are getting a little too wound up over this.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:35 am to DR Hops
quote:
If this is the case, then the networks then need to encrypt their signal.
Why would they encrypt their signal? If you drive through Bham, there are three very large antennas on Red Mtn built and maintained by local TV stations to broadcast a free signal to those who don't have/want satellite or cable. They are built so high in order to get their free signal to as many customers as possible. Would it make sense for them to encrypt their signal?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:36 am to a want
I think this may be determined by whether or not Aereo touches or changes the content in any way. If they are just using this as a repeater, it may be be alright. if they are changing the content in any way (cutting out commercials, overlaying with graphics or their own ads), then I am sure this is illegal. There may already be a precedent set if any of those websites that pirate radio signals to show sporting event on the internet have been taken to court. I think A Want brings up a good point, but this isn't the same as a radio station as they broadcast an on demand playlist, now if they were just repeating Ryan Seacrest's Top 40 then I don't know if they are paying royalties for the songs.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:39 am to a want
quote:So you're saying if I give a party in a park and set up my radio to blast music from a free radio station so all can hear I have to pay a royalty?
But it's not free. Again, royalties to the songwriter must be paid.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:40 am to Stuckinthe90s
quote:
I think A Want brings up a good point, but this isn't the same as a radio station as they broadcast an on demand playlist
no they dont. The "on demand" playlist is the shows you record with your dvr.
there is nothing "on demand" about it....in the future read something other than A Want's posts...they are usually factually incorrect.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:55 am to Taxing Authority
quote:What does that have to do with anything? I would't buy a TV if the content didn't exist either but that fact doesn't make TV manufacturer responsible to pay royalties to content providers.
So you believe people would buy an pay for "maintenance" if the content on the equipment didn't exist?
And I bought a 3 yr extended warranty with my TV, so I payed for 3 years of maintenance. Does that make Insignia or Best Buy liable for copyright infringement?
This service company is selling a receiving device that picks up content in the exact form already available for free to the end user. It then allows the end user to deliver that same FREE content to various supported platforms in his own home where he is already entitled to view the material for free.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 11:58 am to DR Hops
quote:
Easy there Nancy. I didn't know any of this. I made an assumption which i thought was correct. If this is the case, then the networks then need to encrypt their signal.
You people are getting a little too wound up over this.
I'm not getting wound up mother fricker!!
TV stations don't want to encrypt their FREE signal...it's free for a reason, they want it to get to as many homes for free as possible so they can sell those numbers to the advertisers.
SO if they encrypt it and make home antennas that can "unencrypt" the signal and still keep it free, the same argument could be made that my antenna I buy from Aereon can unencrypt the signal as well before it sends it to my device.
It is quite an interesting case, hence the reason it will end up at the supreme court.
You see, TV stations just "assumed" the future was going to be all cable type "pay" models. They never imagined someone would want to take the free signal and use wireless technology to network the free signal......As you can imagine, I'm sure this caught them by surprise.
IMO they will settle and take a piece of the $8 monthly fee and all be happy. If they could get $1/mnth off of a signal they intended to be "free", it is basically them benefiting from someone re-inventing their wheel and finding a way to do something they never thought possible.....getting paid for a free signal!!
win/win
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:08 pm to a want
Actually it's not that simple.
First, you have the right to capture fta, free to air, signals. Second, not everybody is allowed to place an antenna on their roof. Millions of people are not allowed. Apartment complexes, elderly homes etc etc..
What this company is doing is providing them a way to watch their local channels by renting an antenna and the space at a cheap price.
In other words, he is not selling their signal. He is renting an antenna.
First, you have the right to capture fta, free to air, signals. Second, not everybody is allowed to place an antenna on their roof. Millions of people are not allowed. Apartment complexes, elderly homes etc etc..
What this company is doing is providing them a way to watch their local channels by renting an antenna and the space at a cheap price.
In other words, he is not selling their signal. He is renting an antenna.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:09 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
So you're saying if I give a party in a park and set up my radio to blast music from a free radio station so all can hear I have to pay a royalty?
