CBS Will Sue Aereo In Boston, Preferably In The Alternate Reality Where CBS Is Winning
from the keep-angry,-carry-on dept
ChurchHatesTucker points us to the latest news about Aereo, the service that has been facing endless opposition and jumping through countless legal hoops just to be able to offer a simple service that lets people watch public TV broadcasts online. Undaunted, Aereo recently announced plans to launch in Boston, which spurred an analyst to ask CBS (which is engaged in a lawsuit against Aereo in New York) how it would respond:
McClintock (CBS' exec VP of communications) sure doesn't mince words, but he does mince reality. The broadcasters are not faring well against Aereo, with the courts all apparently recognizing that the company has carefully followed the letter of the law established in the Cablevision ruling. It's bizarre that he would try to characterize the situation as an obvious win for CBS when the exact opposite is true — especially in a conversation with tech analysts and journalists. Still, points for confidence, I guess.
It didn't end there, either:
After [Verge editor Ben] Popper noted that CBS' signals were not being stolen and that the public owned the airwaves, McClintock responded: "Yet it's ok for Aereo to profit from the same public. Hmmm..."
Greenfield got in a zinger by noting the similarities between Aereo and Amazon's services. "Amazon 'makes money'" Greenfield wrote on Twitter, "on selling antennas to watch broadcast TV, and they ship to Boston."
The question of "profiting from the public" is a red herring, and not a smart one for CBS to bring up. After all, the networks profit from their public broadcasts, too. Do they plan to give back all the money they have made from selling ads on the publicly-owned airwaves for which they paid no access fee?
The fact that the airwaves are owned by the public only means what it sounds like. It means the ability to broadcast on the airwaves is permitted by the public — it does not have anything to do with how the public accesses those airwaves, or whether or not someone is making a profit. As Greenfield points out, by McClintock's logic, it would be wrong to charge money for a TV antenna.
The Twitter exchange perfectly highlights a key issue here: thanks to the vagaries of copyright law, the whole fight over Aereo (and over remote DVR) is basically a fight about the length of a wire. Selling a home TV antenna? Legal. Renting a home TV antenna to someone? Yup. Selling someone a setup that hooks their antenna into a computer and then into their network, so they can watch it on any of their devices? No problem. Renting that same setup to them? Sure thing.
But doing any of that from slightly further away? 'Illegal!' cry the networks.
Luckily, despite the networks' facade of confidence and silly threats to pull their broadcasts, the courts seem to be well aware of the ridiculousness of their argument. Given the recent rulings, it seems unlikely that a new lawsuit in Boston would gain much traction — but, of course, just the fact that the lawsuits keep on coming serves as a roadblock to Aereo's innovation. The broken analogies enforced by copyright law have resulted in an insane situation with online streaming (among other things), and the fact that the fight with Aereo has even gone this far (and shows no signs of stopping) just underscores the severity of the problem.
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: dvr, streaming
Companies: aereo, cablevision, cbs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Darkest Timeline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Darkest Timeline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Darkest Timeline
And everyone would have goatees!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Darkest Timeline
All empty Air with no wind.Their threats are meaningless and we the Educated will Educate our sheep friends.
Just explain to your friends the Law and the intelligent reasons.Take your time as the sheep must be taught.
I welcome Aereo here in Maine ! Come soon please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Darkest Timeline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Darkest Timeline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Darkest Timeline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternate Universe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alternate Universe
Is it? That sounds rather sappy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is shameful. This just further proves how greedy and corrupt the MAFIAA is. And in my opinion opens the door for us to simply ignore their rights. After all, they ignore the rights of the public anyways (and I'm not even considering how they screw up the artists too).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Broadcasting sounds so archaic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You'd be right, if you weren't totally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try again.
What Areo is doing is perfectly legal. Indeed, from where I sit, they're doing broadcast networks a huge favor by expanding their audience.
