CWNashvegas 170 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Figured there might be some here interested in this. Not much in the way of details yet, but SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of broadcasters. In a decision with wide-ranging implications for the television industry, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Aereo, a start-up streaming service, violated copyright laws by capturing broadcast signals on miniature antennas and delivering them to subscribers for a fee. Edited June 25, 2014 by Knowledge Base Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantaxp7 190 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Figured there might be a some here interested in this. Not much in the way of details yet, but SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of broadcasters. That's just ridiculous. I guess no one is allowed to oppose the big bad service providers... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christoph86 12 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not at all surprising though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubh 1 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I felt it was a no brainer. If Mr Copyright says you have to pay $1000000000 It is not a very good exploit to say one way or another "the air over my property is mine" Plus most broadcast say "you don't have permission to re-broadcast" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelon 160 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I felt it was a no brainer. If Mr Copyright says you have to pay $1000000000 It is not a very good exploit to say one way or another "the air over my property is mine" Plus most broadcast say "you don't have permission to re-broadcast" The problem is that it has a very soft borderline. Is a Slingbox considered re-broadcast? Is it any different if I do it in my home versus leasing some space anywhere else? Is the issue that they are charging for the service? What about live TV here, are we re-broadcasting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhitmore 781 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The problem is that it has a very soft borderline. Is a Slingbox considered re-broadcast? Is it any different if I do it in my home versus leasing some space anywhere else? Is the issue that they are charging for the service? What about live TV here, are we re-broadcasting? I think there is a obvious difference between someone in there home rebroadcasting to another TV vs. a company whose only product is rebroadcasting to its customers without paying a cent. It's a pretty big borderline imo. I'm very surprised they got as far as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantaxp7 190 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I think there is a obvious difference between someone in there home rebroadcasting to another TV vs. a company whose only product is rebroadcasting to its customers without paying a cent. It's a pretty big borderline imo. I'm very surprised they got as far as they did. I guess the way I viewed it is like this, the OTA stuff is free with an antenna, if you'd like it delivered another way as Aereo did then you pay for the convenience of that. A bit of a stretch I guess. At the end of the day I was hoping they could stir things up and change the way these crap cable companies think about delivering media...Again a bit of a stretch I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWNashvegas 170 Posted June 27, 2014 Author Share Posted June 27, 2014 I guess the way I viewed it is like this, the OTA stuff is free with an antenna, if you'd like it delivered another way as Aereo did then you pay for the convenience of that. A bit of a stretch I guess. At the end of the day I was hoping they could stir things up and change the way these crap cable companies think about delivering media...Again a bit of a stretch I suppose. That's the problem when new services make their splash in a legally untested area - the risk of being the one to lose when it's finally tested in court. I come from the viewpoint of wanting nothing that hurts OTA broadcasters. Not because I adore giant media companies, but because what affects them, affects the "little guys" too - smaller networks, and local affiliate stations. I'm a huge user and supporter of OTA. However, I didn't have an issue with Areo so long as they were enforcing their market restrictions, because I believe they potentially put more eyeballs on local broadcast tv in the markets they served. The big business truly motivated to stomp it out isn't the broadcast networks themselves, but the cable companies that traditionally carry those networks to households that can't receive them or can't have / don't want an antenna and so on. Cable companies, satellite and IPTV providers (who are often also ISPs) were the ones potentially hurt by this, AS THEY SHOULD BE. But the broadcast networks and cable / other carriers are so enmeshed now, broadcast has to operate in the interest of both, and this is the result. It's harder and harder these days (sometimes impossible) for people to get local-only packages. Must-carry regulations ensure that local stations who wish to participate can do so if they meet the station requirements, but we need to ensure that the interests served in the must-carry regs are balanced in favor of the consumer. There is a reason OTA is currently protected by law, and that reason has nothing to do with lining the pockets of cable companies. But how it is carried out does exactly that. In that light, Areo is operating closer to the "spirit of OTA" than the cable companies are. Hopefully, if nothing else, this will open up dialog about other possibilities. What I would really like to see is an initiative to improve access to OTA in markets that are currently under-served due to transmission limitations and other issues. I'm more interested in efforts to keep free OTA exactly that, than I am in subscription-based conveniences like Areo. I triple-headdesk every time I see a post saying "OTA is dead, streaming is where it's at". It's (apparently) so easy to forget that there are a hell of a lot of people to don't have access to such things. If we ever lose OTA, it will be a sad day, indeed. But it won't be companies like Areo that will kill it, it will be the bastards OTA is in bed with. /end rant, step off soapbox PS - If it isn't obvious, my ranting is US-based. Your country may vary. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christoph86 12 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 That's the problem when new services make their splash in a legally untested area - the risk of being the one to lose when it's finally tested in court. I come from the viewpoint of wanting nothing that hurts OTA broadcasters. Not because I adore giant media companies, but because what affects them, affects the "little guys" too - smaller networks, and local affiliate stations. I'm a huge user and supporter of OTA. However, I didn't have an issue with Areo so long as they were enforcing their market restrictions, because I believe they potentially put more eyeballs on local broadcast tv in the markets they served. The big business truly motivated to stomp it out isn't the broadcast networks themselves, but the cable companies that traditionally carry those networks to households that can't receive them or can't have / don't want an antenna and so on. Cable companies, satellite and IPTV providers (who are often also ISPs) were the ones potentially hurt by this, AS THEY SHOULD BE. But the broadcast networks and cable / other carriers are so enmeshed now, broadcast has to operate in the interest of both, and this is the result. It's harder and harder these days (sometimes impossible) for people to get local-only packages. Must-carry regulations ensure that local stations who wish to participate can do so if they meet the station requirements, but we need to ensure that the interests served in the must-carry regs are balanced in favor of the consumer. There is a reason OTA is currently protected by law, and that reason has nothing to do with lining the pockets of cable companies. But how it is carried out does exactly that. In that light, Areo is operating closer to the "spirit of OTA" than the cable companies are. Hopefully, if nothing else, this will open up dialog about other possibilities. What I would really like to see is an initiative to improve access to OTA in markets that are currently under-served due to transmission limitations and other issues. I'm more interested in efforts to keep free OTA exactly that, than I am in subscription-based conveniences like Areo. I triple-headdesk every time I see a post saying "OTA is dead, streaming is where it's at". It's (apparently) so easy to forget that there are a hell of a lot of people to don't have access to such things. If we ever lose OTA, it will be a sad day, indeed. But it won't be companies like Areo that will kill it, it will be the bastards OTA is in bed with. /end rant, step off soapbox PS - If it isn't obvious, my ranting is US-based. Your country may vary. Couldn't have said it any better. The big cable companies will always have the upper hand, especially as long as they control most ISP markets as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koleckai Silvestri 1150 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) Couldn't have said it any better. The big cable companies will always have the upper hand, especially as long as they control most ISP markets as well. This wasn't so much the cable companies in so much the broadcasters (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX). Though the line between broadcaster and cable provider is very blurry these days. A win for Aereo would have actually been beneficial to Cable and Satellite Providers. Fox is already using this case as precedent to get Dish Network's Hopper service shutdown. Edited June 28, 2014 by Wayne Luke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14929 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 What about live TV here, are we re-broadcasting? Technically, yes. But, since we are only doing it for your own personal use and we are not even a blip on anyone's radar, no one will notice or care. However, if we setup a service that allowed everyone to access a tuner we housed then we'd be doing the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now