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

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

#381

Post by harryh » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 4:21 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #350

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…

The point is that I'm not a fan of the goals that this legal system is intending to solve. You might be right that this decision is effectively accomplishing certain goals, but that doesn't mean I share those goals.

Sure. But most people think that people who create content deserve to (mostly) own that content and have the right to charge money if others want to use it.

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

#382

Post by davorak » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 6:06 AM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #372

davorak wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they simply maintain a 1:1 relationship between the number of antennas and the number of subscribers, That is not my understanding. Bob and George could have both leased Aero antenna in the same area. Bob's could get good rescission and George's could get bad reception impacting making George's experience worse. Or so says the public statements of Aero. > You're just buying individual access to an independently own…

Here's how the arrangement was described last year in a Gigaom article. "the antennas are “multitenant” which means that, when one Aereo subscriber is not using an antenna at a given time, it is available to all other subscribers." http://gigaom.com/2013/02/06/inside-aereo-new-photos-of-the-... So no, it's not "your" antenna any more than a weekend rental from Hertz is "your" car. Moreover, the antenna is only part o…

Thank you for the link. One subscriber uses one antenna at a time. That is how I thought it worked.

When you said that "You're just buying individual access to an independently owned and operated antenna array." I thought you meant that all subscribers where sharing access to the to the array.

Time share rentals exist so it makes sense you could do it with antenna as well.

> Aero's proprietary transcoding setup and the equipment that handles the feed coming off the antenna, and that is definitely not run on a 1:1 basis.

Is there evidence they are mixing signals from different antenna to improve signal quality. I thought I had read quotes from the CEO saying with pride this was not the case.

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

#383

Post by davorak » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 6:11 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #378

davorak wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it would be ok to by the equipment, then occasionally pay for repair when it breaks? What is the dividing line that would make buying and paying for repairs ok, but not renting?

"bundled with a service that streams over the air broadcasts via the internet to wherever you happen to be"

The equipment I talked about above includes a server which can be used by the renter to server the signal from the antenna to themselves.

So an end user could log on to their server tap into their antenna and watch whatever the antenna was picking up. They could install dvr software to their server if they needed to record shows and play it back latter.

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

#384

Post by davorak » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 6:47 AM UTC

harryh wrote: post #380

davorak wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? The fee was already paid then that party decided to stream it over the air. If the content creator does not want that they they do not have to allow for that usage. Or charge more for it.

That is wrong. The law specifically says that cable companies cannot transmit TV that is broadcast over the air unless they pay rebroadcasting fees.

> That is wrong.

I was proposing an alternate solution that looks equally viable under the law(not considering the recent supreme court ruling of course). It also seems more reasonable/fair then the Supreme Court ruling in question. If you thought my stated idea less fair then the supreme court ruling I hoped you would say why and provide evidence.

I was not trying to inform you about current laws.

>The law specifically says that cable companies cannot transmit TV that is broadcast over the air unless they pay rebroadcasting fees.

If that was obvious to everyone that Aero fell under these restrictions then I do not think the case would have made it to the supreme court or be a topic that would attract much conversation on Hacker News.

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

#385

Post by exelius » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 1:15 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #326

exelius wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. But protecting property that you own doesn't seem all that evil to me.

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

#386

Post by lisper » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 3:05 PM UTC

davorak wrote: post #371

lisper wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually that's exactly what I'm saying. And there are lots of examples where an activity is only illegal if N>>1. Unlawful assembly, for example.

> Unlawful assembly, for example. I thought about that example specifically and it does not seem to fit. Normally the problem with too many people assembling is that they they block businesses, road ways, etc. In this case each person is not doing the same thing as when N=1. Some N+1 person comes along and decides that it is ok to block a door way or a road, or can not tell that their addition adds to an egress probl…

Good grief. OK, here are some more examples:

1. Marrying one person is legal. Marrying >1 person is not.

2. An S corporation can have at most 100 share holders.

3. Zoning limits on the number of people that may occupy a structure are common.

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

#387

Post by karpodiem » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 3:20 PM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #316

coldpie wrote: post #306

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? No need to be rude. Given that nothing illegal occurs throughout the entire proces…

"No need to be rude." Sorry, but I take offense at arguments that are stupid or dishonest. The Geek Squad analogy is not even remotely applicable since nothing owned or operated by the Geek Squad touches the content stream. Given that the content stream is the bone of contention, comparing them to Aero is - at best - stupid, and at worst, diversionary, which smacks of dishonestly. And since we're on the subject, ther…

'It's not about your right to pull down OTA content.'

yes, it absolutely is - the two issues are inherently coupled.

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

#388

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 3:20 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #366

davorak wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because a single instance of an activity is legal does not necessarily mean that N instances of the same activity are legal. One person does something it is legal, but if N people do it it is illegal? I do not think that is what you are trying to say, but I can not isolate what you are trying to say.

Actually that's exactly what I'm saying. And there are lots of examples where an activity is only illegal if N>>1. Unlawful assembly, for example.

> And there are lots of examples where an activity is only illegal if N>>1. Unlawful assembly, for example.

Unlawful assembly, at least as it usually is defined in the US state laws (the British form has been expressly repealed for decades, and so isn't an offense in any case) requires not only a purpose of disturbing the peace but the completion of some offense, and so would be illegal in the N=1 case as well, not only in the N>>1 (or even just N>1) case.

So, while there may be a good point here, that's not a good example at all.

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

#389

Post by alexqgb » Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 11:17 PM UTC

karpodiem wrote: post #387

alexqgb wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No need to be rude." Sorry, but I take offense at arguments that are stupid or dishonest. The Geek Squad analogy is not even remotely applicable since nothing owned or operated by the Geek Squad touches the content stream. Given that the content stream is the bone of contention, comparing them to Aero is - at best - stupid, and at worst, diversionary, which smacks of dishonestly. And since we're on the subject, ther…

'It's not about your right to pull down OTA content.' yes, it absolutely is - the two issues are inherently coupled.

No it's not and no they aren't.

You are not Aereo and Aereo is not you. That's the point. You can pull down content for your personal, non-commercial use, and Aereo can pull down content for its personal, non-commercial use, but the moment either of you pull it down then transfer it to the other - especially on a commercial basis - then you've run afoul of the laws prohibiting retransmission.

Capiche?

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

#390

Post by davorak » Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 2:01 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #386

davorak wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlawful assembly, for example. I thought about that example specifically and it does not seem to fit. Normally the problem with too many people assembling is that they they block businesses, road ways, etc. In this case each person is not doing the same thing as when N=1. Some N+1 person comes along and decides that it is ok to block a door way or a road, or can not tell that their addition adds to an egress probl…

Good grief. OK, here are some more examples: 1. Marrying one person is legal. Marrying >1 person is not. 2. An S corporation can have at most 100 share holders. 3. Zoning limits on the number of people that may occupy a structure are common.

None of this examples seem to fit your original statement:

> Just because a single instance of an activity is legal does not necessarily mean that N instances of the same activity are legal.

> 1. Marrying > 1 person

Is not n instances of marriage under the same conditions. It seems like to fit your original statement it would have to be that one couple marrying was legal while N couples marrying was illegal.

> 2. An S corporation can have at most 100 share holders.

The number of people is changing but it is only one instance of forming a S corporation not N instances of forming an S corporation.

> Zoning limits on the number of people that may occupy a structure are common.

The N+1 person moving in is not really doing the same things as the first person moving in similarly to the unlawful assembly.

It would be interesting to look at laws implement actions which are legal with 1 instance but illegal with N, but the example you have quoted so far to do seem to have any carry over to the Aero case.