The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
from the a-mess,-a-mess,-a-big-fat-mess dept
Following the Aereo ruling in the Supreme Court this week, lots of folks are sifting through the decision and opining on what it all means. To give a brief summary, the general consensus is that the Supreme Court's "looks like cable" test is so devoid of actual legal standards and/or reasoning that perhaps the "best" result might be the fact that it gives no real guidance to anyone. The Court's decision rests almost entirely on the fact that Aereo "looked like" something else, totally ignoring the very important technical differences. The most ridiculous part of the ruling was where the majority totally admits that it's not going to even bother to look inside the black box to see if Aereo actually infringes, but rather will just say that it's infringement because of the similarity to cable:Viewed in terms of Congress' regulatory objectives, why should any of these technological differences matter? They concern the behind-the-scenes way in which Aereo delivers television programming to its viewers' screens. They do not render Aereo's commercial objective any different from that of cable companies. Nor do they significantly alter the viewing experience of Aereo's subscribers.That rationale should be scary to anyone who believes in the rule of law. The Supreme Court is flat out saying "we have no interest in opening up the black box to see if it's infringing, instead, we're going to look at the inputs and outputs and assume that it must be infringing, because those inputs and outputs sorta kinda match this other system that was infringing." But that deliberately blocks off what the actual dispute was about: whether or not what's happening in the black box infringes.
And because of that, lots of other internet services are... suddenly left swimming in the dark. Even if they (as Aereo did) follow the letter of the law to avoid infringing, if the Supreme Court (or another court) suddenly decide that they look like an infringing system because the court puts a black box around the specifics, they can be found infringing too.
Yikes!
Law professor Mark McKenna has a really good analysis of why this "looks like something that infringes" test is such a mess:
It would be one thing if the consequence of this approach were simply to block Aereo from offering its services. That would be a loss to consumers who don't want to pay $150 a month for cable subscriptions, but at least the damage might be contained. Unfortunately, the problem is bigger than that, for in glossing over technological details, the opinion potentially implicates a wide range of other services. What about Dropbox and other cloud computing services, for example, all of which use their own equipment to retransmit what they receive to their customers, often transmitting many user-specific copies of the same works? How do those avoid liability? Not to worry, says the court, those technologies might be different. Why? Because cable system.And... what that means is there will now be a ton of litigation, as old gatekeepers attack new innovations, testing out every angle of this bizarre "looks like an infringing system" test. Law professor James Grimmelmann, interviewed by Tim Lee at Vox, similarly notes what a mess this will become:
The most obvious way to insulate many of the cloud computing technologies would be to hold, as the dissent suggested, that a party does not infringe when it “does nothing more than operate an automated, user-controlled system.” But that is apparently not the rule, because it would have insulated Aereo from liability, too. Thus, while the court assures us that user control over a system might, in some cases, make a difference, it gives us no guidance as to when that might be true, except to say that it isn't true here.
"The court is sending a very clear signal that you can't design a system to be the functional equivalent of cable," says James Grimmelmann, a legal scholar at the University of Maryland. "The court also emphasizes very strongly that cloud services are different. But when asked how, it says, 'They're just different, trust us.'"Sure, we now know that if it "looks like a cable system" then it's not legal. But now get ready for a whole host of "looks like x" lawsuits. Lots of different online services might "look like Grokster." After all, that's what Viacom claimed about YouTube. Would YouTube have survived the Viacom lawsuit with this test? Unclear. As Sarah Jeong notes in her write up about the ruling, the really scary part is that we'll "never know the technologies that could have existed, the services that could have been," because many won't even bother trying.
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: cloud computing, copyright, guidance, looks like cable, supreme court
Companies: aereo
Reader Comments
The First Word
“But it *LOOKS* like an airport...
In other news, the TSA has decided to install security checkpoints at various locations in New Guinea and throughout Micronesia because—in the words of TSA spokesperson Lisa Farbstein—"It sure looks like an airport to me".The FAA said it's team of aircraft experts were still researching whether this new aircraft should be classified as an ultralight (ULAC) or simply a pile of branches and bark (WOOD).
