Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 398 posts

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#211

Post by jedberg »

skottk wrote: post #199
jedberg wrote: post #104

I wonder if Aereo would be legal if they dropped the DVR portion of the service. It seems like that is the issue here. If it's really just me renting an antenna it seems like that is still legal.

Nope - it's the unlicensed transmission that this decision covers. The opinion actually states that a cable company (with its licenses) would be able to offer the DVR portion of the service. The DVR thing was covered in the Second Circuit's Cartoon Network/Cablevision decision. It's what gave Aereo the idea to try the many-antennas approach. The biggest difference is that Cablevision has broadcast licenses.

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#212

Post by rayiner »

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

Wonderful summary, and I agree with your conclusion: people should take this as the Court saying "no" to Aereo's contrived, free-riding business model, and others like it, not to new technologies that enable people to store and access content which they already own [a license to].

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#213

Post by danielweber »

wl wrote: post #170
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The endless 5-4 decisions of late tend to contradict that. Most judges are predictable. Roberts and Breyer being an exception, and slightly less predictable.

5-4 decisions tend to be the ones that make news. For the most part, the judges on the court agree with each other. In the the current term through June 18, 2014, only 14% of Supreme Court cases were settled in a 5-4 vote. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SB_...

That's the perfect data, thank you.

I went looking through those 5-4 cases to see if were along the left/right line. Only 4 of the 8 had Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas on the same side.

(The second had Thomas writing the opinion and Scalia writing the dissent. That's pretty rare.)

EDIT duh, that's what the color-coding was for. Oh well.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#214

Post by [deleted] »

njharman wrote: post #210
danielweber wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Aereo were ruled legal today, the cable companies would figure out tomorrow how to duplicate Aereo's position and avoid paying the broadcasters any fees.

Ok. I don't see a problem with that. I do have a problem with the legal system being used to prop up industry(s) that are otherwise no longer viable. I don't know enough about this specific case to judge. But, by in large that is what copyright law has been used to do for last 20+years.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#215

Post by danielweber »

njharman wrote: post #210
danielweber wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Aereo were ruled legal today, the cable companies would figure out tomorrow how to duplicate Aereo's position and avoid paying the broadcasters any fees.

Ok. I don't see a problem with that. I do have a problem with the legal system being used to prop up industry(s) that are otherwise no longer viable. I don't know enough about this specific case to judge. But, by in large that is what copyright law has been used to do for last 20+years.

By statute, broadcasters can choose whether a) local cable companies are required to carry their networks [which is why public access still exists], or b) to negotiate for the rate, which lets the cable company walk away if they cannot come to terms.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#216

Post by chris_mahan »

rayiner wrote: post #212
grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

Wonderful summary, and I agree with your conclusion: people should take this as the Court saying "no" to Aereo's contrived, free-riding business model, and others like it, not to new technologies that enable people to store and access content which they already own [a license to].

You don't own media content. You own a license for media content. Your use of the media is dictated by its license.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#217

Post by dragonwriter »

wl wrote: post #170
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The endless 5-4 decisions of late tend to contradict that. Most judges are predictable. Roberts and Breyer being an exception, and slightly less predictable.

5-4 decisions tend to be the ones that make news. For the most part, the judges on the court agree with each other. In the the current term through June 18, 2014, only 14% of Supreme Court cases were settled in a 5-4 vote. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SB_...

> 5-4 decisions tend to be the ones that make news.

Decisions on issues that have high political salience tend to be the ones that make news; there is currently something of a correlation with political salience and 5-4 split decisions on the courts, since Justices positions are most ideologically (rather than legally) consistent on points that were politically salient at the time of their appointment, and the issues with the strongest political salience also are often relatively consistently salient over an extended period of time, and since the court splits at or close to 5-4 on a lot of enduringly-salient issue areas.

But plenty of 9-0 issues on issues that have current salience make news, and 5-4 decisions on which the justices are split but there isn't a great deal of political salience often aren't treated as any more newsworthy than any other decision.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#219

Post by evanm »

grellas wrote: post #205

The Copyright Act is a federal statute that protects any public performance of a copyrighted work from infringing uses. Aereo took what were undisputedly public performances of works from broadcasters to the public, intercepted them, and by a feat of what amounted to technological legerdemain turned them into what it argued were no longer public performances but, instead, individualized transmissions from its service…

"I think, the Court got it right in the end"

I don't see how this really differs from a person setting up recording equipment in his/her own home to capture that OTA broadcast for later viewing—which itself is legal.

Re: Supreme court: Aereo is violating copyright law [pdf]

#220

Post by icebraining »

politician wrote: post #209
icebraining wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is obvious: when you're home recording, you're doing it for yourself, while Aereo is doing it for others. The fact that it's using 1 antenna/recording per user is an irrelevant technical detail.

When "I" am home recording, I am actually using the capabilities of a black box technological device purchased from a 3rd party. Are VCRs illegal now?

It's still you who are recording, not the 3rd party. If I purposely hit someone with my car, the car manufacturer can't be blamed, but if I tell my driver to hit someone and he does, shouldn't he be blamed?
Post reply on HN