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

241–250 of 398 posts

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

#241

Post by Goronmon »

coldpie wrote: post #230
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].

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.

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?

If I'm not mistaken, the answers to these questions haven't changed because of this decision. So whatever you think the answer was before, that's the same answer now.

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

#242

Post by veritas20 »

sschueller wrote: post #35

Does that mean good bye Aereo? Didn't they say they would shut down their service if they loose?

Yes, they've stated that they have no Plan B. I would have to disagree with them though. There are always options. The ruling essentially invalidated the live stream portion of their service. I believe that there is still a huge market for cloud DVR. I rarely watch live TV these days, and if I do it's because there was no other option.

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

#243

Post by loumf »

ynniv wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #119

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…

There is a narrow exception for free over the air TV. Are you saying that NBC does not pay anyone for the rights to broadcast a movie?

No. You don't pay to watch NBC over the air. Aereo tried to be the one to watch for free and then redistribute it to you also for free (to them).

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

#244

Post by dd36 »

icebraining wrote: post #220
politician wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When "I" am home recording, I am actually using the capabilities of a black box technological device purchased from a 3rd party. Are VCRs illegal now?

It's still you who are recording, not the 3rd party. If I purposely hit someone with my car, the car manufacturer can't be blamed, but if I tell my driver to hit someone and he does, shouldn't he be blamed?

It is you that are recording with Aereo's service...

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

#245

Post by dotrob »

coldpie wrote: post #235
cracell wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

> Because Aereo was selling a service of setting up and running that equipment for you. That is a ludicrous precedent to set. Making your services available for everyone to purchase does not make the service itself a public utility. My sending an email containing a copyright file to myself through Gmail's service (which they offer to anyone!) is not the same broadcasting that file publicly and violating copyright, an…

Scalia's dissent is informative on many of the questions being raised in the comments (starting on page 23 of the ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf).

He compares Aereo to a photocopy shop that provides users with library cards to access materials. Providing the copier and the card isn't a direct violation of the Copyright Act (via direct, volitional "performance" of a copyrighted work). Aereo may be guilty of a secondary violation (enabling a direct violation by others), but that wasn't the question before the court.

To make it even more interesting, this case was specifically about the "play" function of Aereo, and the Supreme Court wasn't addressing at all its "record" function, which is essentially returned to lower courts for them to decide (and I suppose only if Aereo continues to fight).

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

#247

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> There's nothing "contorted" or "illogical" or "false-to-fact" about the copyright law in this case.

The whole thing is contradictory. If the broadcasters broadcast for free over the air and local cable companies retransmit to local customers for free because it increases customer exposure to the broadcaster's advertising, that would be consistent. If over the air viewers had to pay to subscribe and broadcasters also charged cable companies to retransmit, that would also be consistent.

Allowing viewers to watch for free over the air but charging money if you watch via a cable wire is an illogical contradiction that the broadcasters successfully lobbied to have codified into the Copyright Act.

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

#248

Post by bediger4000 »

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…

So, what's the maximum length of cable I can between my antenna and my tee vee, and not be in violation of copyright law?

The problem I have with a "quacks like a duck" test is, in analogy, "Your honor, it sounded like a coot to me". That is, it's not a test I can apply by myself. I have to go ask The King of All Duck Sounds if it's a duck, a coot, a widgeon or maybe a grebe.

And that's fine, if we're all interested in a society where we get permission to do anything. If that's what we are going to have, I just want those permissions to extend to all, and for Lee Greenwood to be banned from singing "Proud to be an American". Otherwise, we're going to end up with a de facto aristocracy and underclass situation. Which is prima facie bad, legal or not.

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

#249

Post by AnthonyMouse »

msbarnett wrote: post #233
nitrogen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 copyrig…

Can you cite a case at the appellate level that justifies copyright licensing on the basis of ephemeral copies in memory?

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

#250

Post by ironchef »

icebraining wrote: post #155
ironchef wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 muxin…

The difference is obvious: when you're home recording, you're doing it for yourself, while Aereo is doing it for others. The fact that it's using 1 antenna/recording per user is an irrelevant technical detail.

What's the difference between me clicking on my remote to tell tivo to record for me than me clicking on a button in a web page telling aereo to record for me? It's still being done on request, no?
Post reply on HN