I was shocked to learn about the license and lengths Britain goes to,to ensure everyone has a license.Was playing battle pirates online,turns out there are quite a few Brits that play,somehow we got on the subject of tv.The guy I was chatting with had just been reported for having no license.He said they would actually stand outside your window and watch for tv lights,reflections etc!I was like,well tv here ain't so bad then lol.
Supreme Court ruled in favor of TV Networks
- Thread starter Deadlocked
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 160
- Views 10K
I was shocked to learn about the license and lengths Britain goes to,to ensure everyone has a license.Was playing battle pirates online,turns out there are quite a few Brits that play,somehow we got on the subject of tv.The guy I was chatting with had just been reported for having no license.He said they would actually stand outside your window and watch for tv lights,reflections etc!I was like,well tv here ain't so bad then lol.
To quote your saying "Blow it off, it's a done deal and nothing you or I can do now will change it" damn it I hate hearing There's Nothing You Can Do BS nonsense you said primestar31! I call it The five DREADFUL words I HATE to HEAR. For God's sake I won't accept that and your dull and lame reply you dig! You think I'm mad as HELL and protesting this SCOTUS decision which I called a freaking travesty? You think I'm part of The NAB Hatedom, yes I am! Please, I still blame The NAB and the broadcasters for the death of Aereo so as cord-cutters too in this tough economy, so please!!
Well Susan B. Anthony fought for Women's Voting Rights long time ago=Patriotic
MLK fought for Civil Rights in 1950s-1960s=Patriotic
They were True Americans (both dead) who fought for what's right like Kanojia & Diller did. The latter two unsucceeded!
No I'm not Anarchist, I fight for what's right for America, and support innovation unlike the NAB. We Shall Overcome!
The NAB are bunch of Communist Sons of B*****s!
The NAB should rot so as Les Moonves too. All I have to say (I hate using the c word):
Curse You Supreme Court! Curse You Dennis Wharton! Curse You Les Moonves! Curse You Broadcasters! Curse You NAB!
That's all I have to say you dig!
I don't get it. Aereo wasn't free; they charged a rental fee for the antenna and receiver. Now they just need to charge a little more.
This doesn't affect me personally because I live in a high-numbered DMA and live about one to three miles from our market antennas. My reception problems are more of keeping parasitic signal out of my antenna feed. If I lived in Boston and had an old house but had a good ISP I might feel different.
Aereo was ruled to be selling TVs at bargain prices out of the back of a stolen semi. Hopefully the laws get changed to update them to today's realities, but technology advances faster than Congress (opposite of Progress as we used to say).
This doesn't affect me personally because I live in a high-numbered DMA and live about one to three miles from our market antennas. My reception problems are more of keeping parasitic signal out of my antenna feed. If I lived in Boston and had an old house but had a good ISP I might feel different.
Aereo was ruled to be selling TVs at bargain prices out of the back of a stolen semi. Hopefully the laws get changed to update them to today's realities, but technology advances faster than Congress (opposite of Progress as we used to say).
The only thing that will force a change,is for the majority of tv viewers to say enough is enough.I'm not paying to watch what you offer for free ota.Scott mentioned it in another thread,torrent use and piracy will only increase if new technology and ala carte aren't allowed soon.When the money bubble bursts the NAB will have no choice but to change.I honestly feel that they know it's inevitable,thats why they are milking the cow dry now.
I apologize for my rant on my last post. Still devastated like everybody else on this controversial SCOTUS ruling.
As I say before I hate corporate greed and corruption like The NAB, MPAA, RIAA, ESRB, and US Anti-Doping Agency as well.
I felt The NAB took away freedom. That's my POV!
As I say before I hate corporate greed and corruption like The NAB, MPAA, RIAA, ESRB, and US Anti-Doping Agency as well.
I felt The NAB took away freedom. That's my POV!
It would help if locals were not required in base programming packages. I for one would rather save the $5-$7 whatever it is for my locals access and not have them in my Dish package. I get good and reliable OTA here in Oklahoma. However I would probably sub to them in Las Vegas as I get terrible OTA there. I could get by but would probably sub out there for reliability. However we no longer have that choice since locals are now bundled into the base packages.
I fight with the antenna out there everytime as reception seems to change daily. I use the Slingbox for everything but I occasionally want to watch the Vegas news/weather or catch a west coast football game or tv show.
