Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by jasonwocky » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:08 PM UTC

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.

Well, for the first time in a long time I agree with something Scalia says...Congress is the body that opens loopholes in the law, and it's their job to close them. Not the court's.

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

#222

Post by vibrolax » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:09 PM UTC

kd0amg wrote: post #165

vibrolax wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'".

I hope I understand your question.

I think the court has found that the "distribution for pay", i.e. "Cable TV" aspects of aereo's service outweighs the "antenna rental" aspects, and that makes it charging for a public performance.

If you rent an antenna on top of the Empire State Building, digitize the signal, and set up your own means to stream it over the internet to your house in Peoria, that is probably a private performance. If you effectively sell someone access to the stream (like a Cable TV company), that is a public performance.

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

#223

Post by theworst » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:12 PM UTC

evanm wrote: post #219

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

"I think, the Court got it right in the end" I don't see how this really differs from a person setting up recording equipment in his/her own home to capture that OTA broadcast for later viewing—which itself is legal.

To me, one difference is the presence of a third-party for-profit entity (Aereo, in this case).

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

#224

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

chris_mahan wrote: post #216

rayiner wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonderful summary, and I agree with your conclusion: people should take this as the Court saying "no" to Aereo's contrived, free-riding business model, and others like it, not to new technologies that enable people to store and access content which they already own [a license to].

You don't own media content. You own a license for media content. Your use of the media is dictated by its license.

You don't own media content. You own a license for media content. Your use of the media is dictated by its license.

In general you don't need a license to consume a copyrighted work that you received legally. There was no "click to agree" on the last book I read. You only need a licrense to exceed what copyright allows.

Some software companies have argued that the hierarchical storage of a computer violates copyright, and thus all software requires a license to run. But this case was not about software.

Note: not a lawyer, just a highly interested observer.

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

#225

Post by cracell » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

evanm wrote: post #219

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

"I think, the Court got it right in the end" I don't see how this really differs from a person setting up recording equipment in his/her own home to capture that OTA broadcast for later viewing—which itself is legal.

Because Aereo was selling a service of setting up and running that equipment for you.

I have mixed feelings on the whole case but your example isn't directly comparable.

Really though the whole idea of local broadcasts of national shows no longer makes sense. The networks should just live stream their shows online for everyone. This isn't in the interests of the local affiliates and probably is not legally feasible right now due to various contracts with them.

But because of technological changes we don't need local affiliates in their current form anymore. Of course there are local news shows and they are still valuable and networks should show locally targeted commercials but the old broadcast using local affiliates model doesn't make sense with modern broadband capabilities.

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

#226

Post by psychometry » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

Can broadcasters now sue Aereo for damages?

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

#227

Post by ewillbefull » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

I understand the Court has some role in determining intention, but the nature of the technology in the background is crucial in determining whether it violates the law. I'm confused about the implications of the ruling.

Would this ruling find me liable if I created "dumb pipe" rented antennas streamed online, like Aereo, if I didn't make it an express goal of the service to watch television? Or say, a filesharing service which has plausible deniability (like client-side encryption) and no expressed intentions for its use to violate the Copyright Act, but that can incidentally be used by consumers to do so? Could the court simply call those kinds of services/software "technological obfuscation" and consider it forbidden? (I believe the court has strayed toward this argument in Grokster and other cases unfortunately.)

If so, I can't make a fair, fundamental distinction between that and any other cloud-like service. Devoting a section to "distinctions" to make lower-court precedent messier cheats a proper interpretation of the facts and will create ambiguity.

I really hope I'm misunderstanding this!

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

#228

Post by kd0amg » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

vibrolax wrote: post #222

kd0amg wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'".

I hope I understand your question. I think the court has found that the "distribution for pay", i.e. "Cable TV" aspects of aereo's service outweighs the "antenna rental" aspects, and that makes it charging for a public performance. If you rent an antenna on top of the Empire State Building, digitize the signal, and set up your own means to stream it over the internet to your house in Peoria, that is probably a privat…

The part I'm confused about is the distinction between what the Empire State Building management is doing in this setup and selling someone access.

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

#229

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:20 PM UTC

smurf_account wrote: post #208

icebraining wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing that broadcasters transmit to a select geographical location, so they can still sell the transmission to cable and satellite networks. By making it cheaper to watch those channels outside of the areas covered by OTA broadcasts, they're making it easier for current cable subscribers to "cut the cord".

Aereo makes new users sign up with a credit card linked to a zip code within the OTA broadcast range of the metros that they operate in. The users then get the channels that are available in that area. See https://www.aereo.com/channels Theoretically Aereo makes it more expensive to watch these channels(but easier and more reliable) than a one time purchase of your own antenna.

Prepaid CCs can often be linked to addresses you don't own.

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

#230

Post by coldpie » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:21 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #212

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

Wonderful summary, and I agree with your conclusion: people should take this as the Court saying "no" to Aereo's contrived, free-riding business model, and others like it, not to new technologies that enable people to store and access content which they already own [a license to].

Can I set up my own antenna in New York and stream its recordings back to myself in Minneapolis? How long is my antenna allowed to be before it magically switches to becoming illegal? This is an incredibly stupid decision that raises many more questions than it answers.