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's also a disaster for the media companies that won the suit. As with every other victory they have in the courtroom, it's nothing more than a Pyrrhic one. They've been handed another excuse to not innovate or even to offer services based on now mature technology, and instead to let their lawyers run wild.
Until there's an online video offer equivalent or better than cable at a reasonable price, millions will continue to pirate. Netflix isn't there yet, and not just entirely because cable is trying to kill them.
Lawsuit won, at cost of millions. Revenue gained, nil. Company that could've helped broadcast video reach more people and make more money, destroyed. Other companies that could've helped video adapt, never going to be born. Widescale piracy extended. Everyone loses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The evil me is saying that we need tons of decisions as bad or worse up to the point the companies that *think* they are getting some benefit start being seriously harmed. You know, chaos, destruction. Then sanity and harmony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet he also went on to say he thought it was going to be illegal for other reasons.
It's also a disaster for the media companies that won the suit. As with every other victory they have in the courtroom, it's nothing more than a Pyrrhic one. They've been handed another excuse to not innovate or even to offer services based on now mature technology, and instead to let their lawyers run wild.
I think that you are making the perfect error here, which is trying to jam old media companies into your new business methods because they suit you better.
You need to ask the more obvious question: With all of the roku boxes out there, with all the other streaming media and download services out there, how come there is nobody really rising the the surface to compete against the existing media companies?
It seems that the only big players aren't creators, they are "middle ware" types - youtube, google, and yes, Aereo. They are the ones trying to become the new middlemen, that is where the action is at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are significant difference with these new middlemen compared with the old ones, they do not decide what is published, they do not demand that the copyrights are assigned to them, and they usually offer a better share of the profit to the creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not exactly. He said two things:
1. The secondary question was not addressed, could go other way.
2. The primary question is something that probably the Copyright Act passed in the 1970s ought to have addressed, if it had considered it.
Basically, all nine Justices thought that Aereo was a technological loophole in the law, which violated the spirit of the law. The difference was simply in how the Justices philosophically approach loopholes, when the letter of the law differs from the spirit.
Breyer is a pragmatist. the spirit and intent is what matters: "when read in light of its purpose, the Act is unmistakable... Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, why should any of these technological differences matter?"
Scalia is a textualist, the letter of the law matters: "It is not the role of this Court to identify and plug loopholes. It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For exactly the reason we're talking about. The media companies are famously litigious, and bizarrely even when it is against their own long term interests. They attack anything, anyone, any company even when it increases their markets and revenue. It takes a rare few to try to take them on when there's plenty of other ways to be a part of the next big startup.
Look at music. Streaming music only became a thing at least 10 years after it was easily achievable from both a technological and infrastructure perspective. And video? Despite its massive success, Netflix still can't get the content it needs from the media companies and is being attacked by the distribution side (cable and telcos).
I'm not saying the media companies will dissolve overnight. They'll keep limping along, fighting off everyone who tries to help them. They are leaving massive piles of cash on the table by clinging to their old model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When Viacom filed their ridiculous YouTube lawsuit, why didn't the folks at Google say "Let's settle this like businessmen" and initiate a hostile takeover? Forcefully give their corporate culture a few cluefulness upgrades, and the problem would go away.
Why are tech companies fighting media companies, rather than buying them out? That's always seemed bizarre to me. It's not like they don't have the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a matter of having the money or not, it's a matter of knowing what business you're in. One of the worst mistakes that a company can make is to expand beyond the scope of its business. Occasionally it works (and when it does, it can work very well) but usually it's a recipe for disaster, because it causes a large distraction from your core business.
[ 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:
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't fight the dinosaur. *Buy* the dinosaur. Sounds great until you realize that now you have a dinosaur to care for and feed. Do you know how much Brontosaurus Chow goes for these days?
[ 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:
*Homer Simpson voice* Mmmmm, McAereo Nuggets...
[ 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:
The last really good counterexample I can think of personally is Betrayal at Krondor, which was an awesome game, but to give you an idea of its age, it ran on DOS.
I mentioned this to Brandon Sanderson, author of (among other things) the Mistborn novels, at a signing event when he talked about a Mistborn video game in the works, and he said "Arkham Asylum." I've never played it, but I've heard it's pretty good. Even so, the general consensus is that high-quality video game adaptations of other media is a very small exception to a very strongly applicable rule. (He also said that he was well aware of the problem and he was working with the creators to ensure that the game they came up with did not suck.)
