Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aereo To SCOTUS: Shut Us Down and You Shut Down Cloud Storage

Posted by Unknown on from the dedpuplication-considered-massively-infringing dept.

jfruh (300774) writes "Aereo is currently fighting for its life before the Supreme Court, and has issued a warning: if you take us down, you could take the entire cloud storage industry down with us. The company argues that they only provide customers with access to shows picked up by an individual antenna that they've rented. If the constitutes a 'public performance,' then so does the act of downloading a copyrighted document stored in a cloud storage service — even if the customer has purchased the right to use that document." v3rgEz sent in a link to the transcript of the first day of arguments.

53 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What matters is clout. Both mp3.com and Google did a similar thing. mp3.com was destroyed utterly, while Google faced a little bit of RIAA finger waggle.

    I doubt this will affect anything cloud-wise.

    1. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by alen · · Score: 2

      yeah, not like any of the big media companies have sued dropbox or google over retransmission of their works

    2. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      mp3.com stored a single copy of each song - and streamed copies of that shared song to users who had shown (by inserting a CD or buying the song from a mp3.com associate) that they owned it. While mp3.com claimed that they were protecting individual Fair Use (or was it First Sale?) rights, the technical point on which they were crucified was not the streaming to individual users, but the creation of the shared database (for their own commercial benefit).

      In the Aereo case, they are not taking the signals from a single shared antenna (or from a small group of shared antennas) and replicating them. That would open them to the sort of attack that destroyed mp3.com. Instead, Aereo is taking the technically-very-ugly, but legally-more-likely-to-be-sound approach of having huge farms of micro-antennas, and renting individual antennas to individual customers. It is the broadcast signals from the plaintiffs that are replicating the programs – same as if the broadcast signals hit an equivalent number of rabbit-ears antennas in an equivalent number of houses.

    3. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

      What's the difference, functionally, if I rent a house with an antenna on the roof then use a Slingbox / SiliconDust Homerun or rent a server that has an antenna on it? Practically none to actually none, really. The legal difference will hopefully be the same.

    4. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by PRMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no difference functionally. The difference is legal. And now they are being crucified for attempting to comply with previous court decisions because by doing so they look "shady".

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whether you've been sued is irrelevant to whether it's legal. The Supremes deal with legality, not enforcement.

      And the argument isn't binding. The Supremes can find against Aereo and state "the lack of a *formal* agreement and that the content was not uploaded securely by the user himself makes this a distribution by Aereo, and thus a valid legal tort" both making Aereo illegal and securing Cloud for everyone else. The fact that the argument was raised just means it will likely be addressed in the finding.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The difference is that you aren't distributing publicly and commercially. That you see no difference doesn't mean nobody else can see a difference.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    7. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by lgw · · Score: 3

      The Supremes deal with legality, not enforcement.

      They deal with pleasing the public these days, not legality. It will be interesting to see which way they go on this. They're quite smart enough to rationalize any possible decision, but that's after the fact.

      If they don't like Aereo, I wonder how they'll explain the many apartment buildings with a shared antenna on the roof used by all the residents (though maybe that vanished with analog TV). I'm really tired of pretending that doing some old thing we've done for ever, except "on the internet" somehow makes it legally different.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've rented an antenna on the roof before, publicly and commercially, with a really long antenna cable to my living room. The only difference here is "on the internet".

      Of course, Roberts may just decide its a tax, so who knows. It's not like these guys follow any basis in law or constitution these days.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Why? A long cable is a long cable. Why is there any legal difference? The answer of course I because the lawmakers have been thoroughly corrupted, but that's really it. If Aereo was sending content across advertising markets, reducing the value of local ads, then maybe something's there, but they aren't.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by slinches · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand it, Aereo geographically limits its service to the broadcast range of the transmission towers. Thus there is no programming made available to an Aereo customer that they couldn't legally receive by putting up their own antenna.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    11. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by Ogre332 · · Score: 2

      They deal with pleasing the side with the most cash these days, not legality.

      FTFY

      --
      Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
    12. Re:Doubt it will shut down cloud storage... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you're complaining about how the government helps their large donors get what they want, the words you're looking for are "Public Choice Economics", not "Free market!"

