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

91–100 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#91

Post by logfromblammo »

wtallis wrote: post #69
throwaway1592 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Creators can demand whatever terms they want - and they do , as anyone who's read an EULA knows. But creators shouldn't have unrestricted ability to use the public courts to enforce terms that the general public has no interest in aiding the enforcement of.

If artists want to control their creations forever, they can lock their stuff up in a vault and be cremated with them.

If they want to be immortalized as a contributor to the common culture, they will have to relinquish control sooner or later.

Otherwise, your creation loses relevance and fades away. Extant copies deteriorate. Collectors lose interest. Your work moves from the paragraph body to the footnotes. Artwork requires a continuous investment of creative energy, otherwise it is replaced by the work of other artists. Museums keep works on display, and encourage patrons to enjoy them as frequently as they are able. Corporations produce series sequels and souvenir merchandise. Artists cross-license their work to creators that work in different media, such as book authors optioning movie rights to film studios.

Works in the public domain get remixed into more contemporary works. Characters like Captain Nemo, Dorothy Gale, and Alice (in Wonderland) will never die because anyone who cares to do so can refresh and update their image in the zeitgeist.

Take the Norse deity Thor. Would the typical person outside of the Germanic and Scandinavian countries know anything about him if he were not included in non-original stories and artworks, like jewelry, altar carvings, and the eddas? Would anyone care if Marvel did not adopt him into its comic pantheon? Will he enjoy being a woman as much as his adopted brother?

The common culture evolves continuously. The laws are in place to encourage participation by folks who would not otherwise be able to expend the effort without compensation. They are not there to wall everything off and put locked gates everywhere. At some point, we need to be able to remember our childhood without paying someone a licensing fee.

Re: The Next Chapter

#92

Post by lbotos »

pc86 wrote: post #87
lbotos wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in theory, in practice we know this isn't the case. The way content is shared in 2014 and data is duplicated you don't have that right anymore if you are creating any type of digital content. Not out of some "overarching evil" but out of people's desire to share.

A right is not a right if the desires of people I have never met abrogates it.

Aren't you agreeing with me then? Let's use a real world example: Flappy Bird. It was the author's right to take down his creation from the App Store and he did. He owned that. People are still using it (he can't remove it from their devices) and as long as one copy exists outside of his hand's people can infringe on his right:

http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad...

I want to understand you better. Can you clarify?

Re: The Next Chapter

#93

Post by defen »

untog wrote: post #90
twelvedigits wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bought one, it didn't work for me. Couldn't pick up a signal anywhere. Also, if I wanted to record shows I'd have to hook it to a Tivo (or similar device) which has an up-front cost and a monthly fee. Aereo provided the whole package in a low monthly cost.

You don't need a Tivo - just a USB tuner stick and MythTV, or some other open source solution. Granted if the antenna doesn't work then it doesn't work - I had some success buying a powered one.

You don't need Dropbox, just a Linux box and some rsync scripts. $7 is approximately 5 minutes worth of income for a lot of people on here...so if it takes longer than that per month to set up and maintain your solution then it's not a good deal.

Re: The Next Chapter

#94

Post by alexggordon »

Sad news. I'm not sure what their next business step will be, or if this is it, but I really do hope they open source anything they decide won't be a part of their future products.

Re: The Next Chapter

#95

Post by discardorama »

rayiner wrote: post #73
twelvedigits wrote: post #71

I don't think many people had the opportunity to use Aereo. They had a decent presence in New York City, and as the company expanded across the country reporters cited customer numbers in the mid five figures. As an Aereo user, let me tell you what you missed out on: one of the most amazing products I've ever used. Aereo "worked." It worked like magic. First, it lived up to its claim. You could stream live, broadcast…

What is antiquated about the idea that you don't get to use other peoples' valuable content without paying for it? Look: the valuable product here is the content. All the technology can do is get in the way. It's great Aereo's technology got in the way less than its competitors, but that still doesn't mean people found the technology itself valuable. The content is what matters. The content is what delights consumers…

> What is antiquated about the idea that you don't get to use other peoples' valuable content without paying for it?

Slingbox allows you to stream broadcast content without problems. Broadcasters are OK with that. So Aereo was basically renting out 1000s of little slingboxes; how's that a problem now?

Re: The Next Chapter

#96

Post by Pxtl »

harryh wrote: post #58
joelberman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's telling that in your list of jobs there you completely left out any of the creative people (writers, directors, actors, etc) that actually make TV shows.

Replace "engineers" with "the people who actually do the real work" and your complaint goes away.

Re: The Next Chapter

#97

Post by hawleyal »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #34
hawleyal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al.

It doesn't matter if they are web apps or other apps. They are separate, and because of this, shitty.

Edit: Itunes for music was massively dominant because it has everything. Separate stores for every single music publisher would be ridiculous. The same goes for other media.

Re: The Next Chapter

#98

Post by discardorama »

untog wrote: post #85
psychometry wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that OTA HDTV is...free, right? Explain to me how any content provider lost a single dollar because of Aereo's existence.

Because cable companies pay broadcast companies to redistribute broadcast content - it's a major source of income for the broadcast companies. The cable companies said that if Aereo were allowed to get away with what they were doing then they'd do the same thing themselves.

So Aereo was screwed because _cable_ companies decided to overpay? Can you imagine if you bought a car, and then the dealership comes back to you for more money because your neighbor paid much more for the same model?

Re: The Next Chapter

#99

Post by JoeAltmaier »

iolsantr wrote: post #31
wdewind wrote: post #26

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. 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)

I think that's right. Its about the similarity of Aero to any other cable company, who also use antennae to distribute media. Its about where we're at and taking small steps. So maybe it seems odd from close up (why does it matter if I rent/own the receiver?), it makes whatever sense it makes from a bigger view - the state of the current industry of cable and broadcast.

Re: The Next Chapter

#100

Post by logfromblammo »

lentil_soup wrote: post #82
throwaway1592 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My view is that the damaging is because 1.) people are not experiencing the original. 2.) the voice of the characters is not that of the creator and can not be true to their his intentions. When the allow others to create derivatives works there are always changes but they allowed those changes

"people are not experiencing the original." Sure, but they're experiencing an original interpretation of another work, it'll be judged on its own merit. They can still look up the original if they want to. What's wrong with that?. As Newton said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" If we were to ban any derivative work you'd need to forget about pretty much any "art" done in the last…

You cant swim in the same river twice.

No one can ever experience the original, because the context of everyone's experience has changed. Would your perception of Lord of the Rings be the same before and after reading Wheel of Time or Game of Thrones? Would it even be the same before and after the France-U.S.-Vietnam War? Would it have been the same if written before World War 2?

When a work is created, the intention of the artist is fixed, but as artwork, it is continuously shaped by the perceptions of its audience. Art holds a mirror up to life, and that evolves.

So experiencing the original is quite impossible now. People who did experience the original have already gone on to reshape the culture with their own works, and we cannot, for instance, un-see the Peter Jackson films based on the books.

Post reply on HN