Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Hear Aereo Case
schwit1 writes "The Supreme Court will hear broadcasters' challenge to the legality of startup Aereo, in a case that may not only determine the future of digital streaming of station signals but of network television itself. Without comment, the justices on Friday agreed to accept ABC Television Stations vs. Aereo, in which the television networks are seeking to halt the Barry Diller-backed venture, contending that its offering of streams of station signals in New York and other markets violates the public performance provisions of the Copyright Act. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the consideration of the petition, the court said, without elaborating. Typically such recusals are for a potential conflict of interest, and Alito has previously said that his family owned stock in the Walt Disney Co."
...and I'm sure my opinion will be torn to shreds for it.
I firmly believe that what Aereo does is, strictly speaking, legal, but hardly fair play.
Broadcast television got a pretty sweetheart deal: All of this spectrum is yours, just give us a little public interest news every day. The TV broadcasters use their ownership of the airwaves to produce content that'll get us to watch their sponsor's commercials.
While there are obviously other ways to time and location-shift television, Aereo is essentially a leech on the system. They give nothing back to the content producers. It's hard to root for them unless your only goal is the collapse of broadcast television.
Infrastructure costs money to build, run, and maintain, and good content costs money to create. Strip out the revenue and things will go even further down the tubes.* Let it be hijacked and the result may not be much different.
*On the bright side, maybe nobody will be able to pay for the Kardashians. There's a happy thought.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Aereo is an online streaming service - among its offering, it enables people who stay very far away from NYC (for example, Sydney Australia) to watch TV stations from NYC.
The argument from the teevee stations is that by allowing the streaming of their broadcast content, Aereo is violating the "copyright".
I dunno about you, but I find this argument utterly preposterous !
Legally speaking, true, the way the copyright laws has been stipulated by those "legal experts" is that a copy of whatever copyrighted content (be it sound, image, book, or the combination of any form) can only be used one time, in one place.
But c'mon !
People living in Sydney Australia don't get to watch teevee station beaming from NYC anyway - and by allowing them to watch it via online streaming, how the fuck this going to make the NYC teevee station losing money ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I hope the Aereo creams the broadcasters. This is just another example of the content producers trying to use control of the distribution medium to extract profits in excess of what that content is actually worth. The key point is that with Aereo the content is delivered to one user via dedicated hardware, just as it has always been. The only thing that has changed is the length of the wire. The original bargain with OTA TV is that we the people give you spectrum, you the broadcasters give us content and commercials, we watch the commercials, and you get paid. Nothing that Aereo is doing changes that. Indeed, they found that after the VCR decisions of the 1980's, revenue actually went up because their audience size went up. But now Broadcaster's have just gotten fat and greedy on the re-distribution lucrative fees they have extorted out of people and that needs to be checked.
I live within the broadcast range of Boston but due to a hill I'm on (and weather) I only get one or two channels at best. I like to watch American football and having the signal drop in the middle of a play just stinks. Aereo allows me to watch (and pause/record) shows I would normally get fed up with and just not watch. It's a great service to mesh with Netflix/Amazon Streaming/etc. since you get sports and live news. We really like it.
As to why the broadcasters are against Aereo I guess there could be concern about timeshifting, etc. But if I did get solid reception OTA I could just use any DVR to do pause and recording, or even a VCR (ok not a VCR, no TV is worth using one of those again).
Overall I see Aereo, Netflix, etc. as the future. Much like mp3s and digital streaming are the media for music. It would probably be best for the broadcasters to try and figure out how to best make it all work. I still don't understand why a broadcaster would not want Aereo to 'repeat' their signal, w/o it I would not be able to watch the shows, hence not view the commercials.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
ABC does not own the content that it broadcasts: it licenses it from the original authors/producers. That license permits it to distribute the content over the airwaves with the payment of a fee.
Think about it this way. Suppose I wrote a play. I would have both (1) a right to prevent others from copying my written work (the script) and (2) a right to prevent others from performing that play if they got a copy of the script. If I permit a playhouse to perform the play, that playhouse can limit the viewing of the licensed performance to those inside the building. Here, ABC is broadcasting its content to the public: it's like a playhouse that has no walls that anyone from the street can enjoy. The playhouse's recourse is to perform the play inside an enclosed building, and ABC's recourse is arguably to distribute its content to those under contract, which it cannot do over the public airwaves.
