The Next Chapter

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 3:11 PM UTC

kevincennis wrote: post #39

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…

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 legiti…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 3:19 PM UTC

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.

Post by throwaway1592 » Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 3:26 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #59

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…

You think Tolkien did not borrow? Where do you think the names of half the characters came from? Our culture would be substantially reduced if we removed all copying. > there should be no termination to it and his family should profit from it forever. What purpose would that serve for society? > We should never take away the rights of the people who create things. If is their choice to give openness to them. We creat…

Post by throwaway1592 » Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 3:32 PM UTC

lentil_soup wrote: post #55

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…

Why should the family of Tolkien be compensated forever? What have they done to suddenly be entitled to this? Also, how does mixing and modifying things damage the original? The original is still there and you can appreciate it without worrying about stuff someone else has done with it. That is specially true in software that's what makes it such a great medium.

Post by wtallis » Fri, Nov 21, 2014, 3:42 PM UTC

throwaway1592 wrote: post #65

vidarh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Tolkien did not borrow? Where do you think the names of half the characters came from? Our culture would be substantially reduced if we removed all copying. > there should be no termination to it and his family should profit from it forever. What purpose would that serve for society? > We should never take away the rights of the people who create things. If is their choice to give openness to them. We creat…

I believe the bargain is correct or swayed to the user because people want it for free. the creator should have the sole right to set the terms of use and transfer the terms. It is his property.