# Obama sides against Aereo



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

I was a little disappointed to see this:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/technology/innovation/aereo-obama/index.html

Could be the beginning of the end for Aereo. While I guess it doesn't really affect me or most TiVo users, I had tried the service here in the Atlanta area. It was pretty good and promising and I had hoped some competition would be a good thing. Nothing is definite but oh well.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Given that I am an OTA only user I was/am somewhat concerned that what Aereo was doing would be the beginning of the end of free OTA broadcast networks. While I don't really believe anyone should have to pay for OTA channels most of them have have become dependent on fees they charge any service rebroadcasting their channels/signals. So in affect cable and satellite users are subsidizing us OTA only users (Thanks!). If Aereo type services caused the OTA networks to go cable only I would be very unhappy. Perhaps if in the end Aereo looses the OTA Networks will cut them a good enough deal to allow them to stay in business.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

mcf57 said:


> I was a little disappointed to see this:
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/04/technology/innovation/aereo-obama/index.html
> 
> Could be the beginning of the end for Aereo. While I guess it doesn't really affect me or most TiVo users, I had tried the service here in the Atlanta area. It was pretty good and promising and I had hoped some competition would be a good thing. Nothing is definite but oh well.


Probably good news for Aereo. Whenever he sides with something or someone he ends up on the wrong side...


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Given that I am an OTA only user I was/am somewhat concerned that what Aereo was doing would be the beginning of the end of free OTA broadcast networks. While I don't really believe anyone should have to pay for OTA channels most of them have have become dependent on fees they charge any service rebroadcasting their channels/signals. So in affect cable and satellite users are subsidizing us OTA only users (Thanks!). If Aereo type services caused the OTA networks to go cable only I would be very unhappy. Perhaps if in the end Aereo looses the OTA Networks will cut them a good enough deal to allow them to stay in business.


Satan will be strapping on his ice skates before local broadcast licensees give up their TV broadcast allocations, because someone else will snap them right up and make money with them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The title is a bit misleading. The Obama *administration* sided against Aereo. I doubt the President himself even knows/cares about this case. He has cabinet members to deal with this second tier stuff.

And ultimately it doesn't really matter the Supreme Court is free to ignore the administration and rule however they want.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

The title is miss leading since it is the justice department and the copy right department that have written briefs for this case. Like some one else has commented Obama probably doesnt even know there is a court case. That's why presidents have staff members.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

The headline is not misleading as the Attoyrney General who runs the JusticeDept.is the hsndpicked appointee of the President and is an official who closely shares the same values as the President. The Attorney General does indeed represent the President and his views at the Justice Dept and the views of those who contributed to the President's campaign.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

The Aereo business was a puzzle to me. The copyright laws make it alright to copy and sell copyright protected programming over the internet without paying rights to distribute it so long as you call that business renting a tiny antenna? 

I didn't get it from the start and when the lower courts refused to shut it down, I really didn't get it. I think the business will be dead and gone as soon as The Supreme Court rules on the case and I say good riddance, rights owners and proper distributors of content need protection of the law.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

My prediction is they are doomed. With heavyweights like the NFL and MLB now against Aereo, I have a feeling the "bury them in litigation cost" move could be in play here on some level and planned if needed. If Aereo wins here, they will then simply find another/different reason to sue them. They have all these high prices lawyers so might as well put them to good use. At some point, the cost for Aereo of trying to fight all these big companies will bury them. I saw Sony do it back in the 90s and can see it happen here. Its sad, but a reality.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> The title is a bit misleading. The Obama *administration* sided against Aereo. I doubt the President himself even knows/cares about this case. He has cabinet members to deal with this second tier stuff.
> 
> And ultimately it doesn't really matter the Supreme Court is free to ignore the administration and rule however they want.


the word "administration" doesn't really matter. Bottom line is its people appointed by Obama cause they share his views so its the same either way. If the "administration" doesn't like it, chances are REAL good its based on how Obama feels too. Same thing either way.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

mcf57 said:


> the word "administration" doesn't really matter. Bottom line is its people appointed by Obama cause they share his views so its the same either way. If the "administration" doesn't like it, chances are REAL good its based on how Obama feels too. Same thing either way.


Its a legal opinion rendered by attorneys on points of law, I don't believe what Obama wants or likes has any relevance and I doubt if he knows anything about the case. I sure don't recall him mentioning it in any speech.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Series3Sub said:


> The headline is not misleading as the Attoyrney General who runs the JusticeDept.is the hsndpicked appointee of the President and is an official who closely shares the same values as the President. The Attorney General does indeed represent the President and his views at the Justice Dept and the views of those who contributed to the President's campaign.


Uh, I sure hope that isn't how the Attorney General operates, I believe he does his job as an attorney bound by a code of ethics and the rule of law. I am not an attorney but I don't think this is a close case at all, Aereo is clearly in violation of copyright protection laws and the company can negotiate rights to distribute content online or be shutdown, either way I don't care, I won't use the service.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Chris Gerhard said:


> The Aereo business was a puzzle to me. The copyright laws make it alright to copy and sell copyright protected programming over the internet without paying rights to distribute it so long as you call that business renting a tiny antenna?


It's not nearly that simple. They don't copy it; they just record it (like your TiVo). They don't sell it; they just distribute it to its owner (like a TiVo Stream).

I'n not sure I see any way to distinguish their business model from, say, me renting a TiVo Roamio and Stream from someone, and paying them to record OTA programming which is then streamed to me. That may violate TiVo's regulations, but I don't see it violating copyright at all.

I'm concerned that no matter which way the Court rules, there may be massive change in what is allowed.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Its a legal opinion rendered by attorneys on points of law, I don't believe what Obama wants or likes has any relevance and I doubt if he knows anything about the case. I sure don't recall him mentioning it in any speech.


Agreed that it really isn't up to Obama, but rather attorneys on points of law, but I am sure there are a LOT of issues that Obama doesn't mention in any speech. He would be there ALL DAY trying to do that


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Debating if what Aereo is doing is legal or not is a fairly useless effort at this point. It will be determined by the Supreme Court and whatever they say is the last word on it. 

The debate/speculation on what happens with either ruling (for or against Aereo), maybe of more interest. 

If Aereo wins will it fundamentally change OTA broadcasts or result in other companies offering something similar? Will Aereo try and expand their offering by licensing cable channels? 

If they lose will the networks/local channels provide them with low enough cost for retransmission rights to allow Aereo to stay in business? With Comcast does their ownership of NBC come into play if they refuse to license content to Aereo at a reasonable cost (whatever that is)?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If they win then cable companies will follow suit and set up banks of tiny antennas so they can broadcast local channels to their subscribers without having to pay redistribution fees to the networks.

If they lose Aereo is dead. The amount they'd have to pay for redistribution fees would jack up the service costs too high for them to be a viable option for most people.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> The title is a bit misleading. The Obama *administration* sided against Aereo. I doubt the President himself even knows/cares about this case. He has cabinet members to deal with this second tier stuff.
> 
> And ultimately it doesn't really matter the Supreme Court is free to ignore the administration and rule however they want.


Well, saying that _Obama is against Aereo_ is the best lobbying slam dunk guarantee that Aereo could hope for.

Justice Scalia is writing his Aereo-favorable majority opinion as we speak.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This is extremely unfortunate, I hoped for better out of Obama on technology issues. I was rather shocked when this came out, given how clear it is that Aereo is on the up and up with the law.



atmuscarella said:


> If Aereo wins will it fundamentally change OTA broadcasts or result in other companies offering something similar? Will Aereo try and expand their offering by licensing cable channels?


The networks mostly are just making an empty threat. If they really want to, they might move some of their top primetime stuff off to their cable networks, and backfill with cheap, syndicated content or re-runs, but OTA fundamentally isn't going anywhere.

I could see Aereo doing some speciality or foreign programming that's licensed, but they're not going to get the big cable channels on board.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> This is extremely unfortunate, I hoped for better out of Obama on technology issues. I was rather shocked when this came out, given how clear it is that Aereo is on the up and up with the law.


When it comes to big money decisions very few politicians are going to be on the side of the consumer, regardless of party affiliation. Money has a HUGE influence over politics and these corporations have a LOT of money.

