Here, its the same....as if you are paying someone use your vcr to record tv for you.....but the copies have to remain individual or it violates the "time shift" premise......am I right on this?
Yes. But AJ is arguing that by doing this, Aereo is somehow becoming the originator of the transmission to the user which would violate existing laws. I don't think he is correct.
Yeah, I've read your arguments on this when you debated with Karl about it.
The thing that you are missing is that by keeping the signals separate and individual, Aereo isn't the originator of the transmission anymore than your rooftop antenna is. All they are doing is "renting" the user a hard drive, an antenna, tuner, signal converter and a cable.
If I rent my antenna and TV from Rent-A-Center, does that make my TV shows public performances?
How does this explain how Aereo's setup is technologically and legally different than FilmOn's?
Like I said, Aereo keeps the transmissions of the individual users separate - like the private performance from your own rooftop antenna. Individual copies, individual antennas, individual tuners, etc. etc.
By aggregating the transmission through common equipment, FilmOn is acting as a re-broadcaster. It is broadcasting one signal to many users. Or a public performance per se.
You can have a public performance with a six foot cord and a private performance with a 6,000 mile cord. The length of the cord is irrelevant.
Right. And Aero's 6,000 mile cord is considered a private performance. The "length of the cord" argument is what the broadcasters where trying to make. And they lost.
Basically, in layman's terms, the difference between Aereo and FilmOn is that Aereo's system jumps through hoops to keep the transmission to each individual user separate. FilmOn does not, they aggregate through common equipment.
While FilmOn's system probably makes more technological sense, Aereo's system strives to remain on the right side of current laws.
First, this is a charitable description of FilmOn’s arrangement; while each user may have an assigned antenna and hard-drive directory temporarily, the mini-antennas are networked together so that a single tuner server and router, video encoder, and distribution endpoint can communicate with them all. The television signal is captured by FilmOn and passes through FilmOn’s single electronic transmission process of aggregating servers and electronic equipment. This system, through which any member of the public who clicks on the link for the video feed, is hardly akin to an individual user stringing up a television antenna on the roof. Source
For Aereo:
Second, Plaintiffs' argument fails to account for Aereo's user-specific antennas. Each user-associated copy of a program created by Aereo's system is generated from a unique antenna assigned only to the user who requested that the copy be made. The feed from that antenna is not used to generate multiple copies of each program for different Aereo users but rather only one copy: the copy that can be watched by the user to whom that antenna is assigned. Thus even if we were to disregard Aereo's copies, it would still be true that the potential audience of each of Aereo's transmissions was the single user to whom each antenna was assigned. It is beyond dispute that the transmission of a broadcast TV program received by an individual's rooftop antenna to the TV in his living room is private, because only that individual can receive the transmission from that antenna, ensuring that the potential audience of that transmission is only one person. Plaintiffs have presented no reason why the result should be any different when that rooftop antenna is rented from Aereo and its signals transmitted over the internet: it remains the case that only one person can receive that antenna's transmissions. Source
No court has ever applied the "length of the cord" argument. They instead apply the actual legal standards. You know, the ones Mike doesn't understand so he uses the "length of the cord" argument instead.
While the courts may not have actually used the actual words "length of the cord", how else would you describe the difference between Aereo and Cablevision's DVR systems that the courts have acknowledged are similar enough to give Aereo favorable rulings?
You've been asked several times to explain exactly what these doubts are. Surely you can provide the reader with at least one single legally significant difference between Aereo and FilmOn, right? I seriously doubt it.
He has explained:
As many people know, despite David claiming that his service (whatever name you want to call it) was no different than Aereo, it is different. Aereo carefully followed various court rulings that indicated how to set up such a service that doesn't infringe -- and so far it's won the lawsuits filed against it by the TV networks. Source
Aereo setup their system specifically (ie: engineered more by lawyers, then technicians) to fall within existing laws. OnFilm did not. Not really a hard concept that needs pages of explaining there.
The defense attorney argued that Thomas' death was his own fault, brought on by a "lifetime" of "bad choices."
Yeah, that really is a stupid argument.
If that argument had any merit whatsoever, it would mean that the fault for every injury or death of a police officer on duty is really their own for choosing a career in law enforcement.
Where the site actively selects which information to post, which this site does through it's solicitation of particular kinds of content for specific purposes, then it is a publisher itself and not merely a provider.
I thought (I could be wrong, IANAL) the sticking point in the Roommates.com case was the illegal questionnaire they required their users to answer in order to use the site that caused the loss of Section 230 immunity, not the actual nature of the site itself or it's solicitation for any particular kind of content.
How is that applicable here? To be honest I've never visited this stupid revenge porn site, nor do I really want to, so I really don't not know how it's setup.
MGM v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) used the same theory. It's the "don't play dumb," the whole purpose of the website is to post this kind of user generated content so the owner of the site is liable.
MGM v. Grokster is based on copyright law which includes provisions for contributory infringement. This case is not about copyright law.
It's a fairly simple 3-prong test that determines if Section 230 immunity applies:
1) The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." 2) The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. 3) The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
There is nothing (afaik) concerning inducement of illegal actions that would limit the protection Section 230 provides.
Re: Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
I don't believe your analogy quite holds. I would say more like the blacksmith being accountable for the actions of the swordsman where the blacksmith owned and and operated a death match venue.
Ok, I see your point in that, but your analogy is also off a bit. You might have a stronger point if the blacksmith was forcing the swordsman to participate in the death match. But that's not like what is happening here, the swordsman is participating of his own free will. (just to be clear - the person I am equating the swordsman to is the person who uploaded the images - not the subjects of the photos themselves - they were wronged and the uploaders are liable for that IMHO).
