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

41–50 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#41

Post by throwaway1592 »

While I applaud aereo's challenging of the law and twist on the law to create something. The outcome is correct! I read every day on hacker news; copyright laws are wrong, too long, not fair... I do not see it the same way. The hacker news community is a community who creates many things themselves; many of the community has chosen the path to give open licenses to their creation. This is their right and thankfully they do it. But. All things are not equal; while i think the giving open licenses to software benefits everyone. I do not see mandating open licenses and wide use of "The Arts" to do the same.

Creation needs to be a struggle. Taking someone else thing and modifying it is an easy path to create something. It also damages the original creation. Software and Art are NOT the same thing. Because software industry has chosen a different path should not mandate everything do the same.

Taking the collection of Marvel comic's characters and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" and creating a movie would also be cool, but it damages the original. It also by-passes the true meaning of greatness; Original. We as a society have in the last few decades valued bullshit Art over copyright and originality. Why? because it is easy and gives a short amount of pleasure.

Great things to not need marketing. Tolkien does not need marketing. He and his family (example) should be compensated forever. there should be no termination to it and his family should profit from it forever.

We should never take away the rights of the people who create things. If is their choice to give openness to them.

Re: The Next Chapter

#43

Post by orbifold »

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.

In Germany you can watch a lifestream of all the public and some of the private tv stations on their website in HD, more often than not together with some form of interactive chat. They even have a 2 hour time shift function and offer past broadcasts for on demand viewing, subject to some restrictions (After some lobbying by private tv stations the public stations are forced to delete certain content after a some period). You could have watched both the Olympics and the Worldcup at your own convenience that way, for example.

Re: The Next Chapter

#44

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway1592 wrote: post #41

While I applaud aereo's challenging of the law and twist on the law to create something. The outcome is correct! I read every day on hacker news; copyright laws are wrong, too long, not fair... I do not see it the same way. The hacker news community is a community who creates many things themselves; many of the community has chosen the path to give open licenses to their creation. This is their right and thankfully t…

[deleted]

Re: The Next Chapter

#45

Post by joelberman »

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…

Isn't the content paid for by advertisers in exchange for your eyeballs? Wouldn't Aero increase the eyeballs? Wouldn't the advertisers be happy about more eyeballs?

First the engineers run the company, then the marketers, then the finance people, then the lawyers. TV is being run by lawyers.

Re: The Next Chapter

#46

Post by maxsilver »

valarauca1 wrote: post #37
cenhyperion wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

I love that conversation

> "Don't you own a TV?"

> "No, I don't. I own a 50 inch computer monitor. It's hooked to a Chromecast, Roku, and PlayStation. We don't own a 'TV' of any kind."

Re: The Next Chapter

#47

Post by yaur »

bhouston wrote: post #3

Not surprising. This played out in Canada back in 1999/2000 in a similar fashion: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICraveTV - http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/12/33093 - http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-237450.html ICraveTV was less ambitious than Aereo as well, as it had no DVR functionality, and it still got taken into the courts until they gave up.

The biggest difference with Aero is that a bunch of their staff was lawyers and they had the financial backing to bring it to the supreme court. Without that any Aero like service is a non-starter.

Re: The Next Chapter

#48

Post by untilHellbanned »

throwaway1592 wrote: post #41

While I applaud aereo's challenging of the law and twist on the law to create something. The outcome is correct! I read every day on hacker news; copyright laws are wrong, too long, not fair... I do not see it the same way. The hacker news community is a community who creates many things themselves; many of the community has chosen the path to give open licenses to their creation. This is their right and thankfully t…

This is important for people to read. Thanks.

Re: The Next Chapter

#49

Post by [deleted] »

joelberman wrote: post #45
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…

Isn't the content paid for by advertisers in exchange for your eyeballs? Wouldn't Aero increase the eyeballs? Wouldn't the advertisers be happy about more eyeballs? First the engineers run the company, then the marketers, then the finance people, then the lawyers. TV is being run by lawyers.

[deleted]

Re: The Next Chapter

#50

Post by icebraining »

rayiner wrote: post #40
ubernostrum wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Contractual arrangement? How is that involuntary?
Post reply on HN