That being said I don't understand how Aereo is really violating the law. For about $200 you could get an OTA antenna, a cheap ATSC decoder and a Slingbox and create essentially the same setup in your home. What's the difference between that and renting the equipment from someone else? As long as they truly have one antenna per person it's not rebroadcasting, it's renting an antenna and tuner.

I don't think the broadcasters are worried about Aereo at all. What they're worried about is the precedent it sets. If this is deemed legal then cable companies will start doing the same thing and the broadcasters will lose their lucrative rebroadcasting deals. Technology found a way around their business model and they're fighting to prevent it.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Obama lowers mortgage rates!
Obama makes new credit card rules!
Obama rules make new home loans!

Yes, just like these spams you have seen all over the internet, the subject of this thread is also "baloney."


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> It's not nearly that simple. They don't copy it; they just record it (like your TiVo). They don't sell it; they just distribute it to its owner (like a TiVo Stream).
> 
> I'n not sure I see any way to distinguish their business model from, say, me renting a TiVo Roamio and Stream from someone, and paying them to record OTA programming which is then streamed to me. That may violate TiVo's regulations, but I don't see it violating copyright at all.
> 
> I'm concerned that no matter which way the Court rules, there may be massive change in what is allowed.


It is legal for individuals with the right to receive copyright protected programming to record it and play it back at their convenience, this is the famous Betamax case. For who and when those recordings can be played back is unclear, I would assume household members, family, friends, etc. but it would be a gigantic leap to assume it can then be sold to customers and distributed over the internet. No court case has established that right as far as I know and the Supreme Court will rule that Aereo's business is copyright infringement and Aereo will either negotiate rights or be out of business, that is how my psychic abilities see the future.

I predict an 8-0 skunk in favor of the networks. I will assume the justices will quickly look past the tiny antenna rental red herring for what it is, a distraction from Aereo's real business of distributing content for a fee over the internet.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> It is legal for individuals with the right to receive copyright protected programming to record it and play it back at their convenience, this is the famous Betamax case. For who and when those recordings can be played back is unclear, I would assume household members, family, friends, etc. but it would be a gigantic leap to assume it can then be sold to customers and distributed over the internet. No court case has established that right as far as I know and the Supreme Court will rule that Aereo's business is copyright infringement and Aereo will either negotiate rights or be out of business, that is how my psychic abilities see the future.
> 
> I predict an 8-0 skunk in favor of the networks. I will assume the justices will quickly look past the tiny antenna rental red herring for what it is, a distraction from Aereo's real business of distributing content for a fee over the internet.


I've been trying to find a way to post my thoughts on this and you've summed it up far better than I could.
I'm stunned at the number of folks that look at this and consider it a valid business model when it's full of them leveraging loopholes to provide a service that in most cases would not be allowed.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

I also believe the justices will find in favor of the networks. My real fear is that depending on how the judgment is worded, it could easily make the slingbox model in your own home just as illegal.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> I also believe the justices will find in favor of the networks. My real fear is that depending on how the judgment is worded, it could easily make the slingbox model in your own home just as illegal.


They'll open the door to Americans paying a TV license fee like they do in the U.K.

"YOU _VILL_ WATCH MAURY!"


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

jcthorne said:


> I also believe the justices will find in favor of the networks. My real fear is that depending on how the judgment is worded, it could easily make the slingbox model in your own home just as illegal.


Yes, I agree that's a worry of mine.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> When it comes to big money decisions very few politicians are going to be on the side of the consumer, regardless of party affiliation. Money has a HUGE influence over politics and these corporations have a LOT of money.
> 
> That being said I don't understand how Aereo is really violating the law. For about $200 you could get an OTA antenna, a cheap ATSC decoder and a Slingbox and create essentially the same setup in your home. What's the difference between that and renting the equipment from someone else? As long as they truly have one antenna per person it's not rebroadcasting, it's renting an antenna and tuner.
> 
> I don't think the broadcasters are worried about Aereo at all. What they're worried about is the precedent it sets. If this is deemed legal then cable companies will start doing the same thing and the broadcasters will lose their lucrative rebroadcasting deals. Technology found a way around their business model and they're fighting to prevent it.


Quite true. Although the Dems actually bother to pay lip service to pro-consumer things, they are fairly corrupt themselves.

Exactly. The issue of re-allocating antennas may come up though.

I guess they're thinking this in the long run, but I just don't see most cable systems having the ability to run that many of what are effectively individual OnDemand streams at once for quite some time.



Chris Gerhard said:


> It is legal for individuals with the right to receive copyright protected programming to record it and play it back at their convenience, this is the famous Betamax case. For who and when those recordings can be played back is unclear, I would assume household members, family, friends, etc. but it would be a gigantic leap to assume it can then be sold to customers and distributed over the internet. No court case has established that right as far as I know and the Supreme Court will rule that Aereo's business is copyright infringement and Aereo will either negotiate rights or be out of business, that is how my psychic abilities see the future.
> 
> I predict an 8-0 skunk in favor of the networks. I will assume the justices will quickly look past the tiny antenna rental red herring for what it is, a distraction from Aereo's real business of distributing content for a fee over the internet.


The content is not being sold to the consumers. It's already free for them. Aereo is simply providing the antenna and the "wire" so to speak for the consumer to capture what is already there.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The content is not being sold to the consumers. It's already free for them. Aereo is simply providing the antenna and the "wire" so to speak for the consumer to capture what is already there.


The funny thing is that this is what cable companies did originally. They simply provided a community antenna and the wire for consumers who could not get OTA due to distance, obstacles, or inability to have an antenna of their own. It was only later that they started having to pay for re-transmitting those OTA signals.

The new technologies are individual antennae and receivers that are under direct subscriber control and use of the internet as the "wire". I guess the question comes down to whether this is different enough to avoid the need to pay for "re-transmission" rights.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I guess they're thinking this in the long run, but I just don't see most cable systems having the ability to run that many of what are effectively individual OnDemand streams at once for quite some time.


Yeah this is definitely long term. But eventually all cable companies will convert to a pure IP/VOD based system, and at that point the Aereo model will become viable if it's deemed legal. And some system, such as AT&T Uverse, could start using it immediately since they are already IP based.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Bigg said:


> The content is not being sold to the consumers. It's already free for them. Aereo is simply providing the antenna and the "wire" so to speak for the consumer to capture what is already there.


Nonsense, of course it is the content that is being sold to the consumers. The Aereo plan makes receiving the content easier or in some cases possible without paying greater fees so if Aereo can obtain rights to legally distribute this copyright protected programming, maybe there is a viable business.

They can also rent antennas if they want and install those antennas on their customer's homes, another legal business, not that their customer base would be very big or profitable.

What difference does it make if the customers could have received the content for free by some other means if they wanted? The content is still protected by copyright laws and the rights owners get to decide how to distribute that content in a manner consistent with the law. I can plant an apple tree and grow apples for free but that doesn't mean I can take apples from my neighbor and deliver them to customers and call that renting an apple crate.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

If this business is legal, why not copy books someone could read for free at the library, deliver those books over the internet for a fee and call it library access fee? I can't even believe this has to go the Supreme Court to be shutdown, but at least there is a means to stop it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Chris Gerhard said:


> If this business is legal, why not copy books someone could read for free at the library, deliver those books over the internet for a fee and call it library access fee? I can't even believe this has to go the Supreme Court to be shutdown, but at least there is a means to stop it.


The fact that it has to go to the Supreme Court and that for the most part lower courts have sided with Aereo should tell you it is not as black and white as you would like to say it is. In any event the Supreme Court will decide, so I have no interest in litigating it here. Oh and by the way the library will deliver you books over the Internet no need for anyone else to copy them and my local library's will also provide you with a Nook tablet to read them.



Chris Gerhard said:


> Nonsense, of course it is the content that is being sold to the consumers. The Aereo plan makes receiving the content easier or in some cases possible without paying greater fees so if Aereo can obtain rights to legally distribute this copyright protected programming, maybe there is a viable business.
> 
> They can also rent antennas if they want and install those antennas on their customer's homes, another legal business, not that their customer base would be very big or profitable.
> 
> What difference does it make if the customers could have received the content for free by some other means if they wanted? The content is still protected by copyright laws and the rights owners get to decide how to distribute that content in a manner consistent with the law. I can plant an apple tree and grow apples for free but that doesn't mean I can take apples from my neighbor and deliver them to customers and call that renting an apple crate.


