Broadcasters Petition US Supreme Court In Fight Against Aereo

First time accepted submitter wasteoid writes "Aereo provides live-streaming and cloud-based DVR capability for Over-The-Air (OTA) broadcasts to their paying customers. Broadcasters object to this functionality, with Fox claiming about Aereo, 'Make no mistake, Aereo is stealing our broadcast signal.' The focus appears to be the ability of Aereo to provide streaming and DVR capabilities that traditional broadcasters have not delivered. The litigious broadcasters are fighting against "Aereo's illegal disruption of their business model.""

Comments

NTT in Japan

[musikit]

Living in Japan once in a while someone from NTT knocks on my door asking that i give them money for receiving the signal they broadcast.
my teachers told me about this scam however i tell them two true things

1. i dont have a TV. so im not paying for something i'm not receiving
2. if you don't want me to get the signal then don't broadcast it to me.

same should apply here. the TV stations broadcasted their signal in "cleartext"

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in Japan once in a while someone from NTT knocks on my door asking that i give them money for receiving the signal they broadcast.
my teachers told me about this scam however i tell them two true things

1. i dont have a TV. so im not paying for something i'm not receiving
2. if you don't want me to get the signal then don't broadcast it to me.

same should apply here. the TV stations broadcasted their signal in "cleartext"

America is an exception when it comes to public broadcast fees. You don't pay for public broadcasting, yet you pay and a lot for cable. Most civilised countries (almost all or all countries in Europe) have a tv license fee, that's used to finance the public broadcasting system. And I think the same applies in Japan.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, this argument was already tried and lost on the C-band and Ku-band BUD (Big Ugly Dish) receivers. Anyone with a receiver can watch whatever the hell they want. Since these broadcasts were intended to be relays (eg live feeds from the whitehouse, sports, and such) for affiliate stations, until they encrypted the signals, most people weren't paying anything to receive it.

Now, cracking the crypto or making pirate cards, that's illegal. There's nothing illegal about actually receiving a signal.

Re:NTT in Japan

[countach]

Telling them not to broadcast it to you if they don't want you to have it free might sound eminently reasonable, but I suspect there is some law against you. The law isn't always reasonable.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Megane]

Broadcast TV in the US has always been funded by advertising (except for PBS, which has regular pledge drives for donations), probably as an extension of radio already having been funded by advertising. The other countries that have licence fees do so because they're smaller countries and decided they needed it to get television started there.

Cable became dominant in the US after people got tired of trying to get a good signal, either in rural areas where the transmitters were distant, or in cities, where buildings caused multipath ghosting and other bad reception. Then people just got too damn lazy (or lived in areas with HOAs that forbade them) to put up antennas.

During the '90s and '00s, live sports moved off of broadcast TV and onto cable. First it was just the "trash sports" and obscure games with teams nobody cared about, then finally Monday Night Football moved to cable. (But there's still enough sports on broadcast TV to fuck up Saturday and Sunday night television schedules when games run long, which is really annoying when Fox's Sunday night animation block is showing new episodes.)

Now live sports is really the only real reason to get cable, and there are a lot of sports fans in the US. But some people pay lots of money to get the glass teat anyhow even when they don't care about sports.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in Japan once in a while someone from NTT knocks on my door asking that i give them money for receiving the signal they broadcast.
my teachers told me about this scam however

They have that scam in the UK too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Re:NTT in Japan

[__aaltlg1547]

If that were all Aereo was doing, there would be no issue. The legal issue is whether Aereo has a right to retransmit copyrighted information without consent of the broadcasters and other copyright holders.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Then people just got too damn lazy (or lived in areas with HOAs that forbade them) to put up antennas.

The HOA might have such a rule, but these rules are illegal.

Federal law preempts such rules, and you are allowed to put up a TV antenna or satellite dish. Unfortunately the link on the FCC's webpage is down due to the US govt "shutdown".

It's fun to sue your HOA and win damages!

Re:NTT in Japan

[aurizon]

As I understand it, Aereo erects grids of small antennas in a strong signal area, each antenna belongs to one subscriber who is the onkly one who watches that feed. Americans have, for well over 100 years erected antennas on high points so people in the radi0/TV shadow, or out of range by distance can hear/see the radio and TV transmissions. Many of these were group efforts for towns to get reception over mountains etc.
The courts have seen this and ruled on it, so now they are asked to make illegal a practice with well over 100 years of legal use?
I think not

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically this is like renting a VCR to someone and then the user making illegal copies. The difference is mainly in that the company renting the VCR is also renting electricity, space, and a physical Internet connection, as well as additional equipment which is connected to the VCR that enables them to stream content. The thing is there is nothing that says all content broadcast has copyright or is not permitted to be copied. The masses shouldn't be prevent from doing stuff that has conceivable legal uses simply because of majority or minority abuse.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Skapare]

They are leasing you an antenna. They are connecting YOU to YOUR antenna, and doing so in a way that prevents thieves on the internet from stealing the contents so that you and only you get that signal.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with you, in the US I don't think you actually have to indicate that (IANAL), as copyright is automatic, and you need a license to copy (the default is that it is illegal outside Fair Use exemptions). However, I think Fair Use might apply here, and can't be removed with such a notice in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality

Timeshifting allows entire programs to be copied legally, but what about Geo-shifting?

Re:NTT in Japan

[jmac_the_man]

America is an exception when it comes to public broadcast fees. You don't pay for public broadcasting

That's actually false. PBS (the main public TV broadcaster) and NPR (the main public radio broadcaster) each get about 20% of their budget in tax money, which comes from the Federal treasury. (They, in turn, get it from the Federal income tax, Federal borrowing, and generic fees paid to the Federal government.) PBS and NPR get the balance of their funding from donations.

It's my understanding that the British government charges a specific tax to cover the operations of the BBC. In the US, the "public" funding of public broadcasting comes primarily from the same taxes that pay for the military, salaries of government, and pretty much everything else.

In any case, Fox is a private broadcaster who makes their money off advertising sales. They're not a public broadcaster.

Re:NTT in Japan

[roc97007]

Living in Japan once in a while someone from NTT knocks on my door asking that i give them money for receiving the signal they broadcast.
my teachers told me about this scam however i tell them two true things

1. i dont have a TV. so im not paying for something i'm not receiving
2. if you don't want me to get the signal then don't broadcast it to me.

same should apply here. the TV stations broadcasted their signal in "cleartext"

America is an exception when it comes to public broadcast fees. You don't pay for public broadcasting, yet you pay and a lot for cable. Most civilised countries (almost all or all countries in Europe) have a tv license fee, that's used to finance the public broadcasting system. And I think the same applies in Japan.

Let's make sure we agree on the terminology. "public broadcast" to me means the PBS broadcasts (usually one TV channel and one radio channel per area) that are funded by voluntary donations and our tax money (which isn't voluntary). Commercial broadcast TV is funded by selling commercial air time to advertisers. The price for watching broadcast content is to have to put up with the commercials, which presumably affects what you buy, which is valuable to the advertisers.

Let me repeat this, so it's clear: In the US, commercial TV broadcast is funded by advertising time. (And, in part, by selling rebroadcasting rights to cable channels.) That's why it's been classically "free" off-air to viewers. It's a different model from other countries, where you get taxed for owning a TV. The only exception is the US government sponsored PBS channel, which is still "free" to receive but is funded in part by income tax.

It's not clear from TFA whether Aero is cutting out the commercials. If not, they're not affecting that part of the business model. Granted, you may be able to FF over the commercials, but we've been able to do that for decades using various time shifting techniques. (Which the broadcast stations also fought, and lost.)

The "threat" I see, besides TFA's mention of cable companies adopting the same technique and avoiding retransmission fees, is that providing the content on-demand causes the network to lose control of the timeslots and order in which the content is viewed, which, if you read the articles on show popularity amongst various demographics, is very important to the networks. They'll put a poorly performing show sandwiched between two winners to try to pump up the numbers, or put a clear winner in a less popular time slot, or against a winner on a different channel, to try to increase the numbers in that particular slot. I think that's the part of the business model that on-demand destroys.

Actual legal issues aside, it's convenient on-demand that's the real enemy. The networks have already lost the battle for older content (hulu, netflix, et al) but are determined to hang onto their business model for first-run content.

The problem, of course, is that their prime demographic doesn't watch TV that way. The 18-45 crowd expects to watch content on the device of their choosing at the time of their choosing, and that is directly contrary to the network business model. And the networks don't know how to evolve. The primary consumers of the broadcast TV business model, the "tv tray generation" (mostly baby boomers) are dying out. And the networks don't know what to do about that.

The world is changing. The way content is consumed is changing. The way content is *produced* is also changing, which is a different story out of scope of this article. The classic content producers and content distributors are struggling with what to do about this. I submit that this is a good thing.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

If I understand it correctly (not a Briton), it works slightly differently. Unlike the US, the Brits are willing to delegate taxing authority to entities that are *not* officially part of the government. So, they allow the BBC to assess and collect a tax.

It's like the US government allowing the USPS to assess a tax for having a mail box in front of your house.

This is very strange from an American perspective. Even if the net result is the same (taxes going to public broadcasting entities), Americans are loathe to allow any entity but the government to officially assess taxes/fees under color of law.

Re:NTT in Japan

[meerling]

Since they are legally selling devices to let you send your media to any tv or other appropriate device on a small scale (your household), it seems to definitely be fair use and basically the same thing, just on a larger scale. For that matter, their other functions seem to be the same as a DVR. Seems to me they are getting the broadcasters rather limited 'broadcast' to a lot more people in a more convenient method, and they as well as their customers are shouldering the costs for it instead of the "broadcasters".
Who knows what the courts will eventually decide.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Deluvianvortex]

I thought you paid some amount when you bought a tv and after that it was (mostly) free

Re:NTT in Japan

[Mr. Slippery]

In any case, Fox is a private broadcaster who makes their money off advertising sales. They're not a public broadcaster.

...except, of course, for their reliance on the public infrastructure of government to keep others from making unauthorized use of their signal or the information contained therein (i.e., the rebroadcast and copyright issues at stake here), and to keep others from sending out photons in the radio band in the frequencies they "own" (FCC regulations). Fox is quite reliant on your tax dollars, even if it's in a somewhat indirect manner.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Jane Q. Public]

"Cable became dominant in the US after people got tired of trying to get a good signal, either in rural areas where the transmitters were distant, or in cities, where buildings caused multipath ghosting and other bad reception. Then people just got too damn lazy (or lived in areas with HOAs that forbade them) to put up antennas. "

You left a really HUGE part out. The part where you paid for cable in order to eliminate the commercials that were the funding source for broadcast. But (as I predicted many years ago), the advertising sneaked back in anyway, and now you're getting dinged at both ends: you still see the commercials AND you're paying $50 or more a month.

Everybody lost but the cable companies. And make no mistake: this did not come about by accident.

Re:NTT in Japan

[shentino]

Never underestimate a special interest with an axe to grind that has politicians in his pocket.

Re:NTT in Japan

[shentino]

eliminate the commercials

HA!

Re:NTT in Japan

[Jane Q. Public]

"HA!"

Well, it's true. Maybe you don't remember those days, but a big selling point of cable was that it didn't have commercials. You were paying $ in exchange for getting rid of them.

I predicted that wouldn't last, and I was correct.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, radio frequency transmissions are under the purview of the FCC and all of its taxpayer fundedness. Thus the airwaves really do belong to the people.

The networks that are bringing this lawsuit don't even really have standing to sue. It's only by the power of their wallets that they've tricked the court into thinking they have standing. The only relationship they have with broadcast TV is by way of their local network affiliates, who do the actual broadcasting and hold the spectrum licenses for a given area. The end viewers are the local affiliates' concern, not the networks'. And Aereo is one step further removed from that, since their business relationship is with the end viewer, not the local affiliates.