In the other direction, I think the best movie adaptation of a video game that I've seen was Prince of Persia... and that's not really saying much. :P
[ 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:
Some videogames make more money than major Hollywood films. If the movies are developed in tandem by the tech companies, the movies will be considered nothing more than giant commercials for the game. It's the same way now that the Star Wars movies are just commericals for all the toys and merchandise. And as Star Wars and Transformers shows, quality doesn't really matter.
When the tech companies start making the movies themselves things might change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's even worse regarding technology because the digital revolution is still fairly young and the old guard, made up mostly of people who grew up during the pre-digital age and thus view it as black magic, are still in power at the top. Just look at some of the inane comments that have been coming from Village Roadshow co-CEO Graham Burke lately for an example of just how out of touch the older generation can be (he's 71 I believe).
This is what has me wondering about the respective ages of each of the judges in the Aereo case. Surely it must be the reason why many of them weren't interested in digging deeper, if I'm understanding this article correctly. They know they wouldn't understand half of it and so don't wish to even try. This too is typical behavior for someone whom is set in their ways and doesn't wish to change. Does anyone know the ages of the judges, or where to find that information out? It would be interesting to see if my hypothesis is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell me about it. All this whining about the Aero decision reminds me of all those pathetic hominids whining about the ruling against bipedal locomotion in Citizens of the Woodlands v. Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
What idiot can't understand that walking upright creates an unfair competitive advantage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd question how immediate that really was. The basic market had already been created for them by the time the decision came in, but they were so scared of cannibalising theatrical and other sales that they spent much of the decade losing sales by hedging their bets (VHS sales only available for $100+, windows for years between theatrical and home releases).
It was only when they had some massive hits on video that had previously underperformed theatrically that they started to treat the market right by lowering sales prices, shortening windows, etc. Then, they started to really take advantage by releasing some works direct to video, releasing sets of TV shows, etc, and ultimately double/triple dipping by releasing movies in different formats, with additional DVD features and so on.
But that's really the problem faced now. Go back to Jack Valenti when he was making the infamously idiotic "Boston Strangler" comparison and he wouldn't be able to conceive of movies being successful on VHS as well as theatrically, let alone the multiple bites of the cherry it would ultimately enable - and things like Netflix would be pure science fiction. He would be looking to protect his company's existing business model, not help them massively expand into the future.
Sadly, just as losing the lawsuit has unforeseen positive consequences for the movie industry, this kind of decision has unforeseen negative consequences for the consumer. Thus, ultimately, negative consequences for the studio as they will lose money, even if it's money they don't know they can access yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is the beginning of the end for cable monopolies and Hollywood and television networks. When viewers are so disinterested that they won't watch content, even when they can do so at a time of their choosing, even when they can do so without commercials, even when they can do so on the device of their choosing...then they've lost their audience. I'm already there. The only thing I watch any more is (live) sports...and I'm finding that even that is nearly as enjoyable from a radio broadcast, provided the commentators are any good.
These companies are systematically cutting themselves off from their core constituency via litigation, pricing, restrictions, and availability. That can only end one way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Media companies, I'm more than willing to give you money for quality content. I pay $10 a month for Spotify. I'll pay up to $25 a month for streaming video if the conditions are right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may be an excellent case-study in the future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still trying to understand how like a cable company
2) does NOT control when broadcast
3) does NOT control when user watches said content
Other than that, it's just like a cable company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: still trying to understand how like a cable company
How many simultaneous views start infringing is also left unsaid. (Lots more litigation around that)
Which brings up another question, TCP allows for 16 receivers from a transmitter and can be one for each packet, "simultaneous" then is not on a microsecond scale. How close do packets need to be in time to trigger this decision ? (Oh, this decision will send lawyers' grandkids through college.)
More disastrous is the patent world, if everything that does the same job infringes then most patent holders can claim that all implementations of their idea infringe. Patent cases alone will clog the system for years trying to get this "looks close enough regardless of details" standard in their arsenal as well.