OTA broadcasts are a special situation this is not just a copyright law issue, which is why the answer is not as black and white as you would like to make it.

Giving OTA channels the right to charge for retransmission of their signal is a relatively new concept and in my personal opinion should never have been allowed.

The irony is that competition (which is supposed to benefit the consumer) is the only reason local OTA stations can get away with charging retransmission fees, if there was only one cable option (no satellite) the cable company would and could just refuse to pay it.

We all know who ultimately pays those fees, in the end it is always the consumer and the deal for OTA channels was that they got to use the public air waves as long as the consumer got to access the content for free - retransmission fees are away of circumventing the deal. At the very least any cable/satellite user should be able to opt out of paying for/receiving local channels (used to be that way with Dish Network) and receive a credit on there bill.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Chris Gerhard said:


> If this business is legal, why not copy books someone could read for free at the library, deliver those books over the internet for a fee and call it library access fee? I can't even believe this has to go the Supreme Court to be shutdown, but at least there is a means to stop it.


Because in that case the book is owned by the library, and they are the only ones allowed to make personal copies of it.

AFAICT, Aereo never at any point takes possession of what they record - the end users own the recordings from the beginning (the shows are being recorded on a particular end user's antenna for that user.)

I answered your scenario - here's a scenario for you to answer (previously ignored by you):

You rent a Roamio and a Stream. You pay someone to house and store the Roamio and Stream. You set up initial SPs for all OTA stations. You watch the recorded shows via the Stream. How is that different, copyright-wise, from the Aereo scenario?


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> Because in that case the book is owned by the library, and they are the only ones allowed to make personal copies of it.
> 
> AFAICT, Aereo never at any point takes possession of what they record - the end users own the recordings from the beginning (the shows are being recorded on a particular end user's antenna for that user.)
> 
> ...


The content in the book is protected by the copyright laws, the library has the right to provide that protected content for library members to read. The networks have the right to distribute the content according to contracts. Nowhere does the specific rights owned by the library or TV networks to distribute the protected content pass to another business or individual to sell without first obtaining the rights. I see no difference between my proposed business for library access and the business Aereo has set up for OTA network content, none whatsoever.

I am sorry I don't think I understand the Roamio and Stream scenario you suggest. I do believe I can pay someone else to operate my TiVo and Stream or a rented TiVo and Stream for me and as long as the method the content is distributed is not in violation of copyright laws, there would be no problem with that. That has nothing to do with copying protected programming and selling that programming to be distributed over the internet.

The scenario you suggest isn't a viable business if I understand it correctly, meaning the cost of owning and housing the TiVo and Stream and transmitting content over the internet won't result in being able to sell content for $8/month. Let's say it is $30/month to own and operate the TiVo and Stream so in that case the content will have to be sold at $40/month, nobody is going to try it because nobody would buy it but again it is no different than the bogus business Aereo has set up.

All Aereo is doing and our proposed businesses would be doing is trying to find a way to sell something consumers want, copyright protected content, without first obtaining the rights to do so.

There is no need to discuss our opinions about how there should be loopholes to allow selling protected content without acquiring rights, The US Supreme Court will stop the practice next month.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Chris, let's say that you live in an area where you can't pick up most/all OTA signals at your home. But you have a neighbor with a tall tree, and he offers to put up an antenna at the top and then run the cable from that antenna to your house. Is that OK, in your opinion? Does it matter whether your neighbor charges you a few $$$ each month?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Chris Gerhard said:


> The content in the book is protected by the copyright laws, the library has the right to provide that protected content for library members to read. The networks have the right to distribute the content according to contracts. Nowhere does the specific rights owned by the library or TV networks to distribute the protected content pass to another business or individual to sell without first obtaining the rights. I see no difference between my proposed business for library access and the business Aereo has set up for OTA network content, none whatsoever.
> 
> I am sorry I don't think I understand the Roamio and Stream scenario you suggest. I do believe I can pay someone else to operate my TiVo and Stream or a rented TiVo and Stream for me and as long as the method the content is distributed is not in violation of copyright laws, there would be no problem with that. That has nothing to do with copying protected programming and selling that programming to be distributed over the internet.


I agree with everything you say in the last paragraph; even the last sentence. But the last sentence is NOT what Aereo is doing. Aereo is recording shows you want using YOUR antenna (that you've rented from then); storing the shows on YOUR disk space (that you've rented from them (you've rented disk space, not a physical disk), space that is distinct from everybody else's recording of the show), and streaming the show directly to YOU, the owner of the show. You are the owner of that recording; Aereo has never owned the recording; it has never copied that recording, just recorded it specifically for you.

There is no copyright difference between the TiVo Roamio/Stream example and Aereo that I see.

A library has no special copyright privileges; they cannot copy content and distribute it. Nobody can. The difference between your library example and Aereo is that the material is being copied in the library example, and is not being copied in the Aereo model.


----------



## en sabur nur (Oct 30, 2007)

atmuscarella said:


> Given that I am an OTA only user I was/am somewhat concerned that what Aereo was doing would be the beginning of the end of free OTA broadcast networks. While I don't really believe anyone should have to pay for OTA channels most of them have have become dependent on fees they charge any service rebroadcasting their channels/signals. So in affect cable and satellite users are subsidizing us OTA only users (Thanks!). If Aereo type services caused the OTA networks to go cable only I would be very unhappy. Perhaps if in the end Aereo looses the OTA Networks will cut them a good enough deal to allow them to stay in business.


I feel the same way. I own a Roamio Pro, but the rest of my Tivos will be the regular Roamio because the free OTA signal is a great value! Top-notch picture quality for free and no copy restrictions to be concerned with.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah this is definitely long term. But eventually all cable companies will convert to a pure IP/VOD based system, and at that point the Aereo model will become viable if it's deemed legal. And some system, such as AT&T Uverse, could start using it immediately since they are already IP based.


True. U-Verse could use it. IP is still years or probably decades off for cable systems that still have a ton of room to grow by going to 860/1000mhz and MPEG-4.



Chris Gerhard said:


> Nonsense, of course it is the content that is being sold to the consumers. The Aereo plan makes receiving the content easier or in some cases possible without paying greater fees so if Aereo can obtain rights to legally distribute this copyright protected programming, maybe there is a viable business.


What they are currently doing is legal. They are NOT selling content. They are selling a service. Just like TiVo is selling a service to take content, store it, and spit it back out at a later point in time. Where the antenna is physically located has little bearing on anything, as long as it is a 1:1 relationship between antenna and viewer.



> What difference does it make if the customers could have received the content for free by some other means if they wanted? The content is still protected by copyright laws and the rights owners get to decide how to distribute that content in a manner consistent with the law. I can plant an apple tree and grow apples for free but that doesn't mean I can take apples from my neighbor and deliver them to customers and call that renting an apple crate.


Oh god, here come the terrible analogies. The difference is that the networks are giving the content away for free, in exchange for getting eyeballs for ad viewership. They managed to get laws written so that they can charge cable companies to re-distribute the content, which makes no sense, since it's free in the first place, but that's what the law says. The law also says that as long as you're doing a 1:1 relationship, it's not retransmission. No matter which way you look at it, the law makes no sense, but that's the way it is written. And to the letter of the law, Aereo is 100% legally compliant.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> There is no copyright difference between the TiVo Roamio/Stream example and Aereo that I see.


And yet the USSC has deemed this worthy of review. So _they _see some difference.

As atmuscarella says, we can discuss ad infinitum, but it's simply wasting air, as the SC will decide this. Unless Congress wants to get in this game.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

astrohip said:


> And yet the USSC has deemed this worthy of review. So _they _see some difference.
> 
> As atmuscarella says, we can discuss ad infinitum, but it's simply wasting air, as the SC will decide this. Unless Congress wants to get in this game.


Do they see any difference? I don't regard the Roamio/Stream scenario as being settled. What I'm afraid of is a decision that will outlaw both (one that says you must record at home.)

