The dissenting opinion is based on a theory that Aero did not make a choice in what they were rebroadcasting. I disagree as they carefully selected the geographic region for their antennas based on their belief in the market demand for (copyrighted) shows in that region. They also carefully adjusted their equipment to be tied to the specific frequencies of broadcasters. They knew and promoted precisely what content viewers would watch.
Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
111–120 of 398 posts
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Supreme Court is not able to be wrong on a matter of U.S. law. It gets to decide what that law means, not you. It's not the decision I'd hoped for, nor the one I'd make, but it's nonsense to claim that it's "wrong". All we can do about it now is to get the law changed.
> The Supreme Court is not able to be wrong on a matter of U.S. law. It gets to decide what that law means, not you. The Supreme Court decides interpretations of law, but the law itself (as written or as interpreted) is quite capable of being wrong. Law does not determine morality.
That also does not mean that SCOTUS is "wrong". A law can be "wrong" (subjective), and the SCOTUS will still have to uphold it if it is constitutional.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bear in mind, the U.S. definition of liberal is still far to the right of what the rest of the world considers liberal.
And by the whole world you mean Western Europe and a few other countries. US is very liberal compared to many other places (like my own country).
Fair enough.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#114Seems like, because Aereo isn't just a hardware renter but also an integrated SaaS provider, they were treated as such. The court opinion talks in terms of user interaction with menus on the site to select shows. We're kidding ourselves if this works anything like "hardware rental". If it were, it would feel more like AWS.
I see so if you want to be "hardware rental" you have have a bad UI but if you have a good ui you are then SaaS.. WTF
It's not so much as quality of the UI but rather what the service actually is. I can black-box Aereo and it looks pretty much like a rebroadcaster. Aereo isn't renting me an antennae, not in the way AWS rents me a server.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.
So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
I don't think anything is wrong with renting an antenna and streaming the signal. What's illegal here (not that I think it should be, but it seems clear enough that this is what the law says) is providing a streaming TV service without obtaining the appropriate licenses. The implementation details on the backend are irrelevant.
I don't think you'd have any trouble setting up DJB's Internet-Accessible Antenna Rental if that's what you actually offered. Stick some SDR equipment on the antenna and give me access to the raw bitstream. If I want to watch TV with the service, then I can tell your equipment to tune to the appropriate frequency, and then decode the bitstream locally. But if you set up DJB's TV Streaming without paying any license fees, and you just implement that by receiving signals from an antenna, it's a different beast even if it looks the same technologically.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes- they are renting me an antenna in the locale the performance is being broadcast, and providing connectivity to that antenna. That is not a loophole- that is the letter of the law- that an individual can receive a broadcast performance of a work, but that it cannot be duplicated. It meets the letter of the law- unlike a system that received the broadcast signal, captured it, and provided the same copy to many use…
It's the letter of a law written in the 1970s, when streaming technology like this didn't exist. No-one had even conceived of the idea that you would group hundreds of antennas together and stream them across a wide area network to users. The spirit of the law as passed was to stop cable companies capturing and rebroadcasting over-the-air TV signals without compensation. So it shouldn't be too surprising that the Sup…
Oh, goody! Do we all now get to apply that type of reasoning to all laws? The CFAA of 1986 is a good one to apply it to, don't you think?
Also, how about applying the spirit of the Statute of Queen Anne. Wouldn't like that one, I'm thinking.
"Spirit of the Law" - humbug.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.
So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
Of course you can put an antenna on your roof. You can probably also put an antenna on your neighbor's roof. Your neighbor cannot get into the business of rebroadcasting TV signals, though.
Your intent to figure out exactly where the line is drawn is a failure that geeks have when going about the law. The law isn't written for a robot to unfailingly interpret. You won't get a good answer for the same reason the tribes making headphones out of coconuts won't get a good answer for how exactly they need to wear them for the cargo planes to come back.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.
So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
You are allowed to put an antenna on your roof. If your neighbor allows you to, you can put the antenna on his roof. You can even rent the antenna. You are executing a private performance. You cannot subscribe to a streaming service that "rents you an antenna" unless the service licenses retransmission of the broadcaster's content.
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the use of "innovation" here irritating. There's nothing "innovative" in 2014 about a service that streams TV over the internet. The only thing "innovative" about Aereo is its legal strategy of exploiting a loophole in the law.
"Exploiting a loophole in the law" - does that phrase really mean anything? Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law. The bizarre system that resulted is a reflection of the contorted, illogical, false-to-fact nature of copyright law, more than "exploiting a loophole". The Supreme Court ruled wrong in this case.
There's nothing "contorted" or "illogical" or "false-to-fact" about the copyright law in this case. The studios spend a lot of money to make this content. Users want to watch this content. To redistribute this content to users, you have to pay money to the people who created it. There is a narrow exception for free over the air TV. Aereo tried to shoehorn their internet streaming service, which is functionally no different than something like Hulu, into this narrow exception. The Supreme Court basically said: "if it quacks like a duck it should be treated like a duck."
Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]
#120I'm constantly amazed by the way the supreme court carves a razor sharp line through the issues. They always seem to examine these complex issues with the clarity they deserve. That's their job, but these are some fantastic and intelligent individuals, and are the only people in government, especially the justice system, that I have complete confidence in. I truly wish I could have more confidence in other parts of g…
Al Gore probably doesn't share your confidence.