Judge To Aereo: Hey, Didn't The Supreme Court Make It Clear That You Guys Are Dead?
from the not-looking-good dept
When the Supreme Court ruling in the Aereo case came out, we noted that beyond the bizarre "looks like a duck" test that the Supreme Court made up on the spot, it also appeared to leave open the possibility that Aereo could survive if it simply added a mere delay to its streaming. That's because a key part of the "looks like a duck" test to make Aereo's service a "public performance" was that the shows were streamed "contemporaneously." As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent, without any further clarification in the majority ruling, it certainly sounds like Aereo could just function as a remote DVR and be fine.Back in the district court this week, however, the same judge who had originally ruled in Aereo's favor, now seems to believe that the Supreme Court's decision completely wiped out Aereo's chances altogether. This is the problem with these kinds of Supreme Court rulings, where they rule with a focus on one particular aspect (in this case "contemporaneous" viewing) and lower courts interpret it to mean all of Aereo was ruled illegal. This same sort of thing happened with the Grokster case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Grokster was guilty because of its related actions that "induced" infringement, and the RIAA/MPAA and others simply assumed that the court said all file sharing is illegal.
In this case, Aereo went before Judge Alison Nathan to present it with a few different arguments over how the company could stay in business -- either by paying licenses as a cable operator or by time shifting, etc. -- and the judge didn't seem to think any option was available to the company. As the Hollywood Reporter notes, her response was:
"Just as a matter of finality, how many bites at the apple does one get?"I would think that the answer is as many bites as is legal, no? All of the proposed alternatives by Aereo are clearly in direct response to the Supreme Court's specific "looks like a duck" ruling. Aereo isn't trying to challenge that, it's looking to work within the rules the Court established. Yet, once again, we see people taking Aereo's efforts at complying with the specific law as laid out by the courts, and interpreting it as somehow circumventing the law.
Either way, Aereo has the stigma of "lost at the Supreme Court" attached to it, and it appears that any attempted solution to actually comply with the Supreme Court's ruling will be seen as not being allowed because it's merely trying to get "another bite at the apple."
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: cable, contemporaneous, copyright, looks like a duck, remote dvr, streaming, supreme court
Companies: aereo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
salutations
paulo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, they gambled on the U.S. Supreme Court and they lost and they're trying to use the Supreme Court decision to find a new strategy to keep broadcasting that content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting...so when they actually follow the Supreme Court guidelines, they're still wrong.
That "justice" thing sure sounds like a load of horse shit to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you cite the Court's "guidelines" so that we can look at them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have at it!
We anxiously await your response.
[ 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:
How is it disingenuous to ask this person to cite the specific guidelines he's mentioned? I am prepared to back up my arguments. I'm seeing if this person can explain his argument first.
[ 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:
He claims the opinion contains guidelines. I'm asking what those guidelines are, specifically. And I am "actively engaging in discussion." See below, and give me a break.
[ 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:
I've having a productive conversation with several other people. You should join us.
[ 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:
Jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jackass.
I'm looking for the specific language in the opinion that he's referring to. I don't think there is any such language, which is my point. If he can't produce that language he's referring to, then that backs up my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's right, there's not a bit of language in that ruling! So take that, you dirty pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Yet, once again, we see people taking Aereo's efforts at complying with the specific law as laid out by the courts, and interpreting it as somehow circumventing the law. "
It appears to me that AC is implying that they are trying to adhere to the "specific law as laid out by the courts", but can't quite figure out what that is or is being told that they are "still wrong".
Based on the story above, I can easily see how he can think that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, how horrible
It's really just beyond the pale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not about complying with the ruling. The ruling said nothing about whether Aereo is a cable system under Section 111, and it said nothing about the delayed transmissions. There's nothing in the opinion about these two issues to comply with. Keep in mind that we're just getting Mike's exaggerated, and unsupported, FUD. Journalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the ruling
"The text of the Clause effectuates Congress’ intent. Under the Clause, an entity may transmit a performance through multiple transmissions, where the performance is of the same work. Thus when an entity communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to multiple people, it “transmit[s] . . . a performance” to them, irrespective of the number of discrete communications it makes and irrespective of whether it transmits using a single copy of the work or, as Aereo does, using an individual personal copy for each viewer.
