Feds now oppose Aereo, rejecting cloud apocalypse argument

http://betaboston.com/news/2014/03/04/aereo-online-tv-streaming-broadcasters-supreme-court-justice-department/

by Baustin • 12 years ago

47 56 12 years ago

asn0• 12 years ago

The biggest threat of this lawsuit will be to the meanings of arcane technical terms such as "acquire", "playback" and "her".

fragsworth• 12 years ago

I don't understand why the broadcasters care enough to make a big deal about this. Isn't their goal to get as many viewers as they can, so they can make more advertising money?

If Aereo is distributing the content to more people, aren't they getting more viewers? What is the problem here?

samelawrence2• 12 years ago

I think the issue is that because of the DVR capabilities, users can now skip commercials. Also, because people won't be watching as much TV live in the future, the Nielsen data will get wonky. As we move towards an age of streaming, advertisers will pay more or less for placement in shows based on viewership data... but if Aereo controls the stream, then CBS / NBC / ABC would have to pay them to get that data to their advertisers.

It's about control and antiquated business methods. This too shall pass.

rayiner3• 12 years ago

There's nothing "antiquated" about the business method here. Spending a lot of money to create content, and then distributing that content to customers is as viable as a business as ever. What broadcasters are objecting to is Aereo's trying to work a loophole in the copyright law with respect to over the air content. Normally, if a company wants to stream NBC's content to its customers, it will have to sign a contract (and pay money to) NBC. This is exactly the same as any other business where a middle man (like Aereo, or Netflix, or Amazon) sits between the customer and the producer. What Aereo is trying to do is distribute NBC's content to customers without paying for it.

This is not an example of "technological innovation" challenging "antiquated business methods." It's a company using a Rube Goldberg contraption to try and exploit a loophole of copyright, to profit from someone else's product without paying for it.

natdempk2• 12 years ago

Maybe it ruins their advertising locality or the value of having local network affiliated stations? But both of those seem like pretty lofty arguments.

samelawrence2• 12 years ago

No, it doesn't. You tell Aereo where you are, and it gives you your local broadcasts only (last time I checked).

bdcs• 12 years ago

Hmm, good point. I would guess that Aereo, etc. may remove commercials, à la TiVo, during post-processing. Or even more rudimentarily, allow seeking, e.g. fast-forward over commercials.

acjohnson55• 12 years ago

Aereo doesn't post-process. It just forwards the content of a miniature antenna to your device over IP. There's a one-to-one mapping between viewer and antenna.

Cable companies, by contrast, currently tap the main feeds at one point, rebroadcast the content to their subscribers, and pay retransmission fees to the broadcasters.

(Aereo also operate a DVR service, but the big fight is over the retransmission fees they're not paying)

abat• 12 years ago

Cable companies pay them a lot of money to retransmit network TV. If Aereo is legal, that means that cable companies could use same trick destroying a large portion of their revenue.

mikeryan• 12 years ago

So why transmit OTA at all?

fleitz2• 12 years ago

TV and film distribution are dying industries grasping at straws.

It's an end cycle game like aggressive stage 4 cancer treatment for the elderly, you blow all your money on a strategy that might buy 5 years of hell.

Touche• 12 years ago

They make more money from cable companies paying redistribution feeds.

paul_f2• 12 years ago

You don't understand? Seriously? Can I pass along a life lesson? If you're ever unsure of another's motivations, just assume "money". You'll be right 98% if the time.

Broadcasters, if they could, would never transmit over the air and keep their $1 month/subscriber.

fleitz2• 12 years ago

This case is going to follow the legal principle of what the government wants the government gets.

For example shopping malls and corporate headquarters are a public use of land, while growing a plant in your closet and consuming it in your home is interstate commerce.

snorkel• 12 years ago

Fed argument hinges on this "Under the 1976 Copyright Act, a company that retransmits copyrighted broadcast television programs must obtain a license, though qualifying retransmission services may avail themselves of the detailed statutory licensing schemes established by Congress."

All television broadcasts are copyrighted, and local broadcasters, cable providers, and satellite providers all have attained licenses to retransmit those works. Feds are arguing that Aereo is charging customers for public retransmission of copyrighted works without a licence from the copyright holders. Of course current TV providers welcome this stance because they're also trying to sell DVR services.

diminoten• 12 years ago

Aereo isn't retransmitting to the public though, it's allowing you the ability to remotely deploy an antenna in a place where reception is good, and forwarding that signal onto you.

kej• 12 years ago

It's a stretch to say they're letting me deploy an antenna. It's not like they're just an antenna colocation company where I go install it myself.

mark-r• 12 years ago

The Obama administration supporting broadcasters? What a shock.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

If it may seem odd to you that the White House would get involved in this issue, this may uncover the mystery - this is what you get when White House hires former MPAA and RIAA executives in the administration:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140303/17554626416/us-sol...

forgotAgain• 12 years ago

Anyone have any knowledge of the particulars of the license that the broadcasters bought for the spectrum they use. Are they perpetual or for a limited time?

Just wondering if with the networks claim that most of their viewership comes from cable if their use of the spectrum would no longer be considered the best use for serving the public interest. Taking it further, would that allow the government to re-purpose the spectrum for other use.

ynniv3• 12 years ago

The problem with the argument against Aereo is that (regardless of the Justice Department's statement) it unravels rental services. Where is the line drawn? Can I not rent a hotel room and watch television in it? Can I not rent a hotel room, put a networked camera in it, and watch the television in the room while I am not physically in it? Can I not rent a hotel room that already has such a camera in it? Can I not rent a 1x1x1 hotel room with a miniature television and network camera in it? Can the television and camera not be one device? The "room" of Aereo is much smaller, but does size change legality?

bduerst3• 12 years ago

Only if you were to redistribute said content.

The argument they're making looks like they're saying that Aereo can't stream copyrighted content over the internet, because the copyright owners (the broadcasters) don't want their content used in the manner. This is weird because broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyrights on material once it's been broadcast. That's been Aereo's edge.

Basically they're trying to close the loophole by saying Aereo isn't consuming the signal, hence they are interfering with the broadcast to the real consumer.

icebraining4• 12 years ago

Hum, who says the broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyright on the material? That makes no sense, if they didn't everyone could just capture it and rebroadcast to the whole world at will.

I believe Aereo's position is not that the broadcasters don't hold the copyright, it's that they aren't violating it since they just do "location-shifting".

Feds now oppose Aereo, rejecting cloud apocalypse argument

Related Stories