nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 25, 2014 14:57:17 GMT
Amy Howe, But what about the “cloud”? The Aereo argument in Plain English, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 24, 2014, 2:59 PM), www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/but-what-about-the-cloud-the-aereo-argument-in-plain-english/This is where with individual antennas, tuners and DVRs Aereo makes available to remote customers content that was freely broadcasted (with commercials) and charges for this service. The broadcasters (rather than providing their own cheaper alternative which they easily could) would rather litigate. Would it be legal for an individual to set up their own tuner, DVR and internet connection to allow themselves to remotely access live or recorded live content from off-air broadcast when they are out of town? And if so, is it still legal if they are renting an apartment, and renting the equipment as well? And if so, what if the 'apartment' is only large enough for the equipment? I am strongly in favor of Aereo. The broadcasters to the extent they do not 'get' new technology are dinosaurs.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Apr 25, 2014 20:33:04 GMT
... Would it be legal for an individual to set up their own tuner, DVR and internet connection to allow themselves to remotely access live or recorded live content from off-air broadcast when they are out of town? And if so, is it still legal if they are renting an apartment, and renting the equipment as well? And if so, what if the 'apartment' is only large enough for the equipment? ... You're comparing apples to oranges. The answer to all three of those questions is "of course." The difference is that while in all three of your scenarios you're using the content yourself, Aero is redistributing the content and charging for it. THAT is a violation of copyright. In my opinion a more comparable scenario would be a theater owner going to WalMart and buying a DVD of "Despicable Me," then taking it to their theater and showing it to the public there instead of buying/licensing the film from Universal. The movie industry would have a problem with that (and rightfully so...) as it violates their copyrights. ABC has the same complaint - and the same grounds, in my opinion.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 25, 2014 22:29:05 GMT
It is not the content that Aereo charges for. It is all those things I mentioned. This is why I think they should prevail.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 26, 2014 1:14:37 GMT
This is a fun one, and going to require some really twisted reasoning by the courts. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Apr 28, 2014 18:54:26 GMT
It is not the content that Aereo charges for. It is all those things I mentioned. This is why I think they should prevail. But you can't consider it that way. Let's look at comparative scenario. I buy 10 CD's, and take one song from each to make a mix CD. Or, even better: I record 10 of my favorite songs from the radio and make that same mix CD. I then market and sell that CD, saying that I'm selling the service to make the CD, not the content itself. Do you really think that copyright law would allow that? Absolutely not - the RIAA would go nuts, and the courts would rule with them. I fully expect that same outcome with Aero. Whether it's recorded music content or recorded television shows, the network still owns the copyright to the materials and unless I have permission from the network to resell their materials I would fully expect them to come after me in the same way they're coming after Aero.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Apr 28, 2014 20:17:19 GMT
VCRs (which were at one time thought to be the doom of broadcast TV) were OK because they were just time-shifting the broadcast, so people could watch at a more convenient time.
Aereo is in effect location shifting. (Also coupled with time-shifting)
Did you actually read any of the documents that anyone filed or is your writing coming from your pre-conceived notions? You are sounding just like the broadcasters.
|
|
Sledge
Guest
|
Authored by Sledge on Apr 28, 2014 20:51:48 GMT
swmech your walmart analogy only works if walmart is handing out the cd's for free to everyone with no limitations. That is the programming we are talking about. Over the air free signal. Aereo doesn't even filter the ads so realistically the broadcasters should be happier at the free ratings boost due to aereo increasing their broadcast power. They aren't interested in the things they claim. This case is going forward because of one thing only. Power. They want it. Why do the cable companies hate netflix? Same reason. My local cable company would rather you paid the phone company than you use netflix because netflix takes power away from the big content companies.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Apr 28, 2014 22:22:25 GMT
We've apparently - very recently - had a law change. It is now legal to make and possess copies of content you already lawfully own. Note that if you DON'T own a "paid for" original, your copy is still illegal.
So what Aereo *claim* they are doing is simply taking content YOU ARE ALREADY ENTITLED TO, and format/time/location-shifting it. As a non-USian I'm not going to comment on the *legality* of it, but I certainly think it is perfectly okay *morally*.
(Which is why my flickr photos are CC-NC-ND - if you want to privately enjoy them go ahead, but if you're going to make money I want my cut :-)
Cheers, Wol
|
|
Ian Al
Guest
|
Authored by Ian Al on Apr 29, 2014 8:20:40 GMT
The original broadcasters licence any folk who can use an antenna to receive and view, or record for time-shifting viewing, to do so free of charge. The original broadcasters do this in order to make money from advertisers.
As far as I can see, there is nothing in the licence to limit who owns the antennae, DVR and the connection to the television. Aereo provide an antenna, DVR and a connection service to the customer's television as a service, for a fee. Would the licence provided by the original broadcaster allow the customer to own and operate the same equipment that Aereo uses? I can't see why not. The original broadcaster implicitly licences anyone who has the technical capability to receive the broadcasts and does not put any limitations on that technology in the implied licence.
|
|
|
Authored by macrorodent on Apr 29, 2014 10:56:57 GMT
In my opinion a more comparable scenario would be a theater owner going to WalMart and buying a DVD of "Despicable Me," then taking it to their theater and showing it to the public there instead of buying/licensing the film from Universal. The movie industry would have a problem with that (and rightfully so...) as it violates their copyrights. ABC has the same complaint - and the same grounds, in my opinion. Based on what I have read of Aereo's odd technology, I don't think it is quite like that. Suppose Aereo rented ordinary set-top boxes with antennas? The movie industry would not have a problem with that (or would it?). Now they collect the set-top boxes and antennas into one location and allow remote access. This suddenly becomes a problem. I suspect the real legal Achilles heel for Aereo will be that the tiny receivers are not actually dedicated for particular customers. Instead they are dynamically allocated among the users that are using them at a time. So it is not quite like renting set-top boxes.
|
|
Ian Al
Guest
|
Authored by Ian Al on Apr 30, 2014 7:17:13 GMT
I think it should not be much of a problem. Blocks of apartments and condos have communal antenna systems which are not owned by the broadcast customers. The Aereo receivers are just another technology for signal sharing. The shared DVRs might be a novelty, but it is just an extension of the antenna technology and 'down cable'.
|
|