"Moreover, the subscribers to whom Aereo transmits constitute “the public” under the Act. This is because Aereo communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to a large number of people who are unrelated and unknown to each other."
And much further down:
"For one thing, the history of cable broadcast transmissions that led to the enactment of the Transmit Clause informs our conclusion that Aereo “perform[s],” but it does not determine whether different kinds of providers in different contexts also “perform.” For another, an entity only transmits a performance when it communicates contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds of a work. See Brief for Respondent 31 (“[I]f a distributor . . . sells [multiple copies of a digital video disc] by mail to consumers, . . . [its] distribution of the DVDs merely makes it possible for the recipients to perform the work themselves—it is not a ‘device or process’ by which the distributor publicly performs the work” (emphasis in original))."
You can always just 'Ctrl-F' for "contemporaneous" in the ruling and take it from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the ruling
The issue before the Court was the live transmissions. The delayed transmissions were not. However, the Court's analysis of the live transmissions is broad enough that it can be applied to the delayed transmissions. You quoted passages that show just that.
For example: The Court says that it doesn't matter how many copies are used. Whether each customer has his own copy, or whether one copy is used for multiple customers, it's the same result. What matters is that the same *work* is being transmitted. And what makes it public is that the work is being transmitted to several people who are unrelated. The Court is talking about the live transmissions here, but the same would apply to the delayed transmissions since the Court's analysis is of Section 101 generally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bait-and-switch
First off, you flat-out admit that non-contemporaneous (delayed) transmissions were not covered by this ruling, but I'd go further than that. THE PLAIN TEXT of the opinion hangs its hat on the fact that Aereo's transmissions are (a) contemporaneous, and (b) to a collection of non-related people.
Second, the court even explicitly acknowledges that non-contemporaneous distribution is *not* a performance. "For another, an entity only transmits a performance when it communicates contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds of a work." Ergo, no "contemporaneously perceptible images" means no performance, which means it falls outside the scope of the ruling.
Finally, I didn't bring up -- nor does Aereo bring up -- the number of copies, so your whole final paragraph is a non sequitur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bait-and-switch
You appear to be confused by the contemporaneous thing. What's makes them performances is that the transmissions can be viewed contemporaneously as they are received. This is in contradistinction to a download, which is downloaded and then perceived later. It's *not* about the transmission from Aereo being contemporaneous with the original broadcast. Further evidence of this is the Court's statement about transmissions being received at "different times." And as far as the unrelated people goes, whether the transmissions are live or delayed, the same underlying work is being transmitted to unrelated people--thus making the performances public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bait-and-switch
I completely disagree that that's what the court meant by "contemporaneous" given how often it references the video *retransmitting* when the user selects it.
So under your interpretation of the court's opinion -- in which a company can take a copyrighted work, store it somewhere on their end (since you argue "contemporaneous" ONLY means "not a download" and not "a contemporaneous retransmission") and display that to the user, and the user views the video as it streams to them -- how is YouTube not prima facie illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bait-and-switch
I completely disagree that that's what the court meant by "contemporaneous" given how often it references the video *retransmitting* when the user selects it.
So under your interpretation of the court's opinion -- in which a company can take a copyrighted work, store it somewhere on their end (since you argue "contemporaneous" ONLY means "not a download" and not "a contemporaneous retransmission") and display that to the user, and the user views the video as it streams to them -- how is YouTube not prima facie illegal?
I've not painted myself into a corner. I've given this a lot of thought. Maybe I'm not explaining it well.
You quoted this passage: Sending a file that can be perceived contemporaneously is what makes makes that transmission a performance. If the transmission is for downloading, and not streaming, then it's not a performance. The Court is getting this from the Second Circuit. I can dig up that case law if you like.
As far as YouTube goes, YouTube *is* publicly performing. It has licenses to publicly perform, from copyright owners and from uploaders. When you upload something to YouTube, you give it a license to publicly perform. But more importantly, YouTube is protected by the DMCA under Section 512(c) for its user-generated content. So even if it doesn't have a license for some content, as long as it doesn't know that content to be infringing, the DMCA protects it. I'm simplifying here, but I hope that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah okay
So cloud DVRs are illegal now under this logic.
