Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?
from the the-law-is-the-problem dept
We mentioned this briefly in our writeup of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the Aereo case, but I wanted to focus in on one particularly annoying issue that has come up repeatedly throughout this company's history: the idea that its compliance with the law is actually the company circumventing the law. A perfect example of this is an incredibly ill-informed opinion piece for New York Magazine's Kevin Roose that declares, based on a near total misunderstanding of the case, that the Supreme Court should shut down Aereo because its 10,000 antennas are a cheap "copyright-avoidance gimmick."But that's simply incorrect. It's actually 100% the opposite. We'll fully admit, as that article does, that the setup of Aereo is simply insane from a technology standpoint. There is no good reason at all to design the technology this way. But the reason they're doing this is not to avoid copyright but to comply with it. If you think that this is insane (and you're right) the answer is not to whine about what Aereo is doing, but to note that it's copyright law that leads to this bizarre result. Don't blame Aereo for following exactly what the law says, and then say it's a "gimmick." Blame the law for forcing Aereo down this path.
Of course, it's one thing for an uninformed magazine columnist to make this argument... but quite another for Supreme Court justices to do so themselves. And tragically, in the oral arguments, a few of them appeared to be coming close to making that kind of argument (though not so ridiculously as the column above). The worst offender was Chief Justice Roberts, who asked:
All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's -- you know, lawyers do that.Note the twisting here. Complying with the law is now "circumventing legal prohibitions." Justices Ginsburg and Scalia both also asked about whether or not the technology decisions had any technological purpose, or if they were solely about the law (though, at least both questioned if the choices were about "complying" with the law). But the implication that is being raised (and has been explicitly raised by others) is that in setting up this "a Rube Goldberg–like contrivance" (as 2nd Circuit judge Denny Chin called Aereo in his dissent to the company's victory in that court) it means that they're somehow violating the law by meticulously complying with it.
And that's a very dangerous assumption, even by implication.
If that argument is allowed to fly, then it's not a stretch to see how copyright holders might twist lots of versions of complying with the law, into infringing on the law simply by arguing that the form of compliance is somehow "too clever." That would lead to all sorts of dangerous implications -- in which those who are being careful to comply with the law may suddenly be deemed infringing because of their careful compliance. Under such a standard, the more carefully you aim to comply with the law, the greater chance you can be accused of "contorting" yourself in a manner that allows copyright holders to argue that your compliance is somehow "less than sincere" as appears to be the main suggestion here.
It's troubling that at least a few of the Supreme Court Justices appear to even be considering such a possibility.
Yes, Aereo's setup is technologically bizarre. But that's because it's doing everything to comply with copyright law. If you have a problem with it, it's not because the company is breaking the law, it's because the law itself is broken. It would be a cruel twist of fate for Aereo to lose its case because Supreme Court Justices believed that it had broken the law, because the inevitable results of the broken law itself create a situation where complying with the law looks so bizarre that it appears to be infringement!
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: antonin scalia, compliance, copyright, gimmicks, john roberts, kevin roose, ruth bader ginsburg
Companies: aereo
Reader Comments
The First Word
“* felony interference with a business model.
* felony compliance with legal statues.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There are a few implications here. First, if following the law has virtually the same implications of breaking it, why bother? Why respect such law? If people decide to go "pirate" and simply disregard such laws then there will be much more work for the MAFIAA which will clog the legal system with lawsuits resulting from such inherent disrespect for those laws. Everybody loses in the end.
Or not. Pirates couldn't care less in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is actually a very widespread perception of copyright law when it comes to filesharing by now. The reason behind it is, that even if you never use a filesharing tool, have secured W-Lan (or no w-lan at all), Hell, even if you don't even *use* the internet connection because you are not even there (no running computers, no w-lan) You can still get hit with one of those settlement letters for doing *nothing*. And the best part is, you can't even really defend yourself, just drive down the price (it is now slowly changing in the US, but elsewhere not so much) of the settlement, unless you chose just not to pay up and bet on their unwillingness to actually sue.
Regardless, The law allows everyone to be hit and you have to try and prove your innocence which boils down to proving the non-existance of something which is virtually impossible.
The reaction? nobody gives a shit about the law. If you can get hitwith such a letter if you do fileshare at about the same rate as if you don't, why even bother complying with the law?