Now, if ABC owns the original rights in what it broadcasts, the story is different. In that case it can sue as the holder as the copyright, rather than the holder of merely a license. Even then, arguably ABC has granted everyone with access to broadcasted content an implied license to view it, and forward the content to another location as apparently Aereo does. What Aereo would then be doing is merely a "fair use" of that broadcasted content, which is specifically permitted by the copyright statutes.
The MLB and NFL will not take a free for all and aereo may have to have to have big time DMA locks on this.
No way they will be able to do and cheap NFL ST package.
These lawsuits against Aereo are about money, and really not even about getting money from Aereo but from cable operators. Networks and their affiliate stations pull in huge amounts of cash from rebroadcast deals. The Aereo model threatens to cut that cash flow off. Several cable companies are already looking to copy Aereo and do a one-antenna-per-customer model to provide local stations, and avoid paying carriage fees. That's billions of dollars the networks could lose. That is why they want to kill this model dead and quickly.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
If you read the plaintiff's pleading before the court (quoted here):
They are explicitly saying "our business is changing and we want the courts to stop things because creative destruction is unfair." They are not even pretending that they are trying to do something in the public's interest; they are nakedly asking the court to save the entrenched interest. Pathetic assholes.
Aereo gives each individual subscriber their own antenna. That's not broadcasting, it's "singlecasting" at most, but really just time and location shifting.
And besides, if customers are subscribing to for content they can't otherwise get because of where they live, who's losing money here?
When you get a broadcast licence, of the sort TV networks have been exploiting since the invention of TV, you not only have to give up a LOT of ordinary copyright protection, but you have a DUTY to ensure as many people in the broadcast region freely receive your service. In LAW, you cannot complain if third parties assist you in your legal duties, as laid down in the licence.
The broadcasters are NOT appealing the Law, but taking advantage of what the sheeple THINK they know about the rights and wrongs of this situation. The sheeple, today, have no concept of the responsibilities imposed by those that hold broadcast licenses, so the sheeple think "dribble, dribble, it's wrong for a third party to do this, dribble". And the broadcasters, like the atrocious Rupert Murdoch, seek to exploit the 'wisdom' of the masses. Indeed, Tony Blair's No.1 propagandist, Murdoch, effectively demonstrated that the law is on the side of companies like Aereo, when he threatened the US public with the close-down of the broadcast Fox channels. Murdoch was seeking support in the public arena, because he understands how the current law works.
No-one forces any company to accept the terms of a traditional TV broadcast licence. Today, more than any other time, companies wishing to offer video services can do so outside the licence framework, at the likely cost of reaching far fewer viewers. It is their choice. Free dissemination, within a defined time window, of their copyright material, to a defined region of potential viewers- or another model that does NOT use the public airwaves.
I'm rather tired an annoyed how SCOTUS can wreck and change laws by simply interpreting them differently.
Yes sometimes they rule in societies best interests. As they legalized being gay.
Example, Texas tells the court Its legal to be gay but not have gay sex, SCOTUS's comment "and the difference is?" and now being gay is legal.
Eminent domain and how they think the public use now means private use as in developers taking land is ok. And being paid fair market value? No, sorry.
The Whitehouse went to SCOTUS for ACA (Obamacare) for its "mandate" payments that under the tax code are taxes, but told the court it wasnt a tax. The court could have easily agreed with the whitehouse and said "if you say its not a tax, is thrown out" But they said, smells like a tax, its written under tax law, its a tax. Thats the fine line, but making people buy unregulated products aka healthcare and calling it a tax? Cherry pick which pieces to of law to rule on.
Now, pot is legal in Washington and Colorado. An act that could have landed you in PRISON, something how will the court rule on that? Are we suppose to believe something illegal yesterday that could ruin your life if the law was concerned, is no perfectly ok.
Taking the real world action and moving it to the "cloud", the same thing anyone can do legally, but since a company can do it on a mass scale its a crime.