Here's a diagram of who has a business relationship with whom:

Major Networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox) <-> Local Affiliates (Kxxx and Wxxx stations) <-> Viewers like you (thanks PBS!) <-> Aereo (the Internet's TV antenna)

The networks do not have standing for this case. The judiciary should have thrown this one out long ago.

Re:NTT in Japan

[RatherBeAnonymous]

They aren't really geo-shifting. They only take customers in limited areas and only record programming for that that person could theoretically pick up with an antenna at their place of residence.

Re:NTT in Japan

[jmac_the_man]

OK, fine. Fox relies on law enforcement. They also rely on the military to keep terrorists from blowing up buildings they own.

PBS and NPR are public broadcasters because they fund 20% of their operations with tax money. They are comparable to the BBC and NTT, which each charge a specific tax (the "license fee") to fund some portion of their operation. Fox's operation isn't funded with tax money, so they aren't a public broadcaster.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Gr8Apes]

Well, it's true. Maybe you don't remember those days, but a big selling point of cable was that it didn't have commercials. You were paying $ in exchange for getting rid of them. I predicted that wouldn't last, and I was correct.

You and about 240M other Americans, especially since the majority of channels when cable first came out were local broadcast channels, with commercials.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me repeat this, so it's clear: In the US, commercial TV broadcast is funded by advertising time. (And, in part, by selling rebroadcasting rights to cable channels.) That's why it's been classically "free" off-air to viewers. It's a different model from other countries, where you get taxed for owning a TV. The only exception is the US government sponsored PBS channel, which is still "free" to receive but is funded in part by income tax.

YOur right about the tax money, but the feds/congress have cut funding each year to the channel. PBS use to be and to some extent still is, a channel that will report about the NSA's activities 10 years ago, as well as the other unknown agencies that are far more evil. Not just this but they had no problem reporting on subjects over the governments silliness, and corruption.

In which you could argue, they want to oust PBS from broadcasting, even the corporate media wants to see PBS ousted. And they do make money from advertising but the peddle self help shows, and other shows instead of running annoyingly stupid ads. Obviously it is a very tiny part of there overall funding.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Zemran]

If I provide you with a service, for free, regardless of how, it does not give you the right to resell that service. You are welcome to receive it, you are not welcome to sell it.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Jane Q. Public]

Not in the U.S. In the beginning, you couldn't even get broadcast channels. Congress actually had to pass a law making cable companies carry them.

Re: NTT in Japan

[Mabhatter]

THAT... is SPECIFICALLY why we have copyright. Because the law says that the signal sent by the broadcaster has a performance copyright. So people cannot just copy and REBROADCAST it to compete with them. That way they done need take "technical measures".

The law has been just fine with TiVo filling the technical void for DVR and tone shifting (the article snip is wrong about that) . As long as it is AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. Posting your personal copies online is still not allowed, which is basically what they are doing here. This is a company hiding behind a thin veil of "personal sharing" and "personal copying" to just reproduce whatever they want. The court is going to shut them down.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a prick or anything... But 100 years ago there was not much for radio, and no TV.

A few wireless telegraph transmissions and some radio used for ships, but nothing in the home or used by the general public.

Re:NTT in Japan

[roc97007]

I'm having difficulty parsing that.

If I understand what you're saying, my personal observation is that public broadcasting tends to be true to its big government roots. They will very occasionally reveal government corruption, but usually only if the reveal benefits a certain side of the aisle. A government mouthpiece is just another tool to be used by whomever happens to control the purse strings.

Mind you, I haven't spent a lot of time on the PBS radio or TV stations lately. I used to, when they were the only outlets for British programming, putting up with the irritation for value received. But that's not necessary anymore, and neither, in my opinion, are they.

It's true that there is a movement to defund PBS in all its aspects. As a libertarian, I support that. Taxes should pay for certain kinds of infrastructure, but there are fundamental, practical and historical reasons why taxes should not pay for news.

Re:NTT in Japan

[oldestgeek]

CPB/PBS/NPR have advertisers/sponsors.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, fine. Fox relies on law enforcement. They also rely on the military to keep terrorists from blowing up buildings they own.

That's a really poor equivalency, if not completely false. The devil's in the details

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I could mod this up insightful. Until I read this, their lawsuits made absolutely no sense to me. It seemed like they were cutting off their noses just to spite their faces. Now it looks like all they need to do is find a new way to compete with each other. After all,as you mention, zipping commercials and timeshifting shows is old tech.

I still think they are foolish not to welcome the vast new audience Aero brings to them. I think once their advertisers understand what the stations are fighting, the stations might not have to threaten to shut down their broadcasts— their advertisers will abandon them for more forward-thinking enterprises.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how I remember it. As I recall (in the late '70s when cable seemed to become more prevalent) the big selling point was crystal clear reception. I lived in a big city that's flat, but even with an antenna on our roof we still had some stations which would not come in clearly.

There were also a few more stations available and for an extra fee we could get HBO which still has no commercials.

I'm really curious to know what networks (besides premium ones like HBO and Cinemax) were ever available without commercials.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Megane]

[citation needed]

Are you under the age of 40?

They may not have been required to carry the channels before then, but they sure weren't prevented from carrying them. The law was passed when cable companies got all uppity and decided that they didn't need to carry one or more local channels, and the local stations weren't happy about that.

Originally the whole point was a better antenna than you could have, or at least be bothered to keep working. I don't know where you got the idea that cable TV had anything to do with eliminating commercials. (Pay channels getting commercials is another matter, but that had nothing to do with getting cable TV started in the first place.)

Re:NTT in Japan

[pupsocket]

Cable did not get started as commercial-free, though. It started as a community antenna service. Clusters of housing with reception problems. After Gerald Levin created Home Box Office, commercial-free premium networks got cable sold where it really wasn't needed but was really profitable, in denser, wealthier suburban areas. Then came the national cable-only "networks" which are really only content feeds, commercially supported because so many people really did just want reception. The ones who were paying to get rid of channels were additional sales, but not the core business.

Re:NTT in Japan

[pupsocket]

In the US, commercial TV broadcast is funded by advertising time. (And, in part, by selling rebroadcasting rights to cable channels.) That's why it's been classically "free" off-air to viewers.

Ancient history, long since expired, but kept alive as the rationale for broadcasters to stay in business

If it weren't for the historical myth, cable companies would not retain the monopolies they built on a stupid Supreme Court ruling that lipsticked a cheap resistor or rectifier in the jack connected to the television into a hocus-pocus sine-qua-non of proprietary signal enhancement , leading to the right to stick a black box next to the television, leading to signal scrambling, then to digital encoding, then to the complete replication of telephone and internet service.

The present suit is a back-door effort to repeat the prior con, and finally win the battle to separate video service from all other Internet services, and put it back under the exclusive controls of media executives.

Only small numbers of households get their signals over-the-air. There is a largely phony contest between local broadcasters and cable companies, but actually local television stations only care about their cable viewers and have to be shoved into providing minimally decent signals. Many don't bother. Their precious "retransmissions" are usually through a direct hardwire feed to the cable companies.

Broadcasters pretend to broadcast. Cable companies pretend to be local.

Re:NTT in Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

It's NHK, genius.

Re:NTT in Japan

[aurizon]

Yes, new technology at the time. WW1 resulted in a huge effort to stamp out radio amateur use. Before radio, countries controlled borders to control spies. Then along comes radio - a spy can site in the middle of France and send data to his German spymaster, so all countries in europe brought out draconian controls on radio. Licences, fees, radio permits etc.

These controls killed a lot of radio research and amateur radio in the UK and Europe. Even colleges had to have years in applications etc to get to set up labs and teach it.

So this was not done in the USA, because then the Atlantic was a barrier you could not cross. So the USA was far less regulated, and by 1925 it had passed Europe and the UK and became the world leaders in radio, and never lost it.

Rights?

[AK Marc]

So we have no rights to the content beamed into our homes, but they have the Right to Profit, even with a bad business model.

Re:Rights?

[Milosch1]

Aereo has no right to profit from the significant money spent and effort made to deliver the broadcast signals in the first place. Not without compensation.

Re:Rights?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

That argument would apply to television sets themselves. Doesn't hold water.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

24/7 we are subject to having hundred or thousands of brodcast signals entering our spaces, homes and body. Even if we object there is no choice because we are supposed to accept this shit but then, if we capture some slice of the signal, we are suppose to play by big corporate rules and they get backed-up by shit law rules. Why? because thats their golden goose money machine. I believe if signals of any type are passing through my space without my consent I should have the right to do whatever the fuck I want with it because broadcasters they didn't get permission to radiate me and I don't get payment from them. There business model isn't much different than if someone took a truck-load of coins and spread them along roads, much like a road salt truck does. But then if anyone picked-up some coin it would be stealing. Screw fuckn broadcasters, if a signal passes into our space we should do whatever weI want with it.

Re:Rights?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Aereo has no right to profit from the significant money spent and effort made to deliver the broadcast signals in the first place. Not without compensation.

The courts have so far, begged to differ. In the now-famous CableVision case, the court concluded that Cablevision's offer of a 'cloud DVR' product was legitimate: although Cablevision's hardware was making what would (otherwise) be illicit copies, it was operating as a direct extension of the customer's record and playback requests. Just a DVR; but with the hardware offsite rather than in a set top box.

Aereo specifically designed their service to follow the same model: Aereo operates banks of antennas at their facilities, each customers is allocated(possibly dynamically; but always 1-to-1 at any given time) their own antenna and their own DVR/buffer storage, effectively creating an OTA set top box, just with the video being transported over an IP link, rather than a meter of HDMI cable, and user inputs also going over the internet rather than over IR.

So far, the courts' response has been favorable (if sometimes bemused), in the various markets that Aereo has expanded into. They've been sued in every venue, and prevailed.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not at all the point. This company has obviously been set up to exploit a supposed "loophole" in copyright law, without really understanding that copyright doesn't have "loopholes" since loopholes are designed to be self-defeating as copyright law is flexible based on the LEMON TEST (look it up) not some "fixed rules."

Since Aereos' business model clearly fails the lemon test (just like napster did), I have no problem with courts wiping them off the face of the earth.

of course, this being a slashdot comment thread, as usual there will be a litany of people who misunderstand how copyright law is actually supposed to work.

Re:Rights?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So we have no rights to the content beamed into our homes, but they have the Right to Profit, even with a bad business model.

It's more vexing because it's a bad business model that also sits smack in the middle of some very nice spectrum. The broadcasters are stomping around like their right to profit was handed down by god, when they should be begging for the right to continue to exist in the context of more interesting uses.

Re: Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of those people who seems to be unable to discuss hypothetical reasoning without laws as a concrete truth. Its our job to question the laws that govern us, otherwise we are a bunch of lemmings... You might want to look ahead every now and then.

Re:Rights?

[__aaltlg1547]

Are there free television sets broadcast to peoples' homes that I'm missing out on?

Re:Rights?

[oobayly]

The broadcasters are stomping around like their right to profit was handed down by god

Well, it is Fox.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The statement "Aereo has no right to profit from the significant money spent and effort made to deliver the broadcast signals in the first place. Not without compensation." has issues.
1st: If we follow the same logic then the guy who climbs up on the roof to install your TV antenna should pay the broadcasters for the privilege..
2nd: The broadcasters make their money by selling advertising. The more people that watch a show the more $$$ the commercial time goes for. Aereo is actually helping the broadcasters to gain a bigger audience for their programming..

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aereo has no right to profit from the significant money spent and effort made to deliver the broadcast signals in the first place. Not without compensation.

