i was hopeful

not optimistic


but hopeful

shut down nt

Please understand that the people who make television shows are workers—UNION workers. They are laborers, from the actors to the lighting technicians, cameramen, writers, and thousands and thousands of others who labor to produce content. Some of it's crap, some of it's great, but it all costs money to make. Because people need to get paid for their jobs: both salaries and benefits and pensions. Content doesn't materialize out of thin air.

So when someone wants to come along and just lift the stuff that other people have made and use it to make money for themselves, I am with the Supreme Court in stopping them. If someone thought up a "better mousetrap" that consisted of stealing all the refrigerators or washing machines that people make and giving them away in return for money from advertising and data-mining ... well, we'd think that was nuts. And people would stop making washing machines.

Nothing is free in life, my friend.

The OTA channels, which are supposed to be supported by advertising, are available in their respective local markets only. Local and nation advertising was preserved. Good on you to stick up for double-dipping big media though. ...my friend.

Good on you for not giving a crap about the cultural workers. But thanks for standing up for advertisers. Sheesh: what is it you don't understand about this?

... it was a subterfuge used simply to evade the law. If your intent was simply to provide a service that transmits shows over the internet, the technology would not be anything like the technology they were using. It was a sham.

Broadcasters make money from advertisers. The more people who view their channel, the more they can charge. Advertisers want as many people as possible to see their ads for as little money as possible. I would think it would be in both their interests to let someone re-broadcast their programs, at least with the agreement that it would be in total. i.e. no censorship, time shifting or ad blocking. I agree with the court, but why is it this way? It's almost like it should be the other way around. The re-broadcasters should be able to charge the broadcasters.

This is the regulatory paradigm which Aereo was trying to evade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must_carry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent

Not necessarily. The networks and producers of the content get revenue from national advertisers. The broadcasters get revenue from local businesses. The local businesses are not going to pay more because someone on the other side of the country is watching the show.

Not much of a market for local broadcasts sent to the other coast. What would be the point? I think the market for this is for people who can't get local TV and either can't get cable or don't want cable. We live in a no-man's land where there will never be cable. Not enough customers. Most of our neighbors have dishes and many are disconnected. We live on a hill with a direct view of the transmitters. We receive 9 local and 2 distant digital channels, but we usually watch only the 3 PBS channels. If we lived in a hollow, the Aereo system would be a good choice.

... is not my understanding of their business model. I could be wrong. But they were definitely trying to compete with cable TV that has to pay to carry these stations. I don't think its right to deprive the local broadcast company and the folks who produce the shows of the proceeds of their efforts.

locals receiving them and agree to let it be rebroadcast but not taken without permission. But I don't have a dog in this fight.

... the broadcasters WOULD want to collect a fee for the re-transmission. But they would also have to pay the CONTENT OWNERs - CBS, NBC, etc. Here is what I found on a "myth busting" wrap up of the case:

MYTH #1: This ruling puts Aereo out of business.

Reality: Aereo was relying on a fairly straightforward business model of charging customers a base fee of $8 for content that it paid nothing for. To continue offering its service, it will need to negotiate deals with the major networks, CBS, Fox, NBC and ABC. Of those, the greatest leverage — by far — belongs to CBS, which has a primetime lineup that people still actually watch and also a slate of NFL games. For that reason, CBS was able to squeeze a $2/month fee per customer out of Time Warner when the two did battle last year.

But then their whole "individual antenna" scheme would be useless, since they were using that simply to AVOID paying for a license. If they pay for the license, they can use more straight forward technology.

I'm really surprised they didn't have better legal counsel, it's not that hard to legally do what they were trying to do.

I've spent many years working with copyright law & the broadcast industry. It's 100% legal for me to put up an antenna (my antenna, which I own for my personal use) to receive & watch TV programs. I can even record content to view later, either on local storage (DVR) or remote storage (remote server or cloud). The means & location of storage does not matter.

Now, imagine I lived in a valley & got crappy TV reception. It's perfectly legal for me to lease a small piece of land from my neighbor (who lives on a hilltop) & put my antenna on that piece of land. I can connect my antenna to my receiver in my house using a variety of means ... coaxial cable (perhaps with an RF signal booster or two), fiber optic cable, I could even use a data codec & "stream" it over the Internet to *one* IP address ... the IP address associated with the receiver in my home (the signal, the content, is not being "broadcast" to multiple receivers). All perfectly legal.

So, Aereo's business model should be:
1. Sell antennas to customers (each customer has their own privately-owned antenna).
2. Lease the customer a space for the antenna (perhaps a one-foot square rooftop or land area).
3. Aereo could charge the customer a fee for installing the customer's antenna on the leased land (optional of course).
4. Areo offers (& charges for) data storage which the customer can use to store recorded programs.

A basic service agreement could include the purchase of the antenna, lease of space for locating the antenna, possible antenna installation fee, & a charge for data storage.

Nothing is ever 100% certain when it comes to legal matters, but I think an arrangement like this would hold up in court.

... a yet more elaborate subterfuge to evade a law, the clear intent of which was to protect those who actually produce something of value from having the fruits of their labor taken from them without compensation or consent.

A much better business model would be to negotiate a re-transmission license.

The antenna receives many stations and the antenna can be hooked up for 4 TV sets.
Would it be legal for me to furnish the antenna lead to my renters for a fee? For free?


Tikki

... a re-broadcaster. The provision of lots of little antennas was just a sham to skirt the law. They were, in intent and effect, doing what the law was designed to prohibit.

Used to have a communal antenna in many places, with wall connections just like cable. People are missing the issue. Aereo was using the antennas to try to bypass paying retransmission fees, but because they failed to look up the definition of that word, that by re-encoding the signal and sending it over the internet they were retransmitting.

You would include access to the antenna and other building a entities in your renter contract. It falls under "elevator" and "laundry"

But you cannot charge people directly for your service. You can sign punishing contracts with the local cable company however that requires them to use them, and create stupid rules that prohibit satellite dishes that may or may not pass court muster.

I forget the case, but in the 70s, a community put up a big antenna on a mountaintop blocking TV signals, ran cable from said antenna, and charged a maintenance fee. Shot down by Supremes, because the issue was unlicensed profiteering. That antenna must be in your home, be owned by you, and no money changes hands. If any alteration f the signal occurs, which Aereo irrefutably does, you're cooked again.

Sling box gets by because they never touch the content, and each individual user must be sued, and have 5-6 figures spent proving they were transmitting.

Aereo will be bought by an existing cable company, who will use it as an anti cord cutter tool. That's what Barry Diller really wanted when he backed it anyway.

they purchased and use.

Awesome thing is that out town's code allows antennas up the 40ft above grade
and I think it is because there are amateur radio operators dispersed throughout town.

Tikki