Except for the part where SCOTUS explicitly said they're not outlawing cloud DVRs, at least not here:
"We agree with the Solicitor General that “[q]uestions involving cloud computing, [remote storage] DVRs, and other novel issues not before the Court, as to which ‘Congress has not plainly marked [the] course,’ should await a case in which they are squarely presented.”"
So on one hand, you're arguing that the *sole* distinction that SCOTUS created between "legal" and "not legal" has to do with *streaming* a video file instead of requiring the user to download the entire file before viewing. Yet SCOTUS explicitly rejected that they were ruling on the legality of streaming recorded content from a cloud DVR -- a system by which a third party records cable or broadcast content at the direction of the user and *streams* that content back to the user as a later date.
So where's the boundary here? If I get a gigabit connection and download a reasonably compressed video in 3 or 4 seconds then is that "not contemporaneous"? If I *could* download the video in 3 or 4 seconds but don't because I want to save space on a mobile device does that put me afoul of this ruling? Or by asking these questions am I simply -- in the court's eyes -- violating the law because I'm clearly attempting to circumvent it?
SCOTUS said that they didn't outlaw cloud DVRs and nothing in this ruling should be construed to do so at this time. They say that downloading (i.e., streaming to a 100% buffer) is okay, but streaming is not. They say that it's "the public" if it's more than "a substantial number of people outside of a family and its social circle" but provides not definition of "social circle" or "substantial".
It's almost as if this is a vague ruling that will lead to increased confusion and litigation in the marketplace and discourage new entrants from exploring this marketplace because no one is certain about what just got outlawed, and any attempts to comply with the law are clear signs of intent to violate said law.
Except SCOTUS said that wouldn't happen either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bait-and-switch
He (and we) may, indeed, be confused on that issue, but *you*, most assuredly are NOT the one to bring clarity to this issue. You, a shilltroll(tm) are the absolute LAST person who would bring better understanding of these issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bait-and-switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bait-and-switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Justice Scalia's dissent indicated that this exact issue would have to be taken up by the lower court because the majority's decision left it unclear:
Emphasis mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Scalia's opinion was using parts of Cablevision as it's foundation. If the courts end up ruling that Aereo's record function is a public performance wouldn't that suddenly outlaw every remote DVR service out there, including those of the cable companies because it would be considered a second public performance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good question. I think that under Aereo, as long as the customer has obtained a legitimate interest in the content, then the performances are not public. For example, if I upload a file to a locker and then stream it back, the performance is private because it occurs after I've obtained a legitimate interest in it. This is the problem for Aereo. Its customers don't have a legitimate interest in the copies on the remote DVR--even for the delayed transmissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know legally that may be true, but out in the real world that seems completely crazy to me since Aereo is using OTA, free broadcast signals that anyone with an antenna can already receive and to which the rights holders were ALREADY compensated for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can receive the broadcasts yourself, but it's different when someone acts as a middleman between you and the broadcasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...or at a friends ? ? ?
no, you have been -and are- in spite of your legalistic hairsplitting bullshit, disingenuous in your argumentation and reasoning...
1. to the 'original' (non) point, in which you act purposefully abstruse in repeating 'guidelines' a million times... AS IF you did not get the original posters point, AND, AS IF legal decisions/cases do not IN FACT AND IN DEED promulgate what can without doubt be called 'guidelines' in how people are thenceforth supposed to comport themselves in relation to such legal, um, what's the word i'm searching for ? GUIDELINES...
how can we not take that for ANYTHING but willful dickishness ? ? ?
2. as one poster *attempted* to make a larger point about how 90-99% of us DO NOT GIVE A FUCK what the SCOTUS decided per se, ONLY inasmuch as us natives are squished between their toes when the elephants dance...
the 'legal' aspects are -for the most part- the most UNINTERESTING parts, EXCEPT in that they amply demonstrate the to-the-core hypocrisy and dual (in)justice system we suffer under in Empire...
what IS (or SHOULD BE, to thinking, empathetic human beans) germane AND interesting, is what are the MORAL arguments... who cares about pinhead law students arguing on how many angels can dance on the head of a fiber optic cable...
