Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 398 posts

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#141

Post by danielweber »

bediger4000 wrote: post #109
rayiner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the use of "innovation" here irritating. There's nothing "innovative" in 2014 about a service that streams TV over the internet. The only thing "innovative" about Aereo is its legal strategy of exploiting a loophole in the law.

"Exploiting a loophole in the law" - does that phrase really mean anything? Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law. The bizarre system that resulted is a reflection of the contorted, illogical, false-to-fact nature of copyright law, more than "exploiting a loophole". The Supreme Court ruled wrong in this case.

Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law

Except for it didn't.

If it's illegal to do X, but legal to do each of A, B, and C, and A -> B -> C does X, it's not surprising when X is illegal.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#142

Post by witty_username »

Grue3 wrote: post #110
krapp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind, the U.S. definition of liberal is still far to the right of what the rest of the world considers liberal.

And by the whole world you mean Western Europe and a few other countries. US is very liberal compared to many other places (like my own country).

Agree. In India one has to pay exorbitant sums for poor medical care, forget about subsidised, good medical care.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#143

Post by DanBC »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #134
bediger4000 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Exploiting a loophole in the law" - does that phrase really mean anything? Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law. The bizarre system that resulted is a reflection of the contorted, illogical, false-to-fact nature of copyright law, more than "exploiting a loophole". The Supreme Court ruled wrong in this case.

The concept of "loophole" seems to be a loaded way of saying "specification in the law with which I disagree". We hear all the time about people taking advantage of tax loopholes, for example. Yet these very loopholes are generally designed-in, to push people into a particular behavior. For example, I could pay less tax this year if I had solar cells installed on my roof. Would you call this means of avoiding taxes a…

The solar panel example is not a loophole. It is a feature. A loophole would be an unintended side effect of designed behaviour. People who pass laws have intent; the courts interpret the meaning of the law and try to divine that intent; a loophole is where a law was passed to prohibit a behaviour but was poorly drafted and leaves a gap for someone to carry on doing the otherwise prohibited behaviour.

I agree that drawing a line is tricky. Certainly people are law abiding unless they are not obeying the law. But that doesn't stop me asking if people are obeying the letter and spirit of the law, and forming an opinion based on the result.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#144

Post by Grue3 »

jusben1369 wrote: post #139
Grue3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by the whole world you mean Western Europe and a few other countries. US is very liberal compared to many other places (like my own country).

Can I ask which country that is? It strikes me as odd to hear such a domestic US political rant from someone who doesn't live here. (or maybe you do live here now and are just comparing it to where you're from)

I live in Russia. I try to follow various happenings all around the world, nothing odd about that.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#145

Post by notastartup »

Are there any other services like Aereo out there?

What was the key deciding factor that they broke the law?

What will happen now to Aereo's investors money? Will it be used to pay a large copyright royalty fee? Can it pivot? I think the latter is unlikely seeing they had no other plans, they bet the horse.

Reading this article back in March, I would've been freaked if I was an investor.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_Co4SqI...

    “No. There is no plan. We believe in our merit and we do
    think it’s the right thing. Progress is important. The 
    mission of this company was to try to create an open 
    platform, to try to wedge the system open a little bit.
    And if we don’t succeed in that despite our best 
    efforts, good law on our side, and the merits of our 
    case, it will be a tragedy but it is what it is.”
Aereo CEO

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#146

Post by scott_s »

bediger4000 wrote: post #109
rayiner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the use of "innovation" here irritating. There's nothing "innovative" in 2014 about a service that streams TV over the internet. The only thing "innovative" about Aereo is its legal strategy of exploiting a loophole in the law.

"Exploiting a loophole in the law" - does that phrase really mean anything? Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law. The bizarre system that resulted is a reflection of the contorted, illogical, false-to-fact nature of copyright law, more than "exploiting a loophole". The Supreme Court ruled wrong in this case.

Yes, it does mean something. Laws have intended effects; they are a mechanism to achieve some goal. "Exploiting a legal loophole" means finding a way to conform to the mechanism itself, but avoid that goal.

Laws are the map, not the territory.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#147

Post by ironchef »

rayiner wrote: post #119
bediger4000 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Exploiting a loophole in the law" - does that phrase really mean anything? Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law. The bizarre system that resulted is a reflection of the contorted, illogical, false-to-fact nature of copyright law, more than "exploiting a loophole". The Supreme Court ruled wrong in this case.

There's nothing "contorted" or "illogical" or "false-to-fact" about the copyright law in this case. The studios spend a lot of money to make this content. Users want to watch this content. To redistribute this content to users, you have to pay money to the people who created it. There is a narrow exception for free over the air TV. Aereo tried to shoehorn their internet streaming service, which is functionally no dif…

I think this is key "To redistribute this content to users". The redistribution is not that far from what's currently OK right now, though. Is it illegal (right now) for one to record (using an antenna) on to a TIVO and then to watch said recording over the internet for yourself?

There is 1 antenna per user. There is 1 recording per user (Aereo is not recording a single instance of desperate housewives and then muxing that out to everyone). It is over the network.

Other than not owning the means of reception and means of storage, I don't see much of a difference between this and in home recording.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#148

Post by bmelton »

Grue3 wrote: post #102
Iftheshoefits wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. "Obamacare" is an implementation of the Heritage Foundation's[0] health plan from the early 90s. It's "liberal" in the same sense that any Republican can be said to be "liberal." 2. Roberts has a deep and wide judicially conservative record. He cannot be called "liberal" in the context of American politics; it's not even up for debate. The man and his judicial practice is as conservative as they come. 3. I really…

Doesn't change the fact that other conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, and so on) voted against it and liberal justices voted for it. So Roberts could be said to be the most liberal of the bunch. The Aereo vote is pretty much the same as Obamacare vote, except Kennedy who is both anti-Obamacare and anti-Aereo.

Well, that 'fact' isn't very factual. The 'conservative' justices dissented from the majority opinion, but that doesn't mean that their rendering would have made Aerio's practices legal.

In a nutshell, the dissent would have also ruled against Aerio, just for a different reason than the majority. This sentence from Scalia's dissent should put things in perspective:

"I share the Court's evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks' copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed."

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#149

Post by mlieberman85 »

rayiner wrote: post #89
themgt wrote: post #43

The really interesting question is the implications for future precedent/innovations. The ruling says "But this difference [Aero's technological setup] means nothing to the subscriber. It means nothing to the broadcaster. We do not see how this single difference, invisible to subscriber and broadcaster alike, could transform a system that is for all practical purposes a traditional cable system into “a copy shop that…

I find the use of "innovation" here irritating. There's nothing "innovative" in 2014 about a service that streams TV over the internet. The only thing "innovative" about Aereo is its legal strategy of exploiting a loophole in the law.

I disagree. To be honest Aereo's service was about as reliable as your average antenna is (read: not reliable.) To me it felt like I was renting a really large extension cord for a cable. One that I need because I live in a basement apartment and even with 60 dollar antennas I get spotty reception at best. Aereo was more consistent but the quality was that of what you would expect from an antenna. It didn't feel like someone was recording 1080p HD quality from cable and then streaming it to me. Cable is not just crummy antenna quality that is then piped to the home. They get high quality from the channels.
Post reply on HN