      A free market implies that the government minimally interferes in the market, just enough to set a level playing field, not that the government determines market outcomes at the behest of it's backers by killing competitors.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  2. How many? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just how many industries will we allow the content industry to ruin in its death throes before we finally get wiser?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:How many? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just how many industries will we allow the content industry to ruin in its death throes before we finally get wiser?

      All of them.

      Technology is reaching the point where the content industries more or less have to give permission for everything it gets used for.

      And, anything which they interpret as cutting into their revenue stream or otherwise making it possible to copy something, is going to be vigorously fought by them.

      This is the buggy whip makers telling us that we need their permission to design highways. And innovation will suffer.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:How many? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People never wanted buggy whips. People wanted transport. Buggy whips were just a means to that end.

    3. Re:How many? by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what, cloud based DVR is not not acceptable? Why is time shifting OK in a box in my livingroom but not on a box at some hosting service? Does it matter if I own or rent the actual server that is being used for the time shifting? What is so important about the internet that it invalidates the rights we have elsewhere?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:How many? by ravenscar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahahahahaha! Are you joking? Comcast and Time Warner ARE content companies. That's the whole problem. Content providers should be completely separate from internet providers. When they aren't, the internet/content providers have incentive to make sure their content is unfairly promoted/protected on their networks. If you think Comcast/Time Warner will ever stand up to content companies I've got some wonderful property in the Everglades in which you might be interested.

    5. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You focused too much on the using of the phrase 'buggy whip makers'

      The argument would be the same if the person before used 'car makers' in place of 'buggy whip makers'

      For example:

      All of them.

      Technology is reaching the point where the content industries more or less have to give permission for everything it gets used for.

      And, anything which they interpret as cutting into their revenue stream or otherwise making it possible to copy something, is going to be vigorously fought by them.

      This is the car makers telling us that we need their permission to design highways. And innovation will suffer.

      He's trying to say that the people who make content are also trying to control the methods of receiving that content. Not necessarily that the content itself is outmoded.

      Please understand the argument before criticizing it.

    6. Re:How many? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2

      Buggy whip makers went out of business because people did not want buggy whips.

      Exactly. Nobody stopped cars (or highways) because the buggy whip makers weren't allowed to restrict development and innovation. That would've been crazy. The argument the GP is making is that to allow ABC et al. to shut down Aereo would be akin to letting buggy whip makers prevent cars. Which would be absurd. Reductio ad absurdum, some might say.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    7. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is that different than having your own antenna and recording to a DVR? The identical arguments can be made there.

      I'm an Aereo subscriber. Why? If I lived close enough to the city, I'd use an antenna and a DVR. But, there's a 3300' mountain between me and the city. I can't put an antenna up high enough that'll get even a single channel. Aereo can. I still watch their stupid ads, so the revenue model of the networks is unaffected.

    8. Re:How many? by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are incorrectly confabulating broadcasting with content producing.

      It is not "content producers" that people don't want because guess what it isn't the content producers that are suing Aereo.

      Instead it is the over the air broadcasters that are suing and no one wants them. They are not all the producers and not all of them produce content Back before we had internet, cable TV, and satellite TV, actual over the air broadcasting made sense. But not any more.

      People do want the content - which is why content producers will continue to exist. People do NOT want to receive it by broadcast, which is why people want Aereo to take that junk off the air and put it on wires.

      Yes it is true that the broadcasters used to be wealthy and therefore bought up most (but not all) of the content producers. Now the broadcasters are going the way of the Buggy Whip. They may be able to survive as content producers, but only if they stop trying to marry their content production to their horrible, stupid delivery system that few people want and is only be propped up by out-dated laws.

      If they insist on sending their wonderful content out on horrible radiowaves, then they will have to do so a week after they offer them to cable operators (just like Hulu does with Hulu prime.). You want the stuff right away, pay for it. If you don't care, wait for for it.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    9. Re:How many? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, yes, the stupid old 'buggy whip makers' argument.

      Yawn ... ah, yes, the it's stupid because I say so argument.

