SCOTUS rules against Aereo (TV copyright law)

[Velar Fricative]

My inclination is to be against whatever the cable companies and TV networks want but I think I need a "like I'm 5" explanation. 

www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/business/media/supreme-court-rules-against-aereo-in-broadcasters-challenge.html

WASHINGTON — In a decision with implications for the television industry, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Aereo, a start-up streaming service, had violated copyright laws by capturing broadcast signals on miniature antennas and delivering them to subscribers for a fee.



The 6-3 decision was a victory for the major television networks, which had argued that Aereo’s business model amounted to a theft of their programming.



For now, the judges’ ruling leaves the current broadcast model intact while imperiling Aereo’s viability as a business after just over two years in existence.


Paul Clement, third from right in the front row, a lawyer for the TV broadcasters, called Aereo’s arguments legal sleight of hand.Justices Skeptical of Aereo’s BusinessAPRIL 22, 2014

The Media Equation: At Stake in the Aereo Case Is How We Watch TVAPRIL 22, 2014

Aereo uses thousands of tiny antennas to receive broadcast television signals.Bits | State of the Art: The Cloud Industry Needs Aereo to Win. But Consumers Need Something Better.APRIL 24, 2014

Chet Kanojia, founder and chief of Aereo, introducing the product in 2012. If Aereo loses its case, “there is no plan B,” he said.The Media Equation: Aereo Case Will Shape TV’s FutureAPRIL 20, 2014

In arguments before the court in April, the broadcasters contended that Aereo and similar services threatened to cut into a vital revenue stream — the billions of dollars they receive from cable and satellite companies in retransmission fees, the money paid to networks and local stations for the right to retransmit their programming. The networks said this revenue was so essential that they would have considered removing their signals from the airwaves had the court ruled for Aereo.



Backed by the Barry Diller-controlled IAC, Aereo allowed subscribers who paid $8 to $12 a month for its service to stream free-to-air broadcast television to their mobile devices, computers and web-connected televisions. The start-up contends that it is merely helping its subscribers do what they could lawfully do since the era of rabbit-ear antennas: watch free broadcast television delivered over public airwaves.



Broadcasters lambasted the start-up, claiming that the technology violated copyrights and was no more than a high-tech approach for stealing their content. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox were among the broadcasters suing to shut down the company.



The Supreme Court case comes at a crucial time in the media industry, when TV companies are navigating vast technological changes and rapid shifts in viewer habits. As a result, the economics of television financing and distribution are changing.



Aereo’s technology system relies on thousands of dime-size antennas — one for every subscriber — stored in local warehouses. Those antennas capture over-the-air television signals and are connected to a remote digital video recorder and Internet connections. Subscribers pay to rent an antenna, which they control remotely from their computers, smartphones or other devices.



“We are pleased with today’s decision, which is great news for content creators and their audiences,” Dana McClintock, a CBS spokesman, said in a statement.

[niemand88f]

I feel different ways about this case at different times. Sometimes I think - well I can just buy an antenna and watch the free TV, and here you're just renting the antenna, and feel like I support Aereo.

But then I think - you can't just upload episodes of TV shows online for everyone to watch, and this is also what Aereo is doing. And then I feel like I support the broadcast companies.

I'm a happy subscriber to Hulu Plus. My $8 a month goes to the networks that created the shows, the $8 a month for Aereo just goes to Aereo. I guess I'm more on the side of the networks.

[IIOY]

This decision was expected, but I think the real question is whether this ruling is going to wind up sinking the cloud, which stores all sorts of copyrighted material.

[niemand88f]

Jun 25, 2014 14:36:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

This decision was expected, but I think the real question is whether this ruling is going to wind up sinking the cloud, which stores all sorts of copyrighted material.

Can you clarify this question/argument?

There's my personal collection of videos/music/etc stored in the cloud, but I can't charge other people to access it or freely share it without it getting removed, blocked, or even sued (...if I got caught). Then there's the content that Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, etc. store in the cloud, but they're paying the providers for that content.... what else is there that could be impacted by this ruling?

[PinkSquirrel]

Jun 25, 2014 14:36:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

This decision was expected, but I think the real question is whether this ruling is going to wind up sinking the cloud, which stores all sorts of copyrighted material.

Can you explain?   From what I've heard it sounded like they were trying to keep the ruling pretty narrow as to not screw up other things.

