Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aereo Files For Bankruptcy

Posted by Soulskill on from the prosecution-is-easier-than-innovation dept.

An anonymous reader writes: After losing its Supreme Court case in June and briefly attempting to transform itself into a cable company, Aereo is now filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Their service worked by letting people stream over-the-air television to their internet-connected devices. The content industry pushed back, and though Aereo argued its way through several lower courts, they say, "The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively changed the laws that had governed Aereo's technology, creating regulatory and legal uncertainty. And while our team has focused its energies on exploring every path forward available to us, without that clarity, the challenges have proven too difficult to overcome."

16 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. innovation thwarted by neghvar1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once again, the industry giants managed to thwart innovation to maintain the status quo.

    1. Re:innovation thwarted by tepples · · Score: 2

      So what should people do if they live in an area whose broadband monopoly charges less for Internet and basic TV than for Internet alone?

    2. Re:innovation thwarted by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, after the case was remanded the copyright office said that while they were a CATV system they could not just pay the compulsory licensing fees for some reason, it was a bizarre Catch 22 situation where they were a cable system for purposes of public retransmission under copyright law, but not for licensing purposes. Frankly it struck me as yet more proof of how corrupt and dysfunctional the system is.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:innovation thwarted by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Innovation? They were a CATV system who didn't want to pay their statutory licensing fees.

      No, not really. Not at all actually.

      First they are nothing like a CATV system. That's just the lame ass "walks like a duck" nonsense from the Supremes. However, once declared a CATV system by a bunch of senile old luddites, they actually did try to pay their statutory licensing feeds.

      Lesser judges wouldn't let them.

      They were either a CATV system or not a CATV depending on the way the wind was blowing and the judge du jour and the will of the incumbent monopolies.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:innovation thwarted by tepples · · Score: 2

      Community Antenna TeleVision uses a community antenna. Aereo used an individual antenna leased to each subscriber. That was supposed to have been the difference.

    5. Re:innovation thwarted by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      No, not really. Not at all actually.

      They were taking OTA signals and retransmitting them across the internet for profit without paying the broadcaster a dime. You don't see a problem with this?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:innovation thwarted by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Why should the broadcasters get to say how I process the *over the air* signals they've so graciously provided?

      They don't; so long as you're processing them in a manner that's consistent with your own personal use you can do anything you want with them under the Fair Use doctrine. Aereo wasn't doing this; they were piggybacking off those signals and selling them for a profit. I time shift and stream my OTA channels all the time, through a combination of one of these and one of these. Nobody cares. I'm pretty sure they would care if I started distributing my recordings to the masses for a monthly fee....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:innovation thwarted by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      If Aereo simply sent the received signal, unchanged, unaltered, and as-is to your device, chances are they wouldn't have ended up in court. What they actually did was reencode the signal and rebroadcast it to you. Entirely two different things.

        And its also why your contrived example falls down. Because they didn't run a wire which carried the same signal, they altered the signal.

    8. Re:innovation thwarted by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      The cable companies did exactly this for years (with a single antenna) and paid nobody. So what was your point again?

      Yes, but then the law was changed, and cable companies can no longer do this. Aereo therefore can't either. Or should we allow some companies to play by different rules because they weren't around in the "good ole days"?

      So what was your point again?

      (Note that I'm NOT in favor of our current system. But whatever crappy rules exist should apply equally to everyone.)

    9. Re:innovation thwarted by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

      Not until RMS quits.

  2. One solution by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Increasingly there is only one viable solution. Vote with your wallet. Period. Do not buy anything these companies offer. No cable, no movies, no music. Nothing.

    Do not feed their useless parisitism on our culture and public domain.

    If you must be entertained, find alternative sources, from indie stuff all the way to pirating.

    We must do this until their backs are broken.

    They will fight.
    There will be casualties.
    We must not stop or compromise.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  3. Changed the laws? No by omnichad · · Score: 2

    The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively changed the laws

    The existing laws defined them as a cable company. They were not very smart to think otherwise. The laws may need to go away, but that was always the correct interpretation.

  4. Re:The real ripoff here by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Did Aereo try to negotiate contracts that allowed them to redistribute content? Otherwise they were not trying to operate as a cable company, they were trying to make money off someone else's product without paying for it.

  5. Re:Changed the laws? No by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative

    The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively changed the laws

    The existing laws defined them as a cable company. They were not very smart to think otherwise. The laws may need to go away, but that was always the correct interpretation.

    That's incorrect... If they were defined as a cable company, they could pay compulsory royalties and carry the content legally. However, the District Court recently held that no, they are not a cable company, and have no ability to pay those royalties for a license.

    So, in essence, you have the Supreme Court saying that they're not NOT a cable company, and the District Court saying that they're NOT a cable company. It leaves them in a position where they are neither a cable company nor NOT a cable company, and therefore can never carry broadcast content, regardless of whether they want to pay for it or not.

  6. One solution by KingMotley · · Score: 2

    Well, from what I've seen, the content producers are about to feel a world of hurt. Having a son of my own, and watching what he and his friends do, one of the many things I've noticed about the up and coming next generation is that they don't watch TV AT ALL. Not a single minute. I guess the content producers will finally get what they deserve, but it will just take another 5-10 years before they feel the pain they have caused themselves.

  7. Re:Who? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

    Most people don't care about what happens in some distant offshore country like USA.

    Our terrible legislation has a tendency to later show up in other parts of the world.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.