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

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

50768 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 12:52 pm to darkhorse

quote:
darkhorse

0 ...

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 2:51 pm to HubbaBubba

quote:
I just increased by six the viewership of a program, yesterday,

Right. And if I make copies of CDs more people will hear your songs. Napster GREATLY increased distribution. Doesn't make it legal..

quote:
thereby creating wealth for the television station who can charge more for advertising.

Not at all. The broadcast station has no way of measuring how many view their programs. They will not go back to their advertiser and say "OK, six more people watched yesterday, you owe us an extra $10."

quote:
The station is not charged more by content creators if their viewership is higher.

Ummm. Yes they are. You're talking about advertisers. But you're not including shows and network fees. While programming that's cleared on barter basis will go down with lower viewers, smaller stations often have to buy for cash because barter isn't worth it to national advertisers.

quote:
Your logic is flawed.

quote:
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,

Nope. They are paid on distribution based on prior agreed amounts.

quote:
thenetworks and their affiliate stations who pay the networks a licensing fee

How much is Aereo paying?

quote:
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

Aereo is not free. They are taking a slice of the pie.

This post was edited on 4/27/14 at 2:52 pm

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

50768 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 3:11 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
Right. And if I make copies of CDs more people will hear your songs. Napster GREATLY increased distribution. Doesn't make it legal..

Those six already had rights to view the broadcast. Your example is flawed.

quote:
Not at all. The broadcast station has no way of measuring how many view their programs. They will not go back to their advertiser and say "OK, six more people watched yesterday, you owe us an extra $10."

Guess you never heard of Arbitron? The stations use their numbers for audience ratings. Those ratings determine the market price for advertising. More viewers equals more advertising revenue. Simple concept, really.

quote:
Ummm. Yes they are. You're talking about advertisers. But you're not including shows and network fees. While programming that's cleared on barter basis will go down with lower viewers, smaller stations often have to buy for cash because

Irrelevant. On a Par basis, the earnings are going up at same rate costs are.

quote:
Nope. They are paid on distribution based on prior agreed amounts.

Then if viewership rises, their power over negotiating next contracts rises, too. Win/Win.

quote:
How much is Aereo paying?

Irrelevant. They are not creating a public performance. Only I can do that with the signal I receive. They can't share MY signal.

quote:
Aereo is not free. They are taking a slice of the pie.

No they are not. They created their own pie by offering to host my antenna for me.

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 3:32 pm to HubbaBubba

quote:
Those six already had rights to view the broadcast.

Not without express permission they don't.

quote:
Guess you never heard of Arbitron?

I have. But What does this have to do with radio?

quote:
Those ratings determine the market price for advertising. More viewers equals more advertising revenue. Simple concept, really.

Advertisers don't give two squirts about having 6 more people tune in. But as far as I know Aereo has no plans to participate in Neilson PPM ratings.

quote:
On a Par basis, the earnings are going up at same rate costs are.

No. I'll let this guy explain the value of "publicity" for you... LINK (youtube)

quote:
They are not creating a public performance.

A public performance isn't necessary to violate copyright. We've been over that multiple times.

quote:
No they are not. They created their own pie by offering to host my antenna for me.

You wouldn't pay for that antenna if it offered no content.

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

50768 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 4:26 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
A public performance isn't necessary to violate copyright. We've been over that multiple times.

But THAT is the crux of the broadcasters' assertion. That it IS a public performance. And prior rulings prove I have the right to receive AND make a copy for my personal, non-distributive viewing pleasure. Nice try, though.

quote:
You wouldn't pay for that antenna if it offered no content.

What is your point? I wouldn't purchase any antenna that didn't pick up a signal. You citing this doesn't mean anything. I'm not arguing content would not be there. It is. It is free. The Telecommunications Act of 1997 confirmed my right to have an antenna to pick it up. At that time, a cloud based line to my receiver was not envisioned. My receiver being a phone or computer or tablet was not envisioned. It was not defined where my antenna could be, but only that I had to have that antenna for local signals. No rights were granted for distant signals. Explain your point.

Posted by darkhorse

Member since Aug 2012

7701 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 4:33 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
Right. And if I make copies of CDs more people will hear your songs. Napster GREATLY increased distribution. Doesn't make it legal..

Totally different. That actually cost the companies that made the music money from sales. If you want apples to apples, then it would be that you made a CD and gave it out freely (because you got your money from people buying ads). Napster then took your free CD and made a cloud service for people to download from.

That would be closer.

quote:
ot at all. The broadcast station has no way of measuring how many view their programs. They will not go back to their advertiser and say "OK, six more people watched yesterday, you owe us an extra $10."

Is that factual, or are you simply trying to fight the good fight?

