TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal

from the felony-interference-with-a-business-model dept

Thu, May 31st 2012 1:09pm — Mike Masnick

Okay, let's start this out right by noting that the headline is only slight hyperbole. We've already talked about the TV networks suing Aereo for letting people connect, via the internet, to a TV antenna that picks up over-the-air (i.e., free) TV programming in NYC. I still can't quite figure out what the legal argument is here, other than that it upsets their business model. Watching over-the-air TV programming is, obviously, perfectly legal. We've yet to see a competent claim that place shifting legal TV is illegal. About the only real complaint is that this has the chance to drive more people to cut the cord, rather than pay ridiculously high cable/satellite TV prices. Of course, the networks these days thrive because of the insanely high carriage fees they get to charge the cable/satellite guys to include their network programming.

But, you know, disrupting the TV networks business model isn't illegal.

Yet, as with the DISH Networks case, wherein the networks seem to be claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts our business model."

In a hearing about whether or not the court should issue a preliminary injunction (as has happened in the similar, but different in important ways, ivi and Zediva cases) the judge didn't just roll over for the networks, and allowed Aereo's lawyers to grill an exec from CBS, who more or less admitted that they think (1) the DVR is a bigger threat than Aereo and (2) that their main issue is that Aereo may lead to more cord cutting.

But, again, getting more people to cut the cord isn't illegal. This is, once again, appearing like a "felony interference with a business model" case. The network exec actually tried to make the argument on the stand that the fact that someone might cancel their cable subscription to use Aereo (cord cutting) is a form of "harm" that requires Aereo be shut down by preliminary injunction. Thankfully, the judge wasn't buying that logic:

The judge also got into the act somewhat, addressing broadcasters' insistence that any customer who cancels his or her cable service to sign up with Aereo is a problem. How does subtracting one subscriber impact advertising, asked the judge, which caused the CBS executive to admit that it would have to be one Nielsen household that canceled for impact, and later that it would more likely have to be a substantial number of defections.

There was some other damning info that came out in the hearing, including the fact that the TV networks refused to even talk to Aereo, never sent a cease & desist, and only decided to sue once they found out that Barry Diller was backing Aereo. Hopefully, the judge refuses the injunction. At the very least, it's good that he's not willing to just roll over and kill innovative startups because they mess with the entertainment industry's business model.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: barry diller, cord cutting, television
Companies: aero, dish networks

97 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

E. Zachary Knight (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:13pm

And these people call us entitled. What makes this guy think he is entitled to my $50-100 a month? Nothing entitles him or anyone else to my money. Only those producers of products and services I actually want and will use will get my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: ...
  Well, anybody who's backed up by those with a self-declared monopoly on force CAN take any specified amount of money from you on a monthly basis. (see: taxes)
  
  The cables companies are only stupid and deluded as long as they don't have absolute backing from the government. With enough lobbying, "cutting the cord" could very well become illegal.
  
  Just imagine the SWAT team led by your local sheriff kicking in your door at 3am and dragging you off to jail because you refused to pay for cable TV!
  
  Unlikely as it is, it could happen...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 4 Jun 2012 @ 9:40am
  
  Response to: E. Zachary Knight on May 31st, 2012 @ 1:13pm
  I cut #ucking COMCAST and hooked a lifetime TIVO up, a used one from Ebay $500. Saving a ton of money in Chicago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:19pm

Why I'm cutting the cable cord
Because there is nothing but crap and reruns of crap on cable.

Since it's causing me to cut the cord to cable, it therefore should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:21pm

Illegal to stream channels that are already free to the public? Makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed Allen, 31 May 2012 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  They seem to grasp the "tube" concept, so, tell them that the tube between you and Aereo is extending the sound and video to your house is all.
  
  Why should having a tube instead of a wire make viewing free content illegal ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 31 May 2012 @ 1:24pm

How to stop global warming:
1) Tell TV execs that global warming will make nice weather all year 'round
2) More nice weather will mean that more people will spend time out side, and may cut their cables because they don't need TV since they're spending so much time outdoors
3) TV companies will sue global warming because it "may or may not" possibly make at least one but maybe a billion people stop paying for cable.
4) Global warming will be declared illegal. Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pontiff Acator, 31 May 2012 @ 1:24pm

The end won't be pretty, Or smell good.
Oh, dear. The dinosaurs are starting to eat each others' food - it's the beginning of the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OldGeezer (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: The end won't be pretty, Or smell good.
  I have never heard it described any clearer (or funnier). Still chuckling as I write this!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:24pm

Time to call Directv
I am cutting the cable because I am tired of watching commercials and them taking up as much time as the show. So by their logic, that makes commercials illegal.

