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

231–240 of 398 posts

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

#231

Post by sanderjd »

ewillbefull wrote: post #227
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 understand the Court has some role in determining intention, but the nature of the technology in the background is crucial in determining whether it violates the law. I'm confused about the implications of the ruling. Would this ruling find me liable if I created "dumb pipe" rented antennas streamed online, like Aereo, if I didn't make it an express goal of the service to watch television? Or say, a filesharing ser…

The potential for this sort of confusion is one of the main things that Scalia's dissent strongly criticizes:

  "The Court manages to reach the opposite conclusion only
   by disregarding widely accepted rules for service-provider
   liability and adopting in their place an improvised
   standard (“looks-like-cable-TV”) that will sow confusion
   for years to come."

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

#232

Post by ansible »

johnpmayer wrote: post #11

Seems 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.

Maybe they should be in the hardware selling business instead.

Redesign their system to have discrete units. Aereo users would then buy the boxes (similar to that Hauppauge one linked elsewhere in this discussion) and pay a monthly service fee for power and bandwidth. If they are done with Aereo, they can have the box shipped to them for a small fee, or sell it back to Aereo.

The user will have complete and direct control of the TV box. Then there should be no problem.

Hardware costs will be higher though, and maybe the service ends up costing more overall. It would still be worth it for some people, like my friend who (while he likes sports in general) really just wants to see all of his favorite sports team's games from another city. I know of other people with similar use cases.

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

#233

Post by msbarnett »

nitrogen wrote: post #224
chris_mahan wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't own media content. You own a license for media content. Your use of the media is dictated by its license. In general you don't need a license to consume a copyrighted work that you received legally. There was no "click to agree" on the last book I read. You only need a licrense to exceed what copyright allows. Some software companies have argued that the hierarchical storage of a computer violates copyright…

> You don't own media content. You own a license for media content. Your use of the media is dictated by its license. In general you don't need a license to consume a copyrighted work that you received legally. There was no "click to agree" on the last book I read. You only need a licrense to exceed what copyright allows. Some software companies have argued that the hierarchical storage of a computer violates copyright, and thus all software requires a license to run. But this case was not about software.

A number of courts have broadly agreed with those software companies. While you're correct that you don't need a license to read a book, this is true (broadly) because you don't need to make a copy of a book in any meaningful sense in order to read it.

But to run a piece of software, or read an ebook on a computer, or play a music file, you do need to copy it -- not just into hierarchical storage but also into RAM -- and this brings copyright into play (as far as the courts have generally been concerned), and thus necessitates all of the end-user licensing of digital media.

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

#235

Post by coldpie »

cracell wrote: post #225
evanm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Because Aereo was selling a service of setting up and running that equipment for you. I have mixed feelings on the whole case but your example isn't directly comparable. Really though the whole idea of local broadcasts of national shows no longer makes sense. The networks should just live stream their shows online for everyone. This isn't in the interests of the local affiliates and probably is not legally feasible r…

> Because Aereo was selling a service of setting up and running that equipment for you.

That is a ludicrous precedent to set. Making your services available for everyone to purchase does not make the service itself a public utility. My sending an email containing a copyright file to myself through Gmail's service (which they offer to anyone!) is not the same broadcasting that file publicly and violating copyright, and it's insane to think that it does. This is why cloud service companies are up in arms about this decision.

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

#236

Post by evanm »

cracell wrote: post #225
evanm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Because Aereo was selling a service of setting up and running that equipment for you. I have mixed feelings on the whole case but your example isn't directly comparable. Really though the whole idea of local broadcasts of national shows no longer makes sense. The networks should just live stream their shows online for everyone. This isn't in the interests of the local affiliates and probably is not legally feasible r…

I think my example was valid.

Tivo, for example, is also a middle-man that is doing essentially the same thing. Tivo grabs your paid (in this case) cable TV signal, and for a separate fee, records that content onto their hardware and allows you to stream it on devices and televisions without using the cable provider's own hardware.

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

#237

Post by AnthonyMouse »

theworst wrote: post #223
evanm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

To me, one difference is the presence of a third-party for-profit entity (Aereo, in this case).

That seems to be the only real distinction anyone can point to. But how is that different than the customer going to a place like Rent-a-Center to rent a TV antenna and paying them for installation?

This is really the problem with the "look what it does, not how it does it" school of reasoning. What it does (allow you to watch OTA TV) is allowed sometimes and not others. How is a court supposed to differentiate between one and the other without looking at how the thing actually works? How is a company supposed to answer the same question about their product or service?

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

#238

Post by coldpie »

icebraining wrote: post #220
politician wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you really suggesting it should be illegal for me to pay someone else to record a television show for me while I'm away?

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

#239

Post by Goronmon »

mp99e99 wrote: post #60

very sad day for consumers and tech, lots of possible business models broken.

very sad day for consumers and tech, lots of possible business models broken.

I'm not seeing it. The decision seems to specifically covering only the business model used by Aereo. That is, charging users for a service that retransmits television content without a license to do so.

What other business models are you talking about?

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

#240

Post by icebraining »

coldpie wrote: post #238
icebraining wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you really suggesting it should be illegal for me to pay someone else to record a television show for me while I'm away?

Oh, I would never suggest that. I think what Aereo does should be legal. But judges are supposed to uphold the existing law, not what they think it should be.
Post reply on HN