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

141–150 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#141

Post by FrobeniusTwist »

PublicEnemy111 wrote: post #24
dredmorbius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Chapter 11 is a reorganization, not a liquidation. Aero are planning some level of operations going forward. Though the posting seems to suggest there's not a lot in play. Curious.

Isn't chapter 11 a liquidation or reorganization with the debtee liquidating the debt while chapter 7 is when the debtor does the liquidation?

No. In a Chapter 11, the debtor (referred to in this context as the "debtor in possession") remains in control of the proceeding (with court oversight). Generally, the purpose of an 11 is to reorganize or restructure, but a company can also liquidate itself in an 11. Presumably by "debtee" you mean a creditor. Creditors can participate in a Chapter 11 proceeding as part of an "official committee", but they have limited powers and generally are left to complain from the sidelines. In a chapter 7, on the other hand, a trustee is appointed to liquidate the debtor's non-exempt assets, and the debtor is more or less out of the picture.

Re: The Next Chapter

#142

Post by yonran »

It seems that the Supreme Court took issue with the fact that Aereo operated not only the hardware, but also the DVR software (with similar functionality to that offered by the cable companies) that transmitted the copyrighted performance to subscribers. I wonder whether it would be legal to offer nothing but VMs in the cloud that happened to have a tuner attached, and let a separate company sell DVR software that records the TV show and transmits it privately. There must be some line between renting out one’s hardware and infringing copyright; Aereo just went a bit too far.

Re: The Next Chapter

#143

Post by davidholmesnyc »

Aereo was great when I used it. I even tried applying to work there because I was super interested in their service. I only had one bad experience and it was trying to watch the SuperBowl using Aereo. It wasn't bad but wasn't great (freezing,buffering,slow speeds on a fios Connection) . I completely understood that it was a big national event and didn't hold it against them. It probably wasn't even their fault but their bandwidth providers was probably being hammered also.Unfortunately, because of that I ended up canceling and getting Fios TV.Mainly,because I hosted a Superbowl part at my house and everyone was upset at the stream so I ended up getting Fios TV that way for future events/parties I didn't have to worry about a buffer or people being upset again. Regardless I love what they stood for and used the service a lot when I had it. It's sad there's no real alternative.

Re: The Next Chapter

#144

Post by snowwrestler »

rsync wrote: post #123
discardorama wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Also, it's worth noting that there are slingbox colocation services in the world where you can rent a slingbox in a remote datacenter in the TV market you prefer...

Can you replicate the functionality of Aereo that way? If so, why is Aereo's bankruptcy a loss? Could all of Aereo's customers just go rent a Slingbox instead? Legitimately curious here.

Re: The Next Chapter

#145

Post by grantc »

kenrikm wrote: post #119
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…

Not that I did not see this coming but I wonder if the title is a Freudian slip or intentional. The Next Chapter.. is 11.

12

Re: The Next Chapter

#146

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

If the value of Aereo's service was the technology, then couldn't they have stayed in business by paying licensing fees on the content? Ultimately, that's what the legal disagreement was over--the fees, not the technology.

Re: The Next Chapter

#147

Post by k-mcgrady »

hawleyal wrote: post #97
k-mcgrady wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publi…

I take your point, I just don't think it's as shitty as you I guess. Obviously one, integrated solution would work best. But with music you only have half a dozen companies to deal with and you just have to sell their stuff. With TV you have hundreds of channels, different production companies, several revenue models, and huge variations in rights across the globe. Look at how long Apple has been supposedly working on a TV and even they can't make it work.

Re: The Next Chapter

#148

Post by icebraining »

res0nat0r wrote: post #127
icebraining wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All property (intellectual or physical) is partly shared between the owner and society; you can't really do anything you want with your land or building. Why should intellectual property be any different, especially after you've distributed copies to others?

Because he created it and he gets to determine who/what/when/where/why it is used?

You're just repeating what was said; what is missing is a justification. You may believe it's self-evident that creation should confer absolute control, but it really isn't - especially after copies have been sold to others.

Re: The Next Chapter

#149

Post by res0nat0r »

icebraining wrote: post #148
res0nat0r wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he created it and he gets to determine who/what/when/where/why it is used?

You're just repeating what was said; what is missing is a justification. You may believe it's self-evident that creation should confer absolute control, but it really isn't - especially after copies have been sold to others.

Why? Just because you deem it so? The creator gets to control the use of their product...because thats the law as it currently stands.

Re: The Next Chapter

#150

Post by sib »

varelse wrote: post #101
jcampbell1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come down on the other side. The networks get the airwaves for free. It was a reasonable deal -- free bandwidth in exchange for a public service and an ad supported business model. If the networks want to give up their bandwidth and let the government auction it off, fine. I just don't like this crap that they get the spectrum for free, and I can't rent an antennae of my choosing. IMO, either we allow Aereo, or we…

"I am all for people getting paid for their content, but your argument is like saying libraries should be outlawed." I suspect if you set up a privately owned library and lent out bestsellers, that's exactly what would happen. That said, it'd be a real kicker IMO if the government stepped in and started broadcasting everything on the public airwaves for free anywhere in the world over the Internet. If the broadcaster…

"I suspect if you set up a privately owned library and lent out bestsellers, that's exactly what would happen."

The First Sale Doctrine would disagree with you.

Post reply on HN