Now let me put you into a box. You're an old white man who hates the world, especially people who enjoy life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I couldn't find that report. Link please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For a concise explanation of why Cablevision was wrong, I recommend the petition for rehearing en banc: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136308730/Petition
For examples of how this will hurt the industry since others are talking about not paying licensing fees either, see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577521362073162108.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo and http://paidcontent.org/2013/04/04/does-dish-want-to-buy-aereo-broadcasters-would-love-to-know/
I couldn't find the CNET article I was thinking of that was along the same lines. I'll have to keep looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And even, if in some crazy alternate universe, it did lead to the elimination of retransmission fees, then tough shit. It's the networks' fault for tailoring their current model exclusively to that system. It's not the place of government or courts to reinforce their business model, and watching over-the-air television through a digital antenna doesn't suddenly become "piracy" or "stealing" over it, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I care about more than just myself.
Likewise. Which is why, even though I haven't watched a television program in over a year and have no intentions of doing so any time soon, I'm still arguing for what seems unquestionably to be a legal service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, you were stereotyping, so Ruben was just returning the favor.
So the question remains. Areo is not altering the broadcast stream in any way. They aren't removing ads, or replacing them with their own. They're adding value to an increasingly irrelevant product. What harm is Areo causing to the broadcast networks. These lawsuits look very much like a thinly veiled attempt to stifle innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: listen detective dip####
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: listen detective dip####
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: listen detective dip####
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The business world is full of resellers. If you're afraid of someone buying your product and reselling it for a profit (aka more than you do), you're doing something wrong.
Advice: Go re-learn business!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, if you're going to keep claiming that Aereo is taking money away from the broadcasters, you kind of need to prove that the broadcasters would have been paid for the content Aereo is offering in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aereo is not monetizing the network's "valuable content". That content is being given away for free over the air. You pay for it by watching the commercials which aereo is leaving intact. Aereo is monetizing a service where they record the free over the air shows you want to watch and then stream them to your computer to watch them at your leisure. They are nothing more than a for-pay remote DVR service for over-the-air broadcasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is the point. They have a commercial enterprise where for money they will retransmit the work to members of the public.
If I set up an antenna at my apartment connected to a personal web server that only I could access, would you argue that I needed to pay a retransmission fee if I were to stream from it while on vacation across the country?
No, that's a private performance that requires no license.
Why should anything be different if I'm paying someone else to set up and maintain the antenna and server instead of doing it myself?
Because one is a public performance (Aereo) and one is a private performance (your antenna at home). The former implicates a copyright holder's exclusive rights, while the latter does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this was copyright infringement, the court would have granted the broadcasters injunction against Aereo. The court explicitly stated that what Aereo was doing was not copyright infringement and therefor, not illegal.
Why do you keep spouting these lies AJ?
Oh wait, I know why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Point to where I lied. You can't. You're the one lying. The district court said its hands were tied, applied Cablevision, and found that it likely didn't infringe. The Second Circuit panel majority said the same thing. The dissent distinguished Cablevision and found that it did infringe. The court in California declined to adopt Cablevision and found that it likely infringed. I've said nothing that isn't true. Why are you lying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The signal is free and over the air is it not?
The signal is retransmitted in full or do they put their own ads on top of it?
Soon anybody getting signals from antennas will be a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mediocre-rapper-turned-not-so-hard-hitting-legal-analyst Marcus misses the fact that the court in California found an Aereo clone service to be illegal. Shocking. Missing too is the fact that the district court and the Second Circuit explicitly said that their hands were tied by the Cablevision ruling. No Cablevision, so far, has meant defeat for Aereo and its clones. The same will likely hold true in the 1st Circuit. But, yeah, ignore the defeat in California and pretend like it's been nothing but victories, Marcus. We don't expect the truth from you. This is Techdirt, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://about.bloomberglaw.com/files/2013/01/CV.pdf
http://www.copyrightalliance.org/ 2013/01/small_screen_bigger_picture#.UXmBicp-CiV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One (dime sized) antennae per subscriber capturing OTA signals, which is streamed over the internet to that one and only one subscriber. This is private performance. This is little different than putting an antennae on the roof of your house to capture the freely available OTA signal. The only thing different is the location of the antennae.