I'm talking here about personal experience in germany, but the setup is very similar in many european countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you have more and more people saying that they'd be perfectly fine if every single patent and copyright were abolished, and your business depends on both, that's a sign that you're screwing yourself over long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe people would have more respect for these agencies (or not) if the punishment was proportional to the crime. How else should people feel about an agency that tries to sue a college student for hundreds of thousands of dollars or bring a "criminal" laser printer into court?
So, like you say, if you're going to be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for simply being accused of something, why not actually do it?
Note: I'm not suggesting people break any law or do any kind of illegal file-sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter if the content is not legally available.
It doesn't matter if smaller publishers are forced to comply with bogus copyright needs.
It doesn't matter if the public doesn't want stronger copyright laws.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, they'll support these issues for the legacy industries through thick and thin.
A prime example is the Grokster ruling which added laws outside of what Congress intended. Inducement was meant to force people into the older business models of the RIAA before the internet matured.
It didn't work at all in stopping the tide of new technology.
Now you have the destruction of cloud technology if the cord isn't long enough and the Supreme Court has some dangerous precedents on these issues.
We can't let the courts decide this. We actually need to show Congress that this is not what we want. If it gets to the Supreme Court, we've lost the battle.
Just my take on the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
..because congress has such a great track record with copyright issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I said pirates couldn't care less I mean unless there are full physical barriers set up they'll still share. Before it was possible to share on the web I did it on vhs, tapes and whatever. And if I can't get it at all and don't have the money (or find it too expensive) then it doesn't exist, I'll go without. I'm pleased to see the younger generation is increasingly choosing to go without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More and more the courts are making judgments that just make them irrelevant to society. They should be ruling in favor of the greater good, not for a minority. And stating that finding a way to comply with the law and do something innovative is just beyond crazy and makes even more sense for people to ignore the laws when it comes to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As an interesting info, here in Brazil the legal system is largely flawed, specially regarding criminal law. People got fed up and started doing justice with their own hands (ie: lynching has become more and more common). This has all sorts of dangerous developments. All because the Government only cares about itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
If this wasn't its purpose, there would be no need for a law.
The very fact copyright is established at the time of creation of the works without registration should have tipped off most of you.
The entire law needs to be abolished, and SCOTUS doesn't have this power.
Congress does, but as long as Hollywood is giving some members appearances in movies, don't expect any change for the better in your lifetime (plus 75 years).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said before, the copyright industry always gets their way. When they want to get paid, but aren't, they sue. If they lose, they have laws passed. If they can't get federal laws passed, they have state laws passed. If that doesn't work, they have treaties passed. They never give up and they never lose in the long term.
Copyright is about to get a whole lot worse, and it's never gonna get better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if I go their way I am a thief. They tell me so every time i put a dvd into my player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That leads me to believe that they were trying to act within the constraints of the law, but it was less risk to their growth to take the route where they're being perceived as "dirty thieves" by the media companies.
Then again, they could have taken the other route and end up collapsing under the weight of the licensing fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I See a Butterfly of Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I See a Butterfly of Money
There is zero penalty for filing false, even obviously false DMCA or copyright infringement claims against someone or some site. If the judge slaps you down, a simple 'Oops, I was wrong' is enough to completely negate any penalty you might otherwise have faced. And if your target, innocent or not decides to pay, rather than fight, well, free money, all it cost was one letter.
However, defending yourself, that's not so easy, and a lot of the time, even if the target knows they're completely in the right, completely innocent, it's still easier and cheaper for them to pull the content, or pay the demanded 'settlement' fee, than actually take it to court and fight it, especially when they know that their odds of recovering any of the money they spend to defend themself is non-existent, and win or lose they'll never get a dime of it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I See a Butterfly of Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly my point:
".. arguing repeatedly that the whole thing seems to have been set up solely to fit within the law.."
Isn't that the point of, well, following the law?
1. Law A is established.
2. Person X changes behavior to fall within the parameters of that law.
3. ???
4. PERSON X IS NOT ARRESTED FOR BREAKING THE LAW.
So if my city makes the speed limit on the freeway 75 miles per hour, and I travel 74 miles per hour, can I get a ticket for "acting solely to fit within the law?"
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cable Companies exclusive have access to right of way, in turn they pay retransmit fees to broadcasters.
Aereo has neither of these advantages. So why should they have to play by the old rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a semi-related note, I would like to demonstrate how ridiculous copyright law is:
Is storing a whole movie or parts of a movie on electronic storage illegal if you haven't bought a copy?