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 5:29 pm to HubbaBubba

quote:
And prior rulings prove I have the right to receive AND make a copy for my personal, non-distributive viewing pleasure.

Indeed you do. On your gear. But that's not What's going on here as I understand it.

The question is, do you you have the right to pay someone else to receive a signal, then give the receptors counted to you for a fee.

quote:
What is your point?

Go back to my first post in this thread. Are they selling antennas, or content? It's a simple test.

Say, your neighbor doesn't have cable, but you do. There a big game, but only on cable. If you charge him $20 to come and watch the game, you can't claim that he's only paying to sit on the couch and the game isn't being purchased.

If there is no game, your neighbor isn't going to give you $20 to sit on your couch.

quote:
The Telecommunications Act of 1997 confirmed my right to have an antenna to pick it up.

Indeed. YOU have that right, with your device. But Aereo owns the device as I understand it. Aereo is the first use receptor.

quote:
My receiver being a phone or computer or tablet was not envisioned

Aye. But your phone isn't the receiver of the broadcasters signal. The Aereo receiver is.

This post was edited on 4/27/14 at 5:49 pm

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 5:42 pm to darkhorse

quote:
Totally different.

Aye. Different. And it wasn't meant to be a perfect analogue. Just pointing out that "but you get more exposure" is a long, tired, excuse widely used by copyright violators.

I heard it last year when a magazine took one of my photos off the internet and published it. "We put a link to your website, so it's free publicity for you." was their excuse.

quote:
If you want apples to apples, then it would be that you made a CD and gave it out freely (because you got your money from people buying ads). Napster then took your free CD and made a cloud service for people to download from.

That would be closer. But it presumes that the people that sell the ads and those that produce the content are the same people. They are not.

And further... Public display or even distribution does not squash the copyright unless explicitly given to the public domain.

If I take a photo, and give it to you for free, it doesn't give you the right to make a copy and sell that copy--even if-- you got it for free.

quote:
Is that factual,

Completely factual. Television stations do not machines that tell them who is tuning in. So six additional viewers aren't going to ever be known about. Even if they did, it wouldn't be significant. Media buys are based on CPM (thousands of viewers).

Unless Aereo is delivering tens of thousands of viewers, with audit quality surveys, in small markets (like say LCH) it's not going to be a significant benefit to the sales department.

But keep in mind, Even if it's "beneficial", it can still be a copyright infringement. See above.

quote:
or are you simply trying to fight the good fight?

Maybe? I'm sympathetic to those that have their work stolen from them. I realize that people don't see it as theft. From the consumers view... I get that.

But just because something is free to view, doesn't mean you own the content.

This post was edited on 4/27/14 at 5:50 pm

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

50768 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 6:48 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
Indeed. YOU have that right, with your device. But Aereo owns the device as I understand it. Aereo is the first use receptor

And it is there where it may or may not fall. And there it affects every cloud-based service. The justices have to tread very carefully. Are the justices going to limit commerce by telling me I can't rent an antenna? No, they can't. Antenna are rented out for all kinds of spectrums covered by FCC regs. I rent Verizon cable boxes now. I use cloud based storage of downloaded content or later use.

I understand the way the technology utilizes the single antenna concept, and having addressed this at Zenith when the digital terrestrial signal was conceived, the concept of isolated single channel micro specrum tuning did not occur to us, the broader, wide spectrum antenna that would receive whatever you wanted in a dumb, static antenna was kind of all we considered. What Aereo is doing is actually pretty brilliant. Yes, it circumvents the law, but the minds that conceived this made some leaps to get there. Gathering $60 million in venture capital shows some real faith that they are on the side of the law.

I appreciate the commercial use argument, I really do, but I also am cognizant that the signal is in the air, free to receive. If I want to pay someone to receive it for me and send it to my devices, why is that anyone's business? It is no different than buying my own Slingbox and sending it to myself, except with a Slingbox I can send it anywhere. Aereo limits me to my local viewing area.

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

50768 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 7:07 pm to Taxing Authority

My son is a commercial photographer, and like you, he licenses his photos to commercial entities. Even my company uses him.

So with that thought in mind, when we pay him to use a photo, the intent, as an advertiser, is to use that photo to draw awareness to our product. His license agreement is based on distribution. He defines how it can be used, controls edits, maintains copyright, etc...

So, I understand your point. The distinctions you point out are clear, but the issue at hand is clouded, at least in my mind, by intent. The original intent of the broadcast and advertising is to get as many eyeballs as possible on the ad. Aereo gives the broadcaster a boost with meeting that intent, and isn't charging the broadcasters to do it. It charges the viewers. Does that make sense to you? It is brilliant.