This literally reminds me that I need to call DirecTV and tell them to stick it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:25pm

If they don't want me streaming stuff I pick up off the public airwaves, then they need to get their content out of my yard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:25pm

Wider support
I'm curious when they'll roll this out to other areas. I'd consider it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:29pm

This is a great example of the social chasm that exists between companies and consumers, except that in some cases companies will either avoid connecting or refuse to connect to consumers telling them what they can do to earn their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:40pm

it will make a nice change if the judge does act in the way it is hoped he will. i am curious to see what the entertainment industries manage to say to condemn him and how much blame they will put on him for encouraging 'piracy' (siding with Aereo) when it is 'killing the industries'. i am also interested to see how much notice is taken of the network exec (who was it? didn't see a name mentioned) by some senator or other, as opposed to the judge and Aereo's lawyers, who gets a new fast track Bill introduced as protection for the networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GMacGuffin (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  When a judge starts asking questions of a witness at all, it often means the witness' side has been playing hide-the-ball, and it does not portend well for their case.
  
  My $1 goes on "motion denied."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:41pm

Well well well
Someone should call the US Chamber of Commerce and let them know that IP related jobs at Aero are being threatened.

We need laws to protect those jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:44pm

So does Aereo pay for the content it retransmits? Or do they simply take it for free and monetize for their own benefit. If a cable station or Netflix broadcasts a program. I'm sure that either they produced it themselves (incurring a cost) or bought the rights to retransmit (incurring a cost). Sounds like more freeloading for commercial gain to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  They monetize it because they have to make money to build the devices that actually catch the tv signal.
  
  That's like saying cell phone companies are free loading on telephone signals because the towers put them out for free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 3:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The cell phone companies pay to connect to landlines. Money and/or reciprocity agreements are in place between different cell companies. Come back when you know what you are talking about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Another AC, 31 May 2012 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  "Or do they simply take it for free and monetize for their own benefit."
  
  They don't TAKE it for free, it's SENT TO THEM for free.
  
  I don't think freeloading means what you think it means...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 3:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They deliberately capture it using antennas and retransmit it for a fee. They do not pay for any retransmission rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Another AC, 31 May 2012 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Of course they deliberately capture it. It's a free signal transmitted to them for free.
      
      In the US (also in Canada) statute specifically calls out that over the air transmissions are NOT subject to retransmission rights.
      
      Maybe your point is that it doesn't seem right, but it is perfectly legal. Again, no freeloading here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is what your own citation says:
        
        "Who pays retransmission royalties?
        
        According to the Copyright Act, anyone who legally retransmits a �distant signal� is required to pay royalties to the owners of the programming contained within that transmission. Companies that �retransmit� such signals are usually cable television operators and direct-to-home satellite television providers. Other media providers, such as webcasters, will be subject to similar requirements. Similar laws apply in outside the U.S."
        
        Further that a 'distant signal' is one that cannot be captured with a home antenna (typically 40-60 miles).
        
        Thanks for making my point so eloquently.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 31 May 2012 @ 6:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lol not quite.
        
        "Since each subscriber will use his or her own dedicated dime-sized antenna, located at Aereo�s Brooklyn, N.Y., head end, to receive their signal, the company says it is not subject to the same retransmission responsibilities as say, Comcast or DirecTV)."
        
        Captured with a 'home antenna' at a 'short distance'.
        
        Your move :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 6:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is not the subscriber affixing the antenna and retransmitting, it is Aereo. Check.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 31 May 2012 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again: "each subscriber will use his or her own dedicated dime-sized antenna, located at Aereo�s Brooklyn, N.Y..."
        
        So yes, it is.
        
        But let's take the silliness to a new level. Does it change things if each user drives down to the Aereo office and affixes their antenna and presses the button to stream the content to their home? From that perspective Aereo is simply a rental company renting out space to customers, yet the results are exactly the same. At what point is it infringement on retransmission rights? That's what we disagree on.
        