Empire must fall,
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all
[ 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:
You may disagree with it, but that's what the Supreme Court said so that's the law. I think it makes sense. What makes a performance private is not just who it's sent to. For example, YouTube sends me a performance that only I can see, yet it's still publicly performing. Why? Because it's sending me content that I don't have an existing legitimate interest in. Contrast this with a storage locker, where I can stream content that I've uploaded. These performances are private because I have a legitimate interest in the content that I uploaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't one legally have an "existing legitimate interest" in free over-the-air television broadcast signals from the moment they leave the broadcast tower?
That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have an interest in it once it's received, not when it's sent.
That is exactly what I have now with an antenna on my roof. How does that change just because it's routed through a third party?
Because the point of the definition in Section 101 is to make it so that third parties that act as intermediaries must obtain a license. Cable systems do this, and they have licenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I received the video from the storage locker and YouTube, yet one I don't have an interest in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can extrapolate any sentence starting with these 4 words to present a specious argument unworthy of reading.
(Exact replica of the treatment you reserve Aereo). How much money are you paid ? I know the salary for paid trolls by the dark side was revealed to be kinda low from some Snowden/leaks documents but surely you can go watch the latest Apocalypse themed movies Hollywood pushes down everyone's throat increasingly so the mass psychosis Obama Friend Chicken company can keep everyone in fear 24/7. At least during the Bush era movies were all about America winning at everything by a thread, mostly because it's ideas were better than others at a philosophical level. You can't just go out and enjoy life while Putin is giving interviews in Serbia and European countries that don't detest Russia becaue NATO told them to is talking about how not many more affronts to Russia will have submarines and ICBM's on high alert very soon. You got entertainment that's unbelievably shitty about how it's the apocalypse at the movies, use your pay to ignore the reality they want you to ignore while they're making it a self-fulfilling prophecy (but without shitty real life graphics, no CGI's, sorry) that we'll nuke each other before 2034.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paid to post on Techdirt? LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*someone* has to be the POS traitors they buy off, but i don't think you are one...
no, i think you are a twue beweiver, and an obvious high-RWA...
which is both more likely, and less desirable...
Empire must fall,
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*someone* has to be the POS traitors they buy off, but i don't think you are one...
no, i think you are a twue beweiver, and an obvious high-RWA...
which is both more likely, and less desirable...
Empire must fall,
the sooner the fall,
the gentler for all
You are weird dude. I am a "twue beweiver," assuming that means I believe truly what I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They specified what was not allowed, so Aereo is using that as a "guideline" to do transmissions that are not "contemporaneous", so we call those transmissions "delayed".
Given how basic that is to understand, your failure can best be explained the famous Upton Sinclair quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They specified what was not allowed, so Aereo is using that as a "guideline" to do transmissions that are not "contemporaneous", so we call those transmissions "delayed".
Given how basic that is to understand, your failure can best be explained the famous Upton Sinclair quote.
I think you're making the same mistake as Mike as to what "contemporaneous" means. It's not about Aereo retransmitting broadcasts at the same time the broadcasts are originally sent. The Court is saying that the retransmissions are performances because they can be perceived at the same time as they are sent.
[ 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:
Law-types tend to like arguments. Thanks for the comment. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IMO, it does indeed say "something" about delayed transmissions... it talks about receiving the transmission at different times, which I would equate to being "delayed"..
"The Transmit Clause must permit this interpretation,
for it provides that one may transmit a performance to the
public “whether the members of the public capable of 14 AMERICAN BROADCASTING COS. v. AEREO, INC.
Opinion of the Court
receiving the performance . . . receive it . . . at the same
time or at different times."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're correct. I was careless there. What I mean is that the delayed transmissions weren't before the Court, so it didn't address them. However, it did address the live transmissions, and some of that language can be applied to the delayed transmissions. As you mention, the Court did talk about transmissions occurring at "different times," and this certainly can be applied to the delayed transmissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you should also keep in mind that this site is a
TECH
BLOG
and not a journalism site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TECH
BLOG
and not a journalism site.