I fight with the antenna out there everytime as reception seems to change daily. I use the Slingbox for everything but I occasionally want to watch the Vegas news/weather or catch a west coast football game or tv show.
Here's my review on this issue!
Chet Kanojia=Good guy and very Patriotic
Barry Diller=Good guy and very Patriotic too
Kanojia and Diller were the protagonists
SCOTUS=Backstabbers
NAB=Arch nemeses
Broadcasters/Les Moonves=Villian
Those were the antagonists!
That's for damn sure!
Chet Kanojia=Good guy and very Patriotic
Barry Diller=Good guy and very Patriotic too
Kanojia and Diller were the protagonists
SCOTUS=Backstabbers
NAB=Arch nemeses
Broadcasters/Les Moonves=Villian
Those were the antagonists!
That's for damn sure!
Also http://www.americantelevisionalliance.org are telling the truth about The NAB and NAB's abusive power!
The NAB's rip-off site of ATV Alliance http://www.tvfreedom.org pretend to support retransmission consent reform...They're LYING!
They also blamed Pay-Television providers for stifling innovation and blackouts of their local stations...The NAB are also damn liars too!
I wish someone forced them to shut down the latter site.
The NAB's rip-off site of ATV Alliance http://www.tvfreedom.org pretend to support retransmission consent reform...They're LYING!
They also blamed Pay-Television providers for stifling innovation and blackouts of their local stations...The NAB are also damn liars too!
I wish someone forced them to shut down the latter site.
One thing I also forgot to tell you. I'll be pissed if I get a letter that I got sued by The NAB for Defamation. I hope it never happens. I hate getting letters like this for example.
Now that I'm looking for the post, I can't find it. One of you clever folks (and I mean that) listed a whole lot of things that Aereo does in the aggregate to stream local TV to subscribers, and a whole lot of other businesses that do some of them. One of these businesses will lease you a TV antenna. Another will lease you a TV antenna on somebody else's property. Are these now illegal for everybody? Are community antennas also illegal? What if one pays a HOA for the community antenna?
I also found some mighty peculiar language in this decision, as though real time streaming all by itself somehow made Aereo into a cable company. Really? What if they delayed everything 1/2 hr? Would it then be OK, or was that just loose/irrelevant rambling by the judges?
I also found some mighty peculiar language in this decision, as though real time streaming all by itself somehow made Aereo into a cable company. Really? What if they delayed everything 1/2 hr? Would it then be OK, or was that just loose/irrelevant rambling by the judges?
Which of those constitutes a service qualifying as a public performance that is being packaged and re-sold to the end users?
If you're still saying that after the decision, then I've got nothing. Nothing of what you just suggested in your prior post really compares apples to apples.
I'm sure Aereo will continue if they get retrans agreements, probably going to jump to $15-20/mo though.
I'm sure Aereo will continue if they get retrans agreements, probably going to jump to $15-20/mo though.
Here is a question,if Aereo had approached the network providers for permission,to include paying retransmission fees,would the networks have approved? Now that the technology has been proven sound,I see the networks wanting to grab it all for themselves. First bankrupt Aereo,then buy up the remains for pennies,& leave the original owner with nothing to show for it.
SCOTUS says that because many people are being transmitted the same quasi live programming at the same time, it is a distribution. They note that the Congressional legislation's intent was not to create a loophole where antennas could be farmed as Aereo do. I find it odd that the uber-conservatives dissented. This felt like a 9-0 decision, one way or the other. The dissenting opinion seems to argue that Aereo is doing ("performing") nothing.
What is funny is the dissent liken Aereo antennas to that of a library card. The oddity is that you are not charged to get or use a library card. Their argument seems odd. They argue because the system doesn't know what it is transmitting (copyrighted or not-copyrighted material) that all is square, but Aereo has no rights to any of it, so the entire system, on this basis is infringement. It seems absurd that they note that Aereo isn't broadcasting all the channels at the same time as a cable or sat company. A box usually has only one or two tuners, so they aren't actually capable of receiving all of the channels at the same time either.
The most convincing argument used at Satguys is that Aereo is legal because the antenna is being leased by the consumer, so they are receiving a signal that they own rights to. But I don't see this argument in the dissenting opinion. Scalia is more or less saying Aereo isn't doing anything. What I find odd is that based on their argument, it should be legal to redistribute a single channel and charge for such services, because if you rebroadcast a signal in 1's and 0's and thus are not broadcasting like a cable company, then it is kosher.
