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

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

#261

Post by icedchai » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

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.

You can. A third party can't.

Aereo is logically the same as a cable company. Cable companies license their content.

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

#262

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

dd36 wrote: post #244

icebraining wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Not anymore than I'm driving through my driver. Aereo controls what gets recorded, not the user. They're not an agnostic tool that can be used for any purpose, like a VCR.

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

#263

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

ironchef wrote: post #250

icebraining wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Aereo controls what gets recorded, TiVo (the company) doesn't. They're not selling an agnostic tool, they're selling the recording of a particular set of channels.

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

#264

Post by acheron » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

allworknoplay wrote: post #125

pontifier wrote: post #105

I'm constantly amazed by the way the supreme court carves a razor sharp line through the issues. They always seem to examine these complex issues with the clarity they deserve. That's their job, but these are some fantastic and intelligent individuals, and are the only people in government, especially the justice system, that I have complete confidence in. I truly wish I could have more confidence in other parts of g…

You're so right in theory, except that they're almost always split along idealogical lines -- individual justices strongly adhere to a single political ideology, AND justices with similar ideologies almost always stick together. That implies, sadly, that instead of clear first-principles rulings they're really just interpreting the law to suit their beliefs. The split has been studied endlessly and it's real; they ru…

that they're almost always split along idealogical lines

Except not. Stereotypical 5-4 decisions are down, unanimous decisions are up. Overall the justices are agreeing with each other more than ever. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...

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

#265

Post by pbreit » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:28 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…

What I am still wondering is 1) does there remain any possibility to set up such a service so that it could reasonably be called a "long antenna cord" (which part of the Aereo solution violates that?) and 2) does the special nature of broadcast content vis-a-vis public airwaves, etc, have much of an impact on the situation?

This non-lawyer feels that Aereo might have mis-stepped by 1) not going with a tighter "we are a long antenna cable" approach and 2) trying to scare everyone into thinking a ruling against it would somehow stifle mostly unnrelated cloud innovation.

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

#266

Post by pbreit » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:30 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.

But broadcast television is a bit different since in return for using the public airwaves the broadcasters have certain obligations including providing free access over the airwaves. I don't think you can make pat, blanket statements like that in this specific case.

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

#267

Post by icedchai » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

cheez0r wrote: post #10

The Supreme Court is wrong- the reason cable companies are treated as a 'public' performance of a work is that their distribution medium is shared- any subscriber can tune into that broadcasting of that work over a shared common carrier where one copy of the work is transmitted and many subscribers can view it. Aereo is different in that it only transmits the signal captured to a single subscriber at a time, removing…

what's absurd is almost 100 million was invested in Aereo.

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

#268

Post by veritas20 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #263

ironchef wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Aereo controls what gets recorded, TiVo (the company) doesn't. They're not selling an agnostic tool, they're selling the recording of a particular set of channels.

Not sure that this is true from a technical level, but from a customer level, I actually choose the shows to be recorded in a similar fashion that I would use TiVo. Aereo only records what you schedule to be record when it comes to their DVR portion of the service.

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

#269

Post by harryh » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:31 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #253

skwirl wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the decision, you will see that you are absolutely allowed to do this. The length of the antenna or wire has nothing to do with anything. What is not allowed is public rebroadcasting (or what the law refers to as "performing"). The entire reason this law was written is because under an old law, cable companies ("community antenna television" in that day) were setting up antennas and running cable to multi…

What is a semantic difference between setting your own antenna and someone setting it for you and charging for the service? I.e. the service of renting of that antenna? Why the second is suddenly considered bad by the law? I'm not arguing about whether the law applies, I'm asking to explain the logic of the law which intents to forbid such service.

The logic of the ruling is that Aereo, if you looked at it as a black box, was essentially acting as a cable company. The internal workings of its technology aren't as important as the actual functionality being provided.

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

#270

Post by shmerl » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:33 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #269

shmerl wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a semantic difference between setting your own antenna and someone setting it for you and charging for the service? I.e. the service of renting of that antenna? Why the second is suddenly considered bad by the law? I'm not arguing about whether the law applies, I'm asking to explain the logic of the law which intents to forbid such service.

The logic of the ruling is that Aereo, if you looked at it as a black box, was essentially acting as a cable company. The internal workings of its technology aren't as important as the actual functionality being provided.

That's not what I was asking. The commenter above said:

> They made the same claim Aereo is making now - we're not rebroadcasting, we're just a big antenna connected to multiple homes. The law was written specifically to address this, but it was written in a generic way to avoid loopholes... like exactly the loophole Aereo claimed existed.

I was asking to explain the logic of that law. What is wrong with renting the antenna? Why it should be forbidden while using the personal antenna is permitted?