171–180 of 398 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"innovative" !== "technologically innovative"
I won't concede that point, but even assuming you're right: there's nothing "innovative" about the business model of distributing in-demand content for profit without compensating the content creators.
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?
Since the supreme court interprets the law, the way you to change the ruling is to change the law. In a few recent cases, the supreme court has basically said (paraphrasing) "we don't like this ruling, but this is what the law says. If you want to fix it, talk to Congress, not us."
There have been some very notable instances where the Supreme Court has changed its mind or modified its prior rulings (for instance around civil rights), so while its the end of the road for this petitioner, it doesn't bar the law evolving in the future.
I've mentioned this before on HN, I'll say it again: Aereo should now do a pivot, becoming a hardware reseller of TV-signal-receiver/streamer devices like this one: http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_broadway.html - it can stream either over your local Wi-fi, or across the interwebs so you can watch remotely when you're out of the house. Broadband speeds are a bit slow, but they're getting there (slowly) - u…
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.
Am I as a consumer allowed to store my DVR material on hosted storage then have that stream to me later?
Then can my cloud provider cache and de-dupe content on their environment so that they don't need to have 4 copies of the same episode in cache?
I wonder, can a new company sell set top antennas that perform better than others, because they aggregate signals and can enhance the quality of your dvr material?
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?
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?
What exactly do you mean by a “mistaken” ruling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hulu - watch any program any time. Aereo - watch what's over the air right now. Hulu - puts ads in the video Aereo - shows the ads that are over the air. Hulu - is like having everything on DVD Aereo - is like having a 50 mile extension cord on my digital antenna. I think the difference is striking.
The problem is Aereo is charging for this service that circumvents the system and pays nothing back to redistribute the content. Contrast this with the lesser known, but competing service offered from Syncbak. Syncbak does the same thing as Aereo, but rather than circumventing the existing networks and content providers; those are Syncbak's paying customer base. http://www.syncbak.com/
I'm missing something... Cause I don't see why broadcasters are against Aero at all. Is it cause cable companies pay broadcasters for content and people think Areo will cut into that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost as if the justices are actual people with complex sets of knowledge, opinions, and interpretations rather than just your stereotypes!
While I generally agree, this opinion split down ideological lines and it also strikes me as curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Hulu - watch any program any time. Aereo - watch what's over the air right now. Hulu - puts ads in the video Aereo - shows the ads that are over the air. Hulu - is like having everything on DVD Aereo - is like having a 50 mile extension cord on my digital antenna. I think the difference is striking.
Hulu - pays a fee to creators for use which it recoups/profits from ads
Aereo - pays no fee to creator, still profits from ads
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hulu - watch any program any time. Aereo - watch what's over the air right now. Hulu - puts ads in the video Aereo - shows the ads that are over the air. Hulu - is like having everything on DVD Aereo - is like having a 50 mile extension cord on my digital antenna. I think the difference is striking.
You missed one: Hulu - pays a fee to creators for use which it recoups/profits from ads Aereo - pays no fee to creator, still profits from ads
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is Aereo is charging for this service that circumvents the system and pays nothing back to redistribute the content. Contrast this with the lesser known, but competing service offered from Syncbak. Syncbak does the same thing as Aereo, but rather than circumventing the existing networks and content providers; those are Syncbak's paying customer base. http://www.syncbak.com/
The advertisers already paid for content to be distributed. The broadcasters aren't even missing out on theoretical revenue cause no subscriber pays for over the air tv. If anything they could increase ad revenue claiming more viewers. I'm missing something... Cause I don't see why broadcasters are against Aero at all. Is it cause cable companies pay broadcasters for content and people think Areo will cut into that?