My preference would be for Aereo to win the court case as far as copyright goes, and for Congress to to take some narrow grounds to make Aereo illegal.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

astrohip said:


> And yet the USSC has deemed this worthy of review. So _they _see some difference.
> 
> As atmuscarella says, we can discuss ad infinitum, but it's simply wasting air, as the SC will decide this. Unless Congress "...*gets bribed sufficiently*..."to get in this game.


There, fixed that for you.

What, you thought they might come into the issue on the consumer's side?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> Do they see any difference? I don't regard the Roamio/Stream scenario as being settled. What I'm afraid of is a decision that will outlaw both (one that says you must record at home.)
> 
> My preference would be for Aereo to win the court case as far as copyright goes, and for Congress to to take some narrow grounds to make Aereo illegal.


How about the SCOTUS making the correct determination that Aereo is legal, and Aereo continuing to operate without the Congress intervening in order to act in an anti-competitive manner to square a particular business just because their buddies who contribute lots of campaign money to them are afraid that a new technology will stop them from double-dipping.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Bigg said:


> How about the SCOTUS making the correct determination that Aereo is legal, and Aereo continuing to operate without the Congress intervening in order to act in an anti-competitive manner to square a particular business just because their buddies who contribute lots of campaign money to them are afraid that a new technology will stop them from double-dipping.


I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening, I don't share your opinion that what Aereo is doing is analogous to what Tivo is doing with the Stream, with the Stream all the components are owned by you and in your possession, with the Aereo model it's more akin to them providing you a service and the antenna is in their possession.

IMO they're exploiting a loophole with some verbiage, I expect the courts to close that at some future point.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening, I don't share your opinion that what Aereo is doing is analogous to what Tivo is doing with the Stream, with the Stream all the components are owned by you and in your possession, with the Aereo model it's more akin to them providing you a service and the antenna is in their possession.
> 
> IMO they're exploiting a loophole with some verbiage, I expect the courts to close that at some future point.


It's not the same as what TiVo is doing, but it has been determined over and over in court that what Aereo is doing is legal- and anyone who reads the law can see for themselves that what Aereo is doing, is, in fact, perfectly legal.

You could say it is a loophole, and it may very well be, as the law wasn't written with Aereo's technology in mind, since it was written long before Aereo, but the way the law is written, Aereo is without question, legal.

It would be up to congress, not the courts, to decide if they want to change the wording in the law to meet what may have been the intent of it.

However, I would argue that based on what Aereo does, and the way it geographically limits the distribution, that it is consistent with the spirit of the law as well, since the same customers who can get Aereo can receive the content via DVR. I think the parallels to Cablevision's network DVR is better, assuming that they have no specific language in their distribution agreements to allow it, and are providing that service to their customers based on existing carriage agreements that are intended for in-home use, with in-home DVRs to record and play back content.


----------



## StevesWeb (Dec 26, 2008)

MikeAndrews said:


> Justice Scalia is writing his Aereo-favorable majority opinion as we speak.


Thank goodness somebody is defending the Sanctity of Streaming Video!


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Bigg said:


> and anyone who reads the law can see for themselves that what Aereo is doing, is, in fact, perfectly legal


And yet the Supreme Court feels the need to read the law on this.


Bigg said:


> but the way the law is written, Aereo is without question, legal.


And yet the Supreme Court feels the need to question this.

Regardless of my personal opinion, I'm not smart enough to interpret the law around this. But those of you who continue to categorically state the legality of this, if it is so abundantly clear, why did the SCOTUS agree to review this? And if it's because the lower courts don't agree, well then doesn't that mean it's NOT without question?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> And yet the Supreme Court feels the need to read the law on this.
> 
> And yet the Supreme Court feels the need to question this.
> 
> Regardless of my personal opinion, I'm not smart enough to interpret the law around this. But those of you who continue to categorically state the legality of this, if it is so abundantly clear, why did the SCOTUS agree to review this? And if it's because the lower courts don't agree, well then doesn't that mean it's NOT without question?


I do find it strange that they took this case on, given how the lower courts have already read and interpreted the law as it is written. The only people whom it is controversial to are the broadcasters who want an alternate reality interpretation of what the law says used. Anyone who takes an unbiased look at it will determine that what Aereo is doing is legal.


----------



## stahta01 (Dec 23, 2001)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Uh, I sure hope that isn't how the Attorney General operates, I believe he does his job as an attorney bound by a code of ethics and the rule of law. I am not an attorney but I don't think this is a close case at all, Aereo is clearly in violation of copyright protection laws and the company can negotiate rights to distribute content online or be shutdown, either way I don't care, I won't use the service.


LOL

Tim S.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I do find it strange that they took this case on, given how the lower courts have already read and interpreted the law as it is written. The only people whom it is controversial to are the broadcasters who want an alternate reality interpretation of what the law says used. Anyone who takes an unbiased look at it will determine that what Aereo is doing is legal.


Umm.. they took the case on because some courts found it legal and others have found that it is illegal. In fact, Aereo had to stop providing service to Denver and Salt Lake City last Saturday. The injunction was granted because that district court doesn't think Aereo is going to win their appeal. SCOTUS usually takes on cases where the District Courts don't agree with each other.

FYI, as far as the antenna goes, you are technically sharing several giant antennas. You are simply renting an element of a particular antenna. The element you rent is dynamically allocated to you based on which channel you want to receive as well as the quality of the signal. When you switch channels you switch elements. These technical things never get interpreted correctly by the courts, and it might not really matter in the grand scheme of things if the focus is on copyright law, but I just wanted to clarify that.

Edit: Copyright law is so against Aereo it isn't even funny. However, there is one court case, _Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.,_, that is in favor of Aereo. Cablevision won the right to provide the same service Aereo is providing except without the antennas. Without that court case, Aereo was doomed. Perhaps that's another reason that SCOTUS wanted to look at this case: there is a single ruling that is "against the grain" so to speak of existing laws and other court rulings. Is that court case extremely unique and its ruling misused by other courts, or did it actually establish case law?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Umm.. they took the case on because some courts found it legal and others have found that it is illegal. In fact, Aereo had to stop providing service to Denver and Salt Lake City last Saturday. The injunction was granted because that district court doesn't think Aereo is going to win their appeal. SCOTUS usually takes on cases where the District Courts don't agree with each other.
> 
> FYI, as far as the antenna goes, you are technically sharing several giant antennas. You are simply renting an element of a particular antenna. The element you rent is dynamically allocated to you based on which channel you want to receive as well as the quality of the signal. When you switch channels you switch elements. These technical things never get interpreted correctly by the courts, and it might not really matter in the grand scheme of things if the focus is on copyright law, but I just wanted to clarify that.
> 
> Edit: Copyright law is so against Aereo it isn't even funny. However, there is one court case, _Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.,_, that is in favor of Aereo. Cablevision won the right to provide the same service Aereo is providing except without the antennas. Without that court case, Aereo was doomed. Perhaps that's another reason that SCOTUS wanted to look at this case: there is a single ruling that is "against the grain" so to speak of existing laws and other court rulings. Is that court case extremely unique and its ruling misused by other courts, or did it actually establish case law?


Yeah, I understand that they dynamically assign the antennas.

The law is clear, and Aereo is 100% legal. They designed the service right around the law, so it only makes sense that it is perfectly in the clear- if only by a tiny bit.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, I understand that they dynamically assign the antennas.
> 
> The law is clear, and Aereo is 100% legal. They designed the service right around the law, so it only makes sense that it is perfectly in the clear- if only by a tiny bit.


Tell that to Echostar, who insisted they designed their DVRs around the Tivo patents. Tell that to the 10th circuit court of appeals who disagrees with you on Aereo. You just never know what's going to happen with the justice system.

Anyway, if Aereo wins there are two possible scenarios with one outcome:

1. OTA broadcasting ceases altogether, or is radically altered to include local news, lots of infomercials, and maybe a few other programs not worth watching. Regular programming continues on cable/DBS systems.

2. Congress passes a new law making what Aereo is doing explicitly illegal. The companies involved in this case (and the U.S. Justice Dept.) have a lot of influence.

