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

161–170 of 398 posts

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

#161

Post by rblatz »

mlieberman85 wrote: post #149
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.

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…

I get better quality video from my antenna than through cable. In my experience the tv station uses less compression than the cable company. And since the switch to digital OTA video the picture has been rock solid.

I've had this experience in both Columbus, OH and Phoenix, AZ.

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

#162

Post by mikeash »

dublinben wrote: post #152
mikeash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.

You could say the exact same thing about Cablevision and their 'cloud DVR', but they won their case before the Supreme Court. Aereo was relying on that decision to enable a similarly inefficient system (1 antenna and DVR per subscriber) for broadcast TV.

I agree, and crazy workarounds like that aren't very nice either.

However, I don't think the two decisions are inconsistent. As I understand it, Cablevision was already paying license fees for rebroadcasting, and the case was just about exactly what they could or could not do with that license. Aereo's case is about whether they need to pay license fees at all.

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

#163

Post by PaulHoule »

mlieberman85 wrote: post #149
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.

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…

Broadcast DTV usually looks better on an antenna than on cable.

I recently gave a pair of rabbit ears to my mother-in-law and we were amazed at how much better the picture quality was. She's lucky, howver, to live about a mile or two from the sticks. Most people need a better antenna.

Cable HDTV is often heavily compressed so they can fit hundreds of junky channels into a limited pipe. Particularly for sports where there is fast motion and fine detail, the difference is night and day.

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

#164

Post by icebraining »

sp332 wrote: post #136
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…

That's crazy. The whole point of copyright law is that you can get the same content in different ways, some of which are legal [edit:authorized] and some are not. Now the Supreme Court says that all ways of getting content are the same?

They're not the same, but they are almost all covered under copyright, yes.

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

#165

Post by kd0amg »

vibrolax wrote: post #118
djb_hackernews wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.

You are allowed to put an antenna on your roof. If your neighbor allows you to, you can put the antenna on his roof. You can even rent the antenna. You are executing a private performance. You cannot subscribe to a streaming service that "rents you an antenna" unless the service licenses retransmission of the broadcaster's content.

What is it about GP's scenario that makes it a private performance? It sure looks like he's "subscribing to a streaming service that 'rents [him] an antenna'".

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

#166

Post by euroclydon »

bmelton wrote: post #153
euroclydon wrote: post #137

I haven't given Aereo much thought, but it seems like, if I could rent a VPS in Miami, I could watch Miami Dolphins games online for the cost of Aereo plus the VPS. That would be like $30/mo for 5 months. $150 total -- much cheaper than the NFL Sunday Ticket. That alone is a big loophole!!!

I'm pretty sure they at least attempt to limit your antenna to one in a nearby area to you, though I'm not a customer, so I can't say how effectively they disallow it. That said, I'm apparently in a suburb of Baltimore, and when I visit the aerio site, I only see access to Baltimore services... suggesting that I'd have a hard, if not impossible time getting an antenna in Miami.

That's why I mentioned the VPS. A quick search for "Miami VPS" reveals $20 options which would do the trick.

http://www.hostvirtual.com/datacenters/miami

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

#167

Post by jervisfm »

Here's a (naive) question: In the US, is a Supreme Court ruling completely final ? What options, if any, are available to the losing party ? Is change through congress the only way to try to appeal rulings?

If there are no practical ways to repeal Supreme Court rulings, what happens when the Supreme Court makes a mistaken ruling?

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

#168

Post by [deleted] »

avmich wrote: post #101
brucehart wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slingbox seems to have a strong position in this market. It's tougher to stream video from a person's home than from a data center. Most homes with broadband have limited upload speed that makes it difficult to stream good quality video. I'm hoping newer compression algorithms such as HEVC will make it possible to get decent quality even on connections with less than 1 Mbps upload bandwidth.

You probably don't need to sell the equipment with the idea that it will be installed in homes? Why not to keep person's equipment in data centers?

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by pessimizer »

danielweber wrote: post #141
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.

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.

What does X represent here?

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

#170

Post by wl »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #157
danielweber wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who regularly watch the court know that judges falling into "Left" and "Right" camps are the exception, not the rule. There are typically splits were some of the "Left" judges agree for reason X and some disagree for reason Y, and/or some "Right" judges agree for reason Z and disagree for reason W. And that's a good thing. This isn't a sports game where I should root for "my team." The judges shouldn't start f…

The endless 5-4 decisions of late tend to contradict that. Most judges are predictable. Roberts and Breyer being an exception, and slightly less predictable.

5-4 decisions tend to be the ones that make news. For the most part, the judges on the court agree with each other. In the the current term through June 18, 2014, only 14% of Supreme Court cases were settled in a 5-4 vote.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SB_...

Post reply on HN