* - Aereo said they were renting an antenna too.
What is funny is the dissent liken Aereo antennas to that of a library card. The oddity is that you are not charged to get or use a library card. Their argument seems odd. They argue because the system doesn't know what it is transmitting (copyrighted or not-copyrighted material) that all is square, but Aereo has no rights to any of it, so the entire system, on this basis is infringement. It seems absurd that they note that Aereo isn't broadcasting all the channels at the same time as a cable or sat company. A box usually has only one or two tuners, so they aren't actually capable of receiving all of the channels at the same time either.
The most convincing argument used at Satguys is that Aereo is legal because the antenna is being leased by the consumer, so they are receiving a signal that they own rights to. But I don't see this argument in the dissenting opinion. Scalia is more or less saying Aereo isn't doing anything. What I find odd is that based on their argument, it should be legal to redistribute a single channel and charge for such services, because if you rebroadcast a signal in 1's and 0's and thus are not broadcasting like a cable company, then it is kosher.
Lets not go over the top here. This isn't exactly controversial. They looked at this from the big picture point of view, more of what they were doing, not how they were doing it. People were paying. What were the people getting for the payment, a DVR service and access to locals*.
* - Aereo said they were renting an antenna too.
Building on Foxbat's post above.... I have no link because it was on Radio, but yes, one remedy is to pay the fees, estimated to cost $12 more. It was also mentioned Aereo could lower their other rates and soften that increase.
But here's the interesting part. According to the discussion, this decision did not actually change anything at this time. It is being sent to lower courts to abide by the reasons Aereo was denied, and make new decisions, which, yes can go back to the Supreme Court depending on what they base decisions on. At this time there is no order to shut down, and remains unclear if the lower courts have to shut them down while decisions are made. There seems to be just enough room here for Aereo to still do business at the least for awhile, but perhaps for the long term if they pay fees.
Without getting into everything discussed, when and if those fees are agreed to be paid, if Aereo thinks they are being charged more than say DISH is or Comcast is paying, they can appeal that too. In fact, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - it could be considered unfair trade practices if the networks charge anything more than a reasonable amount vis a vis what they charge others. Another words, they can't make it economically impossible for Aereo to continue in business if they do it by charging substantially more than what others are paying.
So this could go on for awhile perhaps.
But here's the interesting part. According to the discussion, this decision did not actually change anything at this time. It is being sent to lower courts to abide by the reasons Aereo was denied, and make new decisions, which, yes can go back to the Supreme Court depending on what they base decisions on. At this time there is no order to shut down, and remains unclear if the lower courts have to shut them down while decisions are made. There seems to be just enough room here for Aereo to still do business at the least for awhile, but perhaps for the long term if they pay fees.
Without getting into everything discussed, when and if those fees are agreed to be paid, if Aereo thinks they are being charged more than say DISH is or Comcast is paying, they can appeal that too. In fact, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - it could be considered unfair trade practices if the networks charge anything more than a reasonable amount vis a vis what they charge others. Another words, they can't make it economically impossible for Aereo to continue in business if they do it by charging substantially more than what others are paying.
So this could go on for awhile perhaps.
Ok, found a link that is along the lines of the discussion on radio and my post.
http://forums.solidsignal.com/content.php/3371-Great-post-game-analysis-of-the-Aereo-decision
http://forums.solidsignal.com/content.php/3371-Great-post-game-analysis-of-the-Aereo-decision
osu1991,
Probably you don't watch soap operas but the NBC affiliate in Las Vegas, Nevada (KSNV-TV) stunned their viewers by dropping Days Of Our Lives in favor of extended less-important hour of local news last year. As a result all NBC affiliates have cleared the soap by 1984 (when Des Moines, Iowa's NBC station WHO-TV was the last one to clear it) until KSNV dropped it in 2013 (becoming the only NBC affiliate not carrying Days as of 2013) and KVCW (Vegas' CW station) carried it in lieu of the NBC station.
and your point is?????
and your point is????
The locals don't have to split the ad revenue when showing their own local programming.
and your point is????
The locals don't have to split the ad revenue when showing their own local programming.