If some business came to my employer and said, "I can create a guaranteed 10% - 20% increase in views of your advertising, and I won't charge you for doing it, either." I would be all over that! I mean, that IS the intent of the media advertisement, after all.

Posted by darkhorse

Member since Aug 2012

7701 posts

Posted on 4/27/14 at 10:57 pm to Taxing Authority

quote:
Aye. Different. And it wasn't meant to be a perfect analogue. Just pointing out that "but you get more exposure" is a long, tired, excuse widely used by copyright violators.

I heard it last year when a magazine took one of my photos off the internet and published it. "We put a link to your website, so it's free publicity for you." was their excuse.

Are the laws not different for photos?

quote:
That would be closer. But it presumes that the people that sell the ads and those that produce the content are the same people. They are not.

Ok.. so your record company paid you 100K to record a new CD. That's your pay. They get their money back plus more from ads. They give your cd away so an advertiser gets seen. Is that better?

quote:
And further... Public display or even distribution does not squash the copyright unless explicitly given to the public domain.

Would that not depend on your contract?

quote:
If I take a photo, and give it to you for free, it doesn't give you the right to make a copy and sell that copy--even if-- you got it for free.

A photo and laws surrounding that is not the same as OTA broadcast. I do believe court rulings have been made about photography.

quote:
Completely factual.

Yet...

quote:
Unless Aereo is delivering tens of thousands of viewers, with audit quality surveys, in small markets (like say LCH) it's not going to be a significant benefit to the sales department.

So again, is it factual that Aereo does not give out that information?

quote:
Maybe? I'm sympathetic to those that have their work stolen from them. I realize that people don't see it as theft. From the consumers view... I get that.

But just because something is free to view, doesn't mean you own the content.

I 1000% agree. Theft is theft. I think napster was theft. I think that there are sites that steal. I have seen, personally, music stolen... in churches no less! (yep, a band touring sent a cd in with booking material and they copied it and handed them out!) I do not agree with it. I think Photoshop has killed photography to a large degree.

This, however, is different.

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 12:42 am to HubbaBubba

quote:
And there it affects every cloud-based service.

That's been mentioned (not sure if it was you), but I don't see how. As long as the copyright holder authorizes, distribution by cloud presents no problem.

quote:
Are the justices going to limit commerce by telling me I can't rent an antenna?

But you aren't renting an antenna. You're renting an antenna AND a system to transcribe and retransmit that signal in a format that the copyright holder has not authorized.

quote:
I rent Verizon cable boxes now.

Right. But your cable operator holds agreements that specifically allow this.

quote:
Gathering $60 million in venture capital shows some real faith that they are on the side of the law.

It tend NOT to use VCs for a legal nor moral compass.

quote:
I really do, but I also am cognizant that the signal is in the air, free to receive.

Free to recieve != free to copy.

quote:
If I want to pay someone to receive it for me and send it to my devices, why is that anyone's business?

Because you (nor Aereo) aren't paying the creator.

0 ...

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 12:53 am to HubbaBubba

quote:
My son is a commercial photographer,

Tough gig. Tell him to stick with it.

quote:
His license agreement is based on distribution. He defines how it can be used, controls edits, maintains copyright, etc...

Exactly. Broadcast content get the exact same protections.

quote:
If some business came to my employer and said, "I can create a guaranteed 10% - 20% increase in views of your advertising, and I won't charge you for doing it, either." I would be all over that!

Who pays the increased network and syndication clearing fees for that 10-20% jump in viewership that the programming creators will demand? You can say "advertisers" and the sales shop will only laugh at you. No way they are going to be able to raise their prices by 10-20% overnight. The increase in audience, simply doesn't scale.

And it's not just programming. I know of at least one mid market station that wanted to start on-demand streaming their newscast. Every anchor and reporter with an agent demanded a contract renegotiation. If the shop is unionized... it's even worse. Who pays for that when Aereo does the streaming?

Secondly, since Aereo is making an unauthorized transcription, not going after them... diminishes your ability to go after others that transcribe in other ways. Even if this case is beneficial, you still have to pursue them.

This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 1:36 am

0 ...

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 1:36 am to darkhorse

quote:
Are the laws not different for photos?

Nope. Same copyright law.

quote:
Ok.. so your record company paid you 100K to record a new CD. That's your pay. They get their money back plus more from ads. They give your cd away so an advertiser gets seen. Is that better?

No. Except for barter programming, the broadcaster and creator are two separate people.

quote:
Would that not depend on your contract?

Not unless you can make a contract with "the public". Don't see how that's possible, though. And I know of no broadcaster that has turned their programming over to public domain.

quote:
A photo and laws surrounding that is not the same as OTA broadcast.

