Aereo Slapped With 6-State Injunction By Federal Judge - 14 day Repreive - denied

[dfergie]

We are very pleased that the U.S. District Court in Utah has granted our request for a preliminary injunction. This injunction will prohibit Aereo from stealing our broadcast signal in Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Montana.” The Utah suit was first filed in October. Next stop — Washington D.C.

deadline.com

 

[dfergie]

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball has ruled that Fox Broadcasting and local stations are likely to succeed on the merits of their copyright claim and be irreparably harmed by Aereo.

hollywoodreporter.com

 

[dfergie]

Chet Kanojia, Aereo’s founder and CEO, said the compay is “very sorry for the effect on our valued customers in the Tenth Circuit and we will pursue all available remedies to restore their ability to use Aereo.

thewrap.com

 

[riffjim4069]

Good news....I can't stand thievery.

 

[Teehar]

Good news....I can't stand thievery.

Bad news,the broadcasters will stick to us even more.What's more if they defeat Aereo,they will end up pushing more folks to really steal imo.

 

[hancox]

Thievery? LOL.

 

[Tampa8]

They shopped that particular court knowing it gave them the best chance. They did nothing wrong, it's the court system. How can it be ok for now in some regions and not another in a Federal Court?

 

[dangue]

They shopped that particular court knowing it gave them the best chance. They did nothing wrong, it's the court system. How can it be ok for now in some regions and not another in a Federal Court?

Because the court that issued the injunction only has authority over those states. It can't order around people outside its jurisdiction. Any splits in jurisdiction can only be resolved by SCOTUS.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I am so interested in seeing this heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

I honestly believe it is a private antenna renting system, they are not selling content.

No different then a friend of mine sending me a slingbox to hook up to my antenna so he can watch the patriot games since in his area he only sees the Redskins games.
No different then calling a friend and hearing your favorite song playing in the background and asking her to turn it up so you can both enjoy the song together
No different then going to the news stand and buying an out of town news paper because they don't deliver it locally to you.

I have always dreamed of a satellite system for people who could not have satellite dish's. Just plug in and watch the programming you subscribe to. The dish is located somewhere else.

Now if Aereo was trnamitting other channels, such as Discovery, HBO, HGTV etc then yes they should be shut down. But they programming they are giving people access to are locals they should be able to get (but cant) from their homes via an antenna. Aereo is not selling outside the area where those signals do not travel, they are only making them available to people who should be getting them via antenna anyways.

 

[jayn_j]

Unfortunately, that is exactly what is under attack. The content providers are very unhappy with the concept of fair use. They want to collect money from every ear and every eyeball, every time.

I would imagine that the ideal solution from the standpoint of the NAB would be if they could turn off the transmitters and collect a fee for everyone watching their content. An acceptable solution would also be an antenna or television tax like they have in the UK. Basically the broadcasters are trying to convolute a system that has been around for 100 years now in order to rake in some extra $$.

 

[riffjim4069]

Bad news,the broadcasters will stick to us even more.What's more if they defeat Aereo,they will end up pushing more folks to really steal imo.

I disagree. The broadcasters lease spectrum from the FCC and, in exchange, they are required to provide service to their local markets while complying with decency and a thousands and one regulatory requirements. If a PAY TV services wish to make a broadcaster's licensed programming available to paying customers within their DMA...well, they will have to pay for these services. Personally, I would like to see any ad sponsored (commercials) programming, be it from the broadcasters of cable favorites (to include ESPN, USA, TNT, etc.), required to provide their signals free-of-charge to all licensed MVPDs. Only commercial-free programmers should be able to charge subscription fees. Until then, I have no problem with ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC charging customers $5 or $10 per month to view the most popular programming through a subscription pay TV service. If customers don't like it, the vast majority can erect an antenna and elect not to pay for these free over-the-air channels.

 

[riffjim4069]

Thievery? LOL.

Yep, it's stealing under the existing laws.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

You are correct Jim, they can erect an antenna, and if where they are living they can't erect an antenna then they can rent one in town from Aereo.