      Do you know the origins of the term? This might help:

      Marketing myopia is a term used in marketing as well as the title of an important marketing paper written by Theodore Levitt.[1] This paper was first published in 1960 in the Harvard Business Review, a journal of which he was an editor. Marketing Myopia suggests that businesses will do better in the end if they concentrate on meeting customers' needs rather than on selling products.

      The Myopic culture, Levitt postulated, would pave the way for a business to fail, due to the short-sighted mindset and illusion that a firm is in a so-called 'growth industry'. This belief leads to complacency and a loss of sight of what customers want.

      [snip]

      There is a greater scope of opportunities as the industry changes. It trains managers to look beyond their current business activities and think "outside the box". George Steiner (1979) is one of many in a long line of admirers who cite Levitt's famous example on transportation. If a buggy whip manufacturer in 1910 defined its business as the "transportation starter business," they might have been able to make the creative leap necessary to move into the automobile business when technological change demanded it

      So, how about this ... you refute the underlying thing meant when most of us say "buggy whips", and I won't tell you how little I care about how you feel about the specifics of the metaphor. Sound fair?

      The point is, in the face of technological changes and advancement, instead of understanding what it is people actually want and enabling it, these companies are demonstrating short-sightedness, an unwillingness to adapt their business model, and due to lobbying and other crap, exert an undue level of control over industries relating to technology which is both unwarranted, outdated, and has an overall detrimental effect on progress by people who don't have their heads up their asses.

      Now, if you have anything intelligent to add, I'm all ears. If you're going to simply dispute the metaphor keep it to yourself.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aereo "leeches" off the broadcasters in *exactly* the same way that anyone else in the broadcast area with an antenna "leeches" off the broadcasters.

      If anything, Aereo is providing a service to the broadcasters by increasing the potential size of their respective audiences.

    11. Re:How many? by Nyall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does Aereo remove the advertisements those broadcasters placed into the stream? If not then how are they taking away a source of revenue?

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    12. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      People never wanted buggy whips.

      Clearly, you're not into S&M...

    13. Re:How many? by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the basic concept behind copyright law is in the Constitution - creators shall have exclusive right to their works... for a limited time, in exchange for releasing it into the public domain at the end of that period, for the enrichment of American culture

      FTFY.

      Funny how so many people forget the more important second half.

    14. Re:How many? by sjames · · Score: 2

      All Aero is actually doing is helping broadcasters fully cover their area. The broadcasters are just upset because they somehow maneuvered the cable companies into paying them for the privilege of helping them whitewash the fence.

    15. Re:How many? by Xenx · · Score: 3, Informative

      ABC(and others) offer content effectively for free via local broadcast. Their profit comes from commercials. All Aereo is doing is providing the antenna and DVR capabilities over the internet, thus allowing you to view from alternative locations and devices. The users are paying a small premium to have the hardware, storage and upload bandwidth managed offsite. There is nothing about this setup that an individual couldn't do with their own equipment. Aereo isn't taking any more money from the content providers than any other DVR/VCR would.

    16. Re:How many? by lgw · · Score: 2

      The company that offered the "we'll remove the profanity from popular movies from your copy of the movie for you" service got shut down. It's not like anything rational is happening.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. cant watch legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, torrents win again?

  4. Not sure how I feel about this one by Jmstuckman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From a legal basis Aereo's business model seems sound to me -- all they're doing is helping me receive a broadcast TV transmission which I'm entitled to receive over the airwaves anyway.

    On the other hand, a ruling in Aereo's favor would be a boon for the cable companies and could kill the concept of free, broadcast TV altogether. As things stand, the cable companies pay the networks to retransmit feeds of their programming. If Aereo wins, the cable companies would be able to save money by erecting Aereo-style antenna arrays for their cable feeds, bypassing payments to the networks.

    As things stand, cable customers are getting screwed because they're paying the broadcasters for the same programming twice -- once in the form of advertisements, and again by paying for the network broadcast feeds. On the other hand, by using my own antenna, I'm receiving dozens of free channels which are being subsidized by the cable customers. If Aereo prevails, broadcasters may terminate over-the-air broadcasts altogether to avoid losing their lucrative royalties from the cable companies, leaving me out in the cold.

