Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Next Chapter

blog.aereo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#31

Post by iolsantr »

wdewind wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. The Blockbuster analogy is frankly insulting to people who built real technology for video delivery. Blockbuster went bankrupt because technology made their middle-man position obsolete. In contrast, there is nothing obsolete about making content. Even in the…

>Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. I think I mostly agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate: this is broadcast television. It's already being given away for free. I could easily and legally build a kit to record this broadcast without a cable box/official dvr. I could also rewatch th…

Doing it in someone else's facility I think is what makes it illegal. IF you had exactly the same scheme but hosted the equipment in your customer's houses, Aero's business model would be perfectly legit. (I think, it's been a while since i read the opinion)

Re: The Next Chapter

#32

Post by marincounty »

TimJRobinson wrote: post #6
fedoreo wrote: post #2

Redditor here. It was about time. tips fedora Edit: why the downvotes? Please upvote for visibility. Edit2: come on guys, 4 downvotes, why? Explain before blatantly downvoting.

You're being downvoted because your comment adds nothing to the conversation. Hacker news tries to maintain a high signal to noise ratio.

Like hiding important stories that hit on important topics like technology, privacy, the constitution, potential backmail, etc.; The Uber story. I guess ran it's course? I guess the Uber CEO threat story was filled with your physics lingo? I liked this site better when it didn't have such finicky Moderators, and people who think HN is somekind of Technology Court, or a way to kiss up to the right people? It just another site like Reddit--with fiercely loyal Moderators, and members who are too quick to downvote anything they think they can spot that mildly violates the violates "The Rules". I think some moderators/users need to put away the Code, and take the Police examination. Officers are great at spotting those pesky violations--some real, some imagined. As to this tech speak(modern day cliches)--"signal to noise ratio". I once had English teacher spend an entire session on cliches in writting and speach; he finished with, "Just don't use them." You will thank me later in life. While I'm at it the word Troll, and the act of Hell Flaming; yea--let's all act like 13 year old girls. Oops--I said a no, no. Block my IP Fancy Boys--you would be doing me a favor.

Re: The Next Chapter

#33

Post by acomjean »

wdewind wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. The Blockbuster analogy is frankly insulting to people who built real technology for video delivery. Blockbuster went bankrupt because technology made their middle-man position obsolete. In contrast, there is nothing obsolete about making content. Even in the…

>Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. I think I mostly agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate: this is broadcast television. It's already being given away for free. I could easily and legally build a kit to record this broadcast without a cable box/official dvr. I could also rewatch th…

More to the point, they sell USB->Digital TV Antennas adapters and software to turn your computer into a DVR.

I had one (eye-tv) with an antenna, my computer is essentially a DVR (You subscribe to a program guide too, which makes picking programs to record tivo easy). I don't use it anymore, the computer died and I pretty much stopped watching tv.

At the very least, if the court said Aereo was a cable company the other brances of government should have at least respected that and given them the license to be a cable company.

What else is going to made illegal when renting a cloud computer?

Re: The Next Chapter

#34

Post by k-mcgrady »

hawleyal wrote: post #20
raverbashing wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die" But here's the thing. They still have to do that TV viewing is at an all-time low. Broadcast TV has a different business model than Cable, but viewings have been going down for both. Aereo's was too much a bet for too small of a win. "Now you can watch open TV on the internet" Any broadcaster c…

In-house is the problem. I don't want 200 separate media apps.

You actually watch 200 TV channels? Also, why would apps be required? If they did this it would probably also work on the web. Take a look at BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD in the UK. On demand and streaming via the web or mobile apps. Works pretty well.

Re: The Next Chapter

#35

Post by ubernostrum »

rayiner wrote: post #16
DevX101 wrote: post #12

I listened to a talk by an Aereo exec at SXSW and he made it clear then that there was no plan B. This was an all or nothing fight. Unfortunately the Supreme Court squashed them, but they really could have changed the world had the ruling gone the other way. ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die like the Blockbusters of the world. Des…

Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. The Blockbuster analogy is frankly insulting to people who built real technology for video delivery. Blockbuster went bankrupt because technology made their middle-man position obsolete. In contrast, there is nothing obsolete about making content. Even in the…

Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack.

So did cable television which, in the early days, was notorious for not paying for broadcast network programming they could get over the air.

That was solved by introducing a compulsory licensing scheme: any cable company could retransmit an over-the-air broadcast network, so long as they paid up.

