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 ...
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.
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?
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?
Just don’t want ppv swat team knocking during boxing
Maybe park your dog at the neighbor’s till the match is over...
taking out a life policy on fido
Seems to be an anomaly in a world that otherwise has no respect for intellectual property rights.
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.
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.