- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 4/24/14 at 4:41 pm to GeeOH
Posted on 4/24/14 at 4:41 pm to GeeOH
quote:Serious questions... Can customers visit their antenna installation? If they stop paying, do they get to keep the antenna, receiver, etc? Can they move the antenna to another location?
For them to lose, the SCOTUS would likely find they were actually doing more, or in theory still the owners of the antenna...then it would be a retransmission.
Part of Aereo's argument is that no recording or retransmission occurs without the subscriber initiating. Thus, if anyone is violating copyright, it would be the user.
Same defense that tape recorder, CD manufacturers relied since at least the 70s, but with one major difference... A tape deck or CD player has multiple legitimate uses--like recording yourself, or copying files you own rights to.
I don't see how the Aereo system can be used in any way, other than transcription of copyrighted content. That may be very problematic to them. Am I missing another use of their 'system'?
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 4:43 pm
3
Posted on 4/24/14 at 4:45 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Serious questions... Can customers visit their antenna installation? If they stop paying, do they get to keep the antenna, receiver, etc? Can they move the antenna to another location?
I think you have this wrong. You are renting. NOT owning. You can cancel your plan.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 4:56 pm to Taxing Authority
You can make copies of any media you receive any format
Posted on 4/24/14 at 5:06 pm to darkhorse
quote:Hmmm. I've heard the monthly fee described as "antenna maintenance fee". But perhaps that is not correct?
I think you have this wrong. You are renting. NOT owning.
Are you sure? Because if it's a rental, it would clearly be a commercial transcription in consideration of a fee.
quote:Clearly. That why I asked about the disposition of the gear.
You can cancel your plan
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 5:08 pm to C
quote:Indeed. But can you make copies of any media you've paid someone else to receive?
You can make copies of any media you receive any format
Posted on 4/24/14 at 5:33 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Part of Aereo's argument is that no recording or retransmission occurs without the subscriber initiating. Thus, if anyone is violating copyright, it would be the user.
This sounds similar to the Napster argument.
Also they are using the word antenna, they are just a wireless data service that is streaming content. They are trying to use the word antenna to make it sound like fm radio broadcast. They are streaming video, it would be the equivalent of me taking eagle 98.1 during LSU games and streaming their open air broadcast to customers.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 5:52 pm to Scrowe
So can an apartment complex set up antennas on the rooftop for their occupants and charge a fee to maintain?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 6:54 pm to C
quote:
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 TV stations did not mind it, because they did not know how to make money of it and no one was doing it...now that money is being made...they want it... FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 8:41 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
Why should cable companies pay networks??
Exactly. People should just produce content for free.
you COMPLETELY missed my earlier posts. The networks made money BEFORE cable existed. HOW? b/c of ad revenue. That's how OTA is free to people. Cable companies, such as Cox, should not have to pay networks like ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC for transmission rights since it's free anyway OTA. The only reason they do is b/c the networks figured they could charge for them since cable companies wanted the cable channels. Bundling of channels is what screwed over the cable companies.
Anyone should have the right to set up, maintain, and rent out ONE antenna to ONE customer so they can receive THEIR locals when they are with in the local area. Aereo is not streaming to multiple people with one signal, nor or they transmitting out of market channels.
The networks are suing b/c they could possibly lose a money stream they shouldn't have in the first place. And the cable companies are suing b/c their pissed Aereo came up with something to skirt the stupid retransmission free from the networks.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:00 pm to mchias1
quote:
Anyone should have the right to set up, maintain, and rent out ONE antenna to ONE customer so they can receive THEIR locals when they are with in the local area. Aereo is not streaming to multiple people with one signal, nor or they transmitting out of market channels.
Exactly..
1 antenna = 1 person.
If 237 people sign up, Aereo puts up 237 antennas.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:05 pm to mchias1
quote:Thanks. Didn't know that.
you COMPLETELY missed my earlier posts. The networks made money BEFORE cable existed. HOW? b/c of ad revenue.
quote:You should learn about must carry rules. If the local channel elects to charge a fee, the cable company does not have to pay. They can drop the channels. The only time cable and DBS providers have to carry local channels is if the signal is provided free of charge.
Cable companies, such as Cox, should not have to pay networks like ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC for transmission rights since it's free anyway OTA.
quote:Nope. Local stations on cable networks have a wider distribution. That equates to higher syndication fees for bought out programming.
The only reason they do is b/c the networks figured they could charge for them since cable companies wanted the cable channels.
quote:Again, why shouldn't the content producers get paid more for wider distribution?
The networks are suing b/c they could possibly lose a money stream they shouldn't have in the first place.
quote:
And the cable companies are suing b/c their pissed Aereo came up with something to skirt the stupid retransmission free from the networks.
No. Cable companies have been trying to find ways drop locals for decades. In fact, Dish and Direct TV wouldn't even exist today had the must carry rules not been relaxed.Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:06 pm to darkhorse
quote:I still don't get how this matters. Copyright is violated with one unauthorized copy.
1 antenna = 1 person.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:28 pm to Taxing Authority
Well the justices all agree that this is the loophole. Most commented on it. So far every battle aereo has fought has been based on that.
