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

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#171

Post by crazypyro »

res0nat0r wrote: post #170
thedufer wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is claiming Aereo has that right. They're claiming that the person renting the antenna does. The implication of the case seems to be that renting an antenna does not give you those rights in the same way buying one does, which is bizarre and kind of hard to rationalize.

You can rent an antenna and do this privately to you and your household, you can't do this as a 3rd party company according to the law.

Except the whole argument was that the 3rd party company wasn't doing it, it was simply providing a location for the customer's rented property to sit, wasn't it?

Re: The Next Chapter

#172

Post by res0nat0r »

crazypyro wrote: post #171
res0nat0r wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can rent an antenna and do this privately to you and your household, you can't do this as a 3rd party company according to the law.

Except the whole argument was that the 3rd party company wasn't doing it, it was simply providing a location for the customer's rented property to sit, wasn't it?

Basically the 3rd party didn't have a right to redistribute the content which is what the court ruled.

Re: The Next Chapter

#173

Post by k-mcgrady »

hawleyal wrote: post #169
k-mcgrady wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

There are thousands of record companies inside Itunes.

There are the 4 majors (and their imprints etc.) and afaik a few groups that negotiate on behalf of the indies.

Re: The Next Chapter

#174

Post by DenisM »

A Napster moment for TV?

Having squashed a single company they could deal with, the TV industry may end up having to contend with some sort of P2P TV rebroadcast.

Re: The Next Chapter

#175

Post by throwaway1592 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #91
wtallis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

This doesn't make sense to me. You can allow people to consume your work but not replicate it or consume it for free. The philanthropic nature of the artist is different than his creative ability.

copyright contains ownership, control, consumption, usage. It should be for the creator to determine.

Re: The Next Chapter

#176

Post by the_ancient »

morninj wrote: post #152
ufmace wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is why the court ruling is wrong..

it is either a cable company, and gets the compulsory license, or it is not.

This was a Incorrect ruling by the courts, which is par for the courts, the Supreme Court gets it wrong more than it gets right

Re: The Next Chapter

#177

Post by the_ancient »

morninj wrote: post #153
snowwrestler wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is another problem with copyright law

If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it.

If you offer your channel to comcast you should be required to offer to any other service for the same fee or substantially the same fee,

That should be the string that is attached for intellectual privilege,

Re: The Next Chapter

#178

Post by dragonwriter »

the_ancient wrote: post #177
morninj wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content owners would have to agree to license their works to Aereo.

Which is another problem with copyright law If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it. If you offer your channel to comcast you should be required to offer to any other service for the same fee or substantially the same fee, That should be the string that is attached for intellectual privilege,

> If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it.

The ability to control who uses something is exactly what a legal monopoly over it is.

Its like saying of personal property, "if you want a legal monopoly over your things, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can borrow them."

Re: The Next Chapter

#179

Post by icelancer »

look_lookatme wrote: post #74
laichzeit0 wrote: post #62

Did Aereo as part of it's technology have the ability to strip out ads from content? Because honestly that's the only reason I haven't watched tv/cable whatever in years. Can't be bothered to waste my time on non-content when it's easier to just download a torrent and watch it via Plex. Or is this more aimed at sport, which necessarily needs to be "live" mostly?

And do you send the "tv/cable whatever" companies a check for whatever you think the content is worth? Otherwise you are just a thief.

Sure, I would, if they accepted such a feature.

Re: The Next Chapter

#180

Post by the_ancient »

dragonwriter wrote: post #178
the_ancient wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is another problem with copyright law If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it. If you offer your channel to comcast you should be required to offer to any other service for the same fee or substantially the same fee, That should be the string that is attached for intellectual privilege,

> If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it. The ability to control who uses something is exactly what a legal monopoly over it is . Its like saying of personal property, "if you want a legal monopoly over your things, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can borrow them."

Hardly, there is no such thing as intellectual property.

With property you have exclusive access over a physical item, with intellectual privilege the government is granting you the exclusive control over an idea, visual or audio representation of an idea, or some other non-physical concept.

for example Copyright does not apply to a DVD it applies to the visual idea's and representation of those idea that happened to be stored on a DVD

The government created this artificial privilege and enforces that with threats of violence.

It is in no way akin to property, nor does is have any analogous relationship to property.

Post reply on HN