    1. Re:Not sure how I feel about this one by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the cable companies would be able to save money by erecting Aereo-style antenna arrays for their cable feeds

      This is how 'cablevision' used to work. They'd put up a big antenna that could pull down signals you couldn't and then distribute the signal around a town, for a fee.

    2. Re:Not sure how I feel about this one by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 2

      If the broadcasters that transmit over the public airways want to cease using these airways then fine let them do that. The government can then take the airways back and auction them off for other uses. The whole concept of over the air broadcast television is rather outdated anyway.

    3. Re:Not sure how I feel about this one by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      If Aereo wins, the cable companies would be able to save money by erecting Aereo-style antenna arrays for their cable feeds, bypassing payments to the networks.

      I doubt it, Aereo's legal position relies on one antenna per user. That also means one data stream per user.

      So switching to doing things aereo style would require a cable company to massively re-engineer things.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Not sure how I feel about this one by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Aereo wins, the cable companies would be able to save money by erecting Aereo-style antenna arrays for their cable feeds, bypassing payments to the networks.

      It's not just the antennae, Aereo keeps and transmits an individual copy of the show which owned specifically by the user requesting it. Unless Cable is going to set up a channel on the line for each and every subscriber, which can only be accessed by them and many of which will be duplications of each other, they don't have the same legal justification. Now, they could do it the same way Aereo does it, saving the shows for each customer and delivering it over an IP video stream, but they can't just broadcast it to all their subscribers as a single "channel".

      The fact that it's cheaper to create thousands of antennae and record thousands of hours of duplicated content and then deliver it using internet bandwidth rather than paying a fee to the providers and doing a simple broadcast says a lot about whats wrong with the content industry.

  5. Over the air by Cmdr-Absurd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (IANAL). I was quite surprised this even reached the high court. The broadcasters have a revenue model of paying by putting ads in front of eyeballs. This service arguably helps them meet that goal. Yes, I'm sure they'd like to double-dip and get paid for the "rebroadcast," but if you are giving your product away for free over the public airwaves, you should not be allowed to complain about where folks choose to locate their antennas. Be happy for the extra eyeballs.

    1. Re:Over the air by necro81 · · Score: 2

      Indeed - Aereo is delivering my eyeballs to broadcasters I couldn't access before. I live in an area where there are 4 channels available over the air, and only one of the major networks (without resorting to directional, amplified antennas). About 70 miles away is a major metro area with tens of channels available. I can sign up for Aereo and access those channels that just don't reach out here.

      (I haven't, because I don't watch enough broadcast TV to justify even having Aereo. I don't have cable, either. So maybe I'm not the target demographic. It works in the hypothetical, though, which means it's totally good in a court of law!)

  6. Oh god yes!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, please!! Please kill the cloud!!

  7. Real problem was law letting the networks charge by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some idiot decided that it was reasonable for people that broadcast their programing over the air for free to then charge other people to retransmit it.

    It was a bad law in the first place, poorly written, which let the networks charge money to cable people when their entire original business was charging advertisers and giving their stuff away for free.

    Suddenly you let them charge others for their stuff that they agreed to give away for free originally and this caused the problems.

    Aero are not doing anything wrong. The people doing wrong things are the over the air free TV networks that are charging.

    The real truth is that the over the air for free model is OUTDATED - just like the buggy whips. I know of nobody actually using the radio waves. They only work in small areas and are only profitable if there is a large population. But in those areas you get so much more from cable TV.

    In areas with less population, the over the air broadcasters are not profitable.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  8. Don't understand Aereo's lawyer by Chirs · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the justices asked flat-out if there were technical advantages to having multiple antennas or if it was just a way to get around copyright, and the lawyer dodged the question.

    *Of course* the primary reason for having multiple antennas is copyright. It is exactly *because* they have multiple antennas that what they're doing is legal under current copyright law. By ducking and evading the question, the lawyer just looks shady.

    From a technical point of view they'd be far better off with a pair of redundant antennas, storing all the shows from all the channels (with deduplication), and then serving them to their subscribers on demand. But that's clearly not allowed under current law.

    1. Re:Don't understand Aereo's lawyer by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      You seem to be intimating that the ridiculous efforts Aereo had to go to, to get the single to another part of the country was Aereos fault. It's not. The single is broadcast by the network of their own will... the user could, technically, set up their own highly sensitive antenna equipment and amplifiers and get a TV signal from any station in the country... but that would be very expensive. The idea that there's a distinction between such a setup, relaying the data across IP or the crazy Antenna setup that Aereo came up with is ridiculous. The content industry is trying to get the law to make technology operate the way they wish it would, rather than how it actually does. This is a problem entirely invented by the content industry and the politicians they paid to get irrational laws passed to protect their non-existent product.

  9. Question about rebroadcasting by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?

  10. Missed Opportunity for Partnership, Dumb Models by Scot+Seese · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I see it, both parties are missing incredible opportunities.

    Let's Judo-flip this conversation.

    Broadcasters earn revenue from advertising. Aero is faithfully streaming content including all advertising to their customers. Clearly what is needed is a partnership for Aero to report viewer demographics back to broadcasters, who can pad onto their numbers when selling ads.

    Aero is charging too little for their service. Their model is stupid. They are trying to counter cable carriers charging $50, 60, 100+/mo with a service that's $8 and $12. Aero should charge $29 and kick $15 per customer per month to the cable carrier(s) in the market in which each customer resides. Aero is then in the infrastructure business. The cable companies get build out absolutely free, without having to sink billions of dollars into last mile wiring of neighborhoods, and Aero gets massive revenue stream in a highly symbiotic relationship. For Aero customers, the cable company is is the content licensing and resale business - and the best part - they don't have to service & support those customers, Aero does.

    Addtionally, if Aero has such a wonderful idea, there is nothing stopping Comcast from doing exactly the same thing. What is more expensive - the cost of bandwidth, or the cost of pulling copper, telephony or fiber to every house * N tens of millions of customers? Bandwidth is down for a few cents per gigabyte streamed now. How much does a nationwide fiber buildout cost?

    This case is really about constipated thinking and reactionary fear in the face of changing climate.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  11. Re:Real problem was law letting the networks charg by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 4, Informative

    First, the primary networks are required, by law, to provide OTA service. They were also required to transmit in digital vs the older, analog signal. Supposedly, the digital signals can transmit further and can support error correction (to eliminate ghost images).

    As another poster noted, IF you are in range of to receive the OTA broadcast, the HD picture is of higher quality that what you would get via cable. Why? Cable network providers must compress the signal resulting in signal degradation. OTA can send the full, uncompressed digital signal. One of these days, I will have to see if I can receive the signal where I live...probably not.

  12. Re:The "antenna array" is a McGuffin by luciano.moretti · · Score: 2

    I have an non-rented version of Aereo right now in my house.

    I own a TV Antenna in my attic, and a HDHomeRun box that sits in my wiring closet. The TV antenna goes to the HDHomeRun, which then converts the microwatt signal coming out of the antenna a few time, first separating out the channel i want to watch, then digitizing that signal, then streams it over TCP/IP to my HTPC, which then saves it to a HDD for later playback.

    If I move it across town and access it via a VPN does it suddenly make it illegal?

    The antenna array is exactly what makes it a 1-1, non-public performance of the data. The data I store on my DVR is a unique copy of the data vs the data stored on my neighbor's DVR with the exact same setup. Theoretically, because it's a digital signal once it's decoded the data may look exactly the same, but the data path was unique. If they used one antenna and only encoded each channel once, then they'd be in violation. That's what the Cable channels do now: 1-many performance, which is why they pay retransmission fees.

  13. Re:Prediction by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What a strange thing! I guess I am allowed to time-shift broadcast TV, and I am allowed to space-shift broadcast TV. I can rent an antenna, and I can rent a VCR (PVR).

    I cannot retransmit (time or space shifted or not) a broadcast to other parties (which is the difference here CATV rebroadcast to all CATV clients).

    Now I have to read the arguments! About the only thing left is having an agent do the time or space shifting for me! And, of course, I can't really figure out is why the AGENT is in court for this. If my neighbour asks me to rent her some roofspace and rent her an antenna AND a VCR and then asks me to record a TV show... for which I may charge a bit for the service. And the TV network comes after someone, why would that be me? I would be inclined to laugh.

