- 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 8:51 am to LSURussian
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:51 am to LSURussian
quote:
Change your example to "Should 1 person who is given a record album for free......."
Exactly! If Faith Hill gave a dj a free CD to promote herself, it is NOT illegal for him to go play it in a nightclub and charge the nightclub for his services. You see, the cm is charging for services with overhead, not for the individual music.
Same w Aereo, they are charging for overhead of antenna maintenance, not the signal.....it's not their antenna!
1
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:52 am to LSURussian
quote:
Are you sure about that?
Abso-fricking-lutely.
Now in practice, shitholes like Sports Illustrated (back in the day) probably got around it, but it's is illegal. BMI and ASCAP are agencies that collect.
The thing you guys are missing: what happens to the content when content creators don't get paid?
If Aereo can broadcast royalty free and undercut networks, who is going to generate content.
Aereo is parasitic. It can't survive without content providers providing free content.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:54 am to a want
quote:
But the nightclub pays royalties for playing the song in their nightclub!
LOL! No they dont! The artist want dbs playing their music, that's what makes the customers want to go out and buy it.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:54 am to a want
quote:
Aereo is parasitic. It can't survive without content providers providing free content.
Then stop providing free content. "My business model doesn't work if you do X" isn't a legitimate legal argument.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:55 am to a want
quote:
who is going to generate content.
advertisers within those signals
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:55 am to LSURussian
quote:
But the nightclub pays royalties for playing the song in their nightclub!
quote:
Are you sure about that?
My family had a family owned restaurant in the 90's and we paid monthly royalty fees to play Nat King Cole and Michael Bolton type music during business hours. I forgot the name of the organization we paid the fee. It wasn't that much. Like $10 per month.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:56 am to GeeOH
quote:
it is NOT illegal for him to go play it in a nightclub and charge the nightclub for his services
...as long as the royalties to songwriter are paid.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:58 am to GumboPot
you might argue that it expands the influence and thus suplements the goals of the broadcaster
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:58 am to a want
quote:
Abso-fricking-lutely
You are wrong on this. Dbs don't pay royalties...
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:58 am to a want
I've never understood how over the air is free only only under the delivery terms acceptable to the broadcaster.. They are literally giving it away..
Under the rules, as odd as they appear to me, this company should probably pay for the signal. But it's also worth them challenging what truly constitutes "broadcasting" a signal.
Under the rules, as odd as they appear to me, this company should probably pay for the signal. But it's also worth them challenging what truly constitutes "broadcasting" a signal.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:59 am to a want
It's theft.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 8:59 am to GeeOH
quote:
No they dont!
Ok Whether it's promotionally played material on the radio or in a nightclub, roaylties must be paid to the songwriter.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:01 am to GeeOH
quote:Simple test. Would the customer continue to pay for the antenna if the content wasn't there?
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 9:02 am to GumboPot
quote:
My family had a family owned restaurant in the 90's and we paid monthly royalty fees to play Nat King Cole and Michael Bolton type music during business hours. I forgot the name of the organization we paid the fee. It wasn't that much. Like $10 per month.
Not for a free Michael Bolton signal that was sent out nationally. Maybe for a Pandora type signal.
Aereon is charging maintenance on your antenna which receives a free signal and sends it to YOUR device only!
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:04 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Simple test. Would the customer continue to pay for the antenna if the content wasn't there?
Irrelevant test. The customer wouldn't purchase an antenna period if the content wasn't there.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:06 am to Joshjrn
the content is freely provided by the station.
They cant show how they were financially harmed by someone accessing their FREE content.
This suit is a loser, or at least should be.
They cant show how they were financially harmed by someone accessing their FREE content.
This suit is a loser, or at least should be.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:09 am to GeeOH
quote:
Not for a free Michael Bolton signal that was sent out nationally
But it's not free. Again, royalties to the songwriter must be paid.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:11 am to a want
quote:
They charge $8 a month to access all of the local television signals. Aereo is not paying the broadcast networks
This is my problem with it. I really couldn't give 2 shits if cable providers get screwed, but the networks are the ones making the product, and thus, deserve compensation to "rebroadcast" that signal to others. It's no different from any other sort of copyright infringement.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:13 am to CptBengal
quote:
They cant show how they were financially harmed by someone accessing their FREE content.
Yes they can. Big cable companies pay the networks to air their programming. Why do you think DirecTV and Dish have disputes every few months over pricing? The provider, directv, doesn't want to pay TBS, for example, and thus asks it's customers to contact tbs to lower it's price, because that, in effect, will raise the subscriber's price.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 9:23 am to a want
quote:
But it's not free. Again, royalties to the songwriter must be paid.
But the signal we are talking about IS free to be captures by anyone who wants to buy an antenna!
Do you get it now!?
NBC, et al, created themselves under the business plan of sending out a FREE signal and they encouraged consumers to buy their own antenna and send the signal inside to their tv. So what if someone decided to send the signal wirelessly, the signal getting to the house is exactly what they want.
Page 2 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News