Also, like Mike, I believe that site operator is a total asshole and deserves punishment, just not at expense of all the other user-generated sites on the web. That type of collateral damage is way too much.
He profited from the website. Though I haven't seen it I'm sure there were adverts on it not to mention he charged to take the pictures down.
From the other exchanges we've had I can tell your a pretty intelligent person, but you do have a HUGE blindspot when it comes to liability and making money from something. Making a profit does not necessarily infer responsibility for another's actions.
For example, if someone commits suicide because they listened to one of your songs, are you liable because you sold that song for money?
Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
...do all that you can to show that common law complaints should be thrown out because of some legalistic weenie-ing, here your favored "Section 230".
Care to link to a citation from your distorted view of common law where society held the blacksmith accountable for the actions of the swordsman or anything similar?
Section 230 is about placing liability where it belongs - on the user who actually committed the act, not the tool used.
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re: Re:
Yes. But AJ is arguing that by doing this, Aereo is somehow becoming the originator of the transmission to the user which would violate existing laws. I don't think he is correct.
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re: Re:
Oops. That's not what I meant to say.
I meant:
If I rent my antenna and TV from Rent-A-Center, does that make Rent-A-Center the originator of the broadcast?
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
The thing that you are missing is that by keeping the signals separate and individual, Aereo isn't the originator of the transmission anymore than your rooftop antenna is. All they are doing is "renting" the user a hard drive, an antenna, tuner, signal converter and a cable.
If I rent my antenna and TV from Rent-A-Center, does that make my TV shows public performances?
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
Like I said, Aereo keeps the transmissions of the individual users separate - like the private performance from your own rooftop antenna. Individual copies, individual antennas, individual tuners, etc. etc.
By aggregating the transmission through common equipment, FilmOn is acting as a re-broadcaster. It is broadcasting one signal to many users. Or a public performance per se.
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
Right. And Aero's 6,000 mile cord is considered a private performance. The "length of the cord" argument is what the broadcasters where trying to make. And they lost.
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re: Re:
While FilmOn's system probably makes more technological sense, Aereo's system strives to remain on the right side of current laws.
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
For FilmOn:
For Aereo:
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
While the courts may not have actually used the actual words "length of the cord", how else would you describe the difference between Aereo and Cablevision's DVR systems that the courts have acknowledged are similar enough to give Aereo favorable rulings?
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
He has explained:
Aereo setup their system specifically (ie: engineered more by lawyers, then technicians) to fall within existing laws. OnFilm did not. Not really a hard concept that needs pages of explaining there.
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re:
Well, having three courts of law basically agree with that assessment definitely adds credence to Mikes' argument, wouldn't ya say?
On the post: Aereo To Supreme Court: Yes, Please Review The Ruling In Which We Trounced The TV Broadcasters
Re: I still want physical audit of the Aereo system.
Actually it IS exactly like that, at least according to three different courts of law.
And why aren't you bitching about the corporations who sell the antennas to people? Wouldn't you classify them as grifters too, then?
In your eagerness to condemn that which you personally dislike, you don't even stay consistent within your own argument.
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re: Re: Oh, the WORST psychopaths perform well for audiences.
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re: Oh, the WORST psychopaths perform well for audiences.
It was just last week you accused me of this:
On the post: Ex-FBI Agent, Trauma Surgeon Testify That Kelly Thomas' Death Was A Result Of Officers' Excessive Force
Re:
Yeah, that really is a stupid argument.
If that argument had any merit whatsoever, it would mean that the fault for every injury or death of a police officer on duty is really their own for choosing a career in law enforcement.
On the post: Law Enforcement Fails To Pay Telco Bills For Coughing Up Your Info
Re: Title Change?
On the post: Law Enforcement Fails To Pay Telco Bills For Coughing Up Your Info
Title Change?
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: Re: Re: Re: inducement
I thought (I could be wrong, IANAL) the sticking point in the Roommates.com case was the illegal questionnaire they required their users to answer in order to use the site that caused the loss of Section 230 immunity, not the actual nature of the site itself or it's solicitation for any particular kind of content.
How is that applicable here? To be honest I've never visited this stupid revenge porn site, nor do I really want to, so I really don't not know how it's setup.
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: Re: inducement
MGM v. Grokster is based on copyright law which includes provisions for contributory infringement. This case is not about copyright law.
It's a fairly simple 3-prong test that determines if Section 230 immunity applies:
1) The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
2) The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
3) The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
There is nothing (afaik) concerning inducement of illegal actions that would limit the protection Section 230 provides.
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: Re: Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
Ok, I see your point in that, but your analogy is also off a bit. You might have a stronger point if the blacksmith was forcing the swordsman to participate in the death match. But that's not like what is happening here, the swordsman is participating of his own free will. (just to be clear - the person I am equating the swordsman to is the person who uploaded the images - not the subjects of the photos themselves - they were wronged and the uploaders are liable for that IMHO).
Also, like Mike, I believe that site operator is a total asshole and deserves punishment, just not at expense of all the other user-generated sites on the web. That type of collateral damage is way too much.
He profited from the website. Though I haven't seen it I'm sure there were adverts on it not to mention he charged to take the pictures down.
From the other exchanges we've had I can tell your a pretty intelligent person, but you do have a HUGE blindspot when it comes to liability and making money from something. Making a profit does not necessarily infer responsibility for another's actions.
For example, if someone commits suicide because they listened to one of your songs, are you liable because you sold that song for money?
On the post: Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
Re: You know, Mike, one can get into "phony" trouble with real actions.
Care to link to a citation from your distorted view of common law where society held the blacksmith accountable for the actions of the swordsman or anything similar?
Section 230 is about placing liability where it belongs - on the user who actually committed the act, not the tool used.
Next >>