Actually they fall under the same law. A copyright is only released by express consent of the copyright holder, or expiration.

quote:
Copyrightable works include the following categories:
1 literary works
2 musical works, including any accompanying words
3 dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4 pantomimes and choreographic works
5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6 motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7 sound recordings
8 architectural works

Section 111 outlines some specific exemptions for retransmission. But none seemingly apply to Aereo. They aren't a hotel, or apartment operator. Nor an FCC regulated cable company. But this is the closest I could find that may apply...

quote:
§111·Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable
(a)Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted.
—The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if—

(1) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system, and consists entirely of the relaying, by the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment, of signals transmitted by a broadcast station licensed by
the Federal Communications Commission, within the local service area of such station, to the private lodgings of guests or residents of such establishment, and no direct charge is made to see or hear the secondary transmission;

The last sentence is key. My question would be what happens if you don't pay your Aereo bill? Do you still get programming?

And here is why your slingbox is legal...

quote:
(3) the secondary transmission is made by any carrier who has no direct or indirect control over the content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission, and whose activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing wires, cables, or
other communications channels for the use of others:

Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph extend only to the activities of said carrier with respect to secondary transmissions and do not exempt from liability the activities of others with respect to their own primary or secondary transmissions;

Aereo tried to claim they fall under this section. (Napster tried it too). That last paragraph would bother me if I was an Aereo user... Aereo has shown part of it's strategy is to sell out the end user, and opening them up to liability.

quote:
So again, is it factual that Aereo does not give out that information?

As far as I know Aereo does not release audit quality data on viewing. Given the claims given here, I'm not sure how a third party could ever audit the data.

quote:
This, however, is different.

How so? Music is broadcast on the radio, just as TV programs are. Putting a song on the radio doesn't extend permission to copy that song and put it on Napster.

This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 1:43 am

Posted by cave canem

pullarius dominus

Member since Oct 2012

12186 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 4:13 am to Taxing Authority

Quick question there taxing. If I give a shirt away for free and someone makes a quilt out of it to sell, does fruit of the loom deserve a cut? That is a lot closer to this than the constant referals to napster and the others on here. The signal is distributed for free then repurposed by someone else for profit. This is very different than stealing a signal or other property that is for sale to redistribute for profit.

Posted by HubbaBubba

North of DFW, TX

Member since Oct 2010

50768 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 7:51 am to cave canem

I use Webex. I use VNC and VLC. I retransmit to others all the time PowerPoint slides and videos. I use a remote desktop application to log in and use my computer from afar.

Aside from greed, "but... but... but... I'm not in on the action" (yes, you are. I already have the right to view the content) then what difference does it make?

Seriously. The whole argument boils down to greed. It's like, a baseball player signing a ball and throwing it to a kid. The dad catches it and hands off to the kid. The ball has value. It was free to the kid, but the dad caught it first. So now, the baseball player wants to charge the dad for the value of the signed ball, even though the kid was originally supposed to receive it for free. This is no different, in spite of the arguments over this law and that law.

Greed. Pure and simple.

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 8:09 am to cave canem

quote:
Quick question there taxing. If I give a shirt away for free and someone makes a quilt out of it to sell, does fruit of the loom deserve a cut?

Of course not. That's a unpatented tangible product. Not subject to copyright. Nor is there any intellectual content. It's a t-shirt!

quote:
That is a lot closer to this than the constant referals to napster and the others on here.

It's entirely unrelated.

quote:
The signal is distributed for free then repurposed by someone else for profit.

Free distribution makes no difference. If I give you a CD, or DVD, it doesn't give you permission to go make copies of it.

If I hang a picture in a museum that doesn't charge admission... it doesn't give you permission to take a photo of it, then sell it to your friend for $100, and claim you're only charging him to maintain your camera.

quote:
This is very different than stealing a signal or other property that is for sale to redistribute for profit.

No it isn't. If I give HubbaBubba a free copy of my photograph, does that give you permission to go make a copy it? Of course not.

This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 9:11 am

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

62504 posts

Posted on 4/28/14 at 8:22 am to HubbaBubba

quote:
Seriously. The whole argument boils down to greed.

Maybe we have different definitions of greed? I don't consider having a right to ones own work greed.

Your son, probably doesn't consider his license to clients greedy. He defines how his work can be used, controls edits, maintains copyright, etc.

Television content producers deserve the same rights to their work. And they deserve to be paid, as your son is, on how widely the work is distributed. If more people use his work, he deserves to get paid for it.

I can't think of why they wouldn't. Showing your work on TV shouldn't mean you lose rights to your work. Otherwise, why create work for TV?

I agree with you On the autograph thing. There's no intellectual or creative value in writing your name!

This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 9:34 am