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

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#131

Post by wvenable »

brianfitz wrote: post #104
kevincennis wrote: post #39

Earlier 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…

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…

Where you would probably cross the line is you sold this as a service. Doing this for personal use is one thing, selling your apartment's antenna connection over the internet to a single other person is another.

Re: The Next Chapter

#133

Post by [deleted] »

dangrossman wrote: post #118
[deleted] wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Most people have a several-hundred-watt backup generator at home: their car. You can idle most cars for at least 2 hours per gallons of gas. That means with a 20 gallon tank, you have 40 hours of charging time for electronics. If you need to charge for an hour every six hours, for example, you'd have 10 days of phone usage. I've had uninterrupted internet through many multi-day power outages with just my car and a $2…

[deleted]

Re: The Next Chapter

#134

Post by bjt »

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…

You can rent books here: http://www.chegg.com/

and here: http://www.bookrenter.com/

Re: The Next Chapter

#135

Post by kevincennis »

brianfitz wrote: post #104
kevincennis wrote: post #39

Earlier 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…

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…

SCOTUS never really addressed this. The majority opinion was basically just a bunch of vague hand-waving that amounted to "if it looks like a duck...".

That was one of the most frustrating things for me when the decision came out. Obviously we all understood that we might lose, but to have a decision handed down that was so completely devoid of any sort of definitive logic or reasoning was really, really demoralizing.

They effectively just said "You look like a cable company, and even though we accept that legally you are most certainly not a cable company, we still find that you publicly perform... because cable companies publicly perform".

Re: The Next Chapter

#136

Post by kevincennis »

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…

Former Aereo employee here. Thanks so much for the kind words.

That brightened up my day a bit.

Re: The Next Chapter

#137

Post by res0nat0r »

res0nat0r wrote: post #122
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?

Slingbox allows customers to privately rebroadcast content they have a license to view unlike Aereo which did not have that right.

Not sure why a fact is something that should be so disagreeable to be downvoted. I know the truth hurts for this issue, but that is reality.

Re: The Next Chapter

#138

Post by [deleted] »

kefka wrote: post #13
fedoreo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is our inside joke. My fellow redditors will understand.

I'm also a reddit user. The problem is your post is contentless, and adds nothing to the conversation. I also notice on Reddit, where there X 1000 replies to a post, %90 of them are "me too" or variants on that. So, I end up reading Reddit's main tech forums, but come here to post. * Well, except this: http://hackaday.com/2014/11/18/thalmic-labs-shuts-down-free-... ~~ Thalmic is banned to be discussed in HN. So I pos…

[deleted]

Re: The Next Chapter

#139

Post by dang »

gergles wrote: post #121

This is yet another title change that removes context and makes it less difficult to understand why I want to read the article or comments. I really wish there was something beyond a mechanical "original titles only beep boop robot here" method for article titles.

It might help to consider the domain name part of the title. When I read this one that way, it doesn't seem to me to lack context.

I understand why the title changes sometimes seem mechanical, but in reality that is far from the case. Sample bias plays a huge role here, and rightly so, because titles and title edits shouldn't be the locus of attention. Unfortunately, though, when most of the data goes unnoticed, the remaining sliver of cases creates a misleading picture. I'm not sure what we can do about this.

Re: The Next Chapter

#140

Post by rhino369 »

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…

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.

Post reply on HN