Patent Trolls are are brake on innovation, this decision will send them into a frenzy of suits trying to win a multi billion dollar lottery and they may even halt progress for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
They seemed to specifically single out cable-like services for this treatment. Whether this logic applies to any other service depends on whether it was also addressed specifically by laws. They were explicit in the decision, that congress intended to regulate and require licensing for providing the equivalent of cable service, and the court will follow the obvious intent of congress.
I find this an interesting Solomon-like decision much like their AHC decision; Congress is quite capable of deciding these issues, if they won't do so, don't expect the court to jump in and decide for them, especially if it runs counter to the intent of earlier laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
Did you get that? It doesn't matter how law-abiding you are, once you get accused you get judged on appearances alone -- facts are irrelevant.
I've lived in 8 different places in the past 20 years, all of them rented. At no time have I ever owned the TV antenna on the roof. I've just been able to connect to someone else's antenna to watch local TV.
Apparently, now that using someone else's antenna is now a public performance, providing broadcast TV to tenants will now be too expensive for landlords to afford.
There is no functional difference between Aereo and a landlord-owned roof antenna on an apartment building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can design a system to be the functional equivalent of cable- you just have to pay the retrans fee. It's not that hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And all those TV's with the capability already built in? Throw them all into a tire fire! Good riddance.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
6) Is it ok for me to pay somebody to lease all of the equipment doing all of the above?
If you didn't answer 'No' to any of the above, Aereo did nothing wrong and did not break any copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) you aren't paying for the setup, you are paying for the content. You wouldn't want it without the content.
3) Sure, knock yourself out, provided you control it, it's in your possession.
4) see number 3. Make sure it's in your home.
5) generally no, unless they are paying for the rights to do so.
6) you wouldn't lease any of it if there was no content.
See, each one of your arguments is good if you don't actually piece them together into one solid thing. There weren't selling you antenna space, they were selling you content delivery - which makes them a cable company. OTA delivered to you as a business. Not hard to figure out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's a series of yes/no questions about different scenarios, you answered all of them for Aereo when only 6 concerns Aereo (or an Aereo like service).
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reception is at my home.
Please address this before continuing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is where I fundamentally disagree. I can get the content elsewhere, what I'm paying for is very specifically the convenient setup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not what it is - it's what it delivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can give a person a ride and charge them a fee as a private citizen. If I do this same service as a business there are regulatory schemes I must follow, I must be a registered business, be registered with the state carry insurance, etc because I am no longer a private citizen doing this but a cabbie running a commercial business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not ok for me to setup an atenna at my home?!
You forgot to state why.
[ 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:
So exactly why ok for a private citizen and not a commercial entity?
I would think if somebody provides a service that I can legally do myself but either I'm too lazy, too rich or disabled to myself, I then have a commercial entity do because I would like somebody with professional experience to do.
[ 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: 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: Re:
Part of me really wishes Aereo would try to use the compulsory license just so we can watch the Networks then turn around and make contradictory arguments that violate the SCOTUS decision that Aereo is a cable company by pointing out every minor detail about how Aereo is different than cable in an attempt to get out of providing the license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The decision seems to be that because cable has to pay for one antenna shared by all their customers that everyone has to pay even if they each use their own antenna because what you actually do within the law isn't relevant, appearances are and it appears to be the same thing as cable.
One antenna per customer featuring live broadcast TV is a public performance (if you look like cable), but one DVR per customer recording TV is not (maybe only if you're actually cable?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It looks like FilmOn is preparing to do just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I give away a car, I can't demand a cut of gas station revenue.
Is it greed? Is it some weird loss aversion thing? I really want to know so I can give you some reasoning that just might educate you and show how horribly wrong you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be giving them ideas.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The networks basically got a ruling that limits their broadcast audience to only those who can get a quality signal on their own property, except that technically that digital receiver you're required to use now looks like cable and you're receiving the same signal at the same time as your neighbor, so according to this ruling everyone on digital TV (and there is no analog anymore) should have to pay the rebroadcast fee.
Be prepared to start paying for broadcast TV in the US, even if you're not a cable subscriber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Antennas, by definition, are used to pick up a signal that is (hopefully) nearby.
Aereo used their antennas to collect that nearby signal and then charged people to retransmit it. But they didn't pay retransmission fees. Their moronic business model was quickly declared illegal by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States.
This isn't difficult to understand. Maybe ask your helper to explain it to you.
[ 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:
The only difference between a rental and a purchase is who owns the equipment. Landlords have rented rooftop antennas to their tenants for decades, but under this ruling they would have to pay a retransmission fee too (despite the law *specifically* allowing landlords to do so) now that it "looks like cable". And since landlords typically only rent the use of one antenna to all their tenants they would be more like cable than Aereo who rented one antenna per customer to stay within the law as written. The court said specifically that following the law as written doesn't matter as long as you look like cable because Congress must have intended it that way(???).
If you don't know how a rental works then you need to grow up and move out of the basement. Rental of equipment is not the same as a subscription to content. Hulu Plus looks like a remote TV antenna connected to a DVR with a large selection of prerecorded shows, but it's really a subscription to content streamed over the internet. What it looks like vs. what it really is does matter in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rental
Aereo set up the antennas the way they did for a specific purpose and it was not to conform to the law. You're being willfully obtuse if you cannot admit that.
I have no love for large companies abusing powers. Quite the contrary. But I also have no love for small companies doing it either, playing the "I'm tiny and insignificant, what damage can I do card."
The ruling is sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rental
Ummm. That's 100% wrong. Aereo purposely set up their system to conform with existing statutes and case law (ie: engineered by lawyers, instead of technicians).
SCOTUS punted on actually looking at the technology to determine if it actually broke any laws and ruled on the premise that Aereo "looked" too much like a cable company instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Aereo's case the retransmission fee was already paid by the entities who own the broadcast towers. Why exactly do you think it should be paid twice for the same transmission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Monetize" is not the end-all be-all that you think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For the exact same reason that television and antenna manufacturers get a pass. Aereo is/was simply a tool to view OTA television with.
Aren't TV antenna manufactures also monetizing OTA signals for themselves? It's the reason TV antenna manufacturers exist in the first place, isn't it?
[ 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:
Or you can use a service like "Rent-to-own" who comes to your house, sets up the exact same system and rents it to you.
The signal gets picked up directly from the source and is used or recorded privately.
Which is exactly what Aereo did. They purposely kept your signal separate from anyone elses. It was also "private".
Aereo intercepts that signal and sells a service off that signal similar to what cable companies do. They take the tv signal and package it up to pipe out to paying customers. The only difference between cable and Aereo worked was how they got the source piped to them. Which is why it was "cable" like.
No, you are wrong, they didn't "package" anything, they purposely kept your transmission separate and completely under the user's control, so it wouldn't be any different than a legal setup in someone's house, except for being located somewhere else. Only difference is where the equipment is located.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you link to one such service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess what? They rent TVs! And they can receive OTA TV broadcasts with antennas and everything.
[ 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: Re: Re:
Hmm. I know for a fact that it was pretty common practice for rent-to-own places to include antennas with TV's in the 80's, especially in rural areas. But I guess not so much anymore. All I get when searching "rent" and "antenna" these days is stories about Aereo. I even tried the Wayback Machine without much luck.
[ 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:
No one is stopping you from renting an antenna.
If you wish to rent an antenna in another city, it isn't going to do you much good unless someone transmits that signal to you.
Which Aereo does.
Oh but oops they didn't pay the retransmission fee.
Intentional stupidity strikes again. Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aereo provides the equipment and the internet provides the cord. The broadcaster is the one who transmitted the signal to the antenna which is connected to your TV by a very long cord.
Your antenna performs no differently if located two feet away or two thousand miles away. If the antenna is retransmitting TV signals on your cord then why aren't you paying your retransmission fees every time you use a TV antenna?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is exactly what ivi did... and they got sued out of existence for it. So, yeah, it is kinda hard.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110222/11395313211/court-not-impressed-with-ivis-legal-loop holes-shoots-online-tv-broadcaster-down.shtml
Want to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Seattle-based ivi launched a service in 2010 offering packages of TV signals from broadcasters to ivi subscribers — without compensating broadcasters for the retransmissions. Ivi was charging its own customers $4.99 a month for the streaming service while refusing to pay the shows' owners.
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/ivi-tv-loses-bid-get-back-online-broadcasting-business- 53606/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are two sets of fees. One under the Copyright Act and another under the Federal Communications Act. Since the Internet is regulated under Title I, they weren't subject to the later. They were paying the royalties to the network under the Copyright Act's compulsory licensing.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:rights holder
There's a lot of comments I wanted to respond to. This one is where I finally had enough. If someone has "rights" then it is that person's choice to cede them, temporarily. Rights are not maybes, they are rights. What's the point of being a holder of copyright if it is "beyond the pale" for people to respect them?
On a slight tangent, but the overall point of all this Aereo discussion comes down to a lot of people do not agree with the copyright law; because the merits of the SCOTUS decision are clear and correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:rights holder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:rights holder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
What's the worst that could happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring back Must Carry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring back Must Carry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is completely wrong. Aereo delivers the content to screens that otherwise can't receive broadcast signals. That's a significantly altered viewing experience. Cable never did that.
[ 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: If you're too far away, you must pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you're too far away, you must pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution
What happened in music? A trickle of artists decided to skip the major label deal and made it big anyway.
In video? Netflix, now Amazon to produce content. A trickle at first.
Another thing is that the RIAA and MPAA love to destroy dreams if they arbitrarily believe that your idea won't make money because it doesn't fit their formula. The innovators might not have that shortsightedness. They may offer a real alternative for pent up demand for something different than sequels of remakes of sequels of fifty year old TV programs. And least objectionable programming. How about something that doesn't appeal to everyone, but to some has deep even fanatical appeal.
Want to bet the innovators in tech can work with innovators in content and one day Hollywood will wake up and see that the world has changed, and then they will suddenly try to catch up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution
That doesn't solve the problem Aereo was solving: providing access to OTA broadcasts to people who can't get them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution
The Supreme Court Standard is "Looks like a duck", good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution
If you meant to say that cable retrans fees are computed by how often a subscriber watches a channel, then you're flat out wrong. At most, the cable company could only know that from two-way set top boxes and would significantly undercount cable ready TVs without such.
If you meant to derogatorily imply that it was impossible, then you fundamentally don't understand how Aereo worked and are just spouting bullshit (no surpise there, how's that for an insult).
Assuming Aereo survives, there's no reason they couldn't easily keep logs of what content was watched by their collective user base and make payments off that. Unless you're admitting that retrans fees are nothing more than a Mafia-like shakedown fee, there's nothing unreasonable about only paying the fee for the content that is actually retransmitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The solution
Even if you assume that Aereo is like a cable system, retransmission fees still don't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is NO difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simply saying it does is meaningless unless you're Kim what's his name, the current Dictator of North Korea, and even then it would only apply within the borders of North Korea.
Go read the latest Copyright Act then get back to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please keep them posting. We're using this thread as proof of the Google stooge thought process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another option...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another option...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Good News
"Monster" looks like a cable company...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Good News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some Good News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just found this site about a month ago...
Disruptive technology, by its nature, routes around decisions like this. Aereo on its face - its ridiculous Rube Goldberg tech solution - was such an attempt. Unfortunately, despite being a cool hack, I would bet that - to many members of the Court - what Aereo was doing looked awfully like a bad actor attempting to get around legal requirements through technology that didn't exist at the time. I may not agree with the court's decision, but it's definitely one where I can at least see what animates it.
In the end, nobody - except maybe a few district court judges, let's not underestimate people :-) - will interpret this case in such a way as to bring about the end of technical innovation in America. And Techdirt is less valuable to me for this kind of sky is falling rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just found this site about a month ago...
But I do indeed view it humorously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I just found this site about a month ago...
That is really the issue with this particular ruling. This is the first ruling I am aware of that prevents the behavior you are talking about. It has always been the technical details (the length of the cable does not matter for a DVR) that have allowed innovative technology to route around bad law. This ruling addresses it by specifically saying that routing around the law via technology is not allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I just found this site about a month ago...
This isn't difficult to understand. Maybe ask your helper to explain it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not a lack of interest, rather it's a lack of need. The technicalities of the system Aereo created was one to try to get around the existing laws and to stretch existing judgements to their favor. SCOTUS realized (by 6 to 3, I may point out) that the real answer was found by standing back a few feet and watching the how things worked as a whole. Taken as a whole, Aereo is just another cable company, albeit one that doesn't pay for it's content (seems to be a familiar refrain in all these new fangled business models).
You have to consider the alternatives. Would you consider IPtv to be cable or not cable? How about sat TV? Aereo seems pretty much right in the mix with these companies, taking OTA broadcasts, and re transmitting them to end subscribers for a fee. Seems like a cable company to me.
In the end, the judgement was 6-3, and even Scalia in dissent seemed pretty much ready to call them out in other areas. This isn't just a win for broadcasters, it's a big one with little space for doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of us have times where we absolutely rely on being inside the letter of the law, in order to avoid out of control prosecutors, cops, or judges with a grudge going after us. We want the law to be predictable and clear; we want to be able to read the law and rely on what it says rather than the whims of judges. But, all of us have times where we get frustrated at people who rely on clever lawyers and legal loopholes to avoid what seems to be the clear spirit of the law.
Both judicial philosophies have weaknesses, and few of us are as consistent as Breyer or Scalia. Instead, most of us change our opinion depending on the particular issue at hand in the case.
Contrast Breyer: "when read in light of its purpose, the Act is unmistakable... Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, why should any of these technological differences matter?"
with Scalia: "It is not the role of this Court to identify and plug loopholes. It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes."
Very little difference on the facts between the justices. This was a technological loophole perhaps following the letter of the law but very likely contrary to the spirit of the law. The question was what matters more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which way is the wind blowing today.
THAT is the problem with making up sh*t as you go along.
Scalia's approach has it's problems but it's at least safe from the "which way is the wind blowing today" problem.
"You followed the law very diligently but I am sorry I have to punish you anyways. I will be taking your house and your children now."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alright then, let's step back a few feet and watch how things work as a whole.
The First Amendment specifies that Congress cannot limit freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Copyright law prevents me from saying or printing certain things without permission, therefore it limits my freedom of speech and press.
Therefore, copyright law is unconstitutional.
You're right, Whatever. Stepping back and looking at results really does help us make the right decisions. But are you wise enough to accept the results of your own logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I suggest you read SCOTUS' Eldred & Golan opinions. Your conclusion is NOT descriptive of the actual law. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gotcha. You were making a normative argument about what you think the law should be, not a description of the actual law. I think the two are irreconcilable only if you think the First Amendment is absolute. That's never been the law. For example, treasonous speech has never been protected. And as much as copyright is expanding to new subject matter, I think it's important to recognize that the First Amendment is as well. For example, SCOTUS held in the early 1900s that movies weren't protected speech, but that holding was reversed in the mid-1900s. The Court doesn't take an absolutist approach to First Amendment claims against speech restrictions. It instead does a balancing of interests. The way it reconciled things in Eldred was by looking at copyright's internal safety valves, fair use and the idea/expression distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only principled exceptions to free expression are against threats and against lies. Exceptions for the sake of profit are only good for protectionism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The last learned fellow to try this argument (a local hero on Techdirt) pretty much got laughed out of court. It's a non-starter. So your understanding of copyright in the legal sense is impaired until you get past this basic point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course it can. The law isn't all one thing or all something else. It's a collective understanding that the rules aren't just about you and you alone, but rather your place within a society of people just like you. It's the nature of the game. Things work when there is a space for everyone, not just yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or to post your trash and make yourself feel better by belittling others?
Ever heard the expression "A legend in his own mind"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry what were you saying? I was too busy watching the sky:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140626/18375827694/aereo-fallout-begins-fox-uses-ruling-to-a ttack-dishs-mobile-streaming-service.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, yes I do. Good thing I'm not doing that.
Don't you think it's a bit too early to be tossing around Chicken Little insults, since nether of us really knows what exactly this will impact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's simple truth. People pointed out unintended consequences that might happen, and Aereo's corpse hasn't even started to cool before your beloved corporations started to carry them out. There may be hope that the consequences aren't as bad as people have feared, but it's not looking good.
But hey, carry on with the lies and name-calling, that always helps people see your point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That pretty simply morphs into "Legality depends upon the beholder". And that is not a road I want to see this Country go down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What objective test can be made based on this ruling that supports your belief?
Say someone buys up some of Aereo's equipment - the antennas. They allow someone to specifically rent the antenna, and a connected server where they can configure the antenna, but do not provide any streaming service. A client does that, then installs other software on their server to upload things to Dropbox. The user then later streams that content from Dropbox.
The end result is the same as Aereo. Who is the duck here? The antenna provider? Dropbox? The software creator?
If none of those 3 are doing anything wrong, then how could Aereo doing everything itself be wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140626/18064627693/aereo-ruling-is-disaster-tech-because -looks-like-cable-test-provides-no-guidance.shtml#c374
None of those companies look like a duck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If every step is legal for 3 separate companies to do, how can it be illegal for a single company to do all 3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
Sure the technical details don't seem to matter to determine whether Aereo is a cable company or not NOW, but they sure as hell would had Aereo decided they wanted to try to use the compulsory license. You can bet your ass that the Networks would be arguing that Aereo wasn't a cable company then and therefore they wouldn't be subject to providing the compulsory licensing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
I wonder if the SCOTUS decision has a silver lining. By deciding that Aereo is, in effect, a duck (looks like, walks like), does this decision actually enable online cable companies? If I had the ability to watch, on demand, anywhere, whatever my local stations had already broadcast, I'd subscribe to that service in a heartbeat. Well, assuming reasonable pricing, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does is make sense for Aereo to just pay retrans fee?
So whichever way the court ruled, they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.amazon.com/Ckeyin-Receiver-Adapter-Worldwide-Analog/dp/B00J5C0BPS/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8 &qid=1403884240&sr=8-11&keywords=tv+receiver+usb
Let's see:
- receives OTA television broadcasts
- converts them to a format my computer understands
- lets me view it on my computer
- has DVR capabilities
- and I'm sure I could find a way to stream that to another computer across the internet if I wanted to
Looks exactly like what Aereo offered to me. Or is it only illegal if I have really, really long USB cord?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It get's better than that.
So is one of these things still legal to use?
What if I send the signals to my inlaws?
What if I put one of these in a data center somewhere?
The "quacks like a duck" approach is a really retarded way to avoid actually understanding anything that's going on. You completely miss any of the relevant little details that any case hinges on.
Talk about blind justice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It get's better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference to the user
Um... I disagree. When I used to have cable tv, even the local stations had commercials replaced by the cable company (if I'm watching cable, why am I seeing an ad for cable...)
I also find that my blood pressure rises when I know I'm watching cable... ... but that one is probably just me :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it *LOOKS* like an airport...
The FAA said it's team of aircraft experts were still researching whether this new aircraft should be classified as an ultralight (ULAC) or simply a pile of branches and bark (WOOD).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but will this legal theory apply to P2P?
The uploading component that may or may not be built into the P2P software application is not something that the vast majority of users intentionally activate -- or in many cases even know about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gender Gap?
I'm just curious if men and women (on average) tend to view things differently when it comes to technical vs. substantive arguments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I'm aware that Apple wasn't actually the first to make tablet computers, but they're the company the US Government seems to have conferred "special" status upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple was found infringing on Samsung's functional patents too, but the President overturned Samsung's ban on Apple products. Not surprisingly, he refused to do the same for Apple's ban on Samsung products despite Samsung factories in Texas and Apple factories in China. Anything to help China's growing economy I suppose.
But that's patent law for you, a whole other beast altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't difficult to understand. Maybe ask your helper to explain it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sound this ruling makes hurts my ears
How a series of completely independent systems that happen to be running in parallel equates to a "broadcast" requires such lingual gymnastics that it could equally be interpreted to mean that storage locker providers are "broadcasting" boxes of old crap to its customers, and banks are "broadcasting" money.
Josh in CharlotteNC nailed it: all this does is keep piracy alive and well. And it will until the content providers get off their complacent asses and actually start giving customers in this highly connected world today what they want. I would love to see the next Game of Thrones try the Louis CK business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]