Bludgeoned And Bleeding, Aereo Finally Files For Bankruptcy
from the it-was-fun-while-it-lasted dept
For a moment there, streaming video operator Aereo put on a brave face that it could continue despite last June's Supreme Court ruling against the company. While some interpretations of that ruling seemed to suggest that Aereo could be considered a cable company if it was willing to pay retransmission fees and effectively function as a delayed DVR service, those dreams were dashed in an October ruling that granted a pretty broad injunction by broadcasters. Judge Alison Nathan effectively stated at the time that Aereo should go ahead and die as the Supreme Court intended, and stop with all the postmortem twitching.With no product on sale and legal costs mounting, Aereo earlier this month laid off the majority of its staff with the exception of a skeleton crew in their New York City office. This week, Aereo announced that the company would be filing for bankruptcy. In a blog post, Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia finally acknowledges the obvious -- that the Supreme Court ruling was simply too difficult to overcome:
"While we had significant victories in the federal district courts in New York and Boston and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the reversal of the Second Circuit decision in June by the U.S. Supreme Court has proven difficult to overcome. The U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively changed the laws that had governed Aereo’s technology, creating regulatory and legal uncertainty. And while our team has focused its energies on exploring every path forward available to us, without that clarity, the challenges have proven too difficult to overcome."While the blog post is entitled "The Next Chapter," this is most likely game over for the disruptive upstart.
While the FCC is considering rule changes that would officially declare over the top streaming operators cable companies (giving them FCC-enforced access to vertically integrated programming), that would require that Aereo pay retransmission fees -- ruining Aereo's biggest appeal: the low price. But by the time Aereo gets any sort of fresh footing as a more traditional streaming operation, the market will likely be flooded with a variety of new, live over-the-top (OTT) services (from Dish, Sony, Verizon and more in 2015), and Aereo's window will have been slammed shut by larger players.
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: banckruptcy, cloud, copyright, innovation
Companies: aereo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There were plenty of perfectly reasonable ways you could have gotten the signal, you just chose not to use them in lieu of signing up for a clearly illegal service.
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If I ran a performance venue, and I had drinking fountains there, but I hung a sign at the gate saying "no taking water out of here without paying for it", how enforceable would that be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Instead, for an analogy, try: running a performance venue, and having a large sculpture water fountain in front of it for art. Then saying "anybody who drives down the public street must pay me if they look at my water fountain".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The thing is, they discovered they could get paid more than once for what they were already doing, by charging cable providers for showing people the broadcasts -- note that technically speaking, what a cable provider is buying is the lure, not the ads, although cable providers are usually prohibited from stripping out the ads by contract.
As a result, the broadcasters get paid a third time -- because the cable company customers get to see the ads too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: >
Absolutely disgusting and something that needs to be fixed, they just destroyed the small competition they had and now have the market to themselves which is going to cause prices to be raised beyond the reach of most people.
Sharing is caring , Long live piracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As for retransmission fees, these were initiated many decades ago, and the underlying reasons for such fees have been discussed ad nauseum. Agree or disagree, they are a long established practice in the broadcast industries and represent an ordinary cost of doing business, a cost that Aereo thought that by going "cutesy" it could avoid. It was a calculated gamble with an uncertain outcome. The rest is history, with Aereo sitting with egg on its face. Had it simply played by the rules, while its business model would likely been not as lucrative, it very well may have been able to make a go of it and create a profitable business providing a very useful and much appreciated service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Funny how "following what was pretty clearly laid out in the Cablevision decision and the basics of copyright law" is suddenly "cutesy."
Had it simply played by the rules
It did. The Supreme Court changed 'em when it made up a brand new "looks like a duck" test.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You're right. I should have got together with the neighbors and pushed for a buyout of that huge AT&T building right in the direct path of one of the strongest transmitters in the area. And not only that, AT&T don't want to give me gigabit because of a hissy fit over net neutrality. They truly are against the little folk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I will agree that there was no existing decision squarely on all fours with the facts in Aereo. There was, however, a wealth of existing decisions clearly informing Aereo that its business model was operating perilously close to the line of demarcation between lawful and unlawful conduct. The company knew it was pushing the boundaries of copyright law, particularly given that the precise issue it was seeking to obviate with its system design was not as yet definitively answered by the Supreme Court. Well, it has its answer now, and no amount of lambasting the Supreme Court is going to change the fact that the company took what was clearly a gamble and lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe in Europe.
Has this not been a totally fine example of government failure?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
post-aereo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I smell a rat
Seriously, that ruling just screams corruption. By ruling against Aereo by saying it looks like a duck but not actually declaring it a duck, they give broadcasters exactly what they want, that is a company whose innovative business model is now illegal but cannot switch over to the traditional business model.
I'd ask to see the judges' financials, but I'm pretty sure that would compromise national security or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The fact that there's a complete dearth of Aereo-like services despite the clear demand for such a "a very useful and much appreciated service" is solid evidence that this is simply not true, the retransmission fees are an overwhelming hurdle to running a sustainable start-up.
Just because these fees are a long established practice doesn't mean they are morally defensible and should just be brushed off as an ordinary cost of doing business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]