Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2014 @ 8:15am
Re: Re:
Oh, I've been there for awhile now. Most of my entertainment time is interactive (gaming). I couldn't care less about sports. Any informational thing like news or weather I get online. When there's a show that looks good enough, I'll download and binge watch a season over the course of a week or two. Since the few places you can actually download an entire season at once are horrendously expensive, there's no reasonable alternative to piracy.
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.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2014 @ 5:42am
It's not just a disaster for tech companies, startups, and consumers.
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.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 1:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Process matters
That's not what this ruling indicates. Let me quote from the majority:
"this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here"
Since technological differences don't matter according to this ruling, then give me a sound reasoning that shows how my act of watching a show I downloaded from a torrent I got from The Pirate Bay (assume all download, that I didn't upload anything to another user) isn't the same as my act of watching the same show that I received via an antenna located on my house.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 1:35pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
Scalia is the one saying the Court gave no definitive rule. Scalia is the one comparing this to the VCR. Scalia is the one saying that if the law doesn't say its illegal, then it isn't, whether it ought to be or not. And that's why he's right.
And you still haven't answered the question. What objective test can be devised from this ruling that separates what Aereo does from what other cloud providers do?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 1:20pm
Re:
Building/shipping the DVRs is an expense that Aereo isn't going to be able to handle. That company is dead.
However, you've got a good idea for the next startup that wants to test this out and challenge the duck reasoning. Personally, I'd do away with the DVR/set top box altogether.
Provide (might need to be an outright sale of) software that would allow a user to configure their own storage via Dropbox, AWS, whatever other cloud provider you want to choose, or local storage on a PC. Rent the antennas. Profit.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 12:52pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aereo gets something of value for nothing- the ability to retransmit for profit.
So what? Getting value for free isn't illegal. If I use a coupon that was shoved into my mailbox, is that illegal?
If Aereo is providing a service, not content- how does it differ from cable or satellite? All are delivering content for a fee. Quack, quack, quack.
If I live in a broadcast area, or have paid my cable bill, how does my downloading the same program from The Pirate Bay differ? I'm watching a show I'm legally entitled to acquire. Quack quack quack.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 11:55am
Re: Not That Bothered
basically designed in the hope that the Court would choose the letter of the law over the spirit.
This is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men.
If it looks like a duck, then it's a duck, right? If I deliberately structure my finances to reduce my tax liability, can I be found guilty of tax fraud? If politicians take donations from lobbyists (legally according to the law) can they be found guilty of corruption and the lobbyists guilty of bribery?
I normally enjoy lambasting the peculiarities of law and lawyers. I find it amusing that I'm arguing this point against a lawyer.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 11:40am
Re:
I wasn't particularly surprised that the Supreme Court can't understand technology and made a bone headed ruling. My Jolly Roger is still flying and it wasn't going to come down either way as a result of the case. If anything, I've got more ammunition now.
If the Supreme Court can use a "if it looks like a duck" reasoning, then so can I. I live in an area that gets broadcast television signals from all the major networks showing most TV programs. I pay for a cable TV subscription that provides me with access to most shows. So, both to me and the creator of those TV programs, I have legal access. It is only a "technological difference" between me watching the show from a DVR connected to an antenna or coax and from me watching on my computer by downloading the show from a torrent.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2014 @ 11:19am
Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
I think this is right. The Court was very deliberate in it's "like a duck" assertion. That was to specifically inoculate cloud computing. I'm not sure all of the hand wringing and doomsday forecasts are warranted. At all.
What objective test can be devised, based on this ruling, that separates Aereo from other cloud services? Or is the only option long drawn out court battles for every new service that pops up on the internet?
Scalia's right. This will take years and numerous cases to sort out. The only winners are (as usual) the lawyers. I found it enormously funny when the second mention I saw of Aereo today was that media company's stocks shot up when the ruling was announced - Wall Street chasing quarterly profits that won't even materialize in the short term.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jun 2014 @ 10:48am
Politics, ewww
I know we don't normally touch partisan politics here, but on this story, it could make a difference.
Eric Cantor (House majority leader) lost his primary election. House Republicans are already in the process of choosing his replacement, and it looks like it will be Tim Mccarthy. Where does he stand on this?