Cable companies get one signal and then broadcast the one signal to all of their subscribers. A public performance.
The courts have agreed that this is an important and valid distinction in how the Aereo service differs from cable. And twice they have agreed that this is legal and that the broadcast networks are unlikely to prevail in court which is why they have twice refused to grant an injunction to stop the service.
Once again, this is the entertainment industry refusing to adapt to the internet and trying to abuse their power and control they gain through broken copyright and the abuse of public airwaves that they don't own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, what if the damn point of businesses obeying a law and the caselaw, then being told that "no, that's not actually what the law does and you'r eint he wrong regardless!"
That's idiotic at best, and downright shameful at worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The dissenting judge called out Aereo for the direction they took with building their service as being a "loophole". Aereo didn't have to build their service using a 1:1 setup. One antenna is enough. But, in order to comply with copyright law, they did. And what did it get them? Sued.
Don't follow the law. Get sued.
Follow the law. Get sued.
This is just one of the many reasons why copyright law is horribly broken for a digital age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is plain Mafia tactics - damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am in trouble now, because I retransmit TV signals to the wife's phone, which she uses to as a VCR, did you know that smartphones have HDMI cables nowadays?
Which brings me to another place, smartphones today can capture OTA and retransmit that to whatever place they are configured, sure it is a bit on the technnical side right now, but nothing stops people from doing it, you capture the stream and send it to whatever IP you like, this is how friends could help each other to bypass "forced blackouts".
OMG we all will become thieves, OMG! OMG!
Nah! who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, but he did cover Aerokiller owner Alki David's stupid lawsuit against CBS, claiming that CBS wanted a monopoly on piracy.
And it's notable that when he did, you agreed with him:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110504/12543914144/silly-lawsuit-filed-against-cbs-because- subsidiary-cnet-offered-limewire-download.shtml#c85
Of course, at that time, you were using your "FUDBuster" sock puppet.
I guess you'll jump on any side that seems to be "pro-copyright," no matter how silly it is, who says it, or why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you don't. You always take the side of the copyright holders, regardless of the merits of their cases. Not once have you ever sided against copyright holders - or even people who merely claimed to be copyright holders.
You're more than just a copyright maximalist; you're a copyright reactionary.
I also think that when CNET uploaded 220M copies of Limewire with instructions showing it being used for infringement,
Except that's not what they did.
They changed their behavior in the end, did they not?
No, they did not.
Limewire, the company, itself prohibited all distribution of its software (ironically, even threatening IP lawsuits if anyone did so). That includes CNET, of course. But Frostwire - the open-source version of Limewire - is still available from CNET as we speak.
On the other hand, the lawsuit against CBS/CNET was dropped like a hot sack of dog shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, some copyright maximalists can be complete and thorough idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not true, Karl. For example, Marcus's article yesterday: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130425/11554022838/appeals-court-overturns-richard-prince-ruling- victory-fair-use-appropriation-art.shtml
I agree that it was fair use and that the copyright holder was wrong. I think the copyright holder had a nonfrivolous argument that it was infringement, but I agree with the Second Circuit's determination that it was not. Oops. I didn't support the copyright holder. Did I just blow your (closed) mind?
You're more than just a copyright maximalist; you're a copyright reactionary.
No, I call them like I see them. I think most instances of wholesale infringement are simple cases that get FUD'ed out by the likes of you and Mike who grasp at any argument you can muster to defend obvious pirates.
Except that's not what they did.
Can you elaborate? Just telling me I'm wrong without explaining why gets us nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: "I couldn't figure out a way to disagree with that post, which is why you won't find me throwing a temper tantrum in the comments there. In fact, I avoided it altogether. I only comment when I can start a fight or mock someone."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Huh? I actually agree with much of your post. What else is there to say? I do tend to post only when I disagree, since that means there's something to discuss. I'll give you an internet high-five since it sounds like you need one. Send!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2013 @ 12:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not possible that you don't grasp "airwaves" and "content".