Either way, Aereo goes out of business.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Tell that to Echostar, who insisted they designed their DVRs around the Tivo patents. Tell that to the 10th circuit court of appeals who disagrees with you on Aereo. You just never know what's going to happen with the justice system.
> 
> Anyway, if Aereo wins there are two possible scenarios with one outcome:
> 
> ...


The networks are so full of it. Tons of people use antennas now, and they haven't stopped the OTA networks. Maybe if they want to make a point, they'll move some of their better shows to cable, and backfill with cheap syndicated stuff, junk reality programming, or re-runs, but OTA stations aren't going anywhere.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Chris Gerhard said:


> If this business is legal, why not copy books someone could read for free at the library, deliver those books over the internet for a fee and call it library access fee? I can't even believe this has to go the Supreme Court to be shutdown, but at least there is a means to stop it.


Not quite the same analogy. First off these networks use public airwaves to broadcast their content free of charge to anyone with an antenna.

Secondly they are not copying anything. They have individual antennas allocated to every user. So all they are doing is renting the antenna and then providing software to captures whatever comes out of that antenna and transmit it to you over the internet.

This is really no different then the "network DVRs" that are catching on in the cable industry. Cox was taken to court over their network DVR and they won because they were able to show that they were not making any copies. Every single user has a unique copy of their shows recorded by their "DVR" even if a thousand people recorded the exact same show. It's basically just taking hardware consumers have access to now and moving it to a centralized location where it's cheaper to maintain.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> 1. OTA broadcasting ceases altogether, or is radically altered to include local news, lots of infomercials, and maybe a few other programs not worth watching. Regular programming continues on cable/DBS systems.


Scary thought. Good thing I have a lot of archived shows. 
Call me a digital hoarder, but if this happens I'll have the last laugh.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I read a stat recently that said something like 83% of households in the US have some sort of pay TV subscription. And only 7% of households actually use OTA as their primary source for TV. (I guess the other 10% don't watch TV at all?)

So if the networks did go over to pay TV it wouldn't effect that many people.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I read a stat recently that said something like 83% of households in the US have some sort of pay TV subscription. And only 7% of households actually use OTA as their primary source for TV. (I guess the other 10% don't watch TV at all?)
> 
> So if the networks did go over to pay TV it wouldn't effect that many people.


I've heard more like a 20/60/20 OTA/cable/DBS split, with a small percentage of TelcoTV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

https://www.ce.org/News/News-Releas...-Percent-of-TV-Households-Rely-on-Over-t.aspx


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> I read a stat recently that said something like 83% of households in the US have some sort of pay TV subscription. And only 7% of households actually use OTA as their primary source for TV. (I guess the other 10% don't watch TV at all?)
> 
> So if the networks did go over to pay TV it wouldn't effect that many people.


what a shock that a study by a consortium where Comcast, DirecTV, Dish and Verizon are members and also include other technology and hardware manufactures that benefit from cable would have such a drastic comparison to a study from what seems to me to be an independent firm claiming 20%.

http://blog.gfk.com/2013/06/confessions-of-a-cord-cutter-skeptic-revisited/


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I read a stat recently that said something like 83% of households in the US have some sort of pay TV subscription. And only 7% of households actually use OTA as their primary source for TV. (I guess the other 10% don't watch TV at all?)
> 
> So if the networks did go over to pay TV it wouldn't effect that many people.


If the networks succeed in getting rid of the pesky OTA viewers, and the cable cos who won't pay fees, it would affect _the networks_ trying to convince advertisers how they should pay to have no one see the ads.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Aero 1 said:


> what a shock that a study by a consortium where Comcast, DirecTV, Dish and Verizon are members and also include other technology and hardware manufactures that benefit from cable would have such a drastic comparison to a study from what seems to me to be an independent firm claiming 20%.
> 
> http://blog.gfk.com/2013/06/confessions-of-a-cord-cutter-skeptic-revisited/


In the notes at the bottom of the page they confess that they lump "unknowns" and internet TV watchers into the OTA viewers category. They say that if they remove those then the figure drops to about 13%.

They also say that the industry report is based on monitored homes (i.e. Neilson families) While that may not be the best sampling of all US homes it is what the networks use for ratings and advertising rates, so it's really all that matters to them if they are trying to decide whether to jump over exclusively to cable.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see networks shifting upcoming pilots over to their cable only sister networks just to see how they fare. If that succeeds then eventually we may reach a point where the only thing left OTA is news and infomercials.



MikeAndrews said:


> If the networks succeed in getting rid of the pesky OTA viewers, and the cable cos who won't pay fees, it would affect _the networks_ trying to convince advertisers how they should pay to have no one see the ads.


Advertisers already pay for ads on cable TV. 99% of cable channels have commercials. Super popular cable shows, like The Walking Dead, already pull in more for an ad then many network shows...

http://adage.com/article/media/walking-dead-ad-packages-cost-broadcast-spots/237967/


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think you guys have forgotten that the "Networks" for the most part don't own you local OTA channels. Those owners are not going to role over and let the Networks not provide them with acceptable content and the Government through the FCC is protecting your local broadcasters not the Networks, other wise cable could just buy a National feed and be done with it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Businesses these days are ALL about profit. If the networks thought that they could make more profit by switching to cable only then they would dump the local broadcasters in a heartbeat. Or if they decided that cable was more profitable nothing would stop them from shifting the top tier programming over to their cable networks and dumping all the reality TV crap currently on cable over to the broadcasters.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Aero 1 said:


> what a shock that a study by a consortium where Comcast, DirecTV, Dish and Verizon are members and also include other technology and hardware manufactures that benefit from cable would have such a drastic comparison to a study from what seems to me to be an independent firm claiming 20%.
> 
> http://blog.gfk.com/2013/06/confessions-of-a-cord-cutter-skeptic-revisited/


Yeah, the 20% numbers sound a lot more realistic based on what I've heard before.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I think you guys have forgotten that the "Networks" for the most part don't own you local OTA channels. Those owners are not going to role over and let the Networks not provide them with acceptable content and the Government through the FCC is protecting your local broadcasters not the Networks, other wise cable could just buy a National feed and be done with it.


The networks do own the OandO's (Owned and Operated) stations in the big cities, Chicago, New York, LA.

The only way they'd mitigate the disaster is that the networks also own cable channels. Disney/ABC Comcast/Universal/NBC

CBS:


> CBSs businesses include CBS Television Network, The CW (a joint venture between CBS Corporation and Warner Bros. Entertainment), Showtime Networks, CBS Sports Network, TVGN (a joint venture between CBS Corporation and Lionsgate), Smithsonian Networks, Simon & Schuster, CBS Television Stations, CBS Radio, CBS Outdoor, CBS Television Studios, CBS Global Distribution Group (CBS Studios International and CBS Television Distribution), CBS Interactive, CBS Consumer Products, CBS Home Entertainment, CBS Films and CBS EcoMedia.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, the 20% numbers sound a lot more realistic based on what I've heard before.


As I pointed out above that other study specifically states that it was lumping "unknown" and internet TV watchers into the OTA camp. The number of people who actually responded saying OTA was their primary source of TV was only 13%. That's less then 20M households in the US.

And as I also pointed out the CEA study used numbers from Neilson families which, while less accurate, are more relevant to networks decision as they are the ones that decide ratings and as such determine ad pricing.

Another thing to consider is how many of those OTA only users would subscribe to pay TV if the OTA networks went away or severely diminished the quality of their programming? I'm betting at least 1/3. So if they number they care about is 7% and 1/3 of them would follow them to pay TV that's really only like a 4-5% loss, or about 7M households.

Honestly I'll be surprised if they don't at least experiment with this. Maybe next season we'll see some of the more promising pilots get shifted off to the big four's cable channels instead just to see how they fare.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> The networks do own the OandO's (Owned and Operated) stations in the big cities, Chicago, New York, LA.
> 
> The only way they'd mitigate the disaster is that the networks also own cable channels. Disney/ABC Comcast/Universal/NBC
> 
> CBS:


ABC owns A&E, NBC owns USA, FOX owns FX and CBS owns ShowTime and a partial interest in Viacom which owns a ton of cable networks. So all of them are already doing some original programing for pay TV only channels.

And some of these shows are out scoring their network counterparts. Mega hits like The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy, etc... are showing networks that cable shows can pull in real ratings and real ad revenue.