        That's the thing with copyright - silly things like this suddenly matter when they shouldn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 9:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll indulge your silliness. Aereo is capturing the signal and retransmitting a broadcast FOR A PROFIT. While I don't know the specifics of the law, personal use and for profit are usually regarded as two distinct issues under law. If Aereo so modified its business model as you described, I'd say that acting as the vector for large-scale retransmission for profit is not much different than what they are doing now. And why should Aereo enjoy a competitive advantage? They compete for viewers of cable and satellite who pay a fee for retransmitting those broadcasts. What are they doing that is materially different... other than not paying for content? Checkmate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 10:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In this scenario Aereo isn't retransmitting anything, you can insist it all you want but you would be wrong. But even granting it makes a difference somehow, if Aereo didn't collect money from users but from inserting advertising for example, then you get into even more grey area.
        
        You think you checkmated but you lost your king hours ago and just haven't realized it yet :D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In this scenario Aereo isn't retransmitting anything,
        
        How does the signal from the antenna get from Aereo's office in Brooklyn to my computer on Long Island? Even given your idiotic scenario, when the user "pushes the button" it is a button on Aereo servers that is retransmitting the signal. In any event, that's not how it works, Aereo provides the antenna, captures the broadcast and retransmits the signal over the internet to the end user for a $12 fee.
        
        The bottom line is that Aereo seeks a competitive advantage over cable and satellite by not paying for content. Apparently they don't think that they can compete on a level playing field.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, it isn't Aereo's antenna, it's the customers. But the point is the law turns on that distinction and that's what's truly silly. You think one way, I think another.
        
        Also, you see it as they won't compete on a level playing field. I see it as they don't have to, so it's fair to have that advantage. Honestly, if the satellite/cable providers don't like it, get rid of retransmission fees altogether then! Done and done.
        
        Of course, that thought probably won't even cross their minds will it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 6:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe that the antenna is leased. And the issue of the actual retransmission of the over-the-air signal by Aereo still remains unaddressed by you. Retransmission fees by cable and satellite are settled matters of law. At some level, fundamental fairness has to be an issue. Either Aereo, cable and satellite should all pay retrans fees or none should. As long as Aereo captures and pushes the broadcasts out the door over the internet, it has the same effect as beaming it to home antenna dishes or transmitting a signal to cable boxes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 1 Jun 2012 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have already addressed the retransmission. But I will restate again:
        
        The antenna is sold to the customer. The customer uses *their* antenna to retransmit free over-the-air signals to themselves. This is allowed by law and does not require retransmission fees.
        
        Again, leasing the antenna vs. selling it and leasing the physical space to keep it in is largely semantics. Either way both are exactly the same net result as what you just stated, except it's the customer doing it one way and it's Aereo doing it in the other. The law seems to clearly state that one is allowed yet the other is not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you read the EFF brief, it is interesting that the whole distant antenna distinction is not even mentioned. That indicates to me Aereo's model contemplates a subscriber base worldwide, which makes sense. The focus of that brief is on private/public performance. The former not covered by copyright, the latter covered. This is substantially the argument that failed in the Zediva case. I think that while your scenario where an individual erects an antenna remotely and uses his own equipment to retransmit it to himself is protected activity. I think that when Aereo performs the same function and offers that service for sale to the public using its own transmission equipment, that the wheels come off of the argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have already addressed the retransmission. But I will restate again:
        
        No you've avoided it....again.
        
        The antenna is sold to the customer. The customer uses *their* antenna to retransmit free over-the-air signals to themselves. This is allowed by law and does not require retransmission fees.
        
        That is wrong. The antenna captures the signal from the airways. The antenna doesn't retransmit shit. The content captured by the individual antenna is retransmitted by Aereo OVER THE INTERNET to the subscriber's computer. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if your assertion is correct, the point is still moot. The law says that retransmission rates only apply to distant signals. Distant signals would mean retransmitting Seattle television in New York. Aereo is retransmitting local broadcasts that their subscribers could receive themselves with a roof mounted antennae. They are charging for the convenience of setting up an offsite antennae so their clients don't have to worry about falling of their roof or trying to install one so that isn't blocked by buildings or signal interference. That is why they are not subject to fees.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Read EFF's amicus brief. It's not even a contention. In fact, I believe based on my reading that EFF and Public Knowledge think it is perfectly fine for someone in Seattle to subscribe to this service. I infer from the brief that the sole issue is the difference between a public and private exhibition. The former requires retrans consent, the latter does not. With cable and satellite they take one signal and deliver it to many homes making it "public". With Zediva and now Aereo, they use individual devices (dvd players or antennas) and send the signal to a single subscriber. Zediva at least paid for the DVD's, Aereo pays for nothing. At the end of the day, no matter what the outcome of the litigation I think this will be the subject of legislation in the near future. There's a issue of fundamental fairness when one competitor pays for content and another does not. There's a lot of talk about competing on this site. And paying (or not) for the product you sell goes to the heart of competition.
        