We make all thes laws, rules and regulations to try to protect the public from abusive laws, whats more abusive that keeping technology in the dark ages under some corporate greed?
If we can see federal courts on different sides of the United states DISAGREE on the same cases, maybe we can relialize these courts are holding back innovation and growth with negative laws.
Take patent trolls, some courts kiss patent trolls asses, then some courts rule against them like the Nintendo case.
Then there is Apple suing everying in the world that mentions Android. Android is so big of a tech boost in so many markets in so many diverse sectors, its creating new businesses and ideas.
Bah, its Friday and after 5, enough of this and time to goto the pub.
Hi,
Does someone understand why they need so many tiny antennas ? To me they just need to recveive all the DVB-T multiplexes broadcasted in the area, which would not require more than a dozen of antenna to cover them all . Then broadcast any of the stream contained in the multiplexes to the subscriber ? Basically they don't need an antenna per subscriber.
Or is it that they just build an antenna array which acts as a bigger Yagi antenna who does just that ?
Obviously it should also be illegal for tourists to watch TV while in the area. They are not likely to "buy local" when they go home, so are in fact stealing from the networks.
is the collapse of broadcast television.
Where would this leave local affiliates? (last sentence in quote) "Broadcasters say a federal appeals court ruling favoring Aereo created a blueprint that might let cable and satellite providers avoid paying “retransmission” fees to carry programming. With those fees estimated to exceed $4 billion this year, some broadcast companies say they may convert to cable channels if Aereo isn’t shut down. " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/broadcasters-get-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-bid-to-stop.html
Does anybody really think that there is actually one antenna per customer? And that that antenna is hooked up to a particular DVR? And that that antenna and DVR are connected to just one customer?
I just can't and don't believe it. The 'antenna array' is surely a prop, and the DVR has to be a rack of shared servers.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
What's the point of Aereo then? Why not stuck up my own antenna and DVR instead? What is the value? Is it just sticking the DVR into the cloud?
This war is already over.
If big TV prevails, they will have successfully defended a dying business model which they will use to insulate themselves from having to evolve in what is a very evolving world, and they will die, frustrated and alone, isolated from the audiences.
If Aereo and the others prevail, they will usher in a new era of content that no longer needs as many middlemen to deliver it, and old broadcast media will wither and die.
Either way, the old way dies. They have received the Hokuto Dan Kotsukin. They are already dead.
Sig for hire.
local channels have sports as well wgn america does not have blackhawks, and only some of the bulls games that are on WGN.
And places that are like 65 miles from Chicago are in the blackhawks zone and you need WGN 9 / CSN to get all of the games that are not national.
MLB and NFL won't have a choice, if they allow ABC / NBC or whomever to broadcast over the air then they have to accept it. Period.
The TV networks also want to ensure that you don't watch the other network's show that plays in the same time slot.
dragging Fox News or Rupert Murdoch into it? This story has nothing Fox- or Murdoch-specific in it. You guys apparently think you have a hammer and the whole internet looks like it's made of nails.
Incidentally, you apparently have forgotten thet when Fox News launched in the US, they were not available in most markets due, in large part, to the coordinated efforts of Murdoch's competitors. All the cable systems with ties to CNN for example (including the system in NYC where the network was based) simply refused to carry it. Murdoch initially penetrated a bunch of markets via satellite (he owned part of DirecTV (IIRC)) at the time and was thus able to get his product before enough consumer eyes to then generate the consumer pressure to get onto the cable systems that had rejected him. So much for the theory that the all-powerful super-spook Murdoch controls the media...
Hate to break it to you, but the licenses broadcasters have (and the associated requirements/restrictions have) nothing to do with newer tech like Aero, streaming, time-shifting etc. The broadcasters have been granted the right to exclusive use of (and federally-protected/enforced use of) valuable portions of the nation's electromagnetic spectrum enabling them to "print money" blasting high-powered signals loaded with paid advertising over huge swaths of the country. They'll complain about ANY competition that might draw eyeballs away from the ads they are running....... but the proof is in the following test: Are they willing to give up all those "heavy regulatory burdens" and their apparently devalued spectrum to move into their competitors' turf? Nope. They'll complain and complain, but the big broadcasters will hang onto "their" pieces of the spectrum with a death-grip.
