FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
Yeah! The court is getting them right this term. Now as long as they rule for Holly Lobby, I will be very impressed with the Supremes in 2014.
Someone needs to help me out with this one. If I put one of their antennae on my television, then could I watch the programming that that antenna picked up? I would guess that I could. So, then what if I had a wifi device that took that signal from the TV and sent it to all my other devices in my house. Did the Supreme Court just rule that such an arrangement would violate copyright laws?
this is a ridiculous ruling..
OK, I get how rebroadcasting without paying for the original material is a violation and harmful to the broadcaster (assuming changes are made or advertising added), but if the broadcast signal is simply being captured and repeated via the Internet (inclusive of commercials), I'm trying to identify any damage to the broadcaster.
yes it’s means anytime you pick up a signal and change to a different medium to tranport... the ruling it is a copyright violation.
I was part of the MAI Basic 4- Prime copyright case back in the 80’s.... look it up ....the court ruled that when you load a program from your hard drive into memory on your computer that was a copyright violation...
So if I want to back up my favorite DVDs and make a copy on my computer, I’m violating copyright? Even though the only user of the material is me, the original purchaser?
So if I have an outdoor antenna and an amplified distribution system in my house, that would be a copyright violation?
Suppose you buy some commercial time on your local TV station, and you pay pretty good chunk of change, since you go after a certain demographic.. and all of your shops are in a 50-75 mile area.. plus, your commercials are all in prime time. Joe Six pack half way across the county hooked up to Aereo is not ripping you off as much as Aereo is they are stealing the program your sponsoring! Theft of Service.
Damn. The monopolies win again.
Thanks, but that seems to imply that taping a program on an old VCR tape is also a violation. I thought that was settled long ago in favor of private use.
how is this different then a vcr ?
A vcr shifts the viewing of your ad in time..this shifted the viewing of your ad in location....what would have more impact on your??.
Time shifting of viewing (vcr) vs location adding of viewing (this product)
I shift your local customer seeing you ad in time and they miss that time window to do business with you.. they can not call back in time and order...you lose a local sale.
I add a physical location seeing your ad outside of your market i did nothing to stop viewing in you intended place and time..I only added viewers..and the only impact to you is you might gain an extra customer calling on you from outside your market.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
lets take one thing for example..slingbox.. is you having and using a slingbox now illegal?
They tried this with VCR’s and eventually lost. Now they block you from recording in hi def as they require manufacturers to remove the hdmi out from recorders. You get 480 instead. There are ways around this but it was made difficult so the content providers can have control and limit your choice of device.
You have ISP companies like Comcast restricting the amount of data because they know you will cut the cord and just use internet to view tv shows. They are charging more and more money for just internet when the price should be going down.
Example is cellphone tethering (view on bigger computer screen). You can have unlimited data on the phone but the cellphone companies with either not allow tethering or restrict you. I have T-Mobile and their $30 plan. If I tether they will pop up a screen saying pay them more....
I use PDAnet to hide the tethering.
Now if I'm in Chicago watching local Jacksonville TV, the Chicago broadcaster might suffer from a decreased audience and therefore, the mother network might be able to get less from their Chicago affiliate, but that would be offset by the increase in viewing for Jacksonville. So the network is cost neutral.
Also, if I am watching local Jacksonville programming while in Chicago, it would likely be based on a tie I have to Jacksonville (maybe I'm a business traveler), so I really would be the target audience for that broadcast.
Is it a copy-write infringement to read a book to a room full of kids? What if I do it over Skype?
Again, it seems that the issue would not be copy-write, but rather monetary damages, which would apply from collecting fees, selling additional advertising, or deleting existing advertising.
That's not the way Areeo works (er, worked). In their business model you "buy" an antenna that's hosted in some warehouse they own, and the signal received on that antenna is stored and available to you over the internet. It's essentially a way to pick up non-local programming through what Aereo thought was a loophole in the copyright laws.
This seems to be par-for-course these days.
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.