Slashdot Mirror
Aereo Embraces Ruling, Tries To Re-Classify Itself As Cable Company
An anonymous reader writes Rather than completely shuttering its TV-over-the-internet business, Aereo has decided to embrace the Supreme Court's recent decision against it. In a letter to the lower court overseeing the litigation between the company and network broadcasters, Aereo asks to be considered a cable company and to be allowed to pay royalties as such. Cable companies pay royalties to obtain a copyright statutory license under the Copyright Act to retransmit over-the-air programming, and the royalties are set by the government, not the broadcasters. The broadcasters are not happy with this move, of course, claiming that Aereo should not be allowed to flip-flop on how it defines itself.
Aereo to broadcasters: "quack".
They weren't happy with the disruptive competition. Now they're still not happy with the disruptive competition. Quelle surprise.
Given how the cable companies divied up the market into little monopolies for each, it might actually be best for their customers to let aereo do this, and not allow the multi-monopolies to devour an unwanted competitor.
What the hell they are complaining about now? If court ruled that how Aereo previously defined itself was illegal, then obviously it has to change it. First they win now they complain about it?
They aren't flip flopping at all. They're accepting the ruling against them and adjusting how they do business to remain in accordance with the court ruling.
Tough shit broadcasters. Deal with it.
So a simplified summary of the issue is:
Aereo: We're not a cable company, we don't have to pay royalties.
Networks: Yes you are, you have to pay us
Aereo: No we aren't. Sue us.
Networks: Ok
Lower Courts:You're like a cable company.
Aereo: Are you sure?
SCOTUS: Yes.
Aereo: Crap. We'll be a cable company and pay the royalties then.
Networks: You're not a cable company
Aereo: C'mon man!
Companies: Hey Courts, Aero is a cable company!
Aero: We really aren't.
Courts: I agree with the Companies. Aero is a cable company.
Aero: Sigh, I guess we'll have to become a cable company then.
Companies: I Object! Aero isn't a cable company!
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
The cable companies simply want to put Aereo out of business using whatever means necessary. The SCOTUS ruling might actually be a blessing in disguise. If they can legally be classified as a cable company, and therefore obtain a compulsory license to the content, they will be able to rearchitect their entire system to make it more efficiently able to serve a large number of customers. Even after paying for the compulsory license I believe they will still be able to keep the costs way down and provide a great and inexpensive service to their users.
You can't have it both ways broadcasters, if you don't want Aereo "rebroadcasting" over the air signals fine, they should be able to license themselves under the next best option. The fact that you don't like the competition is not reasonable grounds for denying them access to the market. Personally I'd love an internet "cable company".
The broadcasters are not happy with this move, of course, claiming that Aereo should not be allowed to flip-flop on how it defines itself.
Verizon has been on a tear to get itself reclassified as a common carrier for a while.
Loopholes: not just for big companies anymore.
Quote: "The broadcasters are not happy with this move, of course, claiming that Aereo should not be allowed to flip-flop on how it defines itself."
Actually, one of the essential features of our legal system is just that ability to flip-flop. I recall one murder case where the defense announced that it'd be using three arguments on behalf of the accused:
1. That the defendant was no where near the crime scene and thus could not have committed the murder. If that failed, then:
2. That the defendant killed the victim is a perfectly reasonable act of self-defense. If that failed, then:
3. That the defendant was insane at the time of the crime and cannot be held responsible for what he did.
Given that, it's more than legitimate for Aereo to argue in one series of court disputes that it's not a cable company and, losing on that, initiate a new series of that agrees with the court and are based on it being a cable company.
What's really at issue here is the messy logic it would take for the court to argue that Aereo should be legally disadvantaged for being the equivalent of a cable company and yet denied the advantages of being a cable company. Either it is or it isn't. All else is madness.
Keep in mind that, if Aereo wins this second time around, virtually every cable system in the company that offers broadband with quickly have Aereo as a competitor in their backyard. Denied the ability to be a remote TV receiver, Aereo is restructuring itself as a nationwide cable company.
alast we forget, the mighy seamean monster
The Television networks really like bullet holes in their feet don't they? I'm always amazed by their insane drive to live in the 1960s while the rest of us have moved on. If Aereo has wanted to really play unfair, they'd have moved to a country without copyright law, hid their Antenna arrays and VPN's the signal overseas to redistribute it. There'd be nothing the networks could do. Instead they offered them cash and are getting frowned on... pfft.
Cable companies afraid of redefining how things are done? What a surprise.
......the whole point is to avoid competition, restricting consumers' choices and forcing them to pay premium prices. A low-price offering doesn't really fit into that model, now, does it?
Technicality, they are really a mobile company not a cable company cable company's push there content through cables not the air. Thats how lawsites get won on technicalities ;) I dont care either way, im never going back to using an antenna ever. Most of you guys and girls don't know what life was like not having cable. I sure as hell do remember.....
Jack of all trades,master of none
If Aereo is now considered a cable company then presumably it will be paying the same fees to, say, WABC7 in New York as any other cable company operating in New York. So why would WABC7 (or any other station) be unhappy with that?
They get more eyeballs watching their ads and they get the same money from Aereo as they do from cable companies.
my antenna rocks. HD free over the air to a Tivo with a lifetime subscription. I remember life without cable, too.
--> Is the above true, does someone know this for certain?
--> If so, what would the marginal cost be per user?
One other thing to consider is that Aereo has pretty good software developed right now and if they don't need farms of antenna's with local presence anymore, they could theoretically be located anywhere if they are, effectively, a retransmission service and would no longer need to build out local infrastructure (i.e., which I suspect was one of their larger costs) and could just use cloud type services (e.g., amazon/rackspace) to host their DVR/transcoding/etc. services
The broadcasters know they'll lose this argument in court. They're just making it clear that they're going to make it as expensive as possible for Aereo to compel them licenses. If I were Aereo I would just continue providing customers with content and start mailing the broadcasters checks by certified mail for the statutory amount, and let the broadcasters assume the cost to sue me again.
Good for them for not giving up. Now they don't really have to stick with just local channels either. It will be interesting to see what the cable companies do to compete if Aereo starts doing well.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
As I understand it, if they get classified as a cable company Aero will be legally allowed to put their own ads into the stream, overwriting the ads the original broadcaster put in there or maybe removing them entirely if they still want to be an entirely subscription driven service. They could really seriously piss off some OTA broadcasters with this approach.
I read the internet for the articles.
I thought they said they had no Plan B. Clearly they do.
I think this is a good move on Aerio's part. I think broadcasters (over the air broadcasters) where the content is coming from would be much more willing to accept this solution over the previous. Aerio has absolutely NO business model without the OTA broadcasters. Cable companies can suck it. As far as I'm concerned, they have no legitimate stake in this. Aerio is not using cable companies signals and retransmitting over the internet. It is only local OTA broadcasters that suffered a loss. Now that Aerio has agreed to pay royalties for the content they are delivering they should be much more agreeable. Aerio still won't be able to broadcast ESPN or Disney channel... because those are only available on cable. Not free OTA. So if the cable companies are upset.... boo hoo, cry me a river.
If Aereo has wanted to really play unfair, they'd have moved to a country without copyright law
Which country is industrialized enough to have home broadband Internet access yet is not a member of the WTO?
The broadcasters are not happy with this move, of course, claiming that Aereo should not be allowed to flip-flop on how it defines itself.
Which, of course, Aereo didn't. The broadcasters and the supreme court defined Aereo, and Aereo's is just working within the space in which they were confined by the law.
The FCC disagrees: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/retransmission-consent
Also, everything I could find about statutory royalties only applied to audio recordings.
The reason I subscribed to Aereo was that it was cheap enough that those few times I wanted to watch local TV on my tablet were reasonable. If they raise their rates, I will just go out and buy an HD antenna of my own and not pay them anymore.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"...claiming that Aereo should not be allowed to flip-flop on how it defines itself."
They're not CHOOSING to flip-flop. They were ORDERED to. By the Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm glad it works for you. You get what you want, i get what i want we both win. But i will never go back to an Antenna ever.
Jack of all trades,master of none
And you are probably talking about rabbit ears or a fix antenna tower.
I installed HDTV antenna with a rotator on my roof for less than $300 ten months ago, at the $40 per month that the local Rogers was charging me I am now paid off and saving money compared to cable. Plus because of the ability to aim my antenna I am getting stations that cable would want me to pay extra.
Note I live just East of Toronto which lets me get lots of Canadian channels off the CN Tower, plus I can aim and get lots US channels as well.
SCOTUS ruled them a cable company. Aereo is simply using that RULING to apply for a statutory license to retransmit content like hundreds of other cable companies under the Copyright Act.
Yes it's a hail Mary, but it seems to be based squarely in the law and a SCOTUS RULING.
My understanding is that the license would cost at most 1.064% of their gross revenues, and potentially less as there are preferential rates for cable companies with smaller revenue amounts (and I'm unclear if it's done on a per-market basis)
...flip-flop on how it defines itself." - Why? Because the existing cable companies have that cheat move patented for themselves or what?