    I think my lawyer would have a good laugh too. We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

    I guess I am not allowed to sell my labour freely in the USA. Now I REALLY have to follow this. I am personally guilty of renting antennas, and PVR (equivalent) to provide people with recordings. I never pressed a "record" button -- my customer went on-line to a web page and selected the recording themselves (using MythTV 10 years ago). I would deliver the recorded program(s) via disk drives or flash drives.

    After all, if I have multiple tuners and I am not using them all, why CAN'T I RENT THEM OUT.

    The only problem would have been an event like the "Superbowl" where I would have needed to have ALL my tuners capturing the same content. Instead of being efficient, you know, and sharing... Because WHERE the bits come from is important in Copyright law. See http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry...

    As long as Aereo uses an antenna and receiver PER USER, the bits should be the right colour. And subject to the users rights. Including time and space shifting. Aereo wouldn't be rebroadcasting. IF Aereo IS IN THE WRONG then the question is why. As far as I can tell, they are not even being an agent for the user. They are simply renting an antenna and receiver. The actual Copyright material is NOT being shared, from Aereo's perspective. And yes, cloud storage would be at risk. For example, I quite enjoy using Kobo. I may purchase a book from Kobo WHICH IS Copyrighted. Of course. I then download to my reading device. The bits have the right colour at Kobo's end, and they have the right colour at my end. I should be able to do with those bits ANYTHING that Copyright law permits me to. And I do. There is no DRM in OTA broadcast, and typically there is DRM in Kobo electronic books. If *I* turn around and share the book, Kobo wouldn't be legally liable. The author would come after me for that. So why is Aereo being attacked here?

    If the bits are simply coloured "copyrighted" and it IS authorized to the user, what else should Aereo do? Simply, Kobo is selling access to authorized bits as well, and would be AT THE SAME RISK. And, it goes deeper. Since Copyright is automatically assigned on creation, you would have NO IDEA what is ok to look at, here or touch.

    Colour me completely confused.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  14. Re:The "antenna array" is a McGuffin by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

    Actually thier argument is it would be illegal to just take the output and transmit it because Congress outlawed what CableVision did in 1992. Digitizing the signal for a single channel is how they are different from CableVision.

  15. Pirate bay by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just want to point out to any Aereo users that should they get shut down, you can still go back to the Pirate bay and start real piracy again. It's a lot easier than this nonsense, all the commercials are edited out for you already AND if you thought you were sticking it to the broadcasting industry before, you'd really be sticking it to them now.

    1. Re:Pirate bay by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      I just want to point out to any Aereo users that should they get shut down, you can still go back to the Pirate bay and start real piracy again. It's a lot easier than this nonsense, all the commercials are edited out for you already AND if you thought you were sticking it to the broadcasting industry before, you'd really be sticking it to them now.

      No Aereo user ever got a nastygram from the MPAA.

  16. Re:Glad I pulled the plug by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    I did the same thing. I cut the cord when I bought my first home, since at the time I couldn't afford the $200/month Comcast wanted for Cable, Internet, and Phone (which they all but demanded you bundle by charging twice as much for any one of them without the other two).

    I got DSL from a CLEC (because you could still do that at the time) for $25/month, and got Fios internet-only when that came around about 5 years later.

    I've moved since then, and I sold my TVs in the process. I don't have a TV in my house, now, and it has been absolutely liberating for the last 3 years.

  17. Re:Real problem was law letting the networks charg by SemiChemE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Digital signals do not transmit further than Analog signals! In fact, the range of a watchable signal is severely reduced. The clarity of the digital signal is significantly better and remains nearly perfect until the edge of the transmission range, but beyond that it completely degrades, whereas the analog signal is of poor quality, but still viable for many more miles.

  18. Re:Real problem was law letting the networks charg by bored · · Score: 2

    OTA can send the full, uncompressed digital signal

    I think your a little confused. The OTA (ATSC) standard is still sending compressed video (mostly MPEG2) , just that the bit rate tends to be higher than what most (some?) cable companies provide for their digital content.

    See also netflix, which tends to have even lower "HD" quality than the cable companies. With the advent of lossy compression the quality of a show just as much to do with bitrate and compression algorithm than resolution/color depth/framerate/etc.