The broadcasters are already being compensated by advertisers in the case of signals transmitted, in the clear, over public airwaves. If you don't want people to receive the signal, either don't send it out or encrypt it.

The broadcasters should really thank Aereo for what it does: increase the audience size, and thus make it possible to ask advertisers for more money.

Re:Rights?

[aurizon]

No, it is you that do not get it. This much like the so called 'gray market' laws where companies make stuff in China and sell in the USA for $10 each and in India for $1 each - same stuff. An Indian imports to the USA with his $1 buy and sells below the 'official' product.

They want to say that the product we gave away for free over here can not be seen by someone who comes here - via Aireo antennas - I think not.

BTW, who pays your salary?

Re:Rights?

[bmo]

No, but there are TV repeaters like the VCR Rabbit from the 1980s that are entirely legal, and do exactly what Areo do - rebroadcast taped or OTA (via the VCR's tuner) to another device.

Why was it called the Rabbit? Because it multiplies the video signal.

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-06-22/business/fi-20799_1_rabbit-system

This is merely a VCR plus VCR Rabbit in a cabinet in a data-center paid for via subscription for the service. You could roll out your own rebroadcasting DVR and stick it in a closet or under your TV as part of your media system and pipe the signal back out to the Internet available to only your devices like this does.

--
BMO

Re:Rights?

[cpt kangarooski]

Aereo has no right to profit from the significant money spent and effort made to deliver the broadcast signals in the first place. Not without compensation.

Why not? Merely because someone spends money and effort to do something doesn't mean that they're entitled to absolute control over it.

If I put a lot of money and effort into improving my house and the lot it sits on, that increases the value of neighboring properties to some extent. But I'm not entitled to a cut, when my neighbor sells his house for more than he would've gotten, had I not done anything.

Hell, you might as well say that the school in the state I grew up ought to get a share of the money I make now, far away in a different state, because I wouldn't have my current job had I never learned to read and write.

Things just don't work this way.

Re:Rights?

[Daemonik]

The idea that broadcasters make their money off advertising is a bit simplistic. Advertising is just one aspect of their business. You have to include DVD sales, fees from streaming services, online sales of content, retransmission fees from cable operators, syndication fees, etc.

The industry pitches a fit every single time some new technological innovation comes around about how it will destroy them until they figure out how to monetize it. This is nothing new and I'm frankly tired of hearing these mewling quims beg for the government to guarantee their profits. The very industries where they make significant amounts of money are the same industries they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to. If it were up to the broadcasters we'd all still have B&W TV sets with rabbit ear antennas.

Re:Rights?

[Skapare]

Aereo leases you an antenna. They also provide you with an encrypted data feed to your antenna. As long as it is your free right to receive signals from an antenna, this is legal. And they encrypt the signal to be sure no one has tapped onto your antenna to copy the content you are receiving legally.

Re:Rights?

[cpt kangarooski]

This company has obviously been set up to exploit a supposed "loophole" in copyright law, without really understanding that copyright doesn't have "loopholes" since loopholes are designed to be self-defeating as copyright law is flexible based on the LEMON TEST (look it up) not some "fixed rules."

There is no common law federal copyright in the US for published works. This was established long, long ago. Copyright on published works can only arise through federal law, and statutes aren't all that flexible.

I'd agree that there aren't loopholes, but only in the sense that there are almost never loopholes in any law; what people perceive as loopholes are usually disconnects between their mental models of what the law ought to do and how it ought to work, and the reality of what the law actually does and how it really works. The things called loopholes are often deliberately designed features, and not just to help out clever bad actors. (Though there are some of those)

And the only Lemon test I know of is from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). It's a First Amendment establishment clause case which found that Pennsylvania's subsidies to secular teachers in religious schools violated the First Amendment. The test is basically as follows:

In order to avoid infringing on the First Amendment, the government must act for secular purposes, must not have the primary effect of either helping or harming religion, and must not become entangled in religious matters.

I'll be damned if I see how this is helpful in a copyright case, but maybe you'd like to explain it to us.

of course, this being a slashdot comment thread, as usual there will be a litany of people who misunderstand how copyright law is actually supposed to work.

You've proven this point very well, thanks.

Re:Rights?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah, and it's very much prone to a slippery slope. Why should VCR manufacturers have the right to profit from providing systems that record TV shows for personal use? Why should newspapers be allowed to be profit from encouraging sales by providing TV listings? Why should websites be allowed to profit by posting reviews of TV shows.

My understanding of the service is that one could not, as a New York resident, be watching Boston local TV without having a residential address there. Conceptually it's not that different from having a Slingbox. It'd be a different matter if I could, as a Finnish resident with no residential address in the U.S. sign up to view U.S. terrestrial broadcasts - then I could see some licencing issues. The broadcasters still get their adverts played to intended locality, so that argument goes down the shitter. The only remaining argument I see is that it prevents the broadcasters from making money from cable subs, which is an asinine replaying of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

I see no good moral objection to this service, unless we'd decide that extension cables should also be unfair profiteering. Whether it's legal is an entirely different matter, and I can see no good reason why it should be illegal.

Re:Rights?

[MysteriousPreacher]

The broadcasters are wrong here, but still I'd see a need to be pragmatic when it comes to things that enter our "spaces". We already have this as an important understanding in other laws, such as accepting that my tossing something in to the neighbour's garden doesn't automatically make it their property. We'd accept as well that leaving something in a public place doesn't mean it becomes the property of the finder, accepting that there may be abandonment or treasure trove laws that apply in specific cases.

We'd probably agree though that anyone who, in sound mind, deliberately discards coins in the road would struggle to argue that the finders should relinquish the property. Broadcast signals are intentionally broadcast willy nilly in a certain area, but this is the nature of the technology. Broadcasters can make a good argument that this is necessary and doesn't compare to scattering coins (which is pretty useless for anything but becoming a bit poorer). They'd have a far weaker argument if they set-up TV screens in public places, and tried to bill people who glance at them - this is closer to the coin analogy.

Re:Rights?

[Artifakt]

The "Lemon test" relates to the constitutional clause governing the establishment of religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

If you had a real point, you didn't make it. Instead, you're throwing around quasi-legal terms that don't fit the situation, and demanding other people figure out what they mean without giving citations, which looks like you don't really understand your point. Then you're claiming a lot of other people, both Aereo and Slashdot readers, don't really understand it - just maybe, the problem is at your end!

Re:Rights?

[bmo]

it is an evolving set of interpretations based on the four basic tests found in what is called the "lemon test." look it up.

Yes, let's look it up.

Lemon test[edit]

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Oh hey, it's entirely unrelated, asshole.

--
BMO

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that if Aero wins and they and the cable/satellite companies and everyone else starts streaming broadcaster's signals on the Internet (likely replacing ads with their own ads), the broadcasters are likely to stop OTA broadcasting. Chase Carey of FOX has already threatened this.

So if you believe OTA broadcasting is a useful service, you should support the broadcasters on this. If you rather see Verizon and AT&T purchase that spectrum from broadcasters, and you have to pay an MVPD to watch TV shows, then support Aereo.

Re:Rights?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You were wise to not include a link to the "lemon test". Slashdotters have learned the hard way not to click links with "lemon" in them.

Re:Rights?

[Milosch1]

The broadcaster is in the very least entitled to share in this profit. In other words, I wonder if Aereo would be able to charge for the service if there was no content. Stupid question, right? But, the fact that the content is present means that by selling a redistribution service, they are in fact profiting from the content. You can argue all you like that the business model established by the broadcast industry is antiquated and that they should just go away. Perhaps they will be dismantling their transmission facilities before too long. In the meantime, they are entitled to restrict the redistribution of the content they provide.

Re:Rights?

[BonThomme]

I'm sorry, this is a pathologically dense comment.

The broadcasters have a fixed broadcast cost regardless of how many people are receiving it. A logical person (or entity) would want to amortize that cost over as many households as possible. They are 'compensated' by showing their advertisers how big their audience is. That's how BROADcast works.

By your logic, antenna manufacturers and installers have no right to profit from broadcast signals either.

Re:Rights?

[sjames]

They don't. They profit by renting customers in the broadcast area a good antenna.

Do you believe it should be illegal to rent someone an antenna, DVR, and slingbox?

Re:Rights?

[mrchaotica]

If you don't want people to receive the signal, either don't send it out or encrypt it.

The FCC might have something to say about the "encrypt it" idea (hint: the broadcaster would lose its license if it tried it).

Re:Rights?

[sjames]

This reminds me of the baker that wanted to charge a fee for smelling the bread baking.

Tossing something in your neighbor's garden doesn't make it theirs but it also doesn't entitle you to charge them rent.

Re:Rights?

[AK Marc]

The broadcaster is in the very least entitled to share in this profit.

So why haven't they sued LG? I'm watching TV on an LG right now, and there isn't a profit-sharing model between LG and NBC, is there? LG profited off the broadcast signal, with no compensation to the broadcasters.

I understand what you are saying, but I I don't think it applies. They aren't making money off the broadcasters any differently than TV makers are, and TV makers don't share profits.

You can argue all you like that the business model established by the broadcast industry is antiquated and that they should just go away.

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if you just don't get it. Nobody is saying that the industry should go away because they are antiquated. We are saying that their lawsuits should go away because their understanding of tech is antiquated. The law has well established that people can profit from storing and re-broadcasting TV (various lawsuits around VHS and TiVO have come out with the tech and devices being legal). If I were to hire someone to come to my house and program my VCR/PVR for me, that service is legal, despite the fact it is technically no longer "me" that's recording and playing back the signal. So, why is it suddenly illegal if I hire someone to hold all that VCR/PVR at their site?

By your logic, if I were to rent a storage shed and put my recorder there, and swap tapes/discs/media once a month and watch last month's back in my house, I'm breaking the law.

The way I see it, every single "step" of the process is explicitly legal, but the broadcasters are claiming that the sum of the parts are illegal. What's the point of even writing and voting laws if people sue because they don't "feel" it's right, though it complies with all laws and previous court decisions?

Re:Rights?

[AK Marc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test

The Lemon Test is about religion, not copyright. Aren't you the same AC posting the same comment many many times, despite having it pointed out that the Lemon Test doesn't say what you assert? What, is this an experiment to see if factually incorrect (verifiably so) comments can be modded up?

Re:Rights?

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Aereo does not strip commercials; the traditional method for funding broadcast TV. The growth of DVRs and illegal TV streaming sites has made it more and more difficult for broadcasters to get good estimates of viewership, and most of the illegal video streaming sites remove commercials altogether. If the broadcasters were smart, what they would do is to get Aereo to report viewer totals so that they can demand more cash from advertisers.

Re:Rights?

[Deathlizard]

Yep.

Just Ask Zediva. They did the same thing with DVD's and got shot down.

Streaming Movie Service Zediva Pays Hollywood $1.8M, Shuts Down

Re:Rights?

[AK Marc]

It was never shot down. It looked more like they didn't have the funding for the inevitable legal battle, so when it came, they caved. There is no legal judgment I can see in your linked article. It indicates there was a settlement without finding (and no, injunctions are not precedent).

Re:Rights?

[srh2o]

The courts have disagreed with your assessment.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. Read the court decisions and then comment. Right now you are just pulling this all out of your ass. They won't be dismantling their transmission facilities and the broadcaster isn't entitled to a thing. The last thing any broadcaster would do is give up their license to their broadcast frequencies. Even suggesting they would makes you sound like a moron.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck you can't be a clueless as this post makes you look. Have you missed the fact that the courts have side WITH Aereo. Dumb ass

Re: Rights?

[Milosch1]

You know very little, Anonymous.

Re:Rights?