I honestly think the days of free OTA TV are numbered. If it's not taken out by cable competition then eventually it will be wiped out by IPTV from the internet. There is no way the model of broadcasting a show once a week at a specific time survives long term.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> ...I honestly think the days of free OTA TV are numbered. If it's not taken out by cable competition then eventually it will be wiped out by IPTV from the internet. There is no way the model of broadcasting a show once a week at a specific time survives long term.


Broadcast TV will become endless Maury, local news, reruns, and reality TV, in other words everything except network prime time.

Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc. are still once a week shows. It's just that they're also available for catch up and binge watching on VoD. Which BTW, the network shows only offer the last handful of episodes on VoD, I guess, so THEY can run repeats.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> ... other wise cable could just buy a National feed and be done with it.


Like Comcast buying NBC?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc. are still once a week shows. It's just that they're also available for catch up and binge watching on VoD. Which BTW, the network shows only offer the last handful of episodes on VoD, I guess, so THEY can run repeats.


Most of the cable shows repeat at least a half dozen times throughout the week. So if you miss an episode you have other opportunities to catch it. With network shows it's typically on once, ever, unless you wait until just before sweeps or over the summer and you "might" be able to catch it in a repeat.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> And as I also pointed out the CEA study used numbers from Neilson families which, while less accurate, are more relevant to networks decision as they are the ones that decide ratings and as such determine ad pricing.


True. But still not actually accurate as to what is actually out there.



> Another thing to consider is how many of those OTA only users would subscribe to pay TV if the OTA networks went away or severely diminished the quality of their programming? I'm betting at least 1/3. So if they number they care about is 7% and 1/3 of them would follow them to pay TV that's really only like a 4-5% loss, or about 7M households.


I'm not so sure. There is a component of OTA viewers who can and would (like on this forum), but there is a large component that does't have cable because they can't afford it, and wouldn't be able to pay $70/mo just to get a few shows they used to get for free. However, this also brings in the point that the households with less money to spend aren't as valuable to advertisers than ones that have money to spend, and have cable. Then there are the total cheapskates who will not pay no matter what gets moved over.



Dan203 said:


> I honestly think the days of free OTA TV are numbered. If it's not taken out by cable competition then eventually it will be wiped out by IPTV from the internet. There is no way the model of broadcasting a show once a week at a specific time survives long term.


As much as I don't understand why anyone would watch anything that's not live programming (like sports) actually live, a lot of people do. I don't see linear TV going away anytime soon, even though the majority of viewership will eventually move to streaming and VOD in addition to DVR.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> it would be a gigantic leap to assume it can then be sold to customers and distributed over the internet. No court case has established that right as far as I know and the Supreme Court will rule that Aereo's business is copyright infringement and Aereo will either negotiate rights or be out of business, that is how my psychic abilities see the future.


I pay Tivo to do the exact same thing. Will they have to stop Out of Home streaming of broadast signals? They are also distributing broadcast channels over the internet. The only difference is that the antenna is mine and in my home.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I pay Tivo to do the exact same thing. Will they have to stop Out of Home streaming of broadast signals? They are also distributing broadcast channels over the internet. * The only difference is that the antenna is mine and in my home.*


You recorded it yourself in your home with your own equipment. At this point in time, that seems to make a huge difference to the courts.

We'll see...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

astrohip said:


> You recorded it yourself in your home with your own equipment. At this point in time, that seems to make a huge difference to the courts.
> 
> We'll see...


The OTA signal is for private home use only at this point in time, in the early days we had community antennas that helped the OTA stations for homes that could not get good reception with a normal home antenna, but now they had the law changed so cable co must pay for the free OTA signal if they want to put them on their cable system. I guess the court will have to deal with this.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

astrohip said:


> You recorded it yourself in your home with your own equipment. At this point in time, that seems to make a huge difference to the courts.
> 
> We'll see...


Actually at this point it has NOT made a difference to the court. That's why it's made it all the way up to the supreme court, because the lower courts keep ruling in Aereo's favor.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Dan203 said:


> That being said I don't understand how Aereo is really violating the law. For about $200 you could get an OTA antenna, a cheap ATSC decoder and a Slingbox and create essentially the same setup in your home. What's the difference between that and renting the equipment from someone else? As long as they truly have one antenna per person it's not rebroadcasting, it's renting an antenna and tuner.


You would also need to rent a remote location so set up the equipment.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The major network news broadcasts give Obama favorable reports and rarely criticize him. It's not surprising that the Obama administration would side with the networks. The executives at Aereo are lucky they have not been arrested by the FBI and had their business shut down. Maybe this is the next shoe that will drop on Aereo.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

lessd said:


> The OTA signal is for private home use only at this point in time, in the early days we had community antennas that helped the OTA stations for homes that could not get good reception with a normal home antenna, but now they had the law changed so cable co must pay for the free OTA signal if they want to put them on their cable system. I guess the court will have to deal with this.


OTA signals are intended for private, non-profit use only. Aereo is public, for-profit use. That violates the general principle of copyright law -- you can't make money off of somebody else's content without their permission.

I think Congress will just pass a law that just explicitly blocks what Aereo is doing, which will close this loophole in existing copyright law. I think streaming for personal use will still be allowed. I think they will act quickly, too.

It's funny, I was getting my haircut yesterday and noticing that they were playing a CD loud enough so their customers could hear it. That's illegal. They are allowed to turn the radio or TV on (as long as they don't specifically charge for it), but they can't play a CD or DVD without permission.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

So if renting an antenna and wire to access OTA signals is made illegal does that mean that any landlord that has an antenna and wire that allows his/her tenants to access OTA signals as part of their rental costs will have to disconnect it? 

I think people should be careful what they wish for.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> So if renting an antenna and wire to access OTA signals is made illegal does that mean that any landlord that has an antenna and wire that allows his/her tenants to access OTA signals as part of their rental costs will have to disconnect it?
> 
> I think people should be careful what they wish for.


At this point I don't think any landlord would put up a OTC antenna, they make money by getting a cable co to wire up their Apt building than have one cable system available to the renters, or provide free basic cable. In my friends office he purchased a music CD that was for commercial use, no problem.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lessd said:


> At this point I don't think any landlord would put up a OTC antenna, they make money by getting a cable co to wire up their Apt building than have one cable system available to the renters, or provide free basic cable. In my friends office he purchased a music CD that was for commercial use, no problem.


Ya I can see that for complexes but where I live think Rural & small villages many/most rentals are single family homes some with 2-3 apartments in them, some where you rent the whole house.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

BobCamp1 said:


> OTA signals are intended for private, non-profit use only. Aereo is public, for-profit use. That violates the general principle of copyright law -- you can't make money off of somebody else's content without their permission.


Tell that to second hand book, music, game, etc stores 

Yes I realize those aren't really analogous to what Aereo is doing. But they're definitely people making money off of copyrighted works without the original owner's permission. (And often against their wishes; see various _old_ lawsuits trying to prevent resale of copyrighted goods)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> OTA signals are intended for private, non-profit use only. Aereo is public, for-profit use. That violates the general principle of copyright law -- you can't make money off of somebody else's content without their permission.


They're not selling you the signal they're renting you the equipment to access the signal for private, non-profit, use.

What if there was a service that would come to your house and install an antenna and a Slingbox for free but charged you $7/mo to rent it. Would that be illegal? That's basically what's happening here except that the antenna and Slingbox are in a central location rather then at your house. Is that the only reason this is illegal, because of where the equipment is located?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> Tell that to second hand book, music, game, etc stores
> 
> Yes I realize those aren't really analogous to what Aereo is doing. But they're definitely people making money off of copyrighted works without the original owner's permission. (And often against their wishes; see various _old_ lawsuits trying to prevent resale of copyrighted goods)


When you purchase any copyrighted works, and don't copy them, they are your property to sell or whatever, a book store does not get the owners permission to sell each new book, the bookstore buys the books in bulk and then re-sells them, no problem. The person that makes the books in the first place has the contract with the owner of the copyrighted book.
If the original owner could keep control of their works for ever, even after a sale, the Art market would no longer exist. The problem is when one duplicates a copyrighted works.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> When you purchase any copyrighted works, and don't copy them, they are your property to sell or whatever, a book store does not get the owners permission to sell each new book, the bookstore buys the books in bulk and then re-sells them, no problem. The person that makes the books in the first place has the contract with the owner of the copyrighted book.
> If the original owner could keep control of their works for ever, even after a sale, the Art market would no longer exist. The problem is when one duplicates a copyrighted works.