If you said yes, you think that remembering a movie you saw at the theater is infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One hopeful interpretation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see 'circumventing' in a whole new light
Thank you for your analysis, and it gives me a lot of insight into the word 'circumventing' is often used. I appreciate the irony in the above quote like I would not have only ten minutes ago. 'Circumventing' is often seen as a nefarious act, and it might well be bad behavior if referring to avoid detection, for example. In this case, however, we are talking about a process that is overly cumbersome simply to remain in compliance with the law. In Roberts' view, we are definitely 'circumventing' police speed traps when we remain under the speed limit to take longer to get home. For that matter, we are 'circumventing' the EPA when we take a Saturday morning to drop off hazardous waste at an appropriate waste pickup, rather than to pour the waste into the creek behind the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evading Speeding Fines
Defendant how do you plead.
Not guilty your honour.
OK, you've admitted you were speeding. You are fined $100.
Next case please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evading Speeding Fines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
low speeds... concurrently similar and different
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complying?
This is probably the best, most comprehensive discussion. Though, you could also read the district and appeals court rulings finding Aereo to be legal.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/why-johnny-cant-stream-how-video-copyright-went-ins ane/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complying?
The case being made against them is primarily that they're engaging in a "public performance" and therefore infringing. The defense to that is that it's not a public performance at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Complying?
Aero set up a system that AVOIDS those attributes, thus complying with the law. The argument is that in avoiding the attributes, they are "gaming the system" and should still be liable, even though they did not do what is technically needed to be found liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Complying?
What the MAFIAA is trying here is incredibly dangerous and it will backfire. How long till artists sue them for "gaming the system" in their accounting practices even thought they are seemingly legal?
Sometimes I do wish to see chaos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Complying?
Right, which is the argument that makes no legal or logical sense. If what you're doing is not illegal, then you should get legal penalties for doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Complying?
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complying?
If you answer 'No' to ANY of the following, please state why.
1) Is it ok for me to set up an antenna view broadcast television at my home?
2) Is it ok for me to pay somebody else to set up an antenna view broadcast television at my home?
3) Is it ok for me to setup a recording device to copy a broadcast that I can later watch on my television at home?
4) Is it ok for me to pay somebody else to setup a recording device to copy a broadcast that I can later watch on my television at home?
5) Is it ok for me to pay somebody to do all of the following above and move said equipment offsite and feed JUST TO ME what I wanted recorded to my television at my home?
If you didn't answer 'No' to any of the above, Aereo did nothing wrong and did not break any copywrite laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Complying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
could a "circumvention standard" create a revolution?
But I need to wake up from my dream. The sad reality is that there will always be a double standard, and the "justice" one receives being dependent on how close (or far) one is to the centers of power. (and being a declared enemy of Hollywood is about as bad as it gets) Anyway, this "circumvention standard" has long applied to the little people, who can for instance go to jail for breaking up bank withdrawals into small chunks to avoid the $10,000 'snitch' threshold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: could a "circumvention standard" create a revolution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another annoying line of questioning from the justices....
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/at-oral-arguments-supreme-court-isnt-sold-on-aereo/
T he justices should know better and Frederick should have called them on this. What Aereo may or may not decide to do in the future has absolutely no relevance in this case. This case is strictly about what they ARE doing right now and right now they are only setting up antennae for subscribers in their local area. Whether or not they COULD set up antennae in other markets so that subscribers could access content in from those markets is irrelevant. You can't be held liable for actions that you could commit but don't.
And since when is this a "broadcast" on Aereo's part. The signal there is between one user and one antenna. There is nothing "broad" or "cast" about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compliance and gimmick are not mutually exclusive
We can disagree whether Aero efforts to comply are gimmicky or not, but not that compliance is never gimmicky.
Suppose Supreme Court allows religious exemptions to Obamacare, and suppose a non religious company all the sudden claims to be religious to some made up God that doesn't believe in health coverage. Would that not be gimmick trick to work around the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: compliance and gimmick are not mutually exclusive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* felony interference with a business model.
* felony compliance with legal statues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense to me.
Love is hate. War is peace. Obeying the law is breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clear circumvention
If the courts don't put a stop to creative law use, the pinko commie fairie faggots win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So that's how they did it...
This completely destroys the concept of Rule of Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Aereo is doing is nothing more than your neighbor stealing your car out of your driveway, using it for their personal use, and not compensating you for their use of your car.