[LocalH]

No, they were wise not to link to the "lemon test" because the "lemon test" has nothing to do with copyright.

Re:Rights?

[LocalH]

Since Aereos' business model clearly fails the lemon test (just like napster did),

Aereos' business model violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

He meant this:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

Re:Rights?

[LocalH]

The same Fox that airs Family Guy, which is highly critical of religion?

Re:Rights?

[oobayly]

They don't need to be consistent - you preach to people who come to you for information, not those who come to you for entertainment.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The broadcaster is in the very least entitled to share in this profit. In other words, I wonder if Aereo would be able to charge for the service if there was no content. Stupid question, right?

Stupid argument. Lots of people make profits and don't share them with everyone else. GM builds a truck and sells it. They don't get a profit from it's use. I might need a truck to run my delivery servers. Without the truck, I can't relieved. That doesn't entitle GM a cut of my profits. Believe that is what's stupid.

'Business Model' is not a protected class

[RandomFactor]

What the station owners fear more than Aereo is the possibility that cable and satellite providers, emboldened by Aereo, will set up their own antenna arrays to avoid paying retransmission fees.

This is exactly WHY this should be allowed. If it is cheaper to setup your own antennas than pay someone else to do it then consumers are being overcharged for the service. Competition should be protected, not the opposite of it.

Re:'Business Model' is not a protected class

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Re:'Business Model' is not a protected class

[Anonymous Coward]

What effing nonsense and whoever voted you +5 insightful should be ashaemd.

As in other contexts the slashdot faithful are so keen on bleating, the cost of copying reduces to free as technology advances. it also should have about as much to do with the cost for the intellectual property contained as the cost of paper has to do with the cost of a book.

You are in effect trying to reduce the consumer cost of the content to the marginal cost of copying. This is a deep misreading of economics on many levels. The "price" of the content should be based on the intersection of what consumers are willing to buy it for and what producers are willing to sell it for.

Or, assuming you are a programmer, shall we assume that you will content to receive a salary comensurate only with the 'value' of the elctrons that you move?

Re: 'Business Model' is not a protected class

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't be. The model producing the most value for its consumers should thrive. Which model is most productive is not a constant, and not for the courts to decide. Technology and society evolve and business models need to keep up with it. Protecting an outdated model is an economic inefficiency. Granted, for strategic goals a tactical inefficiency is acceptable and usually takes the form of a regulation. Copyright, for example, at one time promoted the development of systems used for copying and distributing information.

Regardless, Aereo should be motivated to keep the broadcasters in business.

Re:'Business Model' is not a protected class

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly WHY this should be allowed. If it is cheaper to setup your own antennas than pay someone else to do it then consumers are being overcharged for the service. Competition should be protected, not the opposite of it.

It is not in fact, "competition" that is to be protected, to insure our society thrives, but rather, "the means of production."

If the economic strategy were to protect "competition" as you advocate, then there would be 0 protections for production. Anyone could invent, create, produce, anything, and anyone else could copy it without recourse, penalty, royalties, or fee. This would destroy the profit incentive to create original products, and instead promote consumption for consumptions sake.

When an economic strategy is designed to protect "production," as the current model basically is, then it promotes the invention, creation, and production of original products. The producers of said products are protected, and have rights, so they may recover the costs of development of said products. The consumption of said products, comes at an expense for early adopters, which is born by the consumers who decide they may benefit the most initially, and as production is increased, the cost is reduced.

Advocating the protection of "competition" as opposed to "production" would certainly dismantle and destroy the incentive to produce, and leave nothing new to consume.

Re: 'Business Model' is not a protected class

[Anonymous Coward]

I design and write software for a living. I don't get paid because I'm good at making copies.

There is more to it...

[jonwil]

The real reason the broadcasters are doing this is because right now if you dont have an antenna (and many people dont, people in apartments and other shared dwellings, people with no light of sign to the transmission tower etc) the only way to get the OTA channels is to buy pay TV. And the pay TV operators pay a fair chunk of money to the OTA networks for rebroadcast rights.

So what Aereo is doing is allowing a lot more people to get the OTA channels without going through the cable companies (which means the cable companies wont be willing to pay as much for the rebroadcast rights to the OTA networks)

Re:There is more to it...

[shentino]

Unfortunately, pissing off a special interest is probably going to get you nailed.

Re:There is more to it...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm not an EE; but it depends on your location, hills and other clutter, distance to tower, etc.

Especially with ATSC's limited amount of error correction capacity, if you are in a strong signal area you can probably get a perfect image by unbending a paper clip and shoving it in, or just about any other horrible maldesign you care to subject your tuner to.

If you live in the sticks? Maybe some combination of HAM enthusiast and radio astronomer skills will save you, no guarantees. In areas of intermediate strength, vague competence may actually be required; but antenna design has improved since that monstrosity was bolted to the roof in 1965.

Re:There is more to it...

[Megane]

Will it give perfect reception of multipath signals too? ATSC is apparently harder to receive close to the transmitters because multipath can fuck with the digital signal pretty badly. I'm about 15-20 miles from "the farm" and have to turn my big antenna in the right direction or I get bad reception. Every few months I have to go up and rotate it back after the wind blows it around.

Re:There is more to it...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an EE. I live a mile from a massive transmitter. However, if you are adjacent to buildings the provide reflections you will have an extremely difficult time receiving some of the channels. This is a complaint on more than one continent...

I had a mythtv box for those channels I could get. But now I have netflix and what I can see online. Basically the TV companies have missed a trick and they are showing sour grapes.

I don't pay for Cable, I buy DSL instead...

Re:There is more to it...

[davester666]

You would think they would bolt the transmitters down to prevent them from blowing around.

Re:There is more to it...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is light of sign? Perhaps you mean line of sight?

If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)...

[dryriver]

... then why don't the big broadcaster get together and buy Aereo before it can - supposedly! - "do more damage". --- This whole thing reeks of the stink TPTB raised each time an Internet file-sharing tech came along. Instead of investing/going along with the "new wave in media consumption", TPTB always demonize whatever the latest content-delivery mechanism does. ---- So My Dear Big-Broadcasters: Put your money where your mouth is, and buy Aereo "for the good of the industry". --- I sometimes wish that the Big Media PTB would hire a CEO/CTO who is in his 20s - 30s only. I bet that CEO/CTO would go along with new trends in media distribution and consumption, instead of trying to shut them/shoot them down before they even get a chance to mature. My 2 Cents... As always, feel free to disagree. =)

This is nothing more...

[unitron]

...than a case of how far away from your TV your DVR is allowed to be located.

Which is to say the broadcasters are trying to use smoke and mirrors to cover up rent seeking.

Re:This is nothing more...

[__aaltlg1547]

No, it's not. You don't own the antenna. That's a potential legal distinction. And you don't own the DVR. That's another potential legal distinction.

Re:This is nothing more...

[Anonymous Coward]

So people living in rented accomodation (where they don't own the antenna) or who pay a monthly fee to rent their TV and set-top-box combo aren't allowed to legally watch TV either? Good to know.

Re:This is nothing more...

[BonThomme]

If you're the broadcasters' lawyer, they're going to lose.

Re:This is nothing more...

[sjames]

But it is already obviously legal to rent an antenna and a DVR. Now it's just a question of how far away from your TV are you allowed to locate the DVR and antenna you rented.

Re:This is nothing more...

[RatherBeAnonymous]

People with cable TV don't own the wire that carries the signal to their house, nor do they typically own their cable box or DVR. It's all rented. So what's the difference if your rented DVR lives at a co-location facility?

Re:This is nothing more...

[unitron]

People with cable TV don't own the wire that carries the signal to their house, nor do they typically own their cable box or DVR. It's all rented. So what's the difference if your rented DVR lives at a co-location facility?

But with cable TV the cable company uses one antenna and distributes the received OTA channels to everyone, quite possibly demodulating and remodulating one or more of them in the process, so the broadcasters can claim that the cable companies are "re-transmitting", and that lets them charge the cable companies (who pass that on to subscribers, of course).

Aereo gives each customer their own antenna, so there's a legal distinction, although not necessarily a completely clear-cut one.

So thats how long it takes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember before there was FOX network.

When they came along the big 3 had such a hissyfit at them for daring to do something different.

And now here we are.. Fox is having the fit for someone else daring to do something different.

Didn't take very long at all. 27 years to turn you into a stick up the ass 'we demand profits forever for doing the same thing' greedmonster.

Re:So thats how long it takes...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The world just keeps on turning: Cable TV, as an industry, got its start in providing access to broadcast signals(by putting antennas in good locations and running coax to lousy ones). As usual, the broadcast guys cried hysterically about how this...um... free access to additional customers would ruin them, America, and apple pie.

Unfortunately, it didn't, and the broadcasters are still around, while the cable guys have whitewashed their past as upstarts and are playing 'asshole incumbent' with the best of them.

Re:So thats how long it takes...

[__aaltlg1547]

It's not similar. Fox set up another television network that did not use the signals of the other 3 networks.

Re:So thats how long it takes...

[Anonymous Coward]

but cabletv pay nbc, cbs, etc to broadcast the signal to the lousy location. they even demand the market the lousy locations see. why should Aereo be any different?

Re:So thats how long it takes...

[cpt kangarooski]

Now they do, but they didn't originally. Cable TV appeared around 1950 or a little earlier. The law that obligates cable providers to pay broadcasters to carry their signal (unless the broadcaster demands to be carried, in which case it's free) is from 1992. If we were to wait until 2055 before making Aereo pay broadcasters, I bet Aereo would be okay with that.

Re:So thats how long it takes...

[Anonymous Coward]

27 years to turn you into a stick up the ass 'we demand profits forever for doing the same thing' greedmonster.

Is that why they created FXX and play Ellen Degenerate's 1990s turtle-neck-wearing show all day long on FX?

Re:So thats how long it takes...

[RatherBeAnonymous]

Because cable operators didn't have the guts to fight back. No, they just capitulated.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[Anonymous Coward]

Age is irrelevant. You'll find enough 20-somethings who are just as greedy or ignorant as current executives. They won't suddenly hire someone who's pro-consumer just because of age.

If you equate young age with knowledge, one might as well argue we'd end up with a worse one because he'd know where to attack where it hurts most.

Hmmm I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this isn't a big deal because Aereo isn't rebroadcasting. Broadcasting is transmitting to a wider audience. Aereo has a single antenna distributing to a single person. Obviously this is what Aereo thinks is the case, the stream from my DVR to my TV is not a "rebroadcast." Contrast this with the cable TV operators, who receive the signal once, often through specialized equipment, and send it to all of their local subscribers.

Re:Hmmm I wonder...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I wonder if this isn't a big deal because Aereo isn't rebroadcasting. Broadcasting is transmitting to a wider audience. Aereo has a single antenna distributing to a single person. Obviously this is what Aereo thinks is the case, the stream from my DVR to my TV is not a "rebroadcast." Contrast this with the cable TV operators, who receive the signal once, often through specialized equipment, and send it to all of their local subscribers.

That's the essence of Aereo's legal position(founded on the 'Cablevision Case', where CableVision's 'cloud DVR product, with a similar 'one tuner and storage allocation per user, controlled by the user' was upheld as licit).

Team Broadcast is apparently shitting themselves for some combination of (A) reactionary stupidity and (B) fear that cable companies that currently pay absurd fees to retransmit OTA programming will find it cheaper to set up these goofy antenna-array things than to pay off the broadcasters(which is a pretty good sign that the broadcasters are currently overpaid, if such a silly mechanism actually saves money; but they obviously like being overpaid...)

Re:Hmmm I wonder...