So when Mike whines about the journalistic integrity, or perceived lack thereof, of others, it's not fair game to point out his own lack of journalistic integrity? I disagree. Calling it a "tech blog" doesn't change things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet, when we point our YOUR lack of journalistic integrity (if it applies to Mike and his OPINION blog, it applies to you and your opinion COMMENTS in the same manner) and report your comments, you freak out about "censorship" and all sorts of nonsense persecution bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you think a person who comments on an article at the New York Times has the same duty of journalistic integrity as the reporter and/or publisher of the article? I don't think that makes any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike isn't a reporter. This isn't the NY Times (sorry, Mike.) This isn't journalism in the sense you are trying to make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think Mike wants to gain the benefits of an actual journalist, but without the trouble of earning them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Law re broadcasting: If you do X, Y, and Z, you are considered A.
Areo: Does P, Q, and R instead.
Broadcasters: OMG Aero is breaking the law by acting to get around it.
Supreme Court: Agreed. Aero, if the law says you are A if you do X, Y, and Z, you are A, even if you do P, Q, and R instead.
Aero: So, can we do B, C, and D instead?
Lower Court: OMG HOW MANY CHANCES DO YOU GET
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vague law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you point to the language in the opinion that makes you think Aereo can escape liability by simply delaying the transmissions? Legal arguments are generally more persuasive when you back them up with primary sources. That said, based on your prior post, I don't think you understand the contemporaneity issue. It's not that the retransmission has to be contemporaneous with the original transmission. What makes it a performance is that the retransmission can be viewed contemporaneously as it's sent. For example, downloading a file from a storage locker is not a performance. Streaming a file from YouTube, on the other hand, is. YouTube sends the file such that it can be viewed contemporaneously. The storage locker does not.
All of the proposed alternatives by Aereo are clearly in direct response to the Supreme Court's specific "looks like a duck" ruling. Aereo isn't trying to challenge that, it's looking to work within the rules the Court established. Yet, once again, we see people taking Aereo's efforts at complying with the specific law as laid out by the courts, and interpreting it as somehow circumventing the law.
And you were just earlier today complaining earlier today about "journalists" exaggerating. The Court did not say that Aereo is a cable system as that term is used in Section 111, so Aereo is not trying "to work within the rules the Court established." Nor did the Court say that the delayed transmissions would be different. If anything, its analysis of the live transmissions indicates that the delayed transmissions are infringing. So your whole point is an exaggerated straw man (as it so often is--journalism!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like the ones I watch on my cable-company provided DVR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not all delayed transmissions are the same. Does your cable company have a license for the DVR transmissions? Is it a set-top box? You haven't given me enough information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If Aereo MUST operate as a cable company, per the Supreme Court decision, or cease to exist, why are they being denied the opportunity to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has to do with Section 111 and its definition of "cable system." The Second Circuit, where this litigation is happening, decided in the ivi case that "cable system" under Section 111 doesn't include internet retransmissions. Aereo is trying to say that ivi doesn't apply because ivi transmitted everywhere while Aereo only transmits a user's local channels. But I don't think that argument will work as there is other language in ivi that still applies and that works against Aereo's position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Second Circuit, where this litigation is happening, decided in the ivi case that "cable system" under Section 111 doesn't include internet retransmissions.
The Anonymous Coward below did the work and posted this per 111 - where exactly does it explicitly NOT say "internet retransmissions?"
Do you see why now that decisions regarding Aereo seem to be nothing but vindictive protection of the cable monopolies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. ruling in 2011 established that a company broadcasting TV transmissions on the internet was not a "cable system" and therefore copyright infringement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPIX,_Inc._v._ivi,_Inc.
That is why I say that Aereo is Schrödinger's CATV. SCOTUS says they are too much like a cable company, but ivi says they can't be a cable company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's try it this way: Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's two separate issues. (1) The Court held that Aereo performs because it does what a cable system does, namely, receives and retransmits broadcasts. (2) The broadcasters are saying Aereo isn't a cable system because it doesn't meet the definition in Section 111 (or, more specifically, the Second Circuit's interpretation of 111 in ivi). To borrow Mike's terms, it quacks like a duck, and quacking like a duck means it's performing. But it's not really a duck. The first issue looks at whether it acts like a duck. The second looks at whether it really is a duck. Ducks aren't the only things that quack, so it's not inconsistent to say it quacks yet it's not a duck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead, by only ruling that Aereo acts like a cable company, they put Aereo in the position of having all of the downsides, but none of the upsides, like compulsory licensing, as well as having no clue just which sets of rules/laws they need to follow to be legal.
