Aereo Decision Alert

Toggle sidebar
I don't think the injunction is what is being decided. I don't think injunctions till a case is heard generally makes it to the Supreme Court.
 
Tampa8 said:
I don't think the injunction is what is being decided. I don't think injunctions till a case is heard generally makes it to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

There have been several different opinions on the injunction from different appeals courts, so the Supreme Court could decide to just resolve the injunction conflict with no guidance on the merits of either side. They could go all the way and make some sort of decision. The problem there is that there has not been a trial and only a few hours of arguments in the courtroom to sort through all the issues in what seems to be a very complex case. That is what a trial is for, and why they can last so long because they can go over every issue and argue them in depth.

But, they will probably end it pretty quick if they deny the injunction and point out a reason as to why they think Aereo will lose and send it back to lower court for trial. Even without ruling, it would really make it hard for Aereo to argue.
 
mike123abc said:
But, they will probably end it pretty quick if they deny the injunction and point out a reason as to why they think Aereo will lose and send it back to lower court for trial. Even without ruling, it would really make it hard for Aereo to argue.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
Yep. Looks like the fat lady is singing
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/25/5801052/aereo-supreme-court-ruling
The Supreme Court struck a dramatic blow against Aereo today in a ruling that puts the TV streaming service as it currently exists on its deathbed. In a 6–3 ruling, the court found that Aereo's service violates the Copyright Act by playing back recordings of broadcasters' TV shows — even though it legally captures those shows over the air and obtains individual copies for each viewer. Aereo had argued that it was merely providing technology that its subscribers were renting in order to watch TV, posing that the viewers were responsible for playing back those recordings.

"Insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service," the ruling reads. "We conclude that those differences are not adequate to place Aereo’s activities outside the scope of the [Copyright] Act."
Click to expand...
 
What did Gary Oldham get in trouble for for saying in defense of Mel Gibson? First Ivi TV & now Aereo,the war on cord cutters is on. Well,drawing back to Gary Oldham,WE ALL know why Aereo lost,& it had NOTHING to do with copyright law.
 
The silly thing here is they are just going to make people pirate stuff more.

The networks didn't win, those who had Aereo just hate the networks more.
 
Scott Greczkowski said:
The silly thing here is they are just going to make people pirate stuff more.

The networks didn't win, those who had Aereo just hate the networks more.
Click to expand...

The cablecos are working to make it more and more difficult to pirate. There are laws that the cablecos are supposed to provide the locals in clear QAM, but lately this simply hasn't been enforced.

I play strictly by the rules and receive via antenna, but I will occasionally take a peek at the remaining cable feed coming into the house for my internet. About a month ago TWC turned off the clear QAM feeds for ABC and CBS and their subchannels. According to the website you now need to rent a box in order to receive broadcast here.

Given the rulings, I am wondering how long it is going to be before the local broadcasters turn off the big transmitters and meet the transmission requirements by feeding a 200W transmitter into a coat wire antenna. That way they can kill access to us cord-cutting criminals and make us fall in line.
 
jayn_j said:
The cablecos are working to make it more and more difficult to pirate. There are laws that the cablecos are supposed to provide the locals in clear QAM, but lately this simply hasn't been enforced.

I play strictly by the rules and receive via antenna, but I will occasionally take a peek at the remaining cable feed coming into the house for my internet. About a month ago TWC turned off the clear QAM feeds for ABC and CBS and their subchannels. According to the website you now need to rent a box in order to receive broadcast here.

Given the rulings, I am wondering how long it is going to be before the local broadcasters turn off the big transmitters and meet the transmission requirements by feeding a 200W transmitter into a coat wire antenna. That way they can kill access to us cord-cutting criminals and make us fall in line.
Click to expand...


That was changed in 2013. The cable companies are no longer required to provide basic service tier or locals in the clear. That is why they are being encrypted across the country.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/commission-relaxes-cable-encryption-prohibition

http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-allows-cable-operators-to-encrypt-basic-cable-tv-signals/
 
U.S.A.: The best government money can buy.

This is nothing less then WAR on the consumer. I hope the consumer backlash over this against the cable providers is MASSIVE!
 
Sadly, almost no one will notice.


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
 
I'm very upset with the decision I was very happy with Aereo I just knew they were going to lose I think it's all about money and power just my opinion.

Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf

The opinion... Essentially the SC said they were doing everything a cable company would do, so they were a cable company even if they tried to go around it with "renting" antennas. As an individual you are still fine to put up an antenna on your property and get signals for free, a company cannot do it for you on their property and transmit it to you.

Because Aereo’s activities are substantially similar to those ofthe CATV companies that Congress amended the Act to reach, Aereo is not simply an equipment provider. Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs, many of which are copyrighted, virtually as they are being broadcast. Aereo uses its own equipment, housed in a centralized warehouse, outside of its users’ homes. By means of its technology, Aereo’s system
“receives programs that have been released to the public and carries them byprivate channels to additional viewers.” Fortnightly, supra, at 400.
This Court recognizes one particular difference between Aereo’s system and the cable systems at issue in Fortnightly and Teleprompter: The systems in those cases transmitted constantly, whereas Aereo’s system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that shewants to watch a program. In other cases involving different kinds of service or technology providers, a user’s involvement in the operationof the provider’s equipment and selection of the content transmittedmay well bear on whether the provider performs within the meaningof the Act. But given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cablecompanies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does notmake a critical difference here.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

nelson61
Aereo Shuts down in Denver/Salt Lake (pending Supreme Court decision)
Replies
1
Views
797
Tank
Tank
Peter Parker
Aereo question
Replies
16
Views
2K
navychop
navychop
Poke
Aereo to support Chromecast starting May 29th
Replies
7
Views
1K
mike123abc
mike123abc
Kraven
USTVnow vs AEREO
Replies
1
Views
2K
PopcornNMore
PopcornNMore
dfergie
White House Takes Rare Step Of Requesting To Argue Directly Against Aereo Before Supreme Court
Replies
14
Views
2K
Scott Greczkowski
Scott Greczkowski

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Back