Tell that to sellers of ebooks, digital music, digital movies, etc.... They've managed to completely eliminate resale by calling what you purchase a license rather then a product.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lessd said:


> When you purchase any copyrighted works, and don't copy them, they are your property to sell or whatever, a book store does not get the owners permission to sell each new book, the bookstore buys the books in bulk and then re-sells them, no problem. The person that makes the books in the first place has the contract with the owner of the copyrighted book.
> If the original owner could keep control of their works for ever, even after a sale, the Art market would no longer exist. The problem is when one duplicates a copyrighted works.


There are copyright laws to make this legal. Now it's Aereo's turn at the plate to create/alter some laws to make this legal. I think they will win. I also think there will be a huge lobbying effort to get some laws rewritten.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> There are copyright laws to make this legal. Now it's Aereo's turn at the plate to create/alter some laws to make this legal. I think they will win. I also think there will be a huge lobbying effort to get some laws rewritten.


What they are doing is already legal.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> What they are doing is already legal.


They think so, the networks do not. That's why it's coming up before the Supreme Court. If they win then it'll be legal if they lose it'll be illegal. Right now it's a matter of interpretation and semantics.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> They think so, the networks do not. That's why it's coming up before the Supreme Court. If they win then it'll be legal if they lose it'll be illegal. Right now it's a matter of interpretation and semantics.


I think it's very clear what the law says. We'll see if the court legislates in favor of protectionism for the big networks or follows what the law says.

It's amusing how the networks even care. Viewers are viewers, whether they have an antenna or Aereo. They are wasting so much effort on something that has no material affect on them instead of trying to actually be better at doing their business.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The networks make a LOT of money licensing their feeds to cable companies. Just look at what happened recently between CBS and TWC. If Aereo wins then that opens up this loophole to cable companies and the networks lose that cash cow. That's what they're worried about.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The networks make a LOT of money licensing their feeds to cable companies. Just look at what happened recently between CBS and TWC. If Aereo wins then that opens up this loophole to cable companies and the networks lose that cash cow. That's what they're worried about.


That is the issue, if Aereo can do this the cable co can also set up antennas and give up the feeds and cost of the feeds. If the local say CBS programing gets to your TV via IP or cable what difference does that make, the law only allows a private home to use an antenna to receive OTA (for non commercial use) without paying for the service, I don't know if a group of neighbors that share a high OTA antenna, would have any legal problems.


----------



## en sabur nur (Oct 30, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Tell that to sellers of ebooks, digital music, digital movies, etc.... They've managed to completely eliminate resale by calling what you purchase a license rather then a product.


Which is exactly why I only purchase disc-based content...or digital content where I can strip the DRM.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Bigg said:


> What they are doing is already legal.





Bigg said:


> I think it's very clear what the law says.


That poor dead horse. 

As has been pointed out to you more than once, if what you keep stating was gospel, then why would the USSC take up this case?

Stating and restating your opinion of how the law reads doesn't make it true.

This is an interesting thread, where people debate the pros and cons, especially as to the effects of a decision. It's not so interesting when people merely state "these are the facts" without an open mind.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

astrohip said:


> This is an interesting thread, where people debate the pros and cons, especially as to the effects of a decision. It's not so interesting when people merely state "these are the facts" without an open mind.


I agree I find it very interesting to see the opposing side so adamant that they're right for their reasons as I am for mine, it's been very enlightening.

I'm the first to admit that I'm biased to my side which is the side of the IP and copyright holders, but then I come from a publishing family and have worked in fields where piracy has been rampant.

I love how the pro-Aereo side says "it's nothing different than what you have already" but as myself and others have said, they are exploiting loopholes and language to get you to that point, you don't own the content flow, I doubt you can go to the office and sign your name to "your antenna" they're offering a service, and many of us disagree on where that service will fall in the big picture when the SCOTUS gets involved.

Taking this discussion really old school, I worked in a copy shop about 1980, and we would routinely be involved of issues over "how much of a book can you copy" and "how many copies of those copies can you make?" because they were text books and the professors wanted to use the content in their classes and the students didn't want to buy the book. In fact we had set corporate guidelines as to how much of a book could be copied, and "copy the whole book" despite the person bringing it saying it was ok, was not allowed.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The networks make a LOT of money licensing their feeds to cable companies. Just look at what happened recently between CBS and TWC. If Aereo wins then that opens up this loophole to cable companies and the networks lose that cash cow. That's what they're worried about.


I don't think so. First of all, a QAM plant isn't set up for individual streams to the customer, as would be required for something like that. Secondly, the networks all own cable channels, and they could force bundle carriage fees on the local channels in order for the cable provider to get the cable channels. They already do that with a lot of cable channels, so I don't see that being an issue.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Taking this discussion really old school, I worked in a copy shop about 1980, and we would routinely be involved of issues over "how much of a book can you copy" and "how many copies of those copies can you make?" because they were text books and the professors wanted to use the content in their classes and the students didn't want to buy the book. In fact we had set corporate guidelines as to how much of a book could be copied, and "copy the whole book" despite the person bringing it saying it was ok, was not allowed.


Aren't there copyright laws now that allow up to 10% of the book to be copied? Those corporate guidelines are no longer needed. Government regulation s actually made it so the copy shop could benefit.

The same will happen with Aereo. They are using a loophole in the law. Closing the loophole could have an impact on lots of other services like Tivo who also allows you to stream network TV from an antenna to your own device.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> I don't think so. First of all, a QAM plant isn't set up for individual streams to the customer, as would be required for something like that. Secondly, the networks all own cable channels, and they could force bundle carriage fees on the local channels in order for the cable provider to get the cable channels. They already do that with a lot of cable channels, so I don't see that being an issue.


QAM is on it's way out. Eventually all cable will be delivered via IP. And once that happens using an Aereo type scheme to bypass network carriage fees will be possible. As for bundling... That's not currently allowed. The "must carry" laws don't allow the networks to bundle their carriage fees with their other offerings. At least for now.

I can almost guarantee the networks aren't worried about some small startup with less then a million subscribers. They're worried about the precedent it will set and how it will effect their bottom line down the road when the technology matures.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dianebrat said:


> I agree I find it very interesting to see the opposing side so adamant that they're right for their reasons as I am for mine, it's been very enlightening.
> 
> I'm the first to admit that I'm biased to my side which is the side of the IP and copyright holders, but then I come from a publishing family and have worked in fields where piracy has been rampant.
> 
> ...


Okay, let's use a printing press analogy.

You publish a book.

Someone buys it.

They read it.

You got your money when they bought it.

Aereo variation on that--they're blind, and they hire someone sighted to read the book to them. You insist that since they aren't using their own eyes in their own head, they owe you extra.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> They're not selling you the signal they're renting you the equipment to access the signal for private, non-profit, use.
> 
> What if there was a service that would come to your house and install an antenna and a Slingbox for free but charged you $7/mo to rent it. Would that be illegal? That's basically what's happening here except that the antenna and Slingbox are in a central location rather then at your house. Is that the only reason this is illegal, because of where the equipment is located?


It matters not who owns the equipment or where it is located in determining whether there is a violation.

There's another part of copyright law which dictates the type of equipment that can be used to receive the signal for redistribution. If the equipment can typically be found in a residence, it's allowed. That covers Slingbox, FM radios, typical residential antennas, TVs, etc. Aereo's equipment (including the antenna array and servers) is NOT typically found in a residence.

TVs, for example, cannot exceed 55" and the sound system cannot have more than 6 speakers if the square footage of the non-residential building exceeds 2000 sq. ft. You're limited to 4 speakers if it's outdoors.

This is the part Aereo has found a loophole in:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110

They're claiming it's not a public performance. Some courts have agreed, some haven't. It is on the Internet, after all, which is very public. But if it's encrypted then it's private.

