Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

Post by djb_hackernews » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 2:45 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #33

cheez0r wrote: post #10

The Supreme Court is wrong- the reason cable companies are treated as a 'public' performance of a work is that their distribution medium is shared- any subscriber can tune into that broadcasting of that work over a shared common carrier where one copy of the work is transmitted and many subscribers can view it. Aereo is different in that it only transmits the signal captured to a single subscriber at a time, removing…

Aereo's setup is absurd. Placing hundreds if not thousands of identical antennas on a rooftop, capturing identical signals and sending them, individually, to users. That's expensive and inefficient. The only reason they did it was to exploit a potential loophole in the current law - and now the Supreme Court has effectively closed that loophole.

Post by JoshTriplett » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 2:45 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #25

cheez0r wrote: post #10

The Supreme Court is wrong- the reason cable companies are treated as a 'public' performance of a work is that their distribution medium is shared- any subscriber can tune into that broadcasting of that work over a shared common carrier where one copy of the work is transmitted and many subscribers can view it. Aereo is different in that it only transmits the signal captured to a single subscriber at a time, removing…

The Supreme Court is not able to be wrong on a matter of U.S. law. It gets to decide what that law means, not you. It's not the decision I'd hoped for, nor the one I'd make, but it's nonsense to claim that it's "wrong". All we can do about it now is to get the law changed.

Post by RyanMcGreal » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

Grue3 wrote: post #37

sheetjs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Describing Roberts as liberal is a great stretch

Pretty sure he's the one who "saved" Obamacare when it went to Supreme Court.

Post by ruytlm » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 2:48 PM UTC

muyuu wrote: post #5

Down. Any mirrors?

Post by Apoorv02 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 2:48 PM UTC

smeyer wrote: post #56

Apoorv02 wrote: post #28

Aereo is not violating anything but they should have prepared for something like this. Absurdity is common when you are trying to provide similar service to the consumer in a better way without creating monopoly.

>Aereo is not violating anything but they should have been prepared for something like this. In what other sense could they have been prepared? They fully expected to end up in the courts, likely through the supreme court, and planned appropriately. They lost the case, but it doesn't seem to be for lack of preparation.