 

[dangue]

I disagree. The broadcasters lease spectrum from the FCC and, in exchange, they are required to provide service to their local markets while complying with decency and a thousands and one regulatory requirements. If a PAY TV services wish to make a broadcaster's licensed programming available to paying customers within their DMA...well, they will have to pay for these services. Personally, I would like to see any ad sponsored (commercials) programming, be it from the broadcasters of cable favorites (to include ESPN, USA, TNT, etc.), required to provide their signals free-of-charge to all licensed MVPDs. Only commercial-free programmers should be able to charge subscription fees. Until then, I have no problem with ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC charging customers $5 or $10 per month to view the most popular programming through a subscription pay TV service. If customers don't like it, the vast majority can erect an antenna and elect not to pay for these free over-the-air channels.

Sorry Riff, but $20-40 a month for locals is ridiculous.

 

[riffjim4069]

I am so interested in seeing this heard and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

I honestly believe it is a private antenna renting system, they are not selling content.

Ultimately, Congress will have to step-up and update outdated broadcast and cable laws that do not reflect today's communications reality. Of course, since there are hundreds of billions of dollars involved, the lobbyists will be out in full force and, in the end, lawmakers will determine winners and losers. Unfortunately, I see consumers being the biggest losers because video (IPTV) sources are going to be taxed along with imposing an Internet sales tax and perhaps even taxing Internet usage. We shall see.

 

[riffjim4069]

Sorry Riff, but $20-40 a month for locals is ridiculous.

I won't disagree, but if folks are being forced into paying $4-$5 to ESPN (even the folks who don't watch sports) then why shouldn't CBS get the same or higher rates when the ratings support it? I'm not saying it's right because I feel that all commercial-laden programming should be made available free-of-charge to licensed MVPDs (like in the old days), but if I were at CBS I would be charging PAY TV subscriber at least as much as ESPN under the current system.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...and-least-expensive-cable-channels-in-1-graph

 

[riffjim4069]

Basically the broadcasters are trying to convolute a system that has been around for 100 years now in order to rake in some extra $$.

Or survive. ESPN is accepting ad dollars, charging subscribers (all of them) $5+ per month, and has far less over overhead than the broadcasters. Meanwhile, broadcasters accept ad dollars, maintain a huge national infrastructure involving thousands of broadcast towers and uplink facilities, provide local/public services, and are being told their shrinking ad dollars are more than enough to sustain operations. That doesn't exactly sound fair to me. We shall see what happens.

 

[osu1991]

Or survive. ESPN is accepting ad dollars, charging subscribers (all of them) $5+ per month, and has far less over overhead than the broadcasters. Meanwhile, broadcasters accept ad dollars, maintain a huge national infrastructure involving thousands of broadcast towers and uplink facilities, provide local/public services, and are being told their shrinking ad dollars are more than enough to sustain operations. That doesn't exactly sound fair to me. We shall see what happens.

Shrinking ad dollars. I guess that 100milllion in ad dollars for the Oscars that I read this morning is a myth

 

[ronjohn]

Yep, it's stealing under the existing laws.

Which law?

If someone erected an antenna at your house, ran a cable to your TV, and charged you rent for the antenna, it would not violate any law that I know of.
If they erected the antenna in their yard, put a powerful amplifier on it, ran a cable to your TV, and charged rent, it would not violate any law that I know of.

The Aereo argument is that they are renting an individual antenna to an individual, and then replacing the coax cable with internet. I have not looked into the details of their technology to understand if there is indeed an individual antenna-to indivudual tuner- to individual subscriber setup, but I would assume if there is not that the broadcaster's case would be much stronger.

I do think that congress will get involved to stop Aereo. However, I think that a much better outcome would be the return of the broadcast TV spectrum to the FCC. Extremely few people use actual broadcast television. Let the FCC auction off the spectrum to be used for more current uses.

 

[hancox]

I disagree. The broadcasters lease spectrum from the FCC and, in exchange, they are required to provide service to their local markets while complying with decency and a thousands and one regulatory requirements...

...and at least a part of aereo's business case, and legality, they don't. Unless you have 100% stable coverage of an entire DMA, aereo has a case.