re: Aereo: How can anyone argue this is anything other than theft?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's not theft. The airwaves are free.

---

You might want to read the thread before you call it a day.

---

No. No. It's clear as a bell.

The airwaves aren't supposed to be free. Medicine is.

We get it.

Totally.

quote:

---

1st: is Aereo able to actually use the content?

---

Not without an agreement with copyright holders.

quote:

---

what about an apartment complex the provides antenna service to the tenants?

---

Couple of key differences. First the shared antenna doesn't make a transcription. It's the original signal. Second, without a transcription, the tenants are the first person to receive the signal. It wouldn't be a retransmission.

It's a fine distinction, but copyright law is rife with such granularity.

quote:

---

I'm sure no one is going to go after apartments for transmission fees, etc but aren't they providing a transmission service to the tenants as part of the lease agreement?

---

Aye. But just because you aren't prosecuted, doesn't mean its legal. Millions of people downloaded from Napster. Only a few were pursued.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm guessing this is where the technical argument will lie. Given that Aereo is leasing its equipment to individuals who are already capable of receiving the programming free of charge, are they making the case that it is the consumer that is still the first user?

I was on a camping trip today with my son's scout troop. As we dad's were hanging out, several of us were trying o follow the Mavs/Spurs game. There were about two minutes left in the game. Someone lamented, it sucks we can't watch the end of the game.... Nobody thought to bring a TV.

I suddenly thought, "sure we can!"

With only about 30 seconds left in the game, I downloaded Aereo, went to their website, set up an account, went back to open the application, signed in, tuned to channel 21 in Dallas, and all six of us watched the Mavs beat the Spurs on the last play!! It was great!

The weather is going to be bad tonight, so everyone packed up and now I'm home. I've watched some videos tonight on how their little antenna works. It really is innovative and explains a lot.

After experiencing it and now understanding how their technology works, I think what they've done is a remarkable achievement. I hope the court sides with them, and if the Supremes rule against them, I hope they figure out a way to continue their operations. I mean, just tonight, I had the right to view a live broadcast and instead of using a local antenna, I used a remote antenna. I did nothing illegal, and.... the important distinction is, I personally made the decision as to which over-the-air broadcast my antenna tuned to and sent me, not Aereo.

Very cool, even if only for a minute.

I mean legal in the eyes of the the OTA providers

I don't agree that it is theft. I want to get those stations and I'm willing to pay for it, I should have the ability to get it! If I can figure out a way to "spoof" my location I would do it and pay aereo.

quote:

---

The problem is you aren't paying the people that created the content you want to watch.

---

I don't pay them now. Why should I pay them because I pay someone else to manage my antenna? They aren't uilaterally sending me the signal. I am.

quote:

---

I don't pay them now.

---

Aye. Not directly. But the station pays the creators based on your (and other's) viewership. That viewership isn't calculated with Aereo viewers. When it is... the cost will increase to the local station. Who should pay for that?

quote:

---

Why should I pay them because I pay someone else to manage my antenna?

---

You should pay for what you take. Nothing wrong with taking what is offered by the creator. But in this case you're taking something that wasn't offered.

Why shouldn't the creator's get paid for your consumption of their content? As the OP said, he's willing to pay.

In order:

I just increased by six the viewership of a program, yesterday, thereby creating wealth for the television station who can charge more for advertising. The station is not charged more by content creators if their viewership is higher. Your logic is flawed.

Not true. The station offers it to me for free over my antenna. My antenna can be anywhere. It can be home. It can be remote. I can have as many antenna as I choose. The only question is, which cable the signal travels over, my copper cable, my rabbit ears, or my wireless. At this time, that is not defined. What IS defined, however, is that the broadcasters must allow my antenna to receive it. This is part of the rules included with their free license that they receive from you and me, the owners of the spectrum our government provides them. Since I own that, and since I'm entitled to receive it, and put up with screaming car commercials, the subject of me paying for what I take is a non-issue. I'm not TAKING anything. I'm RECEIVING what they are begging me to take so they can sell advertising.

Nobody is not already being paid. Another flawed argument. The actors, production staff, editors, gaffers, artists, musicians, distributors, technicians and investors are all being paid for their content under contracts. Those contracts are created based on one premise, and one premise only. Find a way to deliver that content to the most viewers, thereby increasing the value to the original purchaser of that content, which, in this case, is the networks and their affiliate stations who pay the networks a licensing fee and are entitled to X amount of prime time advertising and XX amount of time for local programming and advertising.

The fact is, this is nothing more than a money grab to increase the size of the pie, not because Aereo is taking a slice of the pie. In fact, Aereo should increase the advertising dollars pie by grabbing back local viewers that broadcast network television loses to cable networks and general Internet content providers. Asking ME to PAY in order for THEM to increase their advertising revenue is ridiculous. They already get the spectrum for free to deliver advertising to me. Why should you, or me or anyone else have to pay for what we already gave away to begin with?