Honestly the lower court has no-one to blame but the SC, after a ruling that messed up, unless Aereo wants to shut down their business entirely they have to basically try whatever they can think of and see if it sticks, not having any clear guidelines to follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the time, Aereo was saying that it's *not* a cable system. I assume it's because cable systems perform, and they were arguing that they don't perform. Section 111 wasn't before the Court because Aereo was not arguing it. That's not the Court's fault. If Aereo wanted the Court to address the 111 issue, it should have argued it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By only ruling that Aereo was acting like a cable company, they essentially threw the company into legal limbo, where it both is, and is not, a cable company, dependent on personal opinion of any judges or companies bringing legal challenges.
The SC dropped the ball by only going half-way with their ruling, had they given a concise 'Aereo is/is not a cable company under the law' then the mess could have been settled by now(ah who am I kidding, the current broadcasters will never stop until Aereo is driven under, legal or not...), instead their ruling guaranteed continued legal challenges as Aereo and others try and determine just what the company is under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it's two distinct issues. Whether Aereo performs comes under Section 101, while the cable system issue is Section 111. The Court didn't interpret Section 111 because that part of the Act simply wasn't before it. The Court *couldn't* rule on that issue since no one argued it. It's not the Court's fault that it didn't respond to an argument that no one raised. Aereo caused this problem by arguing Section 101 and not Section 111. Blame them for making the bed they're now laying in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thing is though, if I'm understanding it correctly, by ruling that Aereo was making 'public performances', they shifted things so that 111 did apply, even if Aereo didn't bring it up themselves. If what Aereo offered was public performances, and the court as a result is claiming that Aereo is acting like a cable company, then they should have taken it into account and ruled accordingly, even if Aereo didn't bring up an 111 argument themselves.
Aereo didn't bring it up because they didn't believe it applied. By making it so that the part of the law dealing with cable companies did apply to Aereo, the SC itself introduced that factor into the case, and it should have been reflected in the ruling itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's how the Second Circuit interpreted it in ivi, and Aereo is in the Second Circuit. The district court and any panel of the Second Circuit is bound by it. I agree that the text of Section 111 favors Aereo, on a quick read. I haven't really thought about this issue. I know the Copyright Office agrees with the ivi court's read, but I'm not sure why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. In the example of YouTube, a copy is being made of the material and it doesn't have to be viewed immediately upon transmission. There are also storage lockers that do allow for streaming rather than just downloading. If watching while media is streaming is a performance, then whether a transmission is a performance could depend on how slow a viewer's internet connection buffers the video. That's completely arbitrary and attempting to apply 20th century technological concepts such as tv broadcast performances to 21st century technology.
Should we fund road maintenance projects by charging drivers by how many horseshoes their vehicles have attached?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Huh? This is a legal distinction. Performances are contemporaneously perceptible. Distributions are not. This is what the Court means here: Sending a DVD through the mail is not a performance because there's no contemporaneous perceptibility. Streaming a video from Aereo, on the contrary, is a performance because it can be perceived contemporaneously. I realize that the distinction is not always so clear, such as when there are buffer copies. But, generally, when you download something, it's not a performance, and when you stream something, it is. If a storage locker lets you download and stream something, then it can be both a performance and the distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now you are contending that even though the justices made 2 references to contemporaneous, that they really intended for that to cover other situations.
You're obviously far more coherent than ootb, but it seems you suffer from the same inability to reason that comes from entitlement thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm pointing out that the discussion of contemporaneity in the Court's opinion is *not* about the retransmission being contemporaneous with the original broadcast. That's kind of a big deal, no? It's how you distinguish a performance from a distribution. Downloading is distribution (and reproduction). Streaming is performance. The difference? Contemporaneous perceptibility. And it's not the Court saying this. Circuit courts have said this as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but that stupid argument does not work.
