Aereo Tells Supreme Court Not to Kill 'Next Technological Step'

[dfergie]

"This Court should not rewrite the Copyright Act in an effort to protect petitioners from lawful and logical advancements in technology or from the economic consequences of their transmitting works for free over the public airwaves," said the Barry Diller-backed subscription streaming service in its filing today at the SCOTUS.

deadline.com

 

[dfergie]

For the broadcasters, that means telling the Supreme Court that if Aereo were to prevail, it would upset the balance between programmers and distributors and threaten high-ticket events like the Super Bowl.

The broadcasters see what Aereo's system does as a retransmission "to the public" and it's hardly of consequence that neither the antennas set up by Aereo are analogous to the old rabbit-ears nor that each of the company's subscribers get an individualized transmission of a unique copy. What matters instead, according to networks like CBS, Fox and ABC, is that the performances are sent to tens of thousands of viewers online for a profit. That's against the spirit of the Copyright Act, they say, and that interpretation has been echoed by the U.S. government, which seeks to participate in oral hearings next month.

hollywoodreporter.com

 

[dfergie]

Split these posts off from the District Court thread ...

 

[Derwin0]

it would upset the balance between programmers and distributors and threaten high-ticket events like the Super Bowl.

I have to ask, How?!?!

The Super Bowl is going to sell out anyway, especially since it's OTA in every market. All Aereo does is supply those signals to people who the stations are lax in supplying their OTA signals too, as required in their frequency allocations. And it's not like Aereo edits out commercials, so ad revenue is still safe.

The only thing at stake is the retrans fees the stations are getting used to having, and probably why their so lax in making sure their signal is reachable in most of their markets.

 

[mike123abc]

It is all Dish's fault

15 years ago retransmission fees did not exist... Dish wanted locals so bad it was willing to pay....

 

[Bobby]

It is all Dish's fault

15 years ago retransmission fees did not exist... Dish wanted locals so bad it was willing to pay....

And cable TV was part of that as well, if not the forerunner. The TV stations saw a way to make more money and stuck it to CATV and the satellite companies....

 

[Need]

I have to ask, How?!?!

The Super Bowl is going to sell out anyway, especially since it's OTA in every market. All Aereo does is supply those signals to people who the stations are lax in supplying their OTA signals too, as required in their frequency allocations. And it's not like Aereo edits out commercials, so ad revenue is still safe.

The only thing at stake is the retrans fees the stations are getting used to having, and probably why their so lax in making sure their signal is reachable in most of their markets.

Not only that.. the last Superbowl was live stream by the network for free in HD (no cable sub required). I think if Aereo won, all the broadcaster will just offer their own free live stream and everyone will win.

 

[riffjim4069]

This issue wouldn't be an issue if only AEREO would have paid the copyright holders their appropriate fees, like all other MVPDDs, instead of stealing, and profiting, from this theft of service. Perhaps they should tell the Supreme Court why they can't pay their bills.

 

[. Raine]

This issue wouldn't be an issue if only AEREO would have paid the copyright holders their appropriate fees, like all other MVPDDs, instead of stealing, and profiting, from this theft of service. Perhaps they should tell the Supreme Court why they can't pay their bills.

I have to agree with Riffjim4069 on this, Aereo really is a MVPDD. If they win, then that will set precedence and let's just start our own version of Aereo and make a bundle of money. We'll rebroadcast locals, undercut Aereo and not pay squat to no one. There's really no valid reason for Aereo to get a free lunch when no one else does.

Think this from the Cable television and consumer protection act pretty much says it all, as they are multichannel:

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 stated "No cable system or other multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station, or any part thereof, except with the express authority of the originating station."

 

[Tampa8]

It is all Dish's fault

15 years ago retransmission fees did not exist... Dish wanted locals so bad it was willing to pay....

And without doing so the viability of Satellite being anything more than a hobby and staying around was at stake.

 

[Tampa8]

This issue wouldn't be an issue if only AEREO would have paid the copyright holders their appropriate fees, like all other MVPDDs, instead of stealing, and profiting, from this theft of service. Perhaps they should tell the Supreme Court why they can't pay their bills.