It is also thought that Boehner will be stepping down as Speaker soon or soonish, which makes Mccarthy the next Speaker (Dems aren't likely to get the House back for some time).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Jun 2014 @ 10:17am
Re: Re:
but I can't blame them for "failing to provide service" if there was a fault at the customer's location.
I saw this story a week or two ago somewhere else that had some other details. When they called for support, they found out the system had never been activated - or had been offline for their entire contract.
There are at least 2 pretty obvious failures that aren't the customer's fault. First, the tech who initially set it up making sure it was installed and working properly. And second, seeing the alarm as offline for years and still charging them - without any kind of notification that it was offline.
(also, we know that you know about the City of London. That footnote is perfect. Some small and somewhat powerful organizations want to appear much more important and powerful than they really are, and when there's a significant source of confusion, I think it's important to point out what they really are. It's like saying that the Chamber of Commerce isn't part of the government even though many confuse them with the Department of Commerce, which is what they count on.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 3:36pm
Re: Anti-muni Laws
Bullshit. North Carolina is in the "technically-not-a-ban-but-still-a-ban-wink" column.
North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public entities must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their incumbent competitors."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 10:05am
Re: Am I understanding this correctly...
What if this was a group of individuals purchasing fertilizer, diesel fuel, plain white vans, etc. If I'm reading the NSA correctly, then they couldn't be trusted to preserve any relevant evidence for a trial. Then, if the people involved in the purchases were up to no good, they would probably go free.
Well, that's when they get other agencies to manufacture evidence that can be used in trials.
No need to preserve it if they're lying about where it came from. /s
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 9:10am
Re: 52 pages
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." -James Madison
Laws do not need to be complicated. Case law does not need to be complicated. Complicated laws are only a benefit to lawyers and others who make their living as a direct result (judges, politicians, lobbyists). When tax law is complicated, accountants and tax lawyers are more valuable, but that added cost slows down innovation, business, and regular tax payers.
It is both a detriment to society and to the rule of law itself when laws are so complicated that they cannot be easily understood.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Jun 2014 @ 7:57am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your original comment makes no sense.
We're not talking about control of, or transfer of, or any kind of license to a copyrighted quote.
Techdirt doesn't need control of or a license to use a quote under fair use. Therefore, copying an article that contains a fair use quote would not need any kind of license from the original quote maker.
Again, I ask, how can copying an article that contains a fair use quote NOT cover that same quote under fair use? If you can give even a remotely plausible reason or situation, then do so.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
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.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
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.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what this ruling indicates. Let me quote from the majority:
"this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here"
Since technological differences don't matter according to this ruling, then give me a sound reasoning that shows how my act of watching a show I downloaded from a torrent I got from The Pirate Bay (assume all download, that I didn't upload anything to another user) isn't the same as my act of watching the same show that I received via an antenna located on my house.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
And you still haven't answered the question. What objective test can be devised from this ruling that separates what Aereo does from what other cloud providers do?
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re:
However, you've got a good idea for the next startup that wants to test this out and challenge the duck reasoning. Personally, I'd do away with the DVR/set top box altogether.
Provide (might need to be an outright sale of) software that would allow a user to configure their own storage via Dropbox, AWS, whatever other cloud provider you want to choose, or local storage on a PC. Rent the antennas. Profit.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
So instead of laws that give specific guidance on what is illegal, you're arguing that laws are based on what "should" be illegal?
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what? Getting value for free isn't illegal. If I use a coupon that was shoved into my mailbox, is that illegal?
If Aereo is providing a service, not content- how does it differ from cable or satellite? All are delivering content for a fee. Quack, quack, quack.
If I live in a broadcast area, or have paid my cable bill, how does my downloading the same program from The Pirate Bay differ? I'm watching a show I'm legally entitled to acquire. Quack quack quack.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Not That Bothered
This is supposed to be a nation of laws, not men.
If it looks like a duck, then it's a duck, right? If I deliberately structure my finances to reduce my tax liability, can I be found guilty of tax fraud? If politicians take donations from lobbyists (legally according to the law) can they be found guilty of corruption and the lobbyists guilty of bribery?