Now, after Aereo lost at the Supreme Court, they now wanted a license to rebroadcast that content, which the broadcasters turned Aereo down. The broadcasters were right in denying Aereo. They had a chance to obtain a license to rebroadcast that content before Aereo decided to fight the broadcasters and networks in court but Aereo opted not to.
You can't turn back the clock and Aereo has nobody but themselves to blame. Even if Aereo gets reclassified as a cable service, they still have to obtain licenses to rebroadcast that content. Aereo needs to shut up already and roll over and die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's kind of like hackers who patch the flaw once they've gained entry to your computer system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why?
If getting a license is the right thing to do, AND what the broadcasters wanted in the first place, isn't this nothing more than vindictive manipulation of the courts to protect a monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn lazy judges . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife?
I hope that none of the commenters here get put in the position where CPS does a home study, but if they do they'll know what it's like to always be assumed to be a child abuser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QLAD vs. letter of the law
That's not to say that the "quacks like a duck" rule is necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure not one of us would object to applying QLAD to all the major corporations that strategically offshore their cash flow to reduce or eliminate their tax bill, for instance. The problem is selective (and so far very rare) enforcement of the QLAD theory.
Other than Areo, the only other instance I've ever seen where complying with a law is treated as unlawful evasion is when people break up their bank transfers to stay under the $10,000 reporting limit - which is treated as a crime in itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: QLAD vs. letter of the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: QLAD vs. letter of the law
This is about killing an attempt at providing a service people actually want while a complete screwup by the SCOTUS.
Basically the MAFIAA sued to try to bury the service under the weight of a lawsuit and ended up with a ruling that screwed Aereo. Now they are fighting to keep Aereo in the limbo so it won't remain in business ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just pay me
the RIAA/MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just stream their channels free on their websites 24/7? That would've put Aereo out of business without them having to bribe judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it is inconsistent to use a "functional equivalency" standard ("Viewed in terms of
Congress’ regulatory objectives...") for the one part, then to not use the same standard ("as that term is defined") for the other part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are they not a cable system?...
(3) Cable system.— A “cable system” is a facility, located in any State, territory, trust territory, or possession of the United States, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. For purposes of determining the royalty fee under subsection (d)(1), two or more cable systems in contiguous communities under common ownership or control or operating from one headend shall be considered as one system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even though I don't approve of the letter or the spirit of the particular law Aero are trying to loophole their way out of obeying, it still bothers me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Aereo isn't cable
This would take up a lot of bandwidth that I don't think they would be able to afford and the end user would probably not be getting what they want in real time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, the broadcasters demanded that Aereo pay for retransmission fees and Aereo scoffed at the idea of actually paying for the content they wanted to rebroadcast. When they lost at the U.S. Supreme Court, they tried applying for a cable license and then wanted to pay licenses to rebroadcast televised content and the broadcasters refused.
Just what the hell is up with Aereo? The courts have recognized their "BAIT and SWITCH" tactics for what they really are and no amount of cons and scams are going to fool the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So they can't operate using method X, and they MUST operate per method Y - just like every other duck.
When they try to operate using method Y, they are denied.
Yet you think AEREO is the one pulling the "bait & switch?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Supreme Court could not allow the district courts ruling here survive on appeal without overruling their own ruling on the same case and I'm sure the district court knows it. How many bites at the apple does the district court get to follow the Supreme Court's instructions and grant Aereo the compulsory license cable companies are supposed to receive under the law now that one-to-one TV antenna rental services are legally equivalent to cable transmissions?
And how does the district court think it will be able to overrule the Supreme Court's ruling in Cablevision and explicit statements in the Aereo case that delayed retransmission of broadcast TV as a remote DVR service is and would have been legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twisted opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aereo case
If so, the solutions can be designed to allow consumers to set two legal choices via cloud license server to "provably" retransmit the free OTA broadcast over the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge, are you saying that you only take one bite of an apple and throw the rest out?
That seems like a huge waste of apples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not even sure a duck CAN bite an apple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public petition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]