The NFL, for example, would lose a lot of money with NFL Sunday Ticket. Let's say you want to watch all the Giants games but you live in Florida. You just sign up for a credit card with a billing address in NYC, get a post office box or a buddy for a billing address, sign up for online payments, get a NY IP address, and with Aereo you can watch every Giants game anywhere on the planet without NFL SUnday Ticket. Every single piece of that is legal except maybe for the Aereo part.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> Okay, let's use a printing press analogy.
> 
> You publish a book.
> 
> ...


There are specific exemptions granted in copyright law to cover people with disabilities:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110

Not to mention that's not a public performance.

But without these exemptions, even closed captioning would be illegal.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> So if renting an antenna and wire to access OTA signals is made illegal does that mean that any landlord that has an antenna and wire that allows his/her tenants to access OTA signals as part of their rental costs will have to disconnect it?
> 
> I think people should be careful what they wish for.


That is a specific exemption given in copyright law:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#111

You guys are lining them up, and I'm knocking them down. 

As long as the landlord doesn't have a specific charge for antenna access, he's legal.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> There are specific exemptions granted in copyright law to cover people with disabilities:
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121
> 
> ...


My analogy wasn't about disabilities, it was about subcontracting.


----------



## DeltaBill (Dec 15, 2003)

It is upsetting how the entertainment industry is going out of its way to redefine the public&#8217;s rights for their profit. Redistribution of content made readily available used to be unquestioned. This is how the cable industry first got started. A bunch of people in a valley decided to place antenna&#8217;s on top of a mountain to get signals not available to them due to line of sight issues. They then distributed those signals to multiple houses via coax.

We should be up in arms that the government is allowing content providers to revoke the public&#8217;s right. However, I can understand the need to legislate that any redistribution be unedited and in its entirety.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BobCamp1 said:


> They're claiming it's not a public performance. Some courts have agreed, some haven't. It is on the Internet, after all, which is very public. But if it's encrypted then it's private.


I don't see how this could even be considered a public performance. The chain of custody of the signal belongs to a single user, even if it's not encrypted. Just because it's on the internet does not change that. There is no such thing as multicast on the internet. Everything has to be specifically sent to a specific IP for them to receive it. As long as they only allow a user to be logged in once and streaming to one location I don't see how they can even argue that this is somehow a public performance.

Personally I don't think their stupid rules about having to live in the city you subscribe to Aereo in are necessary. Just because the NFL used the limitatins of old technology to establish a business model does not mean that business model should be protected from new technology.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

BobCamp1 said:


> There's another part of copyright law which dictates the type of equipment that can be used to receive the signal for redistribution. If the equipment can typically be found in a residence, it's allowed. That covers Slingbox, FM radios, typical residential antennas, TVs, etc. Aereo's equipment (including the antenna array and servers) is NOT typically found in a residence.
> 
> TVs, for example, cannot exceed 55" and the sound system cannot have more than 6 speakers if the square footage of the non-residential building exceeds 2000 sq. ft. You're limited to 4 speakers if it's outdoors.


Which is funny because 7.1 systems are becoming more common in homes, as are flatscreens of well over 55".

I'm sure those numbers looks very permissive when the law was written, but now my home theater, and many of my friends setups, would be in violation if transplanted into a non-residential building of more than 2000 sq. ft.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Personally I don't think their stupid rules about having to live in the city you subscribe to Aereo in are necessary. Just because the NFL used the limitatins of old technology to establish a business model does not mean that business model should be protected from new technology.


I agree. I actually wonder if maybe they imposed the geography requirement simply because they didn't think they would win in court. The plan must have always been to fight this in court.


----------



## DeltaBill (Dec 15, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I agree. I actually wonder if maybe they imposed the geography requirement simply because they didn't think they would win in court. The plan must have always been to fight this in court.


I believe the geography rules are there because if a recipient was able to freely receive the signal with common equipment (i.e. an antenna) that receiving the same signal via other common equipment was considered fair use. However, if someone was unable to freely receive the signal, fair use is no longer applied.

I would be interested to see what court rulings have been made that has prevented signal redistributors (cable and satellite companies) from being able to freely receive and redistribute signals based on fair use laws. A requirement that redistributors pay for a signal is a change from how things were from the 1970s to the early to late 2000s.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

unitron said:


> My analogy wasn't about disabilities, it was about subcontracting.


It was a poor analogy. In general, replicating content for any reason is illegal unless it's explicitly covered by one of the exemptions in copyright law. You and I might not like it, but that's how the law is written.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I don't see how this could even be considered a public performance. The chain of custody of the signal belongs to a single user, even if it's not encrypted. Just because it's on the internet does not change that. There is no such thing as multicast on the internet. Everything has to be specifically sent to a specific IP for them to receive it. As long as they only allow a user to be logged in once and streaming to one location I don't see how they can even argue that this is somehow a public performance.
> 
> Personally I don't think their stupid rules about having to live in the city you subscribe to Aereo in are necessary. Just because the NFL used the limitatins of old technology to establish a business model does not mean that business model should be protected from new technology.


First of all, the data in the stream belongs to the copyright holder. When you buy a Blu-ray, you own the physical media, but the content owner owns the bits on it.

Second, it's not just the NFL and private companies that mandate you watch locally. The governments have a public safety interest, which is probably one of the reasons the Feds got involved. Your local affiliates count on the local population to be watching them and their commercials. If everyone who lives in Buffalo starts watching TV stations in NYC, then the Buffalo affiliates go under. So how do you get local news and be notified of local emergencies?

Third, there is such a thing as broadcasting on the Internet. Technically, at the IP layer, everything I watch on CNN or Youtube is point-to-point. Yet nobody considers those websites private.

Now Aereo isn't like that. I've said before they've found a loophole. They are only exempt because they can argue they are not a single public performance per se, but rather they are repeating the same performance privately over and over again. But they are clearly using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, because if you distribute the same content over and over again to hundreds of different people, at some point it's considered to be public. Congress just has to close that loophole.

Note that Aereo is trying to dodge other laws as well, which explains their fancy setup. But copyright law is the weakest link in the chain, so that's where their opponents are attacking.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Now Aereo isn't like that. I've said before they've found a loophole. They are only exempt because they can argue they are not a single public performance per se, but rather they are repeating the same performance privately over and over again. But they are clearly using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, because if you distribute the same content over and over again to hundreds of different people, at some point it's considered to be public. Congress just has to close that loophole.
> 
> Note that Aereo is trying to dodge other laws as well, which explains their fancy setup. But copyright law is the weakest link in the chain, so that's where their opponents are attacking.


Aereo is 100% compliant with all applicable laws. They are not in any way violating the spirit of the law, as they are just acting as an antenna and DVR for that customer. The customer doesn't get access to anything that they wouldn't otherwise have access to using a regular antenna. No different than an antenna, TiVo Roamio, and Slingbox.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Bigg said:


> Aereo is 100% compliant with all applicable laws.


Perhaps. But US District Judge Dale Kimball disagreed. He knocked down the notion that Aereo can avoid Transmit Clause of the 1976 Copyright Act by allowing customers to rent an antenna (for each individual customer). Again, saying they are 100% compliant is certainly in question and will ultimately be decided by the supreme court.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> If everyone who lives in Buffalo starts watching TV stations in NYC, then the Buffalo affiliates go under. So how do you get local news and be notified of local emergencies?


The internet already has that covered. When the Boston Bombing occurred, I was notified by my smartphone. I immediately went to the internet and watched multiple video streams of the coverage. I didn't turn on my tv for hours.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

rainwater said:


> Perhaps. But US District Judge Dale Kimball disagreed. He knocked down the notion that Aereo can avoid Transmit Clause of the 1976 Copyright Act by allowing customers to rent an antenna (for each individual customer). Again, saying they are 100% compliant is certainly in question and will ultimately be decided by the supreme court.


Cox recently won a similar case over their could DVR by proving that they "record" a separate copy of every show for each individual subscriber. Aereo is doing the same basic thing just going one step further and renting individual antennas to each subscriber.

The networks backed off of that case after the first lower court decision, so they're obviously not as concerned about the network distribution as they are about the bypassing of their retransmission fees.

I just don't see them winning this. Maybe they'll lobby to get the law changed after the fact, but with current law I can't see how the SC can rule against them.


----------

