Slashdot Mirror
Aereo Ruling Could Impact Pandora
itwbennett writes "Aereo's court battles are far from over, to be sure, but the ruling earlier this month that the TV streaming service doesn't violate copyright laws must have the folks at music streaming service Pandora shaking their heads, wondering why they're still paying royalties that currently consume more than half their revenues. The implications of Aereo's business model are far-reaching and may ultimately 'be resolved by Congress, just as it did when cable first came on the scene, by passing legislation to redefine a public performance,' writes broadcast industry attorney David Oxenford."
I read the words on the paper, silently, and to myself.
Private performance.
I read the words aloud in my own home. The cats look at me like I am insane. (Because I probably am for reading aloud to them to begin with, since they can't comprehend the words I am speaking anyway.)
Private performance.
I read aloud to my 3 year old niece from her favorite Dr Suess book.
Private performance.
I read aloud in front of hundreds of people who paid to attend, or were otherwise asked to attend that reading.
Public performance.
One of these things is not like the others.
This isn't hard.
Except that Pandora doesn't exactly stream live radio. They generate content streams customized to the listener (or in the case of the genre "stations" specific to that genre). So yeah the closest Pandora could get would be a few million cds and some sort of switching mechanism for the stream.
They pay for access to the content, plus a per play fee. Really don't see how the ruling could be in any way applied to Pandora
This isn't hard.
I disagree. People are surprised to learn that showing a movie to a bunch of school kids is "a performance". People violate the law all the time and don't even realize it, because you have to be an expert to learn all of the intricacies of copyright law. I really don't understand why we apply it to non-commercial use.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Good. Now define "educational".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
What Pandora does is completely different. Aereo is rebroadcasting a live signal. Pandora is replaying a recorded song any number of times to any number of people. Aereo has an antenna for each subscriber. How in the world is this even remotely comparable?
The intention was that what the law says is public, vs private, is not what the general public has in mind for that. The added joy of people unknowingly violating that law just underscores this fact, and only serves to show that the definitions used for legal applications are byzantine, and purposefully convoluted to serve a specific economic agenda.
Personally, I feel that the legal system is not supposed to be used in such a fashion; [to create specific legal categories of infringement, specifically to monetize clearly non-economic, and private activities via renumeration of court awarded fees and judgements.]
To me, such activities say two things:
1) There is an influential demographic that is suffering from an entitlement complex, who feels they are entitled to financial compensation for non-economic uses of things they have created, or any time a person other than their sublicensed client in any way accessess that intellectual property. Eg, they think they should be paid if I lend a book to a friend, and other stupid things.
2) this demographic has paid substantial sums of money to cuddle up with politicians, for the express purposes of having these definitions and categories of infringement, and accepted methods of renumeration drafted and signed into law.
I am apt to point out that a supreme court judge asserted that just because one has enjoyed a living performing a certain service for a time, does not mean that the courts are compelled to ensure their continued profit from that service, nor for the wheels of progress to be halted or reversed. (Paraphrased)
In other words, the interested parties lobbying for this legislation do not actually have a legitimate position from which to frame their demands, and the legal definitions in question should never have been drafted.
but how do I know that I have permission from the copyright holders to view the video?