[RobHostetter]

FCC requires cable operators to rebroadcast local OTA stations, but they have to pay for that. The broadcasters can essentially charge whatever they want since cable operators are legally required to buy their product. Those operators are pooping themselves because if they stop OTA broadcasts then cable operators no longer have to buy their product, and if they continue then antenna arrays can get them around these fees, so the big cash cows that are cable operators will dry up overnight once this decision is upheld. Over time cable operators will be able to lower prices, or increase profits substantially!

Re:Hmmm I wonder...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh, that's a cute little subsidy. I'm sure I'd throw up in my mouth if I heard the 'justification' for why a cable provider should be required to carry OTA signals and pay more or less whatever is demanded, because they are required.

Is that just a pure handout to the broadcast guys, or is there anything even slightly redeeming about it?

Re:Hmmm I wonder...

[cpt kangarooski]

FCC requires cable operators to rebroadcast local OTA stations, but they have to pay for that.

As I understand it, they're not required to carry them and pay. The broadcaster has a choice between required carriage for free, or optional carriage for pay. But non-local channels cannot be substituted for local ones; thus if a cable company won't pay a local broadcaster which is a network affiliate, and which demands to be paid, that network drops off of cable. We saw this earlier in the year with Time Warner Cable and CBS (and its affiliates).

Nice to see the lawyers reflexes are quick...

[The123king]

because this is the typical knee-jerk response from any company whose income supply is threatened by another.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[cascadingstylesheet]

... then why don't the big broadcaster get together and buy Aereo before it can - supposedly! - "do more damage". --- This whole thing reeks of the stink TPTB raised each time an Internet file-sharing tech came along. Instead of investing/going along with the "new wave in media consumption", TPTB always demonize whatever the latest content-delivery mechanism does.

Great question, and great advice for the industry.

In another industry, the big publishers own and operate magazines.com ... they could have been idiots and tried to stamp out internet subscription agents, but instead they became the biggest one. Duh.

Why isn't this libel?

[drinkypoo]

with Fox claiming about Aereo, 'Make no mistake, Aereo is stealing our broadcast signal.'

It's clearly not theft. Why is it not illegal for Fox to make this fraudulent claim in a public forum?

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[shentino]

Because Fox is a corporation and not an individual.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

"Corporations are people, my friend."

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[Gryle]

I'll believe that when I can have a corporation executed.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If pressed, I assumed that they would fall back on the 'mere abuse' allowance. If made in sufficiently absurd terms that a reasonable listener/reader would concluded that they are not meant literally (and, given the nontrivial difficulty of 'stealing' an unencrypted RF transmission, rather than merely receiving it, 'stealing' is unlikely to be literal) they can be treated as (legal) generic rubbishing of the opponent, rather than (illegal) false and defamatory claims.

It's the difference between calling John Smith a 'goatfucker' and asserting that 'John Smith practices bestiality with goats'.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[oobayly]

Well, have the government ever shut down a corporation? That'd count as execution*. It would be interesting to know what the capital punishment rate of corporations is to that of people.

* The difference I suppose is that the soul of the corporation can be reincarnated into a similar body and even live in the same house. Realisation of the day - corporations are Hindu.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[fustakrakich]

Why is it not illegal for Fox to make this fraudulent claim in a public forum?

Because some of us believe in free speech rights. There's nothing that says you have to believe them.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[drinkypoo]

Why is it not illegal for Fox to make this fraudulent claim in a public forum?

Because some of us believe in free speech rights.

It is already illegal to knowingly make false claims, especially of a legal nature, in the public eye — specifically, with the intent to cause harm, which this clearly represents. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead for financial gain and other purposes.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[fustakrakich]

It is a deliberate attempt to mislead for financial gain and other purposes.

So what? If anybody believes them, it's their own damn fault.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[lexman098]

bah. accidental mod, should be +1

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Corporations are people, my friend."

Not by a long shot.

Coporations are "individual financial and commercial entities" composed of a "group of people acting in concert towards a common goal."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation?s=t
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.

Not synonymous at all, unless one has drank too much cool-aid.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is already illegal to knowingly make false claims, especially of a legal nature, in the public eye — specifically, with the intent to cause harm, which this clearly represents. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead for financial gain and other purposes.

Then why isn't Obama in prison ?

Or for that matter, every other politician to hold office in the last 200 years ?

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[drinkypoo]

So what? If anybody believes them, it's their own damn fault.

There are three ways in which someone can do harm to another person. They can defraud them, do them personal harm, or deprive them of property. Are you in for all three?

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[fustakrakich]

You cannot do harm through speech, only through action.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[drinkypoo]

You cannot do harm through speech, only through action.

I should not have to explain this to you when you have dictionaries available to you, but speech is an action.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[fustakrakich]

Words are words. They have no force whatsoever.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[drinkypoo]

Words are words. They have no force whatsoever.

So then when I say you are being an ignorant ass, you will only be informed, and not insulted? That's good, because I feel it's a factual statement, also supported by the dictionary.

Re:Why isn't this libel?

[fustakrakich]

Who cares if I'm insulted? That makes no sense. The right to offend is sacrosanct. Feeling insulted is strictly personal. Everybody reacts differently, regardless of what's in your dictionary, so whatever your point is, it is baseless.

I feel it's a factual statement...

Yes, you feel... That's a personal issue. You're trying to use a book to tell people how they should feel. Culture, DNA, and experience define how people react to words. The words themselves carry no intrinsic value one way or another of any kind, and nobody has any right to determine, legally or otherwise, how they are used. Educate or sanction the listener, and nobody else. Like they say about the idiots on talk radio. it's their followers you should be afraid of, not the blabbermouth. Only there will you find the real danger. You're just trying to tell me that I can't say "fuck" on TV.

Constitution

[benjfowler]

Since the Americans hold their Constitution so dear, almost to the level of Scripture itself, maybe a proper way to deal with corporate parasitism, is to make it unconstitutional to make any law which props up a failing business model or restricts competition in a free market.

Re:Constitution

[Rockoon]

sigh... not this misconception again.

The constitution enumerates what the government is allowed to do. It does not enumerate what the government is forbidden to do.

But thanks to over a century of people (like you) not knowing that.. the government does whatever it wants.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you never bothered to actually read the US Constitution. But considering that almost no other country offers the level of individual right protection afforded by the US Constitution, I am not surprised.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The first amendment seems to contradict that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Looks like it's enumerating something the government is forbidden to do.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

The first half of your statement is correct, however, the second half is wrong. For example: The first amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law..." That is the constitution forbidding congress from creating certain kinds of laws.

Re:Constitution

[benjfowler]

That's a strange thing to say.

I thought the ENTIRE basis of the common law tradition, is that what isn't explicitly banned is allowed.

Re:Constitution

[benjfowler]

We've had this debate about a Bill of Rights in Australia. There are valid legal arguments, both for and against putting such a beast into writing.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

That is actually incorrect. The constitution both enumerates what the government can do and what it cannot do. For example, the First Amendment forbids the establishment of a religion by the government. On the other hand, the enumerated powers clause grants a wide variety of powers to the government including making laws to support the General Welfare.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Scripture is rubbish.

NIH?

[grahammm]

Maybe this is just a case of Not Invented Here, and the broadcasters are wishing that they had thought of, and implemented, first the idea of streaming live on the internet and having a PVR like service. The BBC has had this for some time allowied you to stream the currently broadcast programmes and more recently allowed you to pause and resume, as you can on a PVR. Other UK broadcasters have similar internet offerings, some even allowing you to watch certain programmes before they are broadcast on-air.

Re:NIH?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this is just a case of Not Invented Here, and the broadcasters are wishing that they had thought of, and implemented, first the idea of streaming live on the internet and having a PVR like service. The BBC has had this for some time allowied you to stream the currently broadcast programmes and more recently allowed you to pause and resume, as you can on a PVR. Other UK broadcasters have similar internet offerings, some even allowing you to watch certain programmes before they are broadcast on-air.

You can't compare the american broadcast entities with the BBC or other European public broadcasters. The reason is that in Europe, we pay a tax (called a tv license fee) for the public broadcasting system. So the BBC, Arte, RAI, etc... are being payed by us. That's why they have no problem giving us a internet stream version. In the US, broadcasters are NOT subsidized by public taxes, so they have to broadcast freely OTA by law. But then can charge the cable companies to rebroadcast via cable what is freely done OTA. They don't want to lose this lucrative money stream hence all the vitriol against Aero.

Re:NIH?

[gl4ss]

no, not a NIH.

they already invented getting paid for retransmitting the signal they broadcast.

it's not the pvr. it's the retransmit of something they're sending out. aereo is cutting into their fat, fat margin on that service(you'd think that a ota free channel would only be aiming for highest possible viewers?? HAHAHAHA NOT SO! because this is bizarro world. they're shooting for the highest possible money extraction from cable companies and the cable companies customers.).

Re:NIH?

[matfud]

In the UK ITV also provides online viewing. They are not payed for by the license fee. They just have to esure that whe they buy programming thier license to use it includes the correct provisions to allow them to stream timeshifted versions of the broadcast.

A lot of the angst the american broadcasters have is often due to contracts they have with production companies/artists etc. that do not allow them to provide this kind of service.

Great Advertisement.

[Usefull Idiot]

If you weren't suing them, I may not have heard of their service. Now that I'm aware of it, I will most likely sign up once they are in my area.

Broadcast Signals

[MrKaos]

I'm fairly certain that it's actually the taxpayer that licenses the right to use these frequencies to the broadcaster in the first place. Shouldn't the taxpayer have some say in how they are subsequently used?

Re:Broadcast Signals

[__aaltlg1547]

We do. They're periodically required to demonstrate that their license is in the public interest. The rules for demonstrating that their service is in the public interest are extremely liberal, but they do exist.

More Not-Capitalism

[Required Snark]

Like almost all large US business interests, they are anti-competition. They want their walled garden with guaranteed profits. The only competition they accept is with their equally protected co-monopolists over who gets to squeeze the most money out of powerless consumers who have no meaningful choice.

When actual capitalism with real competitors breaks out, they run screaming to the courts and the law makers to make it go away. This is usually all it takes. If they loose in the courts they just buy some legislation to get what they want.

Want an example? It's a felony to unlock your smart phone without approval from you carrier.

BY DECREE OF THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

IT SHALL HENCEFORCE BE ORDERED THAT AMERICANS SHALL NOT UNLOCK THEIR OWN SMARTPHONES.

PENALTY: In some situations, first time offenders may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.

Yes, just like murder, bank robbery, smuggling drugs, child molestation, kidnapping, etc. The White House is trying to reverse this, but it's not clear if this is enforced at the current time.

Despite all the heated rhetoric, the US is the home of Not Capitalism. No one seems to notice or care. Shut up an pay whatever your owners demand. Or go to jail.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[ColdWetDog]

.. then why don't the big broadcaster get together and buy Aereo before it can - supposedly! - "do more damage"

Three reasons:

1) If you win in court, it prevents other people from trying to pull the same stunt
2) It may well be cheaper to pay lawyers to litigate against Aereo instead of attempting to buy it.
3) It just might not be for sale.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[countach]

You didn't read the article, which I suppose is par for the course on slashdot. They don't care less about Aereo. They care about the precedent that anyone can take their programming free and resell it if you set up enough antennas. If Aereo can do it, anyone can.

Here's the problem..

[Anonymous Coward]

If the courts decide Aereo doesn't have to pay the broadcasters, then Big Cable won't have to either. The networks will have to go back to 100% advertising revenue. I promise that will not be good for the consumers.