        BTW, how does Aereo know where the signal is accessed from once they retransmit over the Internet? They have no control over that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're kind of stupid if you think they're on a level playing field with the other companies.
        
        Aereo offers over 20 channels of content, while networks like Comcast offer hundreds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Aereo's size or scale somehow relieves them of the duty to pay for the same content as the competition? So under your theory, an independent, single screen theater shouldn't have to pay for the rights to exhibit MIB 3 because they are so much smaller than Regal Cinemas or AMC?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        LDoBe (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term BROADCAST.
        As in BROADLY CASTING the signal to the public for anyone to access.
        If it's in the air, anyone can do anything they want with it. Doubly so if it's broadcast to the public and not some pseudo-private signal.
        Restricting a broadcast to just a small area doesn't make ANY sense. If the point were to do that, then they should make up a bullshit legalese jargon term, perhaps "publicly oriented narrowshoot" or something else braindead like that.
        What next? Are you going to claim that if the government wanted to it could ban the retransmission of special shade of aubergine outside of the small area it's being blasted into?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 10:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it's in the air, anyone can do anything they want with it.
        
        That's simply not true. Why are cable and satellite companies paying to retransmit those same broadcasts?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        With that question, are you trying to insinuate that because the Cable companies accepted a silly deal, everyone else must too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I'm saying that if it's retransmission for cable, it seems like it's retransmission for Aereo. In any event, I don't see why Aereo is unable to compete paying the same fixed costs for content as satellite and cable. What entitles them to preferential treatment?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 1 Jun 2012 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not doing something because the law says they aren't obligated to (even if others are) isn't called preferential treatment, it's called reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not doing something because the law says they aren't obligated to (even if others are) isn't called preferential treatment, it's called reality.
        
        Isn't that the core of the litigation? That is certainly not a settled matter of law. And at some level, the court will consider whether it is fair for business offering, in part, identical products for one competitor not to have to pay for content while the other do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not entirely sure what this means. I took it as meaning, for example Comcast didn't have to pay retrains fees in the metro-Atlanta area to carry TBS but would have to pay retrains fees outside of a 40-60 mile area where antenna capture is possible. That would make sense, otherwise cable and satellite operators would simply set up antennas in the various cities and retransmit nationwide, avoiding the millions in retrains fees that they pay today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Crazy Freetard (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 6:18pm
  
  Re:
  They're adding value.
  
  They're taking something which would otherwise have a relatively small audience and making it global. One could reasonably surmise that this adds value by making it more accessible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:30am
  
  Re:
  I pay an annual road tax to be able to use the public roads. So driving on the roads for me is 'free' after that. Does that mean that taxi drivers are 'freeloading' on this 'free' resource?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ummm, do you not have taxes on gasoline where you live that in part pays for the construction and upkeep of those roads? Does that not directly correlate to the amount of use of the roads for a specific vehicle? Derp.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or how about a tax on emissions?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    And of course, there's the issue that Aereo pays no tax at all. Other than that- great analogy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zeitgeyser, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:Aereo retransmission business model
  Anonymous coward wrote: So does Aereo pay for the content it retransmits? Or do they simply take it for free and monetize for their own benefit. If a cable station or Netflix broadcasts a program. I'm sure that either they produced it themselves (incurring a cost) or bought the rights to retransmit (incurring a cost). Sounds like more freeloading for commercial gain to me.
  
  What's wrong with this business model? It's exactly the same business model many internet co.s use including Google, Yahoo and Bing to name just the big search engines. They all just pick up MY (and your) personal information, monetize for their own benefit... If companies are selling my information I wanna know where my cut is. i wanna be able to have a say in who it's sold to (or if it is sold to anybody) and what the price point is. Just sayin...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re:Aereo retransmission business model
    I agree. That's why I am mystified that there was no SOPA-esque revolt when Google announced the further commercialization of user privacy. Seems like people are OK with it, why I don't know.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:Aereo retransmission business model
    I guess there's also the question of copyright and what your ownership of is of the information they collect
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 1 Jun 2012 @ 8:46am
  
  Classic Bridge Trolls
  Why should they pay?
  