So, minion, you're deliberately conflating empty spectrum space with deliberately crafted broadcast content. Simply shameless in the way you attack ownership of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not possible that you don't grasp "airwaves" and "content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not possible that you don't grasp "airwaves" and "content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not possible that you don't grasp "airwaves" and "content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not possible that you don't grasp "airwaves" and "content".
Face it -- the legacy gatekeepers are the leeches and the drills of the Dark Ages, and startups are the peasants, who rise up with new ideas, new ways to make money or help people live better, and fuller lives, with better services than the gatekeepers are willing to provide.
But you won't, of course. You'll ignore it because you think the crux of technology is today -- that we are at the perfect technology level when we aren't even close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not possible that you don't grasp "airwaves" and "content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Browncoats unite....
Wait, you mean the bad guys are the ones sending the signal?
Honestly, the attempts to stop us from using broadcast television amaze me: The attempt to ban VCR's, the attempts to stop people from having Superbowl parties.
How is it STEALING when someone INCREASES your viewer base? Isn't that the point of television, to get your content to as many people as possible? You'd think that the networks would be trying to help aero, not trying to shut them down.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
Where is the case law that running long cables suddenly means its a public performance, especially since here, again, its to ONE PERSON?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
As far as I'm concerned, once you broadcast a signal, there should be no limitations on re-transmitting. After all, re-transmitting your signal can only make you more money by raising your ratings.
These TV stations want to double-dip, and I think it's ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
So what if a neighbor comes up and offers to "sell" me the exact same OTA content by "leasing" me use of antenna in his yard. Is that different? Does it become illegal/immoral to sell something to someone who already has access to it? Like bottled water?
Or what if Aereo was selling SUPER-physics-defying antennae that would allow you to pick up signals from Boston from miles outside of their normal viewing area? What if they leased me the "SPD antenna" for a small monthly fee, but it was still physically located on my property? What if the SPD antenna was located a couple miles from my house and connected by a singular copper wire? What if it instead connected to a modem which connected to my computer?
Just having problems seeing where exactly you thing Aereo went "wrong." IMHO, CBS is throwing their so-called "valuable" content all over the place, willy nilly. Now they are mad at someone else for picking it up and selling it to someone else. It would be like the local Chinese place putting a menu in my door, then suing me because I sold their menu to a Canadian collector of fine chinese menus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
I could see the point if this was a cable network, but broadcast television stations make their income from advertising, anyone with a receiver can pick up the signal for free.
So it makes no sense to me that adding an intermediary in the process should suddenly mean that the TV network deserves more money: they are already MAKING more money in the form of increased revenue from the higher ad rates as a result of the higher ratings of you watching their network.
All this BS can be traced back to the FCC changing the rules on must-carry and broadcast TV stations being able to charge cable networks. I think we should go with a much simpler system: sell advertising or programming, but not both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
Broadcasters also collect fees from cable and satellite companies that pay to retransmit the broadcasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
Just because cable/satellite companies are paying doesn't mean everyone else has to. I mean, you may still be right, but this particular argument doesn't seem all that convincing. I would guess it's something like an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, "well this big company is doing something, i guess that means everyone else has to too"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
That's not entirely true: apparently, some TV stations are classified as "must-carry", and they cannot charge cable companies. The flip side of the coin is that cable companies (surprise) must carry the TV station.
But aside from that, my outrage is more one of principle than legality. I don't care for the whole double-dipping thing, as it just serves to raise cable rates without any benefit to the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
I don't think any of the stations at issue (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.) are rebroadcast under the must-carry rules. Cable and satellite operators rebroadcast these stations because they want to (because they're valuable). Must-carry refers to the stations they don't want to carry but have to under FCC rules. I don't think that applies here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Browncoats unite....