Re:Here's the problem..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If the courts decide Aereo doesn't have to pay the broadcasters, then Big Cable won't have to either. The networks will have to go back to 100% advertising revenue. I promise that will not be good for the consumers.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is anything on OTA that is even worth the RF space is chews up? The broadcasters would be doing us all a favor by shrivelling up, dying, and leaving the field open for people who give a damn to pay for service, and people who don't not to have to deal with the ripple effects of the subsidies that keep them creaking along.

Re:Here's the problem..

[Rob_____9557]

So you want the broadcasters to shrivel up & die.. That would leave Aereo with nothing to retransmit. Who wins then? Certainly not the consumer!

Re:Here's the problem..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So you want the broadcasters to shrivel up & die.. That would leave Aereo with nothing to retransmit. Who wins then? Certainly not the consumer!

If a service that snags OTA transmissions out of the air (using a Rube Goldberg device, for legal reasons) and then shoves them over the internet is commercially viable, I have a sneaky plan: shut down the 'OTA transmission' and 'ridiculous antenna farm' parts of the process and just sell streaming video over the internet. Win-win. The OTA guys don't need depend on shaking down the cable companies and ad-spamming their customers for money; because they can just have subscribers, and the goofy unnecessary infrastructure intricacies can be removed, saving money and spectrum for everyone.

Re:Here's the problem..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't look forward to the day that I have to pay a monthly fee to watch local news, or watch a Pay-Per-View Superbowl. That is essentially what you are suggesting

Re:Here's the problem..

[Rob_____9557]

If a service that snags OTA transmissions out of the air (using a Rube Goldberg device, for legal reasons) and then shoves them over the internet is commercially viable, I have a sneaky plan: shut down the 'OTA transmission' and 'ridiculous antenna farm' parts of the process and just sell streaming video over the internet. Win-win. The OTA guys don't need depend on shaking down the cable companies and ad-spamming their customers for money; because they can just have subscribers, and the goofy unnecessary infrastructure intricacies can be removed, saving money and spectrum for everyone.

Because it's probably only commercially viable if you don't actually have to pay to produce the the content you're shoving over the internet.

Re:Here's the problem..

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who are going to be able to buy that spectrum are AT&T and Verizon. And no, your data plan cap will still be 5 Gb, and overages at 10 dollars per Gig. You actually thought that this spectrum would be used to the benefit of America!?! AT&T and Verizon will buy it only to prevent a competitor from gaining market share in their duopoly.

Re:Here's the problem..

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't look forward to the day that I have to pay a monthly fee to watch local news, or watch a Pay-Per-View Superbowl. That is essentially what you are suggesting

I am intrigued by your idea of being paid to watch the Superbowl, and would like to learn more.

Re:Here's the problem..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously suggesting that 95% of non-OTA cable stations are any better?

Re:Here's the problem..

[Anonymous Coward]

PBS is worth the space.

Really (Sqore:200000)

[Anonymous Coward]

Aereo's illegal disruption of their business model.

Business models have no legal protection.

I open a lemonade stand. A kid down the street does the same. So I can call the cops on him? Really?!

Re:Really (Sqore:200000)

[Rob_____9557]

If he takes your lemonade without compensating you, then sells it for his own profit.. What would you do then?

Re:Really (Sqore:200000)

[sixsixtysix]

It's more like you were giving out lemonade for free and I charged money for me to go to your stand, get the lemonade, and deliver it to people. You'd just be pissed because you're already getting money from the laws that force local restaurants to have to buy your lemonade at whatever price you want. If they can set up an operation like mine, you lose money you shouldn't be getting in the first place.

Re:Really (Sqore:200000)

[__aaltlg1547]

I'd raise my price to what he re-sells the lemonade for. But we're not discussing lemonade. We're discussing copyright.

Re:Really (Sqore:200000)

[Anonymous Coward]

All valid points to my lemonade stand example except they're not claiming any of those points;
Fox is claiming it's upsetting their business model - not that anything illegal is happening. I was
pointing out that business models have no legal protection. That's all.

Re:Really (Sqore:200000)

[Anonymous Coward]

And people in lemonade black spots, still cant buy your lemonade.
And people who used to get your lemonade for free change and drink sprite for free instead.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[__aaltlg1547]

Because the minute they do that, somebody else will set up Beereo and Ceereo to compete with them.

Re:Beginnning of the end of OTA ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternative business idea: take OTA FM radio broadcasts and stream that to subscribers ... oh, that's illegal too.

Wait, most radio stations already do that, and for free. It's the RIAA and their demands for royalties at a much higher rates that keeps the others off the internet. Aereo radio wouldn't be a viable business.

Come to think about it, why shouldn't the TV stations compete against Aereo by offering streaming as well? Offer it for a cheaper price or free, yet protect ad revenues by limiting ad skipping.

Retransmission fees are a scam anyway

[DewDude]

If you've ever had your provider get in to a deadlock contract with an OTA station; you'll realize retransmission fees are a scam.

According to the law; a TV station has two options; they can negotiate a retransmission fee for a cable system; or invoke "must-carry", in which the cable provider is *required* to carry them. The station does not have to pay for a "must-carry" station; they are however required by law to carry them. That's bad for the cable company because they have to dedicate QAM space to a channel they may not want. However, if a cable provider negotiates a retransmission fee; they are allowed at that point to insert "local" ads over OTA stations.

In reality; the stations are only screaming about *potential* loss of profits here. The real losers are the local advertisers; who are paying the bills to keep the station's OTA signal running. Thier ads will only get seen by people with OTA; and those times when a local company isn't inserting ads over airtime.

This is why it's common in some areas for a cable/satellite provider to lose the right to carry a local channel. The station wants more money to reach it's demographic; and when a deal cannot be struck, the channel becomes unavailable. If it's a network affiliate; you lose that network entirely. FCC laws prohibit an "outside" station to be piped in to another market. Ironically; this law was made to protect local advertisers, ensuring they had a better chance to be seen in a market where their ads are already possibly being covered over with whatever promotion your provider is running this month.

The ruling that Aereo is legal was upheld by an appellate court already. They found the place-shifting technology (which is what this is); did not constitute public performance. Likewise; since there was an individual receiver and antenna for each user; there was no breaking of any law.

A2B TV does a similar thing; only with satellite TV. And they've even changed since I first found them. Used to be they'd get you set up with a cable TV account at whatever provider was local to the datacenter, along with a slingbox and "hosting space"; thier new model seems to use satellite TV and you have to send them a receiver. I own a Slingbox (two of them actually); and it's perfectly legal to have them hooked up to my TV's; of course I do pay for a TV service. But what about the Slingbox I sent to my friend in Texas with an OTA receiver so I could watch my favorite football team? Legally, it's my receiver and my hardware; so it *still* falls under placeshifting; and it's still not public retransmission.

Networks are going to complain and bitch because they're "getting thier business model stolen"; they seem to forget thier original business model was providing a service for free that was funded by advertisers; that's shifted in to a service that's still provided free, but paid for by cable and satellite companies. I can't blame advertisers for wanting to pay next to nothing; would *you* want to pay top-dollar for advertising knowing the majority of your demographic on cable or satellite might not see it? Of course not.

Again, it's just the networks sitting there looking at the potential profits they're losing because a lousy business model they created failed; one that was doomed for failure in the first place. What were they doing all those years when analog C-Band was still dominate; and they did not scramble the network fee? All those people were watching network TV without local inserted ads. What were they doing before the 1992 act and cable providers could literally pipe in any OTA channel their antenna farm could pick up; you know, back when the FCC mandated providers had to carry locals. Complicate the matter by the fact the FCC has allowed cable broadcasters to begin encrypting OTA feeds; which were once required to be left unencrypted.

The real issue is if they get this declared illicit; what's to stop them going further? They could begin saying multi-room DVR is illegal; worse yet, they coul

Solution to the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If the broadcast networks simply stopped using publicly leased airwaves, then Aereo would have nothing to supposedly re-broadcast. All they have to do is become cable only channels like Comedy Central and TBS, and give their licenses back to the FCC.

The fact that they haven't done so, speaks volumes about their intent.

Re: Solution to the Problem

[JWW]

The problem here isn't that aero is using their signal for free, it's that the broadcast channels think they're entitled to money for retransmitting their signal over another medium. The FCC should make it illegal for broadcast companies to charge cable companies to carry their signal.

I'm quite pissed that when their deal with my local cable company expires the fucking broadcasters have the gall to run ads asking me to demand my cable company caves to their extortion so that I can have the privilige of a higher bill.

Re: Solution to the Problem

[intermodal]

I think more people simply need to cave to the demands of common sense and stop paying for cable television in the first place. Especially when they get broadcasts for free of many if not all of the shows they think they need cable to watch.

Re:Solution to the Problem

[pupsocket]

Not leased. Owned. Bought and sold. In perpetuity.

What, you don't have a broadcast license, too?

The next move of any corporation that finds succes

[Anonymous Coward]

is to seek to outlaw the very process by which they became successful.

Apple did it.

Disney did it.

TW did it.

& now its Foxes turn.

Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

I don't ordinarily like taking the networks' side in matters, because I really hate television, but if Aereo is rebroadcasting the signal, the fact that it's OTA doesn't change anything... it's copyright infringement, plain and simple. Arguing that it isn't just because the signal is made freely available to anyone and broadcast in the clear is about on par with the argument that somebody can relicense GNU software however they like just because the source code is freely available for them to modify.

Just because you *can* do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you're necessarily in the clear to actually go and do it.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

if Aereo is rebroadcasting the signal, the fact that it's OTA doesn't change anything... it's copyright infringement, plain and simple

How then, do you explain three separate federal courts finding that Aereo is likely not infringing? If it was plain and simple, it seems unlikely that they'd miss it.

Take a look at the opinion from the Second Circuit that came out in the spring.You'll see that what it hinges on is not whether there was a transmission, but to whom Aereo's transmission was aimed.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

It could be problematic if the supreme court agrees.... as a precedent, it could effectively spell the end of open source works that are still protected by copyright law... the argument being that if something is being made freely available and in the clear, anyone who can legally receive it is free to do whatever they want with it, including things that would otherwise be copyright infringement.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

It could be problematic if the supreme court agrees.... as a precedent, it could effectively spell the end of open source works that are still protected by copyright law... the argument being that if something is being made freely available and in the clear, anyone who can legally receive it is free to do whatever they want with it, including things that would otherwise be copyright infringement.

That's not the argument.

The argument is that in the US, copyright only prohibits certain things (most of which, you can find at 17 USC 106). The one which is relevant for Aereo is that public performances are protected by copyright, but private performances are not. By breaking apart their infrastructure as they have, Aereo claims that it is engaged in the business of private performances (because each user has their own private antenna, their own private copies of shows, all sent to them alone, not shared with anyone by Aereo).

This really has no effect on the GPL one way or another, as there are separate exclusive rights under section 106 for making and distributing copies, and making derivatives. Those are the things that tend to matter for GPL purposes.

Go read the previously linked-to opinion, please. Your misconceptions are not helping at all.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

When you are doing "private performances" for anyone among the general public who is interested in seeing them, the argument that the performance is still "private" becomes pretty tenuous. This is an absurd abuse of a technicality in how the law happens to be worded, and completely defies the intent behind it. I sincerely hope the supreme court slaps this one down.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[MysteriousPreacher]

If it were plain and simple this probably wouldn't be at the stage it's at now. What I think we can note is that Aereo's service is not rebroadcasting in a vein similar to me setting up an antenna in New York and streaming it to all and sundry on the web. The broadcasts are one to one (a single antenna per user), and are reliant upon the subscriber providing a credit card billing address in the area of the signals they wish to receive. With these restrictions in mind, I don't see Aereo being substantially different from running a Slingbox or rebroadcasting a signal throughout my own house - with the understanding it is secure and not a public re-broadcast.

