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

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

#321

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:45 PM UTC

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…

> Has Dropbox just committed copyright violation?

That depends on how big of a threat Dropbox is deemed to be by major lobbies for content creators or distribution channels. Trying to apply any sort of unbiased reasoning to IP laws is futile. The rulings will be in favor of the most powerful and interested lobby.

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

#322

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:47 PM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #285

coldpie wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 thei…

Your argument doesn't work for the analogy, because the viewer is simply paying someone to do the physical work required for the viewer to remotely watch his own stream from his own antenna. It's like the difference between setting up a cable card and Internet stream server yourself, and hiring a tech guy to come to your house and set it up for you.

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

#323

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:49 PM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #302

coldpie wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Boy is Geek Squad going to be in trouble when it's discovered how many TV installations they've assisted with are used for pirated material. > They can't claim ignorance…

Wait, do you not see the difference between a one-time transaction with a third party that installs equipment they neither own nor operate and that has nothing to do with content, and an ongoing service relationship with a company that both owns and operates equipment that has everything to do with content? Are you fucking serious? "I don't see how the law can make a distinction based on how I acquired the content in…

> Wait, do you not see the difference between a one-time transaction with a third party that installs equipment they neither own nor operate and that has nothing to do with content, and an ongoing service relationship with a company that both owns and operates equipment that has everything to do with content?

I don't see how that difference is at all relevant to the analogy. Is it just because one involves repeated payments? Would it be legal for Aereo to charge a one-time fee instead of a subscription service? Or is the problem that Aereo owns the property where the physical antenna resides? Does my personal antenna+streamer have to reside on property which I own directly? What if I rent my apartment? Heck, my Internet connection is a subscription service, and I neither own nor operate any of the Internet equipment myself.

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

#324

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #305

alexqgb wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, do you not see the difference between a one-time transaction with a third party that installs equipment they neither own nor operate and that has nothing to do with content, and an ongoing service relationship with a company that both owns and operates equipment that has everything to do with content? Are you fucking serious? "I don't see how the law can make a distinction based on how I acquired the content in…

> an ongoing service relationship with a company that both owns and operates equipment that has everything to do with content? does this mean i can pay a third party to install an anetenna in new york, but i can't pay them maintain it for me?

I reckon you wouldn't be able to have your own antenna in your New York apartment, unless you actually own the apartment. Renters are out of luck.

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

#325

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:52 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #292

coldpie wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 you hired Aereo and paid all costs for them to do this for you and you alone, it would be at least a grey area. The reality is that Aereo built the system using their own capital and offered the service for a fee to any member of the public. The business model is no different from a cable company or satellite TV company. In the case of DropBox, you stipulate that you have the legal right to view the file, so that…

What about companies that use their own capital to manufacture antennas? What about Internet service itself, which is operated by a third party and paid for on a subscription model?

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

#326

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:53 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #304

wooter wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't see how you justified the decision and agree that it is "incredibly stupid." Am I not allowed to pay someone to set up my antenna? If I do should that involve other cable companies at all? "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 multiple homes, charging the users fo…

This is copyright. Copyright holders are allowed to assign reasonable restrictions on the content they broadcast publicly in order to monetize that content as they see fit. One of those restrictions is that the content broadcast over public airwaves may not be rebroadcast or retransmitted for non-private use. If your business model is encoding and retransmitting that content over the Internet, that's not private use.…

Copyright is protectionism. By definition.

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

#327

Post by acjohnson55 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:53 PM UTC

skwirl wrote: post #251

coldpie wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

If you read the dissent, you'll see a perfectly logical elaboration on the other side of the argument.

The difference between CATV and Aereo is that Aereo leases you exclusive usage of an antenna, instead of retransmitting the single stream to a large audience (i.e. a public performance).

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

#328

Post by baddox » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:54 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #290

Dylan16807 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if I paid for the antenna with a credit card, and am slowly making payments month by month? What if I rent the apartment where the antenna resides, and pay a monthly subscription for Internet?

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

#329

Post by the_watcher » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:56 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 agree - the dicta in this case sends a strong signal that SCOTUS will likely closely monitor any citations of this case as precedent for aggressive application of the Copyright Act. They are also sending a message to the legislature that there may be issues now arising from the language of the act that require clarification (not that Congress is likely to act on the message). I'm a bit disappointed in the outcome, and agree with Fred Wilson that this likely pushes innovation towards hardware operated and installed by the individual to address the issue, but, as defeats go, this is a reasonably encouraging decision.

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

#330

Post by alexqgb » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #305

alexqgb wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, do you not see the difference between a one-time transaction with a third party that installs equipment they neither own nor operate and that has nothing to do with content, and an ongoing service relationship with a company that both owns and operates equipment that has everything to do with content? Are you fucking serious? "I don't see how the law can make a distinction based on how I acquired the content in…

> an ongoing service relationship with a company that both owns and operates equipment that has everything to do with content? does this mean i can pay a third party to install an anetenna in new york, but i can't pay them maintain it for me?

Define "maintain". If you mean "pay the guy who installed it to keep it in good working order", there's no problem. But if you mean "pay the guy who installed it to record everything that comes off the antenna then set up a commercial service to redistribute that content anywhere in the world to a device of your choosing" then it's a probably illegal. On an individual basis it's also pretty inconsequential, so as a practical matter, it's not a concern.

But if you were the owner of a big enough building and were also charging people for the wire service to their apartments - and beyond - it gets more problematic. Indeed, a variation on this is what the Supreme Court ruled against decades ago. And if you do this on a truly industrial-sized basis (as Aero did) then expect the hammer to drop.