Which also solved a massive logistical headache of each cable provider potentially having to negotiate a license with the parent network (for its programming) and each affiliate (for the local programming such as news or local sports), by creating a consolidated administered fund to collect and distribute the payments.

All Aereo really needs is enough money to buy itself a few members of Congress and get a similar scheme set up. That is the real, literal legal "hack".

Re: The Next Chapter

#36

Post by ubernostrum »

rayiner wrote: post #25
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tons of legal businesses are built upon the same concept, especially in media distribution.

The bedrock of which are voluntary, consensual distribution arrangements.

If by "voluntary and consensual" you mean "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation", then sure.

Re: The Next Chapter

#37

Post by valarauca1 »

cenhyperion wrote: post #27
chiph wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that Ted Turner did was turn WTBS into "The Superstation" by licensing it to cable operators across the country. And the rest is history. I don't know why any broadcaster doesn't make the same move, becoming the "Internet Superstation".

> I don't know why any broadcaster doesn't make the same move, becoming the "Internet Superstation". I'd argue Netflix beat them to the punch when it started creating original, acclaimed content. How many < 30 year olds don't regularly watch TV, but pay monthly for Netflix? I'm one.

A lot. Its a fairly common topic of conversation with the Most sales people get kinda bent hearing this. Hearing some of the deals they throw at you is hilarious, "We'll throw in channel package XYZ for only an extra $15 a month more then your internet." "Why would I pay more for something I'm not going to use?" "Well you own a TV don't you?" "Yes and its connected to a computer."

Re: The Next Chapter

#38

Post by jondr »

nhstanley wrote: post #15
TimJRobinson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted because your comment adds nothing to the conversation. Hacker news tries to maintain a high signal to noise ratio.

It looks like we have some trolls in here. Not very good ones.

This was a troll account too. It seems that other responses here took it at face value, which is unfortunate as the troll got a sincere reaction out of some Hacker News users.

The original comment has since been removed but it was a few lines done in the style of a stereotypical Reddit user: A smug, pseudo-intellectual, Fedora wearing faux-gentleman. This stereotype is widespread on reddit as a mockery of the kind of people that supposedly use the site, even if the parody has been blown out of all proportion by people parroting its in-jokes.

I'm not sure how much overlap there is between Hacker News and reddit users, so for the benefit of anyone who isn't familiar with the parody, this was just a parody and a troll. They do this to try and deliberately discredit the site. The comment section for almost any external link posted to major subreddits, particularly YouTube videos, rapidly fills up with parody accounts doing this. All doffing their hats, scratching their neckbeards, and professing their atheistic allegiance to reddit's intellectual paradise.

Given how serious some HN users are about preserving the quality of the comments section you probably seem like a pretty enticing target for provoking. If you see someone referencing reddit, Fedoras, and the tipping of those Fedoras, probably best to ignore them.

Re: The Next Chapter

#39

Post by kevincennis »

rayiner wrote: post #16
DevX101 wrote: post #12

I listened to a talk by an Aereo exec at SXSW and he made it clear then that there was no plan B. This was an all or nothing fight. Unfortunately the Supreme Court squashed them, but they really could have changed the world had the ruling gone the other way. ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die like the Blockbusters of the world. Des…

Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. The Blockbuster analogy is frankly insulting to people who built real technology for video delivery. Blockbuster went bankrupt because technology made their middle-man position obsolete. In contrast, there is nothing obsolete about making content. Even in the…

DISCLAIMER: Former Aereo employee. Views do not reflect those of my former employer. Blah blah blah.

This all goes back to the core of the argument though: Is Aereo a content provider or an equipment company?

Obviously SCOTUS disagreed with several lower courts and determined that we were infringing. But to paint it as a black and white issue strikes me as a gross oversimplification.

Just out of curiosity (I'm legitimately not trying to start an argument), do you think Cablevision* should have been overturned? If not, how do you reconcile the fact that their RS-DVR doesn't publicly perform, but Aereo did?

*I seem to recall seeing you comment on Aereo stuff a bunch in the past and knowing a fair bit about the case, so I assume you're familiar with the Cablevision decision. Apologies if I misremembered or assumed incorrectly.

Re: The Next Chapter

#40

Post by rayiner »

ubernostrum wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bedrock of which are voluntary, consensual distribution arrangements.

If by "voluntary and consensual" you mean "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation", then sure.

Only to the extent that any property right or contractual arrangement is "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation."
Post reply on HN