I use a remote backup service, to which I'm the only one having access to my data. I back-up some GNU licenced software (minus the source), which I can then download again later. Technically the backup host is now "broadcasting" GNU licenced software, and has made no provision for providing the source. I am the only one accessing this software - it's not free and open public file-hosting service.

Is the backup host committing copyright infringement? If not, then why is Aereo. Also, why have the lower courts already ruled the other way? I think you could, at a stretch, make some kind of moral argument, but I just don't see how this is copyright infringement unless we apply this to a broad range of other already commonly used applications. Congratulations, you have practically outlawed cloud computing, network routers, home-based services that allow users to redirect a TV signal to other TVs in the same household, and VNC.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

I'd suggest that the backup host isn't committing copyright infringement because they originally received the data that they are backing up for you *FROM* you.... while Aereo is receiving their data directly from the broadcaster. By supplying it directly to you, they are engaging in a rebroadcast practice that clearly defies the intent of copyright law, even if they might be arguing that the technicality of how it may be worded seems to permit this sort of activity.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

When you are doing "private performances" for anyone among the general public who is interested in seeing them, the argument that the performance is still "private" becomes pretty tenuous. This is an absurd abuse of a technicality in how the law happens to be worded

How the law is worded is crucially important. Otherwise, why bother?

The wording at issue is:

To perform ... a work âoepubliclyâ meansâ"
(1) to perform ... it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance ... of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance ... receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

Aereo isn't performing at a place at all, so part one is out. This is aimed more at, for example, a bar that has a TV set, or a movie theater.

For part 2, their transmission isn't to the public, because they don't make one master transmission. Instead they make individualized transmissions to each customer, each a separate performance, from each customer's separate antenna or each customer's separate DVR'ed copy made from that separate antenna. The nature of the transmission recipient is important, because to ignore it would be to ignore the plain language of the statute that says "to transmit ... to the public." The nature of the transmission is important, because to ignore that would be to ignore the plain language of the statute that says "a performance ... of the work," which isn't the same thing as agglutinating all performances.

completely defies the intent behind it

Congress is of course free to change the law, if the courts have gotten it wrong. But the letter of the law controls, with intent only being instructive in the case of the letter being unclear. It's not particularly unclear here, it's just something that people hadn't really thought of before.

I sincerely hope the supreme court slaps this one down.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court does a good job of interpreting the law. I don't want a particular side to win or lose, I want the law to be upheld, whatever it is. It's not for the Court to decide this as a matter of policy. Your comment betrays your partisanship, but you really ought to take that to Congress instead.

And now your disinterest in reading the opinion becomes clear; you've made up your mind and don't care about honestly looking at counter arguments and possibly revising your opinion.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[MysteriousPreacher]

What about file locker services that conserve space by matching identical files? Although the two of us uploaded identical copies of a file, it's only one actual copy held on their end? Using your argument, that is copyright infringement, as the file I download isn't necessarily the one I uploaded.

I get your point, but I think it's the target of the re-broadcasting that's key here. They are not allowing people access to services they would not already be able to receive if they were to stick an aerial out the window. From what I see of their terms, I wouldn't even be able to watch my home TV channels if I'm out of state or abroad. If this is an illegal rebroadcasting then why would those things I mentioned not be copyright infringement?

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

What I care about is the potential ramifications I can imagine as a consequence, if this is upheld. I can easily see it resulting in the complete dissolution of copyrightable open source, simply by labeling each individual transmission of the work a so-called "private production" or whatever is necessary to somehow make it inapplicable to being an infringement.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

The file that they have is an exact copy of the one that you uploaded... but that would be true even if you were the only uploader... since uploading does not send the receiver any physical media upon which the original copyrighted content might reside.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[BonThomme]

rebroadcast. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[MysteriousPreacher]

But it's not the same file. We can probably agree that it's impractical for me to push this distinction. If you can understand why this distinction is pointless, you can maybe see why I don't understand why you're focussed on considering Aereo to be re-broadcasting. Sure, technically they are, but it's demonstrably not the same as if they were to be either sending the signals outside of the area intended by the broadcaster or sending the signal to anyone who could not otherwise get the same broadcasting if they could have an aerial. If Aereo would alter the content before re-broadcasting, then I would object. By alter, I mean actually changing what content - not just transcoding or similar. For example, if Aereo were to remove adverts before re-broadcasting to the user. There's certainly a relatively arbitrary line to draw here, and from what I see we're doing this but drawing the line in different places. i.e. for the file locker thing you consider the user simply retrieving a file they themselves originally uploaded (or a file identical to the one they uploaded) to be fine because the user provided it, which for some reason gives the host freedom to re-broadcast it - despite the user having no authorisation to grant such a right. This is why I say it's arbitrary - not necessarily wrong, but not black and white.

Would your objections be primarily moral or would they be legalistic in nature?

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

My objection is moral, because I perceive the respecting of copyright as the moral thing to do. I perceive it as such because the protections of copyright gives creators legal authority over copies of works that they would not otherwise have if they distributed their work at all. and this legal authority is what gives many of them incentive to publish in the first place, instead of censoring themselves, or limiting their audience to a select few.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[russotto]

When you are doing "private performances" for anyone among the general public who is interested in seeing them, the argument that the performance is still "private" becomes pretty tenuous.

Not really.

Suppose Patrick Stewart was a bit hard up for money, and offered a service to the general public where he'd come to anyone's home to read Harry Potter to the family living there for a fee. That's private performances to anyone among the general public who is interested in seeing them, and 100% legal whether J.K. Rowling likes it or not.

Now suppose Brent Spiner wants to get in on the action, and rents an auditorium in which he will read Harry Potter to anyone who pays an admission fee -- that's a public performance, and he'd need to clear it with Rowling.

That Aereo is jumping through hoops to make multiple private performances rather than one public one is undeniable. But they're entitled to jump through hoops to follow the law, even if it is rather silly.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

I can easily see it resulting in the complete dissolution of copyrightable open source, simply by labeling each individual transmission of the work a so-called "private production" or whatever is necessary to somehow make it inapplicable to being an infringement.

Performing a work privately isn't infringing, because the exclusive right of performance under section 106 only applies to public performances. However, unlike the GPL, this does not 'infect' the work or any instance of the work. Copyright applies to the work as much as it ever did. Therefore, if you privately perform a work, by, for example, watching it on TV, you cannot make a copy of it, distribute copies of it, or make derivative works based upon it. There might be a fair use exception to certain acts depending on the circumstances (e.g. copying a work by recording it on a DVR, whether this is done at home or remotely over a network), but fair use can apply to any kind of use to any kind of work, so long as the use is fair. There's nothing special that a holding against Aereo would do vis a vis fair use and its applicability to open source software.

You're worried about things that have no chance of happening, possibly due to ignorance of US copyright law. It's not just making a mountain out of a molehill. You're making a mountain out of sheer imagination; there's no molehill or any other thing to enlarge in the first place.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

>p> I've always seen the GPL as less aboutt "infection", per se., and more basically that it just describes the conditions that a person must agree to in order to have permission to copy the work.

This works in complete harmony with copyright law since you need permission from the copyright holder in order to copy a copyrighted work for purposes that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use. The GPL, in a nutshell, is just simply the copyright holder granting that permission. The GPL may require that derivative works be covered under the GPL, but in reality, that's just part of the terms that a person is supposed to agree to in order to have permission to copy in the first place.

If a person does not abide by the terms of the GPL, however, then the permission that the GPL grants does not apply to that person, and so could be found guilty of copyright infringement when making copies of the work that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use.

as to your other point, I don't know how unlikely what I fear if this is upheld might actually happen is, to be honest... but it's the first thing that *I* thought of, and I can't help but express my concern for it.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

If a person does not abide by the terms of the GPL, however, then the permission that the GPL grants does not apply to that person, and so could be found guilty of copyright infringement when making copies of the work that do not fall within the boundaries of fair use.

Copyright is about more than just fair use, you know.

It may help to think of copyright by means of a Venn diagram. It's like a subset that is, itself, full of sub-subsets that compromise holes in what the subset contains.

The largest set is the public domain. Anything in the public domain can be used freely, in any way, so far as copyright is concerned. (Because we're talking about copyright, and not, say, personal property, note that a copy of a work can still be owned and off-limits even though the creative work embodied in that copy is not protected. For example, the Mona Lisa is in the public domain, but the actual wooden painting made by Da Vinci is heavily guarded. Copyright might not give anyone the right to stop you from making a copy of the Mona Lisa, but the Louvre doesn't have to let you take a photograph of it.)

Works that are copyrighted fall partially into the subset of copyright. Partially, not wholly, because copyright only applies to certain types of action with regard to a work. For example, making a new copy of a work by reproducing it is one of the exclusive rights of copyright. But using a book (which is a copy of a work) to prop up an uneven bedframe is not an infringement of copyright, because the law does not grant copyright holders an exclusive right of 'propping-up.' Likewise, some kinds of works are not copyrightable. In the US, from 1790 on, only books and maps could be copyrighted. Only when the law was amended in 1802 were some engravings copyrightable. In 1831, all engravings, and also musical compositions; 1856, dramatic works; 1865, photographs; 1870, paintings, sculptures, drawings, and models and designs of works of fine art; 1912, motion pictures qua motion pictures (previously they were claimed as collections of photographs); 1971, sound recordings; 1976, pantomime and choreography as themselves, as opposed to being dramatic works; 1990, architecture. Anything not on the list of protected types of works is in the public domain. (Software, in case you're wondering, is treated as a literary work, like a book, but doesn't yet have its own category) There are a few other limits on what is copyrightable, but they're not terribly important for our purposes.

Of the list of enumerated rights which compromise copyright, and which is short in comparison to the list of all rights concerning those works and their copies, as applied to those works which are eligible for copyright, which is less than the totality of all works, there are still some subsets which further limit copyright protection.

Fair use is one of them -- any otherwise infringing use, which is fair, is not infringing. That's a fairly good-sized hole in the already swiss-cheesed set of copyright. First sale is another big one -- the right of the copyright holder to control the distribution of copies is almost entirely obliterated once the copyright holder has sold the copies in question. There are some exceptions to that exception, and some exceptions to those exceptions to the exception, but it's still shrinking copyright. Another one you might enjoy for software is that if a person owns a copy of a program, he can copy it and modify it in order to make it work, without needing permission. Likewise, he can make backups without permission. So really, so far as copyright goes, people in the US only need to agree to the GPL to copy a work if they're going beyond the statutory exception that keeps copyright from stopping them making certain copies.

There are exceptions like this throughout the Copyright Act. They can be broad, they can be narrow, they can be subject to various conditions and exceptions themselves. But the point remains that copyright is an all-encompassing, all-covering blanket. I

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

So really, so far as copyright goes, people in the US only need to agree to the GPL to copy a work if they're going beyond the statutory exception that keeps copyright from stopping them making certain copies.

That is, more or less, what I said.... or at least what I was trying to say. If I didn't convey that, I'm sorry for the confusion.

Aereo is going through one of these holes -- a fairly big one, since copyright doesn't even apply to private performances

But when you allow the public to see your "private performances", it's not really private anymore is it? If I had a TV, I could invite friends over to watch a sporting event with me on my television. I could not, however, advertise that my house will be open to whomever wants to come over and watch sports with me, since that would constitute public viewing, even though it is in the privacy of my home. It's my understanding that there is even legal precedent for this exact situation, and why the argument that these are allegedly "private performances" is just a crock. What they are is less about what Aereo claims they are and much more a reflection of what is actually going on - a rebroadcast that even though it may be to specific individuals, should no more count as a private performance than personally giving a copy of another copyrighted work without authorization to somebody else in particular can actually constitute private use, and by virtue of not being private, should be considered an infringement of copyright law. If we allow the former, then why should the latter still not longer be allowed?

