Why Aereo Should Win at the Supreme Court (Guest Column)

[dfergie]

This service lets viewers watch TV wherever they want, when they want (sound familiar?), just by renting a tiny antenna housed remotely. This is the future of content delivery, as more than half of U.S. adults stream content on laptops, and roughly one-third stream content on smartphones and tablets, according to a Consumer Electronics Association study.
Broadcasters maintain that offering over-the-air (OTA) television transmission via a remote service will hurt their business models and it violates the federally established rules for providing OTA broadcasting. Some, like CBS and Fox, have even threatened to pull their OTA signals if the Supreme Court once again decides to support innovation and sides with Aereo. A win for broadcasters would most certainly hinder new technologies from entering the market, giving consumers what they clearly want: flexibility to access content on-demand. The result? Despite the growing number of devices we're now able to use to consume our favorite video content, we would be limited to far fewer choices.

hollywoodreporter.com

Note; will merge with parent thread later ...

 

[dfergie]

Read the linked article, it makes sense imho ...

 

[harshness]

The article spends way too much time contemplating the Betamax decision as it applies to feature length movies. The revenue model for theater movies is really nothing like the model for network television.

Given the responsibilities that we have placed on local broadcasters, we cannot simply yank away what revenue they do get without providing them with a new revenue model.

 

[dfergie]

Aereo Case Will Shape TV’s Future

Interesting NY Times article ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/business/media/aereo-case-will-shape-tvs-future.html?_r=0

 

[mike123abc]

The quote:

Laws -- and certainly the copyright laws -- were not intended to inhibit the introduction of new and innovative technologies. It shouldn't start now. The past is precedent. Legal support for innovation will create more choices for consumers, expand the existing video industry and invigorate the U.S. economy. Let's not rule against a win-win-win.

Is not correct about copyright laws. It should apply to patent laws. That article had incredibly misleading concepts.

If you create a copyrighted work, you are the one that should be in control of it and decide its fate. If you right a book and do not want it made into a movie it is your right and just because it might invigorate the US economy to have it made into a movie has nothing to do with it.

The issue in the case is if Aereo's product should be considered the same thing as a private individual using an OTA antenna or not. The copyright holders have already agreed to license their works for OTA broadcasting. Congress passed a law saying the rebroadcasting via Cable/DBS is the same thing as OTA as far as the copyright laws are concerned as long as the Cable/DBS companies come to an agreement with the station.

The case is if Aereo is still OTA. Copyrights are only in the picture because they are granted for OTA usage. If Aereo is ruled not to be the same as OTA then Aereo is violating copyrights. If it is ruled to be the same as OTA reception then the copyright licenses have already been granted.

 

[T134]

Just wrote this for my site and saw this thread. Common sense pretty much decides this IMO.

-------------------------------------------------
I think there is a common sense approach to determining if the Aereo OTA/DVR service is legal. It is quite simple actually. We all know that Charlie Ergen/Dish Network are the biggest thieves and pirates out there. They haven’t cared about distant network laws, mandatory carry or trademark/copyright. Charlie will steal and take everything he can regardless of the law. So why doesn’t Charlie setup a micro-antenna farm and IPTV delivery network in each DMA, or even the major DMA’s? He wouldn’t have to pay retransmission fees to the local stations and the little farms would pay for themselves overnight in those savings alone. So if Charlie isn’t doing this we’ve got to ask why not? I think the only answer is it has to big bigtime illegal and trouble.

Beyond Charlie and Dish Network think about real platform providers: DirecTV, Comcast, TWC, Charter and others. Each of these guys could setup micro antennas to get and deliver the OTA stuff free of charge. These companies all have multimillion dollar law firms and broadcasting experts. None of them are pulling anything Aero-style.

Seems to me if all the big players with the most to gain aren’t doing it then it must be illegal.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

All of the big players are waiting to see the outcome of this DIRECTV has said they are interested in launching their own Aereo system if they win.

 

[mike123abc]

If Aereo does finally win, it will be a cost lid on retransmission fees. If the locals keep their charges down it will be cheaper to pay the fees than to try to build out the Aereo system. Aereo only works where there is high speed broadband, making it far more useful for cable companies than Dish/DIRECTV.

 

[Tampa8]

Just wrote this for my site and saw this thread. Common sense pretty much decides this IMO.

-------------------------------------------------
I think there is a common sense approach to determining if the Aereo OTA/DVR service is legal. It is quite simple actually. We all know that Charlie Ergen/Dish Network are the biggest thieves and pirates out there. They haven’t cared about distant network laws, mandatory carry or trademark/copyright. Charlie will steal and take everything he can regardless of the law. So why doesn’t Charlie setup a micro-antenna farm and IPTV delivery network in each DMA, or even the major DMA’s? He wouldn’t have to pay retransmission fees to the local stations and the little farms would pay for themselves overnight in those savings alone. So if Charlie isn’t doing this we’ve got to ask why not? I think the only answer is it has to big bigtime illegal and trouble.

Beyond Charlie and Dish Network think about real platform providers: DirecTV, Comcast, TWC, Charter and others. Each of these guys could setup micro antennas to get and deliver the OTA stuff free of charge. These companies all have multimillion dollar law firms and broadcasting experts. None of them are pulling anything Aero-style.

Seems to me if all the big players with the most to gain aren’t doing it then it must be illegal.