ABC does not own the content that it broadcasts: it licenses it from the original authors/producers.
Come again? The rule requiring broadcast networks to license all prime-time programming from third parties was abolished two decades ago.
Now, if ABC owns the original rights in what it broadcasts, the story is different. In that case it can sue as the holder as the copyright, rather than the holder of merely a license.
In practice, as I understand it, the exclusive licensee of a work in a particular market has remedies under the law very close to those of the owner of copyright.
And besides, if customers are subscribing to for content they can't otherwise get because of where they live, who's losing money here?
(stretching...) The travel industry is losing money from people who would otherwise travel to view works unavailable in their home markets.
I'm out of town. There's a radio broadcast in my hometown that I like to listen to, particularly the first 2 minutes. During my trip, I call my mom on the phone every night and she holds the receiver up to the radio so I can listen to that part of the broadcast. Are you saying the radio station can take my mom to the Supreme Court over that??? Yikes.
I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.
In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.
Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The summary mentioned Justice Alito recusing himself because of his family's stock in Disney (which owns ABC) and it makes perfect sense to recuse in this case.
But what if the judge had owned stock in CBS or FOX instead? Would he still have recused himself? A ruling in support of Aereo might negatively impact the stock price of corporations not directly related to the case. So the fact that a judge owns stock, regardless of it's connection to the current case, can lead to bias.
I propose we ban all judges and congress members from owning stock during their term in office. How can you judge or regulate something fairly and objectively if you have a personal financial interest in it?
I've never heard of DMA locks before. Is that some sort of TPM mechanism to prevent devices from snooping on copyrighted memory contents?
Here we go again. Apple pissed about 'video distribution' that people don't pay for on iTunes.
And before you point out that it's not filed by Apple, I urge you to figure out who owns ABC and who sits on that company's board. Talk about mafia.
.
I plan to start a company that flies blimps over football stadiums and broadcasts video of the games. Afterall they are letting the light from the stadium radiate into the environment so I'm entitled to pick it up and rebroadcast it without any compensation to the football teams.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Aereo has gone to great lengths to ensure that nobody outside the broadcast footprint can access the content through Aereo. So your point is entirely moot.
They do an IP-based location check, and then offer a "are we wrong and you're actually in your home area" button to click, at which point they allow access to the content. It's a great length in the same way that Hello World is a complex program.
They will win the decision. Anything else in the discussion is moot and a waste of time.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Problem solved.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The thing is, broadcasters aren't bringing this case over lost advertising revenue. And they're not bringing it over increasing the size of the broadcast area.
They're bringing this case because if Aereo-like services lets people access the broadcasts within the broadcast area in more convenient ways, that means the broadcasters can't make as much money from selling more-convenient access to their content (e.g. by charging cable-TV retransmission fees, or making a deal with Time-Warner Cable to let subscribers visit special subscriber-only webpages or install subscriber-only apps to stream content).
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
GP NEVER mentioned Fox News. He was talking about the Fox OTA broadcast network. Come to think of it, you fail common sense also. Fox news is Satellite / Cable only and irrelevant to the discussion. Your eagerness to rail against "lefties" only served to demonstrate your own ignorance.
And for the record. He is correct. Murdoch did threaten to take the Fox OTA network cable/satellite only if Aereo succeeds. Whether or not he will follow through on the threat is unknown. IMHO, the financial loss would be greater than not, but he sometimes cuts off his nose to spite his face.
Fox broadcast predates Fox News by many years and it was not clear if a fourth OTA network would ever succeed at the time. And one more thing, it's Aereo, not Aero. Retard...
designated market area and other stuff like team zones the MLB is real bad with them.
The reason the broadcasters are up in arms is because they aren't able to force Aereo to pay them licensing fees like they do with the cable providers (double dipping on commercials and fees)
I want OTA broadcasts delivered via the Internet for $8-$10 a month. That is the limit to what I am willing to pay and the only delivery means by which I am willing to accept it. Cable and Satellite are not valid options. I would gladly accept the broadcasters putting up repeater towers on the outskirts of the county I live in so I can tune in OTA for free, as well.