  It's already being given away freely to everyone in the form of a broadcast. All this service does is ensure that you can actually receive this signal where you happen to live.
  
  It only replaces what would be already happening under ideal physical conditions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Classic Bridge Trolls
    You need to read up on the distinction between "giving" and licensing for private use. If you give me something, you're surrendering your rights of ownership. If you license (lease, rent) something to me, you still have your ownership rights and there are constraints on my use of your property.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bearfoot, 7 Jun 2012 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  by that same "Logic" TV makers should be in trouble because the TV allows you to watch shows that other people broadcast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:45pm

From my experience as a phone tech (yes, customer support) for DirecTV, the best argument against Aereo was that there are actual federal laws prohibiting anyone outside of a specific TV broadcast marketplace from getting ANYONE ELSE'S local TV channels. Seems the big affiliates (Fox, CBS, ABC, etc) got congress to pass a law to such an effect. That way, you can only watch the channels and thus commercials marketed to your home city area.

DirecTV, in order to make sure customers didn't game the system by claiming residency in another state to get their local channels (for example to watch a football game playing on a local channel there) was forced to do spot beaming, which is where they will only beam the channels for a local market to an area around that market.

This of course results in people that travel and use portable dishes, such as in RV's, completely out of luck. It was impossible to get their home channels, and considered illegal for us to change the account address to allow their receiver to get the local stations of the area they were in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: /-:
  On the other hand, reps of various organizations (Go Daddy, Blockbuster, to name a few) are generally lied to about what is legal and what is not, specifically to a) sway their opinion in a certain direction and b) so they can convincingly repeat the lie to customers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 1:56pm
    
    /-:
    That is certainly a possibility. I was not at all trying to shill for big corporations here that tend to have the money and power to get what they want done when they want it. Just putting out there that, if they can be believed, the official word from DirecTV reps was that place-shifting of local television was illegal because of federal laws regarding broadcasting.
    
    I certainly don't see how this law could possibly be in the public's best interest at all. I am surprised however that in the Aereo case it wasn't flat out claimed that it was against federal law, thus being a US v Aereo case instead of corporation v Aereo case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 9:12pm
      
      Re: /-:
      Its considered in the publics interest because of local advertising, and emergancy warning systems.
      
      If you are watching NY and LA broadcast and you are in denver, the denver businesses paying for commercials aren't getting access to the viewers that are watching in their area which hurts them and the local network affiliate.
      
      You are also less likely to see emergency warning singals.
      
      It sucks for sure, but that was part of the reasoning for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re:
  DirecTV, in order to make sure customers didn't game the system by claiming residency in another state to get their local channels (for example to watch a football game playing on a local channel there) was forced to do spot beaming, which is where they will only beam the channels for a local market to an area around that market.
  
  And they charged the customer an extra $5 per receiver for the privilege of getting the local channels too.
  
  One good side effect was that the transponder for the local stations always had a stronger signal because it was spot beamed and was the last to lose signal in a storm. (I rolled out on service calls for a local HSP for a 3 year stretch about 6 years ago)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re:
  the best argument against Aereo was that there are actual federal laws prohibiting anyone outside of a specific TV broadcast marketplace from getting ANYONE ELSE'S local TV channels.
  
  The last I heard, Aereo only offers the service to people in the NY area that fall into the broadcast area, so that isn't a valid argument in the case.
  
  I imagine that an over-the-air TV signal in NY city could be pretty spotty, so this seems a good test market for them for many reasons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 10:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait.... Aereo has a way to control the location of the computer accessing the antenna? I'm sure that Aereo rolled it out initially in NYC to take advantage of the distance distinction in the Copyright Act, but I doubt its intentions are to limit it to NYC. And given the mobility of access, I doubt a judge won't see right through this ploy.
    
    All Aereo has to do is pay the same as cable and satellite. What's the matter, can't they compete?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re:
  "...the best argument against Aereo was that there are actual federal laws prohibiting anyone outside of a specific TV broadcast marketplace from getting ANYONE ELSE'S local TV channels. Seems the big affiliates (Fox, CBS, ABC, etc) got congress to pass a law to such an effect. That way, you can only watch the channels and thus commercials marketed to your home city area."
  
