Today, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and several other broadcasters fired back at the Barry Diller-back streaming service's December 15 brief to meet their October 11 petition to the nation's highest court.
deadline.com
deadline.com
Networks Hit Back At Aereo In Supreme Court Response
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 31
- Views 6K
Register to hide this ad
On Monday, ABC, CBS, Fox, NBCU and other broadcasters filed a reply brief to what Aereo had to tell the Supreme Court. According to the document, "Aereo's response brief gets a great deal wrong, but it gets one important thing right: This exceptionally important case warrants this Court's immediate review."
hollywoodreporter.com
hollywoodreporter.com
I think the broadasters are in for a SHOCK! I can't wait for them to get slapped down...
Really with this Supreme Court ? I hope you are right, but I fear that the Justices will side with the broadcaster. If the court refuses to hear the case then aero has won
I hope for a 'bitch slapdown' of the broadcasters (they NEED to be put in their place), but I'll settle for a "won't hear".
Supreme Court May Decide Jan. 10 Whether to Hear Aereo Case
That's when the court will meet to decide what cases to hear after the early part of 2014, according to the court's docket. The judges' decision could be announced as early as the following Monday. The court could also delay a decision.
thewrap.com
That's when the court will meet to decide what cases to hear after the early part of 2014, according to the court's docket. The judges' decision could be announced as early as the following Monday. The court could also delay a decision.
thewrap.com
It is a tough case. Essentially the question will come down to is if a third party (Aereo) provides a turnkey solution for the end user is the third party a "cable" provider? I believe that each item Aereo provides has been proven legal:
1. Renting antennas - rental and ownership of an object has long been understood to be similar in many ways
2. Cloud based DVR - has been proven to be legal by the Cablevision case
3. Sling - While I do not know of any case directly upholding it, it has been around long enough that challenging it would be tough to say it is a new concept. And the right to privately view your own recordings goes back to Sony Beta Max case, so this is probably pretty solid grounds.
The question is if all 3 are "rented" to the end user by the third party does it really mean they are rented individually or do the three things combine to form a service which would not enjoy the same protections as if the individual had acquired each of the three things individually and used them together.
In other words is by doing the entire operation (receiving, recording, and retransmitting over the internet) for the end user under a rental agreement a cable service or a rental agreement?
1. Renting antennas - rental and ownership of an object has long been understood to be similar in many ways
2. Cloud based DVR - has been proven to be legal by the Cablevision case
3. Sling - While I do not know of any case directly upholding it, it has been around long enough that challenging it would be tough to say it is a new concept. And the right to privately view your own recordings goes back to Sony Beta Max case, so this is probably pretty solid grounds.
The question is if all 3 are "rented" to the end user by the third party does it really mean they are rented individually or do the three things combine to form a service which would not enjoy the same protections as if the individual had acquired each of the three things individually and used them together.
In other words is by doing the entire operation (receiving, recording, and retransmitting over the internet) for the end user under a rental agreement a cable service or a rental agreement?
If I was a broadcaster, I would just throw in the towel, give up my OTA license assignment and turn into a cable channel.
They are charging people to carry their station on cable and satellite, and I would think they loose money providing a free signal via OTA.
So now you force everyone in your DMA to pay for your signal, you can write your agreements with Dish to not allow the Hopper to skip your precious commercials, and you end companies such as AEREO from stealing your signal by renting people small antennas.
They are charging people to carry their station on cable and satellite, and I would think they loose money providing a free signal via OTA.
So now you force everyone in your DMA to pay for your signal, you can write your agreements with Dish to not allow the Hopper to skip your precious commercials, and you end companies such as AEREO from stealing your signal by renting people small antennas.
If you think about the limited number of TV broadcast channels being used..there seems to be a plan to eventually dump ota broadcasting
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using SatelliteGuys mobile app
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using SatelliteGuys mobile app
I agree that seems to be where we're heading. Just "tough" for local stations? Local news will be a memory. Or local newspapers, via their websites, will gain ground.
But I think there is a large lobby that wants to see the TV frequency bands "repurposed" into cell and data.
I think they are trying to survive as regional cable channels
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using SatelliteGuys mobile app
The NAB is still a strong lobby and would fight repurposing. I believe the networks are starting to put money into programming on their owned cable properties at the expense of their networks. NBC -> USA or ABC -> ABC Family.
Well, they can just withdraw from broadcast TV for all I care, and let other more entrepreneurial stations try something new. Yeah, I'm dreaming. Very tired of reality TV pap on cable channels. Don't watch much OTA at all, other than PBS. Never watch sports, other than winter Olympics.
I still am conflicted as to how long broadcast TV can survive. I do think it is at least 10 years for the major networks, there is still just too much money being made despite their belly aching about not getting paid enough and people skipping commercials.
No one forces the broadcast networks to exist. They exist because they make billions of dollars. Any of them can cease to be OTA and be cable only if they desire. Right now they have found a way to maximize their profits with OTA commercials and charging cable and sat for carriage. Aereo cuts into that tidy profit. The OTA broadcasters are not secretly behind Aereo, they do not need a company like Aereo to stop broadcasting and sell their spectrum.
People are dumb and actually think OTA are mad at the makers of AERO --- LOL
FOLLOW THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The networks are huge investors in Aero along with Federal Government.
IF you recall around the time before the digital transition, the FCC floated the idea of making all OTA spectrum holders give up the spectrum they owned and used, people rallied against it and got that squashed.
So right after that, they started the program to pay and take the spectrum back eventually. Well that was going too slow, so they dreamed up Aero, so that way they could have a court case and use that as the "front" reason as to why they abandon the spectrum and get billions from the GOVT as payment, who would resell it to others at a huge profit.
AERO is just OTA and GOVT'S way of cheating people out of the last bastion of free tv. It is like the person who causes a problem and then comes along to solve it to get fame from it. Artificial actions used because they know they can not do it upfront because people would reject it.
Aereo does not cut in to their profits. They in fact bring more viewers, although many will skip commercials.
I don't see locals being allowed to sell spectrum.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Similar threads