[IIOY]

Jun 25, 2014 15:29:50 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

Jun 25, 2014 14:36:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

This decision was expected, but I think the real question is whether this ruling is going to wind up sinking the cloud, which stores all sorts of copyrighted material.

Can you explain?   From what I've heard it sounded like they were trying to keep the ruling pretty narrow as to not screw up other things.

I'm on my phone and currently at 17% battery but hopefully this helps to explain.

www.vox.com/2014/6/25/5841820/the-supreme-courts-aereo-decision-could-endanger-cloud-storage

[ChillyMcFreeze]

This seems like a pretty clear violation to me. It would be like a third party setting up boxes to steal your neighbor's cable and selling you the subscription to use it. The satellite companies and broadcasters have invested in the infrastructure to provide those services. Rerouting their content is basically theft.

I don't think the cloud will be affected. It should be protected like ISPs, so it isn't responsible for user-generated content. It may, like YouTube, be subject to a take-down requirement if pirated content is found or reported, but it doesn't have to actively police user-generated content.

[PinkSquirrel]

Jun 25, 2014 15:46:17 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Jun 25, 2014 15:29:50 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

Can you explain?   From what I've heard it sounded like they were trying to keep the ruling pretty narrow as to not screw up other things.

I'm on my phone and currently at 17% battery but hopefully this helps to explain.

www.vox.com/2014/6/25/5841820/the-supreme-courts-aereo-decision-could-endanger-cloud-storage

Awesome, thanks.   I'll read it when I get home

[zelda25]

Jun 25, 2014 16:10:15 GMT -5 ChillyMcFreeze said:

This seems like a pretty clear violation to me. It would be like a third party setting up boxes to steal your neighbor's cable and selling you the subscription to use it. The satellite companies and broadcasters have invested in the infrastructure to provide those services. Rerouting their content is basically theft.

I don't think the cloud will be affected. It should be protected like ISPs, so it isn't responsible for user-generated content. It may, like YouTube, be subject to a take-down requirement if pirated content is found or reported, but it doesn't have to actively police user-generated content.

Here's where I'm confused. I thought only the major broadcasters were fighting this, which means it's not like stealing your neighbor's cable, because neither you nor your neighbor have to subscribe to anything to get those networks for free. Digital antenna and you're good to go. 

[sugarglider]

Jun 25, 2014 16:34:39 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

Jun 25, 2014 16:10:15 GMT -5 ChillyMcFreeze said:

This seems like a pretty clear violation to me. It would be like a third party setting up boxes to steal your neighbor's cable and selling you the subscription to use it. The satellite companies and broadcasters have invested in the infrastructure to provide those services. Rerouting their content is basically theft.

I don't think the cloud will be affected. It should be protected like ISPs, so it isn't responsible for user-generated content. It may, like YouTube, be subject to a take-down requirement if pirated content is found or reported, but it doesn't have to actively police user-generated content.

Here's where I'm confused. I thought only the major broadcasters were fighting this, which means it's not like stealing your neighbor's cable, because neither you nor your neighbor have to subscribe to anything to get those networks for free. Digital antenna and you're good to go. 

Is it only streaming or is it stored? If it's the latter, then it'd be more like the shows on your VCR and then selling the tapes. You know, if this was 1993.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I think the dissent is right. *gulps*

[ChillyMcFreeze]

Hmm. Well then maybe it's not an intellectual property issue at all, but some business law issue (that's way out of my league). Then again, the spectrum is publicly owned, so Aereo may be well within its rights to capture broadcast signals. Broadcasters don't have a *right* per se to license with satellite providers, it's just a means for delivery of those signals that could be had through antennae.

[ChillyMcFreeze]

Jun 25, 2014 16:40:56 GMT -5 sugarglider said:

Jun 25, 2014 16:34:39 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

Here's where I'm confused. I thought only the major broadcasters were fighting this, which means it's not like stealing your neighbor's cable, because neither you nor your neighbor have to subscribe to anything to get those networks for free. Digital antenna and you're good to go. 

Is it only streaming or is it stored? If it's the latter, then it'd be more like the shows on your VCR and then selling the tapes. You know, if this was 1993.

But in that case, it's the selling, not the storage, that's a violation. SCOTUS decided in the Betamax case in the 90s that storage of content is legal because it doesn't threaten the copyright owner's market. But you can't turn around and sell DVDs you ripped from your TiVO.