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

281–290 of 398 posts

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

#281

Post by CWuestefeld »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #247
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'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 als…

It's illogical, but not in a way that's fatal to copyright. If the broadcasters have control of the content, they can license its usage downstream as they see fit.

So it's stupid, but not self-contradictory. The law can be enforced with no contradictions.

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

#282

Post by belorn »

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 is the argument of the ruling, but it seems arbitrary defined.

I would ask what law grounds the definition of the black box. If one would try to do the same to a illegal content hosted on a website, where should I start drawing this box? At my ISP, since it is the edge where I as a customer receives the content? At the websites ISP, since it is the one that broadcast the content? The coo-location of the server, as it is there that the mechanism for broadcast is happening? The hardware, which produced broadcast? Or is it the person who acted on the machine in order to create the broadcast?

As with a onion, each layer covers the internal workings of the next one. The actual functionality being provided (ie content) is the same at each step.

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

#283

Post by shmerl »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #280
shmerl wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well if you trust the ruling quoted in http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_17625637 then the distinction is that a transmission from equipment you own to equipment you own is private, but transmission from equipment you rent to equipment you own is public. Don't ask me to explain why.

This area looks like a mess. What is the intent of that law to begin with? To charge for special right to "perform" the copyrighted work in public. I don't really get why this principle is extended to delivering the "performance" to the single user. Isn't it about "public" i.e. multiple aspect needs to be present?

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

#284

Post by kd0amg »

vibrolax wrote: post #273
kd0amg wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The SC ruled that the number of antennas or where they're located is not the heart of the issue. Aereo effectively supplied a data stream with broadcast content to subscribers (just like a cable tv company) without licensing the right to supply that content. The issue is commercial rights, not technological means. If you personally lease space for an antenna, and engineer a means to get it to your TV to watch, that's…

Aereo effectively supplied a data stream with broadcast content to subscribers (just like a cable tv company) without licensing the right to supply that content.

This is also what ESB would be doing by letting people rent antennas and streaming servers.

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

#285

Post by alexqgb »

coldpie wrote: post #272
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…

> you are absolutely allowed to do this. So you agree that I have a legal right to accept the OTA transmission in New York, to make a personal copy of the transmission, and send that copy to myself in Minnesota for viewing. This is precisely what I do by hiring Aereo. There is no difference except I pay someone else to do the development and maintenance since I lack the skills or free time to travel to New York and s…

If the person you're paying is doing the work, then it's obviously not for their personal use. It's for yours. So they're doing it for money on someone else's behalf, which throws the "personal, non-commercial use" argument straight out the window.

Moving on to Dropbox. Dropbox has no involvement in the selection of the file in question, or even the type of file, and moreover, they're not the ones to place it on their system, you are. Aero, on the other hand, knows exactly what they're receiving because that's what their entire system is explicitly and narrowly set up to receive. They can't claim ignorance as to what they're capturing when their basic sales proposition hinges on a specific declaration as to what - exactly - they're capturing and re-selling.

In other words, the arms-length relationship between the service provider and content that protects Dropbox under the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision does not exist with Aero.

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

#286

Post by politician »

scott_s wrote: post #146
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.

Yes, it does mean something. Laws have intended effects; they are a mechanism to achieve some goal. "Exploiting a legal loophole" means finding a way to conform to the mechanism itself, but avoid that goal. Laws are the map, not the territory.

Maps typically describe their purpose honestly and plainly (e.g. The Americas circa 1805). The "honest and plain" intentions of the laws produced in the US are rarely provided.

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

#287

Post by ironchef »

icebraining wrote: post #276
ironchef wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Aereo control what gets recorded? I click to record a show in the interface. That tunes the antenna to that channel at that time and records an individual recording for me.

By choosing where to place the antennas.

Choosing where to place the antennas largely affects the who can sign up for the service. Antenna placement does not cause me clicking "record channel 4 at 7:30 pm" to become "record channel 7 at 9 am".

Try again?

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

#288

Post by harryh »

shmerl wrote: post #283
Dylan16807 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you trust the ruling quoted in http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_17625637 then the distinction is that a transmission from equipment you own to equipment you own is private, but transmission from equipment you rent to equipment you own is public. Don't ask me to explain why.

This area looks like a mess. What is the intent of that law to begin with? To charge for special right to "perform" the copyrighted work in public. I don't really get why this principle is extended to delivering the "performance" to the single user. Isn't it about "public" i.e. multiple aspect needs to be present?

The intent of the law is to allow over the air broadcasts (seen as a public good) to exist without completely undermining the ability of content creators to get paid.

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

#289

Post by harryh »

belorn wrote: post #282
harryh wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is the argument of the ruling, but it seems arbitrary defined. I would ask what law grounds the definition of the black box. If one would try to do the same to a illegal content hosted on a website, where should I start drawing this box? At my ISP, since it is the edge where I as a customer receives the content? At the websites ISP, since it is the one that broadcast the content? The coo-location of the server,…

Welcome to the world of common law. It's not source code with precisely defined rules. It's a set of values adjudicated by judges attempting to issue rulings that most would consider fair.

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

#290

Post by harryh »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #275
harryh wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you draw a black box around an antenna salesman and the equipment they've installed, you also get something that appears to be a cable company.

I think there's a big different between paying money all at once to buy and install hardware that I own vs paying a recurring fee for a service.
Post reply on HN