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

351–360 of 398 posts

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

#351

Post by baddox »

shmerl wrote: post #342
harryh wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that you think it's really dumb but I think most people would disagree with you. When you get bogged down in the technical details of Aereo's datacenter configuration you miss the forrest for the trees. They're a company that streams TV into people's homes. Other companies (the cable companies) have to pay a fee to the content creators to do that. Why should it be different for Aereo? It costs a lot of m…

Why is such streaming a "public performance" really? Aereo rents one antenna per user. Or public is now redefined?

harryh's point, and the point of this legal decision, is that the text of the law is not really relevant. Anything that appears to any halfway reasonable person to abide by the text of the law, but which upsets powerful groups, will be prohibited, because the goal of our IP legal system is to protect those groups.

Personally, I still think that is dumb and bad.

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

#352

Post by Dylan16807 »

Loughla wrote: post #181
toomuchtodo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aereo should pivot to be a colocation company specifically for this equipment. Sell the device to the end user for $100, charge $8-12/month for "colocation". What next? Illegal for a user to colocate their own antenna equipment?

That feels immoral when I say it out loud. Do we not worry about intent and spirit of the law anymore?

When the intent of the law is to take something that's legal to do personally, and make it illegal to outsource, I'm not bothered by going against it by removing juuuust enough outsourcing.

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

#353

Post by npizzolato »

wooter wrote: post #256
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…

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…

If it's a bad law then get the law changed. Unless you can make an argument to convince the supreme court why that law is unconstitutional, the supreme court doesn't decide which laws are good or bad -- they only rule against how (and why) the laws are written. Changing the laws is Congress's job.

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

#354

Post by npizzolato »

baddox wrote: post #351
shmerl wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is such streaming a "public performance" really? Aereo rents one antenna per user. Or public is now redefined?

harryh's point, and the point of this legal decision, is that the text of the law is not really relevant. Anything that appears to any halfway reasonable person to abide by the text of the law, but which upsets powerful groups, will be prohibited, because the goal of our IP legal system is to protect those groups. Personally, I still think that is dumb and bad.

It's not that the text is irrelevant. It's that there is also the "spirit of the law" that goes along with that text. When you have to go around the text of the law by jumping through convoluted hoops (which Aereo has definitely done), it's likely you're violating the spirit of the law.

While Aereo's setup is undoubtedly clever, I am glad our legal system doesn't treat the raw text of laws as gospel. Laws are created for a purpose, and it would be impossible to foresee every possibility to get around the intent of a law when you are drafting it.

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

#355

Post by Dylan16807 »

pbreit wrote: post #258
untog wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There's such a thing as the "spirit" of a law, and the technical details of a law. The intention of the changes to the Copyright Act (which Shivetya has detailed better than I can[1]) was to stop basically what Aereo is doing, albeit back in the 1970s with cable companies. The legalese reflected the technology of the time. Aereo found a technical loophole that allowed them to continue to do it, but all th…

I don't think "technical loophole" is the best description. They were trying to make the case that they were providing a long antenna cord which is at least sorta reasonable (and something the cable companies could not claim). Antennas are legal. Manipulating airwaves to be played on a TV is legal. Long antenna cables are legal. Putting an antenna on my neighbor's roof is legal. Paying my neighbor rent for such a thi…

And breaking down a cable company in the same way works consistently too. Antennas are legal, long cables are legal, paying your neighbor to set things up is legal, sharing an antenna with your neighbor is not legal.

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

#356

Post by Dylan16807 »

harryh wrote: post #349
Dylan16807 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a stereotypical cable company undermine payment for the public performance? They are only assisting in the reception of the performance for people with bad antenna locations. The stereotypical cable company doesn't extend the range, either, it's just a shared antenna.

Cable companies pay the broadcasters rebroadcasting fees.

I meant before the law was passed, when they didn't pay those fees. I cannot figure out how payment is undermined on a free broadcast. Can you explain how to me?

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

#357

Post by npizzolato »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #314
danielrhodes wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By weighing the intentions of the company against the intentions of the law. The intentions of the law were to prevent this rebroadcast of content. The intentions of Aereo were clearly to do this. Aereo tested the waters by trying to make a distinction between public and private, and between transmission and performance. Ultimately, the court did not agree such distinctions were valid.

> By weighing the intentions of the company against the intentions of the law. Putting aside how you're supposed to evaluate the intent of Congress or Aereo without evaluating exactly what it is they're doing, are you ready for the stupid consequences of that? It would mean someone doing the same thing with the same result would be legal if they had different intent. For example, someone could set up a service where…

Intent of involved parties is already a big part of the legal system and is a major (and sometimes necessary) aspect of many laws[1]. And in my opinion having intent matter is just common sense. It's why torrent clients are perfectly okay despite how easy it is to find torrents of copyrighted material, but Popcorn Time was probably going to have a challenging time in the courts[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

[2] http://getpopcornti.me/

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

#358

Post by baddox »

npizzolato wrote: post #354
baddox wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

harryh's point, and the point of this legal decision, is that the text of the law is not really relevant. Anything that appears to any halfway reasonable person to abide by the text of the law, but which upsets powerful groups, will be prohibited, because the goal of our IP legal system is to protect those groups. Personally, I still think that is dumb and bad.

It's not that the text is irrelevant. It's that there is also the "spirit of the law" that goes along with that text. When you have to go around the text of the law by jumping through convoluted hoops (which Aereo has definitely done), it's likely you're violating the spirit of the law. While Aereo's setup is undoubtedly clever, I am glad our legal system doesn't treat the raw text of laws as gospel. Laws are created…

> It's that there is also the "spirit of the law" that goes along with that text.

Sure, and my point is that the "spirit" of these laws is simply to please IP lobbies. I don't think it's a good thing.

> When you have to go around the text of the law by jumping through convoluted hoops (which Aereo has definitely done), it's likely you're violating the spirit of the law.

How is what they've done convoluted? It's extremely simple.

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

#359

Post by npizzolato »

djflutt3rshy wrote: post #174
jervisfm wrote: post #167

Here's a (naive) question: In the US, is a Supreme Court ruling completely final ? What options, if any, are available to the losing party ? Is change through congress the only way to try to appeal rulings? If there are no practical ways to repeal Supreme Court rulings, what happens when the Supreme Court makes a mistaken ruling?

Yes, it's very strong legally. Congress or the states can try for a Constitutional Amendment (but those are few and far between, last one was in 1992), or the Supreme Court can later reverse itself partially or in full. An example of that would be Plessy v Ferguson in 1896, where the Supreme Court ruled segregation laws were constitutional, but later in the 50's (Brown v. Board of Education) they reversed it.

Those are the only options if they're ruling on the constitutionality of a certain law. If they're just deciding on whether or not an action violated any given law (as in this case), you could reverse the ruling by changing the law itself (i.e. through Congress).

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

#360

Post by dllthomas »

shmerl wrote: post #334
dllthomas wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But he does not continue to own the antenna, and you do not continue to pay him.

What if he rents you an antenna, but you install it in your house?

I don't think that's clear, and it would probably call for a new ruling, informed by the particulars of the case...
Post reply on HN