The second issue is the cloud base tech.
The second issue is the cloud base tech.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:48 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I still don't get how this matters. Copyright is violated with one unauthorized copy.
So, a company couldn't sell a consumer a device to receive the OTA signal, and record it for later use? Or a slingbox type device to receive the OTA signal and stream it to the consumer's personal device?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 11:25 pm to darkhorse
quote:They released the opinion?
Well the justices all agree that this is the loophole.
I remember when everyone was saying Obamacare was DOA after oral arguments...
quote:Indeed. I noted earlier that the previous cases were argued very, very narrowly. But SCOTUS isn't bound to previous arguments. Again, see Obamacare.
So far every battle aereo has fought has been based on that.
quote:I don't think the SCOTUS will write such a broad opinion. And there certainly not a problem with something like Netflix where the content is licensed for distribution in the manner distributed.
The second issue is the cloud base tech.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 11:38 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 11:35 pm to moneyg
quote:Two factors at play here.
So, a company couldn't sell a consumer a device to receive the OTA signal, and record it for later use? Or a slingbox type device to receive the OTA signal and stream it to the consumer's personal device?
First, the injuctive standard is very, very high.
Slingbox, tape recorders, CD players are all clearly capable of violating copyrights. BUT all of those have alternate uses that DON'T violate copyrights. As I posted above, I don't see a use of Aereo's system that does not violate copyright. Again, if I've missed it, please point it out. I'm open to being wrong, just don't see it.
Second, because of the valid alternate use, tape manufacturers have held that it's up to the user to operate it in a legal manner. Makes sense. The manufacturer cannot reasonably be held responsible for what a user does with the equipment.
Aereo argued that nothing is recorded by their system unless the customer chooses, seemingly to make the same claim--that it's up to the operator. But again, without an alternate use, that's a much tougher case to make. If they aren't using it to transcribe signals, what are they using it for?
It's an interesting case for sure.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 11:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
First, the injuctive standard is very, very high.
Slingbox, tape recorders, CD players are all clearly capable of violating copyrights. BUT all of those have alternate uses that DON'T violate copyrights. As I posted above, I don't see a use of Aereo's system that does not violate copyright. Again, if I've missed it, please point it out. I'm open to being wrong, just don't see it.
Second, because of the valid alternate use, tape manufacturers have held that it's up to the user to operate it in a legal manner. Makes sense. The manufacturer cannot reasonably be held responsible for what a user does with the equipment.
So, if I understand correctly, both of my examples (recorder, slingbox) would violate the copyright laws if they had no other alternate use other than to capture/stream the OTA signal to a personal device?
Posted on 4/25/14 at 12:12 am to moneyg
quote:Sort of. If a device is only capable of violating the law, it would be much more likely to be subject to injunctive relief.
So, if I understand correctly, both of my examples (recorder, slingbox) would violate the copyright laws if they had no other alternate use other than to capture/stream the OTA signal to a personal device?
The method isn't the problem per se. There isn't a problem with capturing and recording OTA if you're the first user. But if Aereo is the owner of the equipment, Aereo are the first user. So it's a bit different than a simple TV card.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 12:56 am to a want
It's not theft. The airwaves are free. Any schmuck has always been afforded the opportunity to capture them. No problem if you pay for a service to do it for you.
I don't understand why this thread has gone this far.
The answer is above. Anybody can install rabbit ears and tin foil or pay somebody to do it for them.
/thread.
You can all go home now.
I don't understand why this thread has gone this far.
The answer is above. Anybody can install rabbit ears and tin foil or pay somebody to do it for them.
/thread.
You can all go home now.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 6:21 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
They released the opinion?
They gave opinions when questioning. They have not passed down their ruling.
quote:
“All I’m trying to get at, and I’m not saying it’s outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I’m just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don’t want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that’s — you know, lawyers do that,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.
quote:
Aereo says its method of assigning each customer an individual dime-sized antenna to access over-the-air networks — much like traditional rabbit ear antennas — makes their service comparable to customers using antennas in their own homes.
quote:
“There’s no technological reason for you to have 10,000 dime-sized antennas, other than to get around the copyright laws,” Roberts said.
This is just one justice that gave an opinion on the tech. You can find more. So that's one part of their service.
The second part is the cloud. This is what Aereo's attorney states:
quote:
“If I’m making a copy using Aereo’s system, no one else can look at it,” Frederick said. “Even if you happen to have watched the same program, you can’t watch my copy, I can’t download it . . . ”
Now if they RULE Aereo can no longer do that, how does that decision carry over to that industry? There are 2 cases already on Aereo's side. Sony and Cablevision.
quote:
In a 1984 decision on Sony’s Betamax video recorder, the court ruled that consumers could legally record television programming for personal use. A lower court ruling in 2008 allowed Cablevision to store consumers’ DVR recordings remotely. Unlike Aereo, however, Cablevision had already paid licensing fees for the content it was storing — a point attorneys for the federal government and the broadcast companies emphasized.
I hope that was a bit clearer.
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News