About as convoluted a reason as I have seen that Aereo must be illegal. Just one of many reasons - Aereo to this point is not considered a carrier, the others are. They have contracts with the Networks to carry their programming, Aereo does not. Beyond that, Direct and the the rest can't provide the service Aereo is unless they too do it by internet because a core component of possibly making it legal is missing - sending one signal from one antenna to one person. Once it goes to the transponder everyone is getting that one signal. Beyond that - what makes you think DISH or Direct through a different account wouldn't do similar over the internet, or use Aereo do so? (See DishWorld)

 

[T134]

Actually DirecTV and the rest can do this by internet. The DirecTV boxes I've seen have Ethernet, Comcast can pump it right to the box over the copper as IPTV. If this were legal they would have just as much right as anyone else to have their own antenna farm and do the routing to connect individual STB's to individual antennas. It is not really a complicated system at all.

My point is that none of the big players are doing this when each of them would do almost anything to cut out retransmission/carriage fees if they could. I think Scott has it right, they will all wait and see. Should this be found legal by some fluke they will all probably do it.

 

[77TA]

In my opinion it truly comes down to copyright laws. Broadcasters have the right to control there content until it gets to its intended audience. Once it gets to the end user they should be able to record and store the content in any way they want as long as it is for there own personal use. The question is whether Aereo is providing cloud based storage to end users that are recording broadcasts they are receiving or is Aereo providing streaming of copyrighted material. My understanding is that Aereo has physical possession of the antennas, recording device and servers then stream to users. If that is correct then I think it is copyright infringement.

The shame here is that we as viewers are the ones suffering. Broadcasters aren’t providing adequate coverage to there market area and won’t let a company like Aereo fill the gap in coverage. If the broadcaster actually cared about its advertisers or viewers they would want to insure every person in their broadcast area had some means of receiving their programming and should actually be offering a similar service as Aereo for free.

 

[T134]

Here is a simplified version of the system to further pose the questions here...

Let's say I have an OTA antenna on my roof. I use that for me to get CBS, ABC, FOX, whatever. Now you are my neighbor and for whatever reason you can't or don't want to do the same. I offer to put another antenna on my roof specifically for you. I bought the antenna and own the roof, but you are the one using it.

Can I charge you something for this? I'm not charging you for the programming, but for the time and money and space I invested. Yes, I own the antenna but you have exclusive use of it. I am not tapped into it, no one else is tapped into it and I have no control over what you are doing with it.

We ran some RG-6 from the antenna to your house so you could receive the signal from the antenna. Is this retransmission? How about if I use my HDhomerun to send only you that antenna's signal VIA the internet?

If I do the same exact thing for 10 more people or 100 or 1000, is it any different?

I am not taking any particular position on these issues, I can see good arguments either way. To me it all comes down to that no major player is doing it which is very telling.

 

[dfergie]

Amicus brief filed ... http://www.americanbar.org/content/...-v3/13-461_resp_amcu_36ipclp.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[jayn_j]

interesting.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Amicus brief filed ... http://www.americanbar.org/content/...-v3/13-461_resp_amcu_36ipclp.authcheckdam.pdf

Amazing read!

 

[dfergie]

ABC vs. AEREO
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-00461qp.pdf

 

[dfergie]

Why the Aereo Supreme Court case over TV’s future is too tough to call

If you want to flummox copyright-law students, ask them about TV-streaming service Aereo.
On a final exam, University of California Berkeley law professor Pamela Samuelson asked her copyright class to answer whether Aereo is, essentially, a true technological innovation or just a legal one. It's a nuance that the Supreme Court will consider, too, on Tuesday as it weighs whether Aereo's service to stream local over-the-air broadcast TV violates the copyrights of the television broadcasters that are suing to stop it.
"My poor students were suffering enormously," Samuelson said, after they complained about the difficulty of the Aereo question. "I told them, 'I was really interested in what you thought!'"

cnet.com

 

[primestar31]

Just wrote this for my site and saw this thread. Common sense pretty much decides this IMO.

-------------------------------------------------
I think there is a common sense approach to determining if the Aereo OTA/DVR service is legal. It is quite simple actually. We all know that Charlie Ergen/Dish Network are the biggest thieves and pirates out there. They haven’t cared about distant network laws, mandatory carry or trademark/copyright. Charlie will steal and take everything he can regardless of the law. So why doesn’t Charlie setup a micro-antenna farm and IPTV delivery network in each DMA, or even the major DMA’s? He wouldn’t have to pay retransmission fees to the local stations and the little farms would pay for themselves overnight in those savings alone. So if Charlie isn’t doing this we’ve got to ask why not? I think the only answer is it has to big bigtime illegal and trouble.

Beyond Charlie and Dish Network think about real platform providers: DirecTV, Comcast, TWC, Charter and others. Each of these guys could setup micro antennas to get and deliver the OTA stuff free of charge. These companies all have multimillion dollar law firms and broadcasting experts. None of them are pulling anything Aero-style.

Seems to me if all the big players with the most to gain aren’t doing it then it must be illegal.

I think you forgot something: as obvious as some things are, SOMEBODY has to come up with the idea first. That was Aereo. It just could be nobody else did this before Aereo, because they simply didn't think of it.

Though I totally agree with the part about Charlie being the biggest pirate since he sold chipped VC-2 boards way back.

 

[goaliebob99]

Amazing read!

So if I read this right... It sounds like the Amici curiae which is a group law professors the Suprime Court asked for their opinion on this case and their opinion is that the Areo case should be upheld based upon that Areo doesn't technically produce public performances as the end user is in a private performance and the service is like a remove VCR. (I agree with this assumption). How would this be different than any remote based VOD and does this mean that any VOD that satellite may or may not have could be setup now without retransmission clauses. If a user selects what show's they want to VOD then the satellite guys and cable guys could use that as each user is recalling what they want to see. I see this opening up new opportunity's for cable providers. Imagine if you could get distant networks via the internet. Also, if Areo wins does this get rid of the geographical restriction?

 

[primestar31]

... Also, if Areo wins does this get rid of the geographical restriction?

That's a whole other lawsuit and case, so probably no.... Though I hope it'll happen!