  Unless, back in 2000, you couldn't receive the local network affiliate signal over the air, thus allowing you to get an exemption from your local tv station.
  (DirecTV didn't have local feeds back then)
  As a result, though I'm based in the Midwest, I still get the East and West Coast network feeds via DirecTV (for an additional fee, of course) as well as the local feeds they added in 2005.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 1:48pm

The reason why you can't watch normal broadcast from NYC (aside from those in NYC) is due to FCC power transmission regulations (and probably some technical difficulties with the earth's curvature).

Do we remember why the switch to digital broadcast was a delayed for months? Because of potential safety concerns with folks not having appropriate equipment. So basically broadcast TV has public safety issues built in. So what better to supplement the safety system that to have an alternate way to access the same broadcast. What if you can't put an antenna on the roof of your building and don't want to pay for cable? Indoor antennas aren't always a good enough solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hothmonster, 31 May 2012 @ 1:51pm

"TV Network Exec Argues That Anything That Causes Cable Subscribers To Cut The Cord Is Illegal"

I knew their prices were illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 2:02pm

I hate it when you link to an older article, and then I end up reading the ignorant comments in the older article and replying to an ignorant comment made three years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GMacGuffin (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  bob is probably not going back to check on it either, so he'll never know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:28pm
  
  Re:
  What's even worse - I read this comment and then I had to back to that article and find out what you said there.
  
  Maybe I need to get out in the real world more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe I need to get out in the real world more.
    
    So, what you're saying Gwiz is that Techdirt should be illegal because you spend more time here than watching Cable? :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:05pm

(troll start)

blah blah blah you freetards enjoy your movies of dogs licking each other blah.

premium content blah blah something cord cutting.

(troll end)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack Furlong (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:05pm

The horse and buggy industry would still be in business and making healthy profits if they were allowed to make "campaign contributions" in their day, as is done now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  Sure, with all the safety issues new cars had...it would be a no brainer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mega1987 (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 2:25pm

It's in our rights if we still want a company's services or not.

You guys don't have the RIGHT to tell us that our subscription is For LIFE and you can't void it..

Jeez... Imagine your cell phone service provider telling you the same thing, that you can't cut off their services or they'll sue you for doing so.

You'll no doubt react as much as most of us, saying that It's our Right if we still want the services that they provide or not. Not theirs nor it's a lifetime subscription with no way out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
netwrok, 31 May 2012 @ 4:01pm

I'm so glad that I quit subscribing to a TV service, back in 2007.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 4:42pm

So if it's ok for Aereo to stream network television over the internet, why do cable companies pay "carriage fees" to the networks in order to include their channels in their cable product? Why don't cable companies just include the network channels and not pay anything? Is there a law requiring "carriage fees"? And if there is, then doesn't it apply to Aereo also?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 4:54pm
  
  Re:
  I looked it up. There's a "must-carry" law in the US that requires cable companies to carry all locally licensed broadcast stations. This law allows broadcast stations to negotiate a "retransmission" price with the cable company. The cable company is allowed to refuse to carry the station if they don't like the price. Similar "retransmission consent" laws have been put in place for satellite distribution. I'm guessing it's just a matter of time before they add internet retransmission to this system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DC (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 6:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Given that the content industries all hate the internet, and the legislators are mostly in the pockets of the content industries, I doubt that must carry will be extended to the internet anytime soon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 5:08pm

"Yet, as with the DISH Networks case, wherein the networks seem to be claiming that skipping commercials is illegal, the networks in the Aereo case don't seem to have much of an argument other than "this disrupts our business model." "

Just when you seemed to be coming down from your SOPA induced frenzy, you go and post something silly like this. The argument isn't "it disrupts our business model", it is "it voids the contract under which we provide content".

You really just don't seem to get it sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DC (profile), 31 May 2012 @ 6:35pm
  
  Re:
  Care to specify what contract is being voided? Broadcast networks broadcast. Anyone with an antenna is free to receive.
  
  There is no contract between the broadcaster and the person or persons receiving.
  
  You really just don't seem to get it sometimes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 9:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The contract is between Dish Network and the content providers.
    
