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

101–110 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#101

Post by varelse »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #89
rayiner wrote: post #73

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? 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…

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 broadcasters don't like that, tough, go broadcast on cable. Of course, this will never happen because corporatocracy...

Re: The Next Chapter

#102

Post by nemanja »

untog wrote: post #84
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…

Aereo also worked remarkably well during Hurricane Sandy. Provided you had internet, yes. Which a lot of people didn't. Over the air broadcasts - which Aereo were retransmitting - don't require any internet connection. In an emergency situation like Sandy a bunny-ears antenna is infinitely more useful than a bandwidth-chewing internet streaming service. Have you ever tried using one? Given that you live less than a m…

Yeah, that would make some sense back in 2005, maybe. During Sandy in 2012, Aero was infinitely more useful: when power ran out your TV with bunny ears became completely useless. On the other hand, you could still watch Aero on your battery powered HSPA connected smart phone. While I am sure bunny-ears antennas work great in more rural areas, they are completely useless on Manhattan.

Re: The Next Chapter

#103

Post by jblow »

look_lookatme wrote: post #79
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…

Wow downvoters, it's ok to have an opinion like this!

It is suspiciously posted by an account that was just created and is even named "throwaway". Downvotes are fully justified.

Re: The Next Chapter

#104

Post by brianfitz »

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…

I'm having trouble understanding the ruling, so maybe those here with more knowledge can help.

As a thought experiment, assume I live in a building that gets spotty OTA reception on my antenna. However, there is an apartment for rent on the top floor, and I decide to rent it for the sole purpose for storing property. If I set up an antenna in that apartment, but do not live in the space, and run a long cable from the top floor to my apartment, am I in violation of the law? I do not own the apartment that the antenna resides in, and I do not physically live there.

If this is not illegal, does it become illegal when I cut the cord between the apartments and instead encode the signal and stream it to my laptop?

So, said a different way, does the legality depend on whether I live in the same physical space as the antenna, or the fact that I have digitized the content between my two rented spaces?

It would seem that the courts view a company such as SlingMedia as a hardware provider and Aereo like the landlord of my second rented apartment. However, I can't resolve at what point what I do with my rented space and equipment becomes illegal.

Can anyone explain?

Re: The Next Chapter

#105

Post by icebraining »

pc86 wrote: post #66
venomsnake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problems right now are the IP laws IMO. They are way too heavily skewed for the benefit of the creator and not society, which makes building any innovation a game of begging. And gives the creator power to kill said innovation. I would love shorter terms and some form of FRAND compulsory licensing.

The content I create does not belong to society. It belongs to me. If I want to kill it that is my right.

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?

Re: The Next Chapter

#106

Post by rayiner »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #89
rayiner wrote: post #73

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? 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…

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…

You're precisely right: it was a deal.[1] The broadcasters get the airwaves for free, and the public gets TV over those airwaves for free. The deal said nothing about allowing people to capture content over those airwaves and broadcast it over the Internet. You can hardly blame companies for not wanting to give up more on their end of a deal than they agreed to give up!

[1] I think it's a waste of valuable spectrum on creaky inefficient technology, mind you, but it's the deal the government made.

Re: The Next Chapter

#108

Post by harryh »

twelvedigits wrote: post #81
rayiner wrote: post #73

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? 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…

Keeping in mind that this content is being broadcast over public spectrum, you're right: the content is the most valuable product. As a consumer, I want to access that content in an efficient, functional manner. My tax dollars are paying for it. So, I bought an antenna. It couldn't pick up any stations in my apartment, and this is a very common problem in NYC. Even if it picked up stations, I'd have to buy a separate…

Your tax dollars are paying for TV show production?

Re: The Next Chapter

#109

Post by untog »

discardorama wrote: post #98
untog wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Aereo was screwed over because _cable_ companies were legally mandated to pay for broadcast content, and Aereo skirted that law.

Re: The Next Chapter

#110

Post by [deleted] »

nemanja wrote: post #102
untog wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aereo also worked remarkably well during Hurricane Sandy. Provided you had internet, yes. Which a lot of people didn't. Over the air broadcasts - which Aereo were retransmitting - don't require any internet connection. In an emergency situation like Sandy a bunny-ears antenna is infinitely more useful than a bandwidth-chewing internet streaming service. Have you ever tried using one? Given that you live less than a m…

Yeah, that would make some sense back in 2005, maybe. During Sandy in 2012, Aero was infinitely more useful: when power ran out your TV with bunny ears became completely useless. On the other hand, you could still watch Aero on your battery powered HSPA connected smart phone. While I am sure bunny-ears antennas work great in more rural areas, they are completely useless on Manhattan.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN