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

quote:

---

Simple test. Would the customer continue to pay for the antenna if the content wasn't there?

---

The content is free! And it is the customer's antenna! What don't you understand?
Do you continue paying a boat storage fee, even if the lake dries up?
They sell the antenna to you, then you pay them for servicing it. Yes, you agree they will service your antenna, no matter what you decide to send thru it. Don't you find it amazing radio stations aren't arguing? You know why? Because they want as many people as possible receiving their FREE signal...exactly like the business model of tv.
Do you understand tv sells advertising for money. They want to show the product is being marketed to "x" million homes....not just homes with pay cable! They use all homes that are covered by their FREE signal.

quote:

---

The networks responded by encrypting their signals to protect their content.

---

I remember those days when the 8' satellite dishes came out. You could get the raw ABC/NBC/CBS feeds the network sent out to its affiliates. You saw news anchors picking their nose and playing grabass during commercial breaks. THAT's why the major networks encrypted.

I always assumed the business model for the networks was "broadcast widely for free and fill it with ads!" Sort of like all the ads we see on websites and free apps in the app store (with ads). The revenue would be generated by the ads, which would make this situation more profitable to the networks...but I guess would make it less profitable to the broadcaster as one stream could be used to provide service for a wide area with little signal loss. In that case I'd agree the broadcaster should encrypt the signals and if Aereo doesn't like that then they should participate in competitive business practices like broadcasting on their own, rather than just acting as a repeater.

quote:

---

They cant show how they were financially harmed by someone accessing their FREE content.

---

in this case the content is free.

quote:

---

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.

---

Here there is a contract. When you broadcast for FREE, OPENLY over the air...you have entered into no such agreement and cannot show "harm"

quote:

---

For copyright law, you do not have to show damages for statutory enforcement.

---

But I thought copyright law provides for special exemptions of the public commons on free broadcasts to end level users?

ETA:

quote:

---

The Supreme Court case may hinge largely on the definition of a public performance in copyright law. U.S. copyright law defines a public performance as, “to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.”

---

I'm not a substantial number of people....

This has already been upheld for Aereo in lower courts and it is now headed to the Supreme Court.

If the USSC upholds for Aereo, then Aereo will be an awesome business model. If not, Aereo ceases to exist. The CEO has already said there is no Plan B.

quote:

---

they are not charging for the rebroadcast. They charge for service of the equipment.
subtle, but interesting legal difference.

---

So you believe people would buy an pay for "maintenance" if the content on the equipment didn't exist? If so, why would Aereo bother with it? They should just drop the programming. Problem solved.

quote:

---

This is the same type of situation. The local stations continue to broadcast their signal for local reception. Aereo does nothing more than receive those unencrypted signals and then convert the signals to another frequency for redistribution to specific devices with antennae for the redistribution frequency within a household.

---

If it only involved LOCAL stations re-broadcasting network content that is paid for by the local station, then Aereo should win.

From the sound of it, though, this Aereo antenna is able to process network feeds. Those are NOT set up to be free for local consumption.

Example: right now I pay ABC Cable Company $100 a month for 250 channels of content. A good percentage of that $100 dollars is distributed to the various networks I have chosen to pay for.

If I go out and get this Aereo thing, and only pay Aereo $8 a month for the same programming, then the networks are being harmed because no payment for their content is being made by Aereo for the rights to make the content accessible to the public.

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question. Would they customers pay for "antanna maintenance" if there was no content? Yes or no?

---

Yes I did...Yes...the same way you would be contractually obligated to pay for a boat storage fee even if the free lake were to dry up.

You can't see the forest thru the trees....the signal is FREE. There will never NOT be a free signal. Would a customer go to radio shack and buy an antenna if there were no signal? The signal is fair game, its free!

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! Now, let's say I figured a way not to have to drill thru a wall in your house. I could just put a tiny antenna inside that used the free signal from the 50 ft antenna and it would travel thru your house walls/roof and make it to the TV with no loss of quality. That would still be ok with you right?

SO now your argument would have to be that I keep my antenna at a location too far from my house and the service guy in town should now have to pay the tv companies for servicing an antenna "too far" from my house that's giving me my free signal?

quote:

---

I do. Rebroadcast is long settled law. Aereo has no right to translate their programming. Look at the suits over tape recording if live broadcasts.

---

Aereo IS NOT rebroadcasting the signal, the antennna would be the consumers! Not Aereo's! They created a business model where the CONSUMER owns the antenna! See the difference?

quote:

---

Nope. Perceived financial benefit does not justify copyright violation. This is long ago settled law.

---

They aren't copyrighting, they are only servicing my antenna for me. MY ANTENNA. I don't know how else to explain the difference in your thinking and what is happening. Yoour thinking assumes the company owns the antenna, it doesn't!