No, the radio station is paying the royalty.
If you have a business and use music as part of that business, then you do owe a royalty for use in your establishment.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:20 pm to CptBengal
quote:So you'd continue to pay for it, if you couldn't connect to a website? Inderdasting. I would not.
I pay for internet access with no gaurantee of the content therein.
quote:It doesn't matter if it's for one person or a hundred. It's a derivative work, which isn't part of fair use.
I quoted earlier, that it is for a private viewing of a small number of family and friends.
quote:This makes no difference.
Since each user has there own antennae, and has their own viewing, likely not in open air parks with tens to hundreds of viewers...
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:28 pm to GeeOH
quote:Nope. Aereo is providing the means of reproduction. This would be like someone printing up $100 bills and saying "I just provide the press, the person paying me is the counterfeiter."
They created a business model where the CONSUMER owns the antenna! See the difference?
quote:No. I wouldn't. I would put the antanna up myself. Can I do that with Aereo?
Let me help you grasp something.....let's say I start installing those 50 ft antenna AT YOUR HOUSE for free, the catch is you have to pay me $5/month to come by and make sure it's safe and working properly, if not I had to fix it free of charge to you. It is old school and has a wire that runs down the antenna and thru a hole drilled in your house and to your tv. Would this be ok with you? Absolutely you would take that deal if you wanted the free tv signal being broadcast!
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Since each user has there own antennae, and has their own viewing, likely not in open air parks with tens to hundreds of viewers...
This makes no difference.
under this argument from you, every dvr box, and every in house antennae is a violation.
there is a reason the networks have lost every challenge to date...
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:29 pm to CptBengal
quote:Not at all. The DVR is allowed by agreement. Totally different animal.
under this argument from you, every dvr box, and every in house antennae is a violation.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:31 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
The DVR is allowed by agreement.
You do realize I can dvr free broadcast signals with a simple computer and no cable connection...right?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:33 pm to CptBengal
quote:Yes, but you're using an OTA signal. Not a translated signal. Where you'd run into problems is if you wired it into your neighbor's house. You need to look into the concept of first use.
You do realize I can dvr free broadcast signals with a simple computer and no cable connection...right?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 12:40 pm to CptBengal
Just went to the Aereo website to find out exactly how it works.
Here it is: it is nothing more than an electronic antenna that delivers a wireless signal to compatible devices for LOCAL programming. With Aereo, you can record programs like a DVR does, only it's on the Cloud. Doing so enables you to watch recorded programs from compatible wireless devices.
Since the LOCAL stations are already paying the network fees and sending out a FREE signal, then I can't believe this case has gone to the Supreme Court.
This is NOT AT ALL like taking encrypted network feeds and distributing them for free.
If you still want to watch ESPN, HBO, HGTV, CNN or any other cable network, then you still have to have cable or one of the satellite providers to do so.
Here it is: it is nothing more than an electronic antenna that delivers a wireless signal to compatible devices for LOCAL programming. With Aereo, you can record programs like a DVR does, only it's on the Cloud. Doing so enables you to watch recorded programs from compatible wireless devices.
Since the LOCAL stations are already paying the network fees and sending out a FREE signal, then I can't believe this case has gone to the Supreme Court.
This is NOT AT ALL like taking encrypted network feeds and distributing them for free.
If you still want to watch ESPN, HBO, HGTV, CNN or any other cable network, then you still have to have cable or one of the satellite providers to do so.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:16 pm to mtntiger
He is not selling you an antenna. The person is paying rental on an antenna.
Again, a service that has been upheld over and over.
Again, a service that has been upheld over and over.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:26 pm to a want
How is it theft to rebroadcast something freely broadcast.
As long as they don't change the stream in any way, how is it any different from putting in a more powerful antenna?
They aren't charging for content, they are charging for infrastructure.
As long as they don't change the stream in any way, how is it any different from putting in a more powerful antenna?
They aren't charging for content, they are charging for infrastructure.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:29 pm to Taxing Authority
Page 4 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News