Aereo is simply engaging in theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
transmit is one sender to potentially many
receivers, Aero CONVEYS a single stream from their
eqipment to my house.
No possibility of anyone else receiving it but me.
That points to the insanity of defining a point to point
communication as a transmission simply because it goes
over the Internet which COULD be reconfigured as a
broadcast medium.
That definition makes my mother's land line phone a
"transmitter". Totally rediculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would you mind elaborating on this analogy? Here's my take.
The car is the broadcast signal, which is available to everyone for free. Aereo then takes the car- which remains available to others- and expands the group of people able to borrow the car(which remains available to everybody for free) from a neighborhood to a City, State, Country, or Planet.
Does that sound right? Doesn't seem like cars are at all like TV broadcast signals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This rot again?
...without compensating the networks and the cable companies who have the transmission rights to that content.
'Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they're dealing with free, over the air content that was never going to be paid for by the recipient? /s'
What Aereo is doing is nothing more than your neighbor stealing your car out of your driveway, using it for their personal use, and not compensating you for their use of your car.
'Not even close. If we're going to compare Aereo to something, compare it to someone gathering up copies of a free newspaper, and distributing it to people who would otherwise not have been able to get it. Yes they might charge for delivering those copies, but they're charging for the time and money it took to get those copies to the customers, not for the newspapers themselves.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where have they broken the law? They have taken something that is freely available in one location and charged to provide it in a different location. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't believe there are still people out there stupid enough to compare removal of a physical object to any form of copyright infringement, let alone a case like this which multiple courts have said is not infringement. You get my funny vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very major analogy fail.
You might be closer if you mentioned someone taking a picture of your car in its driveway and not giving you a cut, but that's still stretching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have not payed for one piece of MAFIAA for around 10 years.I do buy Art but only from Indie and local Non-MAFIAA Artists.
If I need a film or TV Show that abd I order it used or buy it local used and physical media only.
Fuck the MAFIAA !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kill Aero maybe, spend money to add a few more viewers, no way, it would compete the cable companies who are paying them handsomely for privilege of adding viewers to free to air programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no law against it.
"...doesn't mean that companies like Aereo can intercept those transmissions and make money off those transmissions by re-broadcasting..."
How are they "re-broadcasting"? You might as well argue that a dvr is re-broadcasting a show, because I watch the show the next day. Or even worse, I am a thief, because I like a movie I recorded so much, I watch it twice. Heaven forbid!
There is NO LAW which defines the maximum distance between either my antenna and dvr, or my dvr and my TV. Deal with it. There used to be a thing called a VCR rabbit, I had one. With it, I could watch the living room VCR in my bedroom. I was not "re-broadcasting" anything, even though the distance between the VCR and TV was some 40 feet. How can this be so hard for some people to understand. What they really mean to say is "It should be against the law". I think they are crazy, but they could at least be honest and say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no law against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no law against it.
They would even outlaw DVRs if they could figure out how to do that and still make money from DVD sales and rentals.
Speaking of DVDs, Walmart, buys DVDs from the producers and then puts them in a
package deal with a player, amplifier, and monitor. The purchasers of the package
do not pay anything additional to the producers. That is normal behavior.
Target buys a thousand DVDs from the producers, hauls them across the mountain into
the next valley over and sells them for a profit. Still regular behavior.
Now the producers are paid by local stations for programming which they add advertisements to and resell
to those advertisers for a profit.
Then they broadcast that combination into homes in a given area. I think we have been here before.
Finally along comes Aero, they capture the local station's signal, record it in case
I want it later, haul it over the mountain and deliver it to my house, not to anybody else.
For the recording and the hauling I am willing to pay a fee.
Explain why Aero is stealing and Target is not.
It cannot be because Aero makes a profit, Target does too.
It cannot be because the producers were not paid, Target and the local station both pay for their use.
So, could it be "stealing" because Aero made money without paying the producers a second time ?
If you have answers for the above I would really like to hear how sensible and fair they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is no law against it.
Wow, I did not see that coming ! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There is no law against it.
Aereo takes...
I think I see a big difference here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, one surprising moment in the arguments yesterday was 1. Justice Kennedy suggesting that they use Cablevision as "binding precedent" even though it's not and 2. ABC's lawyer actually admitting that he thinks the result in Cablevision was right, even if the reasons were wrong.