It's not "enough" profit.
when one works with make believe and fantasy daily it tends to cloud the outlook of reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
Yes, the recoding industry that you all illegally avail yourselves to every day is making record profits.
Oh wait, no they're not.
You're a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Ahem*
North American Music Industry Revenues: $23.1 billion (2006), $24.2 billion (2007), $24.7 billion (2008), $25.3 billion (2009), $26.0 billion (2010), $26.5 billion (2011)
Worldwide International Box Office (US $ Billions) from (2001-2007): $8.6 (2001), $10.5 (2002), $10.9 (2003), $15.7 (2004), $14.3 (2005), $16.3 (2006), $17.1 (2007)
Domestic Box Office (US $ Billions) from (2001-2007): $8.125 (2001), $9.272 (2002), $9.165 (2003), $9.215 (2004), $8.832 (2005), $9.138 (2006), $9.629 (2007)
You were saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *Ahem*
For movie box office, you need to look at average ticket price versus tickets sold. Revenue increases are entirely from ticket price increases which are attributed mostly to Imax and 3D. There is a significant drop in attendance.
Try again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Browncoats unite....
Even your paymasters at the RIAA and MPAA disagree with you. Every single fucking year Mitch Bainwol and Chris Dodd laugh all the way to the bank with their increasing bonuses.
Until you can explain exactly how a starving, dying recording industry can still afford to pay its lobbying stooges through the nose each year, with interest, you can go fuck yourself with a plank of wood. With nails hammered through it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Browncoats unite....
Retransmit the broadcast signal in accordance with established case law? Have some vexatious litigation.
Retransmit the broadcast signal in accordance with established case law and pay fistfuls of protection money for the privilege to do so? Go right ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frivilolous litigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you want to put your fingers in your ears and shout won't stop it from occurring. Perhaps if you partnered with new technologies you could profit from them rather than trying to slow or stop them with frivolous litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few weeks ago the coverage I saw about it on NBC Nightly news was just sickening. It basically consisted of the following.
-Stating that Aereo is 'Stealing' over 100 million dollars worth of content from the over the networks.
-Making it sound like Aereo is really evil because they're using a 'loophole' in the law to 'steal' the broadcasting signal. Failing to mention when explaining the loophole just how absurd it is for Aereo to need 1 antenna per subscriber.
-Implying that Aereo is also stealing Cable and Satellite signals that consumers actually pay for, even though they do no such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CBS CORPORATION REPORTS RECORD RESULTS FOR THE
2012 FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR
Fourth Quarter Revenue of $3.7 Billion, Up 2%
Fourth Quarter Adjusted OIBDA of $866 Million, Up 6%
Fourth Quarter Operating Income of $726 Million, Up 12%
Fourth Quarter Adjusted Diluted EPS of $.64, Up 14%; Diluted EPS of $.62, Up 19%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a question.
Unfortunately, the end result is that companies exhibit this sort of bizarre, self-destructive behavior; long-term sustainability eschewed for short-term (personal) profit, violently lashing out at anything perceived as possibly impacting (personal) revenue in the slightest, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The broadcaster cannot physically stop anyone from acquiring the signal. You can have laws passed, but how do enforce these laws when there are millions of people within the broadcast area who receive the transamission free. How can you acquire the broadcast illegally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm confused here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm confused here
Aereo, on the other hand, won both its initial round in Boston and the appeal.
But it's also true that the law on a lot of these questions is so untested that often, yes, extremely similar situations do need to go to court separately. Certainly in this case, the fact that public airwaves are involved brings up some legal issues that weren't part of the Zediva case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm confused here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused here
Yes, sorry, I switched the two around there. That or it was an optimistic premonition ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm confused here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To pull their public broadcasts off the air?
Please... pretty please... do the viewing public a favor and carry it out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have the same subscription service, and everything is perfectly okay there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste of Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing
There is that word "stealing" again. You know if you use the word that actually belongs in its place, well it...doesn't sound illegal anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]