Pretty awesome example of greed and money beating out innovation and common sense.
The Next Chapter
151–160 of 198 posts
Re: The Next Chapter
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Yes, the content is what's valuable. And it's already paid for by the ads, which are part of the content stream. As far as I know, Aereo wasn't interfering with those ads in any way. The providers are getting exactly the same deal that they always have - your eyeballs on their ads in exchange for content. I don't see how they can legitimately claim that they are entitled to more money because it's all happening over…
Copyright law forces cable companies to pay to retransmit content. According to the Supreme Court, Aereo is "substantially similar" to a cable system, so it's bound by the same requirements. Unfortunately for Aereo, it's not actually a cable company, so it can't participate in the compulsory licensing scheme.
Re: The Next Chapter
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The content owners would have to agree to license their works to Aereo.
Re: The Next Chapter
#154Earlier 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.
OK, but do you understand that cable companies primarily provide cable channels as their service? You're comparing apples to oranges.
Re: The Next Chapter
#155Anyone who wants a similar product/service can check out Tablet TV: http://tablet-tv.com/
A $100 device that transcodes OTA signals and sends them to your tablet.
They're launching next month in the Bay Area.
Re: The Next Chapter
#156I 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.
It's clearly entirely intentional.
Re: The Next Chapter
#157I 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…
You can protect your content, up until you broadcast it publicly; then people who want to can watch it. If aereo is over the line, but having an antenna on your roof isn't, then it starts to become unclear where the line is.
Re: The Next Chapter
#158Earlier 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.
Use these synonyms if you do not like engineer.
synonyms: originator, deviser, designer, architect, inventor, developer, creator; mastermind
"the prime engineer of the approach"
If you do not think that engineers can be creative then we disagree. And if you think that every writer, actor, director is creative, then we also disagree.
Re: The Next Chapter
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Cable companies acquire a license to rebroadcast. That is how they operate. Aereo didn't have that. I think that is more than enough to distinguish Aereo from the cablevision law. But the Supreme Court doesn't haven't to follow Cablevision. That wasn't a SCOTUS case. And other circuits had conflicting rulings.
Cable companies have a license to retransmit live programming. That's a completely separate issue from time-shifted transmissions.
Cablevision didn't have a license that allowed consumers to remotely record and play back shows. But the courts decided that the company didn't need a license, because it was the users rather than Cablevision who were performing in that instance, and thus it was considered a private performance.
But yeah, I'm fully aware that SCOTUS wasn't bound by the Second Circuit decision in Cablevision. I only brought it up as a thought experiment because I was interested in hearing rayiner's opinion on that.
Re: The Next Chapter
#160I 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…
I was a big fan. I live behind a hill, so getting the local terrestrial channels OTA is impossible. Aereo made this possible plus some great features like the DVR functionality for $8/month, with the ability to watch in my kitchen (on a laptop/tablet) was great because I live in an old building and running coax to all the rooms isn't really an option. We are a household with minimal live TV requirements. It was nice to watch the Olympics.
Unfortunately, we're back on Cable. Luckily there was a cheap package for 12 months to get us back on. I'll likely be cancelling at the end of the time, though.