This was big on multiple levels. The fact that no one challenged the hypothetical hints strongly that the Justices don't want to overturn Cablevision. Furthermore, having the broadcasters actually concede that the *result* in Cablevision was correct is a huge admission. They've never done that.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aereo's counsel missed an easy one.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/mpaa-teachers-should-video-record-tv-screens-not-rip-dvds /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doublethink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Speed Test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"whoosh"
It may be that the justices are intended their statements to be subtle humor, as well as an exploration of the case merits.
Pretty much everyone here is scoffing at the idea that complying == circumventing. The justices are smart people that have reached the top of their profession, after having spent their entire career focused on the law. They couldn't possibly have missed this fallacy.
The only logical answer is that this is dry humor. Followed by 'give us wording that makes what Aereo is doing clearly illegal, without making record stores century-old criminal enterprises'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Police Chief: Not Wanting To Talk To Police Officers Is 'Odd'” by Tim Cushing, Techdirt, April 23, 2014
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Look. A Logic Chopping Game We Can All Play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To bring a new drug to market, your drug must first be evaluated and tested by the FDA. This is an unnecessarily complex process, therefore attempting to get your drug cleared by the FDA is clearly circumventing the law.
If your corporation makes a profit in your country, they must pay a tax on their profits. This is unnecessarily burdensome on the corporation, but the law does not tax your corporation on foreign profits. Therefore reporting all profits as being earned in a foreign country with no corporate tax is circumventing the law.
Which of these is truly "circumventing the law" vs "complying with the law"?
Building one TV antenna and broadcasting that signal to everyone connected to your cable network is infringing broadcasters exclusive rights (under current copyright law). Attaching one TV antenna to your personal TV to receive the broadcasters signal is not infringing. Although it is unnecessarily complex, each of Aereo's customers rents one TV antenna from Aereo to connect exclusively to their one household. How could this possibly be "circumventing the law" rather than "complying with the law" when this is the only legal way to not infringe on the broadcasters exclusive rights (under current copyright law)?
Why would you need to pay a licensing fee to rent a TV antenna from Aereo, but not to install one in your own house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, Apr 23rd, 2014 @ 12:07pm, also makes a great point about copyleft licensing completely turning the spirit of copyright law, upside down on it's head.
No matter which way you look at this. Copyright laws are absurd because 'copying' things is how we learn and evolve our skills as a species. All humans copy and learn from their parents.
To tell each new generation that they're not allowed to "stand on the shoulders of giants", and must begin from scratch, is truly absurd and retards innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair
So when someone like this comes around who is just trying to do a legitimate business...legitimately...everyone immediately thinks of those people who are just looking for a clever way to be sleazy.
Can I see the difference? Yes, I can.
Lots of other people are having a hard time differentiating this from sleaze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calvinball
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
letter vs spirit of law
and btw, chief justice roberts himself indicated as much and also said he agrees with you, and that "lawyers" figure out ways to wiggle thru loopholes in laws all the time
so the aereo case really boils down to the court deciding - is there a loophole in copyright law that can be lawfully exploited to make a business repurposing copyrighted material without paying the copyright holders a dime?
if so, the broadcasters will beg Congress to close the loophole, while threatening to turn off the 10% of the populus that uses broadcast airwaves to get TV. congress will likely comply, quickly, while bending over backwards to make sure "cloud computing" isn't accidentally limited.
if not, bye bye aereo, and sayonara to the army of schemers and entrepreneurs who would love to be told its ok to build a business to repurpose copyrighted material without paying copyright owners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aereo and © Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aereo was just the inevitable result...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aereo was just the inevitable result...
or do they?
[citation please]?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of two minds
On the one hand, Aereo may be nothing more than an online DVR that users purchase to manage "free" OTA broadcasts and if anything the content networks are getting even more distribution of their ads, and can raise their advertising rates accordingly. On the other hand, Aereo seems to be MAKING MONEY from resale of the content itself beyond simply fee for the service of managing online storage and access.
I find it an interesting legal case, and not a slam dunk by any means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of two minds
No, you are exactly wrong. It is perfectly fine for someone to charge for GPL code. The GPL states that you cannot make others pay you for distributing the same, and you must distribute (or make available) the source code for the binaries you distribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of two minds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I store all or part of a movie on an electronic medium without buying a copy, is that infringement?
If you say yes, you agree that going to a movie theater and remembering the movie is infringement. The brain stores information electronically, so you would be storing all or part of a movie on an electronic medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheap Gimmicks
Copyright itself is a "cheap gimmick".
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]