I normally enjoy lambasting the peculiarities of law and lawyers. I find it amusing that I'm arguing this point against a lawyer.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re:
If the Supreme Court can use a "if it looks like a duck" reasoning, then so can I. I live in an area that gets broadcast television signals from all the major networks showing most TV programs. I pay for a cable TV subscription that provides me with access to most shows. So, both to me and the creator of those TV programs, I have legal access. It is only a "technological difference" between me watching the show from a DVR connected to an antenna or coax and from me watching on my computer by downloading the show from a torrent.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: This could have been a lot worse
What objective test can be devised, based on this ruling, that separates Aereo from other cloud services? Or is the only option long drawn out court battles for every new service that pops up on the internet?
Scalia's right. This will take years and numerous cases to sort out. The only winners are (as usual) the lawyers. I found it enormously funny when the second mention I saw of Aereo today was that media company's stocks shot up when the ruling was announced - Wall Street chasing quarterly profits that won't even materialize in the short term.
On the post: Houston, We Have A Copyright Problem
Re: OK, Everyone Take a Deep Breath
On the post: More Than Half Of The House Co-Sponsoring Email Privacy Reform; So Why Isn't It Moving?
Politics, ewww
Eric Cantor (House majority leader) lost his primary election. House Republicans are already in the process of choosing his replacement, and it looks like it will be Tim Mccarthy. Where does he stand on this?
It is also thought that Boehner will be stepping down as Speaker soon or soonish, which makes Mccarthy the next Speaker (Dems aren't likely to get the House back for some time).
On the post: Comcast Collects A Combined 20 Years Worth Of Fees From Two Customers Who Never Received What They Were Paying For
Re: Re:
I saw this story a week or two ago somewhere else that had some other details. When they called for support, they found out the system had never been activated - or had been offline for their entire contract.
There are at least 2 pretty obvious failures that aren't the customer's fault. First, the tech who initially set it up making sure it was installed and working properly. And second, seeing the alarm as offline for years and still charging them - without any kind of notification that it was offline.
On the post: Tom Wheeler: 'I'm Not A Dingo.' John Oliver: 'Prove It!'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: City Of London Police Claim That 'The Tor' Is 90% Of The Internet, And Is A Risk To Society
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140612/06532727555/copyright-troll-malibu-media-tells-court- that-its-critics-opposing-lawyer-are-part-psychopathic-hate-group.shtml#c55
(also, we know that you know about the City of London. That footnote is perfect. Some small and somewhat powerful organizations want to appear much more important and powerful than they really are, and when there's a significant source of confusion, I think it's important to point out what they really are. It's like saying that the Chamber of Commerce isn't part of the government even though many confuse them with the Department of Commerce, which is what they count on.)
On the post: Forget The FCC: Should We Be Looking To The FTC To Save An Open Internet?
Re: Anti-muni Laws
North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public entities must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their incumbent competitors."
On the post: If The NSA's System Is Too Big To Comply With Court Orders, Court Should Require It To Change Its System
Re: Am I understanding this correctly...
Well, that's when they get other agencies to manufacture evidence that can be used in trials.
No need to preserve it if they're lying about where it came from. /s
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
Re: 52 pages
Laws do not need to be complicated. Case law does not need to be complicated. Complicated laws are only a benefit to lawyers and others who make their living as a direct result (judges, politicians, lobbyists). When tax law is complicated, accountants and tax lawyers are more valuable, but that added cost slows down innovation, business, and regular tax payers.
It is both a detriment to society and to the rule of law itself when laws are so complicated that they cannot be easily understood.
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're not talking about control of, or transfer of, or any kind of license to a copyrighted quote.
Techdirt doesn't need control of or a license to use a quote under fair use. Therefore, copying an article that contains a fair use quote would not need any kind of license from the original quote maker.
Again, I ask, how can copying an article that contains a fair use quote NOT cover that same quote under fair use? If you can give even a remotely plausible reason or situation, then do so.
On the post: How Do You Know The Public Domain Is In Trouble? It Requires A 52-Page Handbook To Determine If Something Is Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>