    Seemed pretty clear what he meant considering what he quoted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Serveral contracts, really.
    
    Affiliates / local stations, which pay for the network feed, and insert local commercials - their business model is predicated on making money on the OTA commercials to pay for their transmission and studio facilities, their local news, etc. There is a contract with the network in one direction, and the implied contract of OTA broadcasting, which is that only viewers in the area can receive it, the accept it as is, and that as is includes commercials.
    
    Cable / Sat / IPtv: There is also the contact for distribution in this manner. In this case, it's a question of what exposure and income is generated by the channels being on cable systems, and being made available.
    
    Their right to limit their distribution is valid and true, anything that circumvents that harms their business and harms their rights.
    
    Sometimes you really just don't think.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That extra chromosome seems to be a bit of a problem for you Derpsley.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 31 May 2012 @ 5:59pm

Hello! It's called competition. Don't go crying to yo' mama just because your monopoly profit stream is being threatened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2012 @ 10:31pm
  
  Re:
  You should tell that to Aereo. All they have to do is to pay the same retrains fee as cable and satellite and there wouldn't be a problem. Sadly, it appears they are unable to compete.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Aaron, 31 May 2012 @ 8:58pm

Anything that causes cord cutting? Well then..
I guess it would be illegal for them to:
Raise their prices OR have crappy customer service OR provide low quality entertainment, since these could lead to customers cutting the cord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 1 Jun 2012 @ 4:12am

"The longer the cord, the harder the fall once it's cut. Or something like that." - Zediva
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 5:30am

I think it's pretty clear that the retransmission issue is for a company taking in one feed and broadcasting it back out to a wide userbase, like cable and dish providers do. Aereo is taking a signal from an antenna and pushing it to a single user, extending that particular user's cord to their private antenna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 6:29am
  
  Re:
  Oh, like Zediva! How did that work out for them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    Poorly, thanks to Hollywood legacy vampires who cannibalized yet another marvelous entertainment startup because it dared to threaten their existing business model.
    
    BTW, anyone ever tell you that you're a colossal douchebag?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Poorly, thanks to Hollywood legacy vampires who cannibalized yet another marvelous entertainment startup because it dared to threaten their existing business model.
      
      I'm pretty sure it was a judge who ruled against Zediva, not Hollywood legacy vampires.
      
      BTW, anyone ever tell you that you're a colossal douchebag?
      
      Probably not as often as people note what a whiney little bitch you are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 6:30am

Aren't patents supposed to let that CBS exec stop it without any of this hassle? He must be doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Bronemann, 1 Jun 2012 @ 10:59am

programming
So when are the cable/internet providers gonna wake up. Where is the protection for the consumer? If I want to watch local over the air AND add a few sports channels (like ESPN) i have to take a package with 200 channels (of which i watch maybe 10) and pay $60/mo.
Where is the "ala-carte" option???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re: programming
  So when are the cable/internet providers gonna wake up. Where is the protection for the consumer? If I want to watch local over the air AND add a few sports channels (like ESPN) i have to take a package with 200 channels (of which i watch maybe 10) and pay $60/mo.
  Where is the "ala-carte" option???
  
  Actually when you break it down, it's not all that unreasonable. You watch 10 channels and pay $60. If you watch 2 hours of TV per day, you're paying a buck an hour for your entertainment. Plus you're getting another 190 channels thrown in for free- which is probably what they're worth.
  
  It is pretty discouraging that people think they're getting ripped off when they're paying probably less than a buck an hour for content. And I'd wager that there are many users out there for whom that price would be more like $.25-.50 an hour or less. Where else do you get that kind of quality entertainment, year in and out for a price like that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2012 @ 11:18am

Anything that causes people to cut the cord is illegal? Thank God, we finally have a legal reason to render horrible reality shows as illegal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kurt, 19 Jun 2012 @ 3:02pm

Wrong side of history.
Why don�t CBS, FOX, and NBC execs want consumers to enjoy commercial-free TV? It�s what we want! I�m a customer and employee of Dish, and I think AutoHop is great because you can easily watch commercial-free TV. A well known consumer advocacy group, Public Knowledge, agrees that people should have the right to control how they watch TV. They�re taking a stand for consumers by creating a petition that tells CBS, FOX, and NBC media to keep their hands out of your living room and DVR. Sign their petition to keep control of how you watch TV http://bit.ly/KigXAn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]