I maintain the position that this looks and smells exactly like copyright infringement to me... and Aereo seems to be getting away with what I sincerely fear, if this is upheld by the supreme court, could go so far as to compromise the integrity of copyright as a whole when people in the future try to argue that the distribution of copies of copyrighted works without authorization to other individuals should reasonably be considered "private copies".

If it happens, I can only hope I'm wrong about my assumption, but that doesn't mean I actually believe that there's any significant chance I might be.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[aurizon]

Ah, but they do not broadcast. They have been asked to mount an antenna within the free broadcast field of the station. That signal is then received by the client, AND NO ONE ELSE.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

But when you allow the public to see your "private performances", it's not really private anymore is it?

Aereo doesn't. It's separate performances per user, which maintains their private nature. Public performances would require that multiple users experienced the same performance, or at least shared the same copies which were being used to make the performance. That's what distinguishes it from a regular broadcaster (which uses a master performance) or a Redd Horne style video on demand service. (which re-used copies and was found liable for public performance)

The argument against it basically hinges on ignoring the fact that copyright only protects public performances, and expanding the right to all performances, because private persons viewed in aggregate, even though otherwise not connected to each other, comprise the public. And also, by ignoring the individualized nature of the copies, and instead viewing it as sharing copies because they all stem from a master source.

If I had a TV, I could invite friends over to watch a sporting event with me on my television. I could not, however, advertise that my house will be open to whomever wants to come over and watch sports with me, since that would constitute public viewing, even though it is in the privacy of my home.

OTOH, if you had 100 TVs, and 100 TV antennas, you could rent those TVs and antennas to private persons to set up and use in their own homes for the duration of the rental agreement. This is actually a longstanding practice. In fact, my paternal grandparents didn't own a TV for a long time, but did rent one in 1969 in order to watch the moon landing. The parallels to Aereo's service are pretty strong: users get exclusive access to an antenna, a video file, and a sufficient portion of computing and telecommunications resources in order to get the video stream.

personally giving a copy of another copyrighted work without authorization to somebody else in particular can actually constitute private use

Distributing a copy of a work is protected by copyright. However, there is a big exception in first sale; if the copy was lawfully made, and has been conveyed by the copyright holder or an authorized person, the copyright holder cannot control future distribution of the work by means of his copyright (subject to a few exceptions not relevant here).

So if you give me a copy of a book you bought from the bookstore, that's ok. You don't need authorization. You can even do it if you're specifically ordered not to by the copyright holder; he is impotent in the matter.

And there's no such thing as private use, really. Copyright doesn't prohibit public use, or private use, or any sort of use-use, really. Reproduction, distribution, making derivatives, public performance, public display are basically all that's prohibited. So long as your use doesn't involve any of those, the copyright is inapplicable. And if it does, there may yet be an applicable exception.

It's my understanding that there is even legal precedent for this exact situation

Super, let's have it. Of course, you might still want to look at the previously linked-to Second Circuit opinion, in case the court already looked at that precedent.

distribution of copies of copyrighted works without authorization to other individuals should reasonably be considered "private copies".

The public performance right only covers public performances. The distribution right, like the honey badger, don't care: it applies to both public and private distribution. First sale and fair use, likewise, are unaffected.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[mark-t]

My point is that they are calling their distribution a "private performance", on the grounds that it is being presented to specific individuals who have requested the service. What is to stop something similar from happening with other copyrighted works?

Because you see, am really suggesting that their alleged notion that what they are doing somehow qualifies as a "private performance' is very obviously just a bunch of hooey.... not that private performances should not be exempt from copyright infringement. They are doing these so-called "private performances" for anyone who wants to use their service among the general public, and that's very obviously not what private performance is supposed to mean. I am nothing less than shocked and very concerned that it has even made it this far.

Re:Seems fairly cut and dried

[cpt kangarooski]

My point is that they are calling their distribution a "private performance", on the grounds that it is being presented to specific individuals who have requested the service. What is to stop something similar from happening with other copyrighted works?

First, the public performance / private performance dichotomy only matters for certain types of works: literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture and other audiovisual works, and in the case of digital audio transmissions only, sound recordings. (That's why analog radio stations don't have to pay royalties to recording artists to play records: no performance right. There is a right for the underlying song, though, so they do pay songwriters)

Second, expense and impracticality. If Aereo wanted to branch out into something like Netflix, where it rented videos on demand, it would have to contend with Redd Horne. The Redd Horne case involved a video rental store that not only rented videotapes without authorization (which is not infringing if the copies are eligible for First Sale), but also provided in-store viewing areas, and TV sets, for people to watch the movies with. Patrons using the viewing areas didn't handle the tape themselves; the store clerk had control of the tape and the VCR. Essentially, they were operating a small, on-demand movie theater, and this was found to be infringing because they re-used the same copy of the tape and the tape was never even under the dominion of the patron, but at all times under the dominion of the store.

More recently, this cropped up with a company called Zediva, which offered to rent a DVD, and a player to a customer, and to stream the video over the Internet. Based on Redd Horne, they got shut down, because again, they reused the same copies that they showed people, and they retained control over the copies.

For Aereo to avoid these precedents, they'd need to have one lawfully made copy of each video per customer, and never share them between customers. Dealing with all the discs would require more physical space, more equipment, more staff, and would still be risky due to the discs remaining on Aereo's premises. They can't copy the discs. And it would not be particularly inexpensive for the customers who could just go get them from Amazon or wherever. The cost and impracticality of it is what makes it unlikely.

Most other sorts of works aren't transmitted freely from hither and yon. A hardcopy book would be even worse than a DVD. Ebooks aren't broadcast for free like OTA TV. Web pages are more easily viewed in the user's own web browser directly, rather than paying Aereo a monthly fee to be a middleman for no good reason.

So I don't think it's very likely that the Aereo model will spread beyond free, OTA TV.

They are doing these so-called "private performances" for anyone who wants to use their service among the general public

No, they're allowing anyone among the general public to make their own individualized recordings of OTA TV signals. Once the recording is made, it's not performed publicly, and it's not shared around.

Re:Beginnning of the end of OTA ...

[Skapare]

They are leasing you an antenna ... and connecting you to YOUR antenna for free.

Now if we could only get Congress to ...

[Skapare]

... shut down OTA TV, then I'd be happy.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[Skapare]

The business model is leasing an antenna to a consumer, and providing the connection. They don't like the fact that this is legal.

I'd like to have this kind of service, but not for TV.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[Anonymous Coward]

Areo isn't the real risk to the broadcasters. The real risk is that cable and satellite companies will do the same thing and bundle it into their service. Dish has hinted at that already.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[Anonymous Coward]

Beer and Cheerios? That's disgusting.

They are absolutely doing nothing illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are absolutely doing nothing illegal. If they were, the TV broadcasters themselves would be breaking the law (and should be fined and jailed). Why? They take their own broadcast, and rebroadcast it over a proprietary telephone wireless network (so people can watch tv on their smartphones). Is this stupid? Absolutely! There already is a digital high definition signal being broadcast over the air, and for free. Do they build phones with the ability to receive this signal? NO! They build phones so that they can only receive the proprietary "pay for every last bit of data" television broadcast. Rat bastards! Wide band and multi-band radios have been around for *decades*! The phone is basically a radio transciever. It would cost about $2 to build a smart phone able to receive television broadcasts. But they don't because they insist that everyone pays for what a television can get for free. Its not just a money grab, but a waste of spectrum bandwidth, and they do it anyway. Its crazy that the broadcasters took some of the regular TV spectrum and allocated it to smart/wireless phones, and then turn around and use that spectrum to broadcast tv (of course, for a price). And now that others are trying to do the same, the broadcasters have a problem.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[wiredlogic]

4) That would run afoul of anti-trust laws.

Keeping it 50's

[speedlaw]

Oddly, I can find anything I want on line...and often the regular TV shows are streamed BY THE NETWORK, not any "arr" type websites. You can don eye-patch and watch anything you want, though. I don't care about sports, which is what this is probably really about.

Re:If Aereo is so horrible (Napster, Bittorrent)..

[Anonymous Coward]

... then why don't the big broadcaster get together and buy Aereo before it can - supposedly! - "do more damage".

That is obvious.

The former owners of Aero could use some of that money to start "Aero2" and get the same situation again. And someone else might start "Aero3", hoping to get bought. Broadcasters would keep spending, without solving their "problem".

It is like buying the neighbours lawn mover so you won't get disturbed by the sound of lawn moving. But he will just buy another one.

let them do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The broadcasters have said they will go to extreme lengths to halt Aereo and services like it — even if they have to yank their signals from the public airwaves."

I would hope that immediately after trasmitter shutdown, that the FCC revoke their license to that frequency.

I laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Aereo's illegal disruption of their business model."
If that were illegal, then steam engines, buggy whip makers and newspapers would still be viable businesses.

illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Aereo's illegal disruption of their business model." But it has been deemed LEGAL by the court. Oh yeah, i forgot that copyright holders have so much political leverage they think if they consider something "illegal", it must be made so.

Not broadcast.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the specific person on that antenna can get it therefore it's no more rebroadcasting than the little box that takes the signal and sends it on to the TV that you have in your video recorder is rebroadcasting.

If that were a valid objection

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were a valid objection, then your objection would be moral.

However, your objection is not valid: Aero doesn't disrespect copyright and moreover goes out of its way to respect the copyrights even though it makes the service harder to built, maintain and therefore more costly.

That you think it doesn't does not make your objection moral.

Re:If that were a valid objection

[mark-t]

The allegation that Aereo doesn't disrespect copyright is irrelevant to the issue that I believe that they do. Since I *DO* believe that they are disrespecting copyright, the objection is morally grounded. Even if the objection were invalid to the situation, it would be no less moral because of it.

Butbutbut

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they even *want* to sue? Their fame and advertising market has increased beyond the audience who can receive their broadcast OTA. If they increased Aereo's technology so that it could report back on the customers using the service, they could charge their advertisers that much more for their sponsorship, with the advertisers receiving far more eyeballs! Isn't that where the money is?

I mean seriously WHAT THE FUCK?

Media moguls want it from all ends

[lpq]

[blockquote]Let me repeat this, so it's clear: In the US, commercial TV broadcast is funded by advertising time. (And, in part, by selling rebroadcasting rights to cable channels.) That's why it's been classically "free" off-air to viewers. It's a different model from other countries, where you get taxed for owning a TV. The only exception is the US government sponsored PBS channel, which is still "free" to receive but is funded in part by income tax.[/blockquote]

The above model is seriously messed up in many areas were you can't receive more than 1-2 over-the air channels and need cable just to get the main 3 networks.

What's worse, IF we have cable , rebroadcast rights have already been paid by the cable company. I bitched to the cable company about having to pay extra for digital to get free-off-the-air digital channels. Comcast in my area is a monopoly, and sets their prices as they wish.

The TV broadcasters, sounds like they are simply making a play to demand more money from end-users. It's nothing about their rights being violated. Their rights have been paid for by cable and advertising fees. Now they want more just because I can record something and watch it elsewhere?

It's all about the entire entertainment industries desire to move to paying for each "play" of "their material"....

Notice how distribution is shifting away from hard goods -- and even they often need online connections for stuff to be validated? You can't buy many goods anymore -- just "license them"... which should be crap.

Re:Media moguls want it from all ends

[roc97007]

These things are true. (I'm sorry you have to deal with Comcast.) My response is:

Hulu

Netflix

Illegal downloads

In other words, do whatever one can to avoid having to pay for cable. It's a crap deal in this day and age. A business model that's way past its prime.