Only true if found to be a public broadcast. Otherwise AEREO has it correct - they simply found a technology that does not infringe. From reading everything it seems to hinge on what happens to the signal after leaving the antennas. All the talk about the individual antennas not being real or can't work is just simply wrong. At my In-Laws house I can do the exact same thing literally with a paperclip - actually just run the coax and get all but one channel.

I do agree it isn't simply is the material being watched being done so in a private residence, that is only part of the law.

 

[TNGTony]

It is all Dish's fault

15 years ago retransmission fees did not exist... Dish wanted locals so bad it was willing to pay....

BULLPUCKY.

Retransmission fees, as we know them now, have been paid for at least 22 years. (Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992). And retransmission fees were a giant battleground before. This act was put into place to settle the ongoing war between broadcasters and cable systems and an unbelievable hodgepodge of copyright laws and court disputes going back to the 1970s!

 

[mike123abc]

BULLPUCKY.

Retransmission fees, as we know them now, have been paid for at least 22 years. (Cable Television Protection and Competition Act of 1992). And retransmission fees were a giant battleground before. This act was put into place to settle the ongoing war between broadcasters and cable systems and an unbelievable hodgepodge of copyright laws and court disputes going back to the 1970s!

They existed, but were paltry because cable did not have competition. If you were a local station you just had to be glad that cable carried you at all, if you got into a fee dispute you lost 90%+ of your viewers. When Dish (and DIRECTV) came along suddenly the stations could play satellites off against cable for bigger fees.

 

[TNGTony]

Once again: BULLPUCKY!

In 1990, 57% of US households with TV had cable and this is when the largest push for retransmission consent took place. This is why the law included a retrans consent provision in 1992.

The first retransmission consent dispute law suit I can find goes back to 1972 in Oregon! Locally here we had two local channels removed from the cable system due to legal disputes in 1984 (one from Dayton and one from Cincinnati both owned by the same local group)! Yes, retransmission fees and disputes are WAY up in the last decade and gotten completely out of hand, but this is not new. It is just that since almost all TV stations and cable/satellite systems are now owned by mega-giant corporations rather than smaller local or at least regional companies the disputes have become more fierce and disconnected from the consumer.

 

[primestar31]

If AEREO loses this battle, we will ALL lose.

There will then be no stopping the providers from jacking our prices as high as they can get it without doing anything else to make it worthwhile. Sure, it'll kill the goose that lays the eggs as many people will probably cancel service, but the providers are obviously too short-sighted to even see that far.

 

[mike123abc]

Unfortunately eventually I see Aereo losing this battle. While each part of their system seems justifiable, putting them all together will probably be found to be a commercial service, instead of individual fair use.

 

[dfergie]

Barry Diller Says Aereo WIll Be "Finished" If It Loses Supreme Court Case

The IAC chief, one of Aereo's top backers, told Bloomberg Television's Market Makers that it's "very possible that there's some salvage. But Aereo would probably, as I say probably just because I can't — I can't see any path forward. It probably would not be able to continue in business."

deadline.com

 

[mike123abc]

The IAC chief, one of Aereo's top backers, told Bloomberg Television's Market Makers that it's "very possible that there's some salvage. But Aereo would probably, as I say probably just because I can't — I can't see any path forward. It probably would not be able to continue in business."

deadline.com

They could offer to pay the carriage fees to the networks...

But, even then it is still not clear if the networks could even sell Aereo their programming legally. Cable TV and Satellite TV enjoy a blanket copyright exception to rebroadcast the OTA signal, via legislation. I am unaware of a copyright law change to allow internet rebroadcast of OTA signals.

 

[Peter Parker]

The IAC chief, one of Aereo's top backers, told Bloomberg Television's Market Makers that it's "very possible that there's some salvage. But Aereo would probably, as I say probably just because I can't — I can't see any path forward. It probably would not be able to continue in business."

deadline.com

As I read these articles I think more and more taht the analysis here that SCOTUS CANNOT rule on the case onyl the injunction is incorrect. i think they certainly can do that and send the mater back to the lower court but I think they have the ability to decide the case a s well. I guess wew ill know more in June.