Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Issues 'Sweeping And Definitive' Ruling Against Aereo In Huge Copyright Case
Business Insider ^ | 06/25/2014 | STEVE KOVACH AND ERIN FUCHS

Posted on 06/25/2014 7:21:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

The Supreme Court ruling on Aereo is out, and the court has ruled against the upstart company and in favor of TV broadcasters. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that had ruled in favor of Aero, a service that lets you stream live network TV.

The court found that Aereo's service violated the copyrights of live network TV stations.

"This ruling appears sweeping and definitive, determining that Aereo is illegal," the lawyer Tom Goldstein wrote on SCOTUSBlog.

The case will have lasting implications for the way content is delivered online.

Aereo's technology uses special HD antennas that are about the size of a thumbnail to pull in broadcast TV from the airwaves. The signal is then transferred over the internet to your device.

Copyright law generally allows you to seek permission before broadcasting a public performance. In arguing that its service was legal, Aereo said the TV broadcasts counted as private performances because they were broadcast through individual antennas into people's homes.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: aereo; aero; broadcasttv; copyright; lawsuit; newmedia; onlinecontent; ruling; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: SampleMan

I see your point re the NFL special deal. They work hand-in-glove with the networks, who can only get this nonsense enforced because they’re pushing past the terms of their broadcast license when they go after people having a big-screen viewing party in their home.

Networks/NFL: “Yeah, the signal is free... but you’re enjoying it TOO much! So you should be paying us!”

What kind of argument is that? Surprised the courts have bought into it... but I work in television, and this industry (along with movies) has some of the most effective, gun-slinging killer lobbyists at work on its behalf in all of D.C. Generally they get whatever legislation and regulation they want. Nobody lobbies for the people.

I’m surprised the FCC and Congress have managed to hold the line so long on keeping the broadcast airwaves free.


41 posted on 06/26/2014 11:44:06 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

If 25 people stay home and watch on their respective TVs that’s OK? But if they meet at one place with no admission charge and have a party that’s not?


42 posted on 06/26/2014 11:46:12 AM PDT by morphing libertarian ( On to impeachment and removal (IRS, Taliban, Fast and furious, VA, Benghazi)!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

The rules are in US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 110. Easily Google-able. This section is called “Limitations on exclusive rights: exemption of certain performances and displays.”

“(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless—
(i) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or
(ii) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public;”

I’m not a lawyer! But I think what the code means is that it’s okay to have people over to a “private home” to watch the game on a big-screen, as long as you’re not charging them.

What do you think?


43 posted on 06/26/2014 1:20:46 PM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

Just don’t want ppv swat team knocking during boxing


44 posted on 06/26/2014 1:33:49 PM PDT by morphing libertarian ( On to impeachment and removal (IRS, Taliban, Fast and furious, VA, Benghazi)!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian

Maybe park your dog at the neighbor’s till the match is over...


45 posted on 06/26/2014 1:45:30 PM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

taking out a life policy on fido


46 posted on 06/26/2014 3:40:05 PM PDT by morphing libertarian ( On to impeachment and removal (IRS, Taliban, Fast and furious, VA, Benghazi)!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Seems to be an anomaly in a world that otherwise has no respect for intellectual property rights.


47 posted on 04/05/2015 4:28:01 PM PDT by 9thLife ("Life is a military endeavor..." -- Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: minnesota_bound

Exactly. Its none of their business if you tether. It has no impact on them except they were hoping to stick it to you and now they don’t get to.


48 posted on 04/07/2023 10:42:33 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson