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

quote:

---

There are some of us who don't pay for free music also.

---

so there are some here who pay for free music?

quote:

---

Why wouldn't they get paid?

---

From earlier in thread

quote:

---

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.

---

If everyone dumbed cable and switched to Aereo, there would be no content.

quote:

---

so there are some here who pay for free music?

---

Don't know about that, but obviously there are some here who are paying for something they could get for free.

quote:

---

Just to be clear in your eyes, who do you consider the "content providers"? Then I will answer the obvious.

---

Those who hold copyrights for programming

quote:

---

One of us is confused.

I thought this Aereo only delivers the freely available over the air broadcasts.

---

He is! It's insanity at it's best. Somehow he thinks advertisers wouldn't continue paying the networks because of a better antenna system that allows more viewers....I have NO clue where he is coming from with his very weak points.

quote:

---

If networks didn't make money via OTA transmitting, then they wouldn't pay for it.

---

if Aereo wins I'm going to be pissed, not because I actually think the networks should win (I actually kinda hope Aereo wins, this is dumb), but because the free market response to Aereo winning.. is going to be the networks pulling their OTA signals, and if they pull their OTA signals, I'll be missing out on stuff, because I stopped paying for my TV a few years ago, screw you Charter or Comcast, I can get it for free, you can all kiss my a$$

See this old article to show they are very much considering it

quote:

---

If networks didn't make money via OTA transmitting, then they wouldn't pay for it. They pay for it because it makes them money. Of course they want this in place to protect their deals with the cable companies but protecting their business model is not a constitutional issue. (insert various sarcastic comments about horses, buggies, etc)

---

Wrong, man you are simply wrong.....they broadcast their signal so advertisers will pay them to advertise. Tha's where networks get their money!

What don't you understand? Do you think Baywatch pays NBC or whoever? NO NO NO and NO...advertisers pay for spots to advertise during more popular shows. The higher the viewership of the show, the more expensive the ad costs. The ones who get away from this model are cable companies like HBO, they have no advertising during programming so they charge you for the programming as their source of income! Tha's the only reason they don't stream a free signal for everyone to catch!

Please tell me you understand this

quote:

---

But they're nothing more than a parasitic organization. They can't exist on their own unless cable, etc. is paying for the content.

---

You can say the same thing about television manufacturers.

The obvious truth is that they are providing a valuable service. It cannot be denied.

Also...

TV networks make money off of merchandising products from popular shows they own the rights to. So they want as many people watching for free as possible to be able to selling the merchandise.

quote:

---

advertisers pay for spots to advertise during more popular shows.

---

yup - and there are 2 options as well - you can advertise locally or nationally. Every bit of programming that comes from the "network" will look something like this:

--NN00--NNN0--00-NN-

With - representing the content itself - the N representing the network commercial - and the 0 representing completely blank space.

The N space is filled with national organizations that want to advertise during "spots" - Spots are purchased 1st for extremely high marketed shows (example: CBS sells spots for BBT first, to the "big" advertisers) - inside these "spots" you typically also purchase spots for the smaller marketed shows (example: with the BBT spot you might get a 30 seconds commercial for Intelligence thrown in, this makes the spot you are buying a little more expensive, and sells the spots to shows the network can't sell as easy)

needless to say.. without the 0 spots, there is no funding for OTA, cable channels can't afford OTA, or anything close, because they barely make it with filling all advertising spots with Ns.


ETA: The other piece of the completely confusing puzzle - is that with OTA Networks, advertisers are always going to put their money first into a Network show because of the OTA model - you basically "gamble" that the numbers are actually larger than they are saying, every single time you advertise.

With Cable, you pretty much know who is watching what, and by that point it's a much smaller viewership - AND you have already spent much of your advertising dollars on Network TV.

ETAA: which means I hope the OTA network providers get their heads out of their asses, and realize that something like Aereo would be HUGE for them ratings wise.. maybe Aereo is the answer to these Networks about how to move forward in a digital age? but considering the networks track record, I'm not gonna hold my breath.