Aereo Loses Supreme Court Case

Those are the facts. The founder of Aereo invented a mini antenna that can pull in signals and put thousands of them in a room and they receive the signal. You rent the antenna for a monthly fee. Consumer Reports, Consumers Union and Consumerist.com have all come out against the ruling.

 

So I wonder if the decision would have been different if there were no monthly fee. Just a one time purchase payment like buyin an antenna. It's the ongoing subscription rental that is the problem for me as no money goes back to the content provider.

 

That's my real issue with it as well. Paying Aereo once to buy an antenna somewhere that delivers a feed to your TV set would be akin to paying someone to come install an antenna on your roof. Paying Aereo a monthly fee for installing an antenna somewhere you don't live and delivering a feed to you is something else entirely.

 

Remember "rent to own" electronics stores? So if a family were renting a TV (that has a built in antenna) would you also feel the TV rental store/company was infringing on copyright because they were receiving a monthly income rather than a one time payment for the TV?

I don't see why there should be additional fees to the networks for re-transmission of signals that are free over the air to begin with. The income to the content provider is in the form of increased numbers of eyeballs on their broadcasts, meaning they charge advertisers more.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. A rent to own company is renting a physical object to someone, not copyrighted content.

And perhaps broadcasters shouldn't be able to collect fees from companies that retransmit their signals, but there are laws in the U.S. that state that cable companies are required to pay such fees. So why should a law requiring cablecos to pay those fees not apply to an online service that delivers the same content?

 

Music subscription services pay to publishers and record labels. If they charged you monthly and didn't pay copyright holders the **** would hit the fan there too

 

I don't see how a music subscription service is a proper analogy. They aren't simply giving access to an existing free stream of music. Aereo was giving people access to an existing free broadcast signal.

Was not Aereo renting a physical antenna to their customers?

 

So if I were to create a tech device that grabbed free music radio broadcasts and then charged you per month to you be able to listen that would be ok to you Enron if I didn't pay the radio stations and or music publishers anything ?

The Point some of us are making is that nobody should make and endless amount of ongoing money selling something that they don't own.

 

Yes they were. I'm reading the opinion now and IAAL. Anyone interested in can find it here:

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/13-461_l537.pdf

 

Nothing like opening the political door and then acting like you're taking the high road...

 

Aereo may have been renting an antenna to a consumer, but they had an infrastructure to deliver the signal from that antenna to the consumer, which is exactly what a cable company does.

Not that I completely disagree with people who are upset with this ruling, but I've seen comments elsewhere that basically accuse the Supreme Court with siding with corporations against consumers. I don't see how the Supreme Court could have avoided the issue of retransmission consent here, so I think they're getting an unfair pounding on this.

 

Enron?

If there is a free signal that some people, due to their circumstance (location) cannot reliably receive, yes, I think its fair for another company to offer a solution to that and receive income for providing the convenience/service.

 

Agree :

Aereo, a television streaming service, had violated copyright laws by capturing broadcast signals on miniature antennas and delivering them to subscribers for a fee.

I would agree if they paid the copyright holder.

What if comcast or any cable company didn't Pay the broadcasters but charged us anyway ? They pay the broadcast channels and not just the premium Channels

 

If you don't see how the SC could have avoided it, then just read the dissent. There are always two sides to the story.

 

IMHO, whether Aereo charges consumers is irrelevant, in the same way that it doesn't matter if you sell or give away copyrighted music - the act of distribution is the illegal part.

Theoretically - if the service in question were a non-profit entity who raised money independently to somehow provide an over-the-air signal to consumers for no added fee, there would still be a retransmission problem and the broadcasters would still be looking for their fees.

 

I will agree that the dissent offers some food for thought. I would be curious to know a bit more about how Aereo safeguarded the concept of "performance" internally to be certain that the end user was in complete control of the content selection, storage and retransmission.

 

Don't they still get the same ad revenue whether or not Aereo is involved in retransmitting the signal?

 

I would assume that the end user is in complete control as the user is the one choosing the channel and whether or not to DVR something because it's an automated system. As far as transmission, that seems to be the root of the problem - is Aereo transmitting a peformance? What Aereo is doing is considered a transmission, for now.

 

Yes but then aereo should just sell you a box for $50 or $100 or whatever and be done. Not resell something that is free to must folks.

I agree though that broadcasting should all this it some other company to make and sell you something to view their channels that they broadcast for free. Just not charge an ongoing subscription fee.

 

Yes they do. What I'm curious about is this retransmission fees. I quoted this earlier in the thread, "Time Warner said its industrywide retransmission payments went from $215 million in 2006 to $3 billion, and said analysts expect that figure to climb to $6 billion in 2018." I also read that these fees did not exist as of 10 years ago, so what is this all about? A new source of revenue for broadcasters on top of what they were previously earning? Is this why cable tv bills have skyrocketed?

Shocker: Cable TV prices went up four times the rate of inflation

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...ces-went-up-four-times-the-rate-of-inflation/

 

Never claimed I was taking the high road....just pointing out the obvious and avoiding further comments that might be deemed inflammatory.

 

As you can see I have been very vocal here regarding this decision. A decision I support. But probably because it hits close to home for me and my business.

I'm not a major corporation, but for 27 years I have been a commercial photographers Agent. I promote these artists and negotiate licenses on their behalf for stock and assignment work for advertising, catalogues, corporate use and so on. The small stable of photographers I represent make a living off their work and at times, they also receive additional compensation for addition and extended usage rights . This is very much like for writers and musicians. And like these artist too, the copyright of their work is eroding as some feel they have to right to download anything they like. The feel entitled to take and own this work for free.

Those who don't live and work (and depend on their livelihood) in the area of intellectual property, frequently don't understand how it works or why they should pay for something that is now out there in the digital work for the taking. They throw out terms like fair use, that in reality, don't exist. They see photographers and other works of art online and because any one can now take and share photographs and music , they no longer see any value in the artwork.

It is so very easy to take shots at the big bad broadcast corporations or record companies and the like. And I agree that some of that hatred IS justified. But these big bad broadcasters pay movie and television studios a license fee to broadcast the content and in turn pay the artists involved in the content creation. I also agree that technology is far ahead of the legal system and it all needs to be sorted out so there is more or less a level playing field. Many agree argue that because the broadcasts are in the air free for all to take, that a company like Aereo has the right to bottle those free airways and resell them to whoever wants to buy them. It seems this stems from the un level playing in terms of actually having easy access to these free signals over the airways. A private homeowner can pay a one time purchase fee and attach an antenna to their roof but most renters cannot do this because of landlords or local ordinances.

I agree that this must change and if it is the Aereo technology that works best, then Broadcasters and Aereo needs to find common ground. But bottling up somewhen else's product and reselling it without paying them is not the answer.

 

It's about TV networks ( via their local channels) choosing Retransmission Consent over Must Carry.
The former allow channels to demand fees, the latter does not.
This is why, when a cable system and a local station cannot agree on a deal , the cable company takes the channel off.

 

Am I the only one who sees a parallel with the Rabbit case from about 20 years ago? Rabbit was a box that multiplied your picture so that you could pick it up on any TV in your house on their wireless receivers. Practically the same arguments were used about retransmission and although Rabbit attempted to continue with wires, it was doomed. The technology today makes even that obsolete now.

 

There was at least one other thread on this case as it made its way up to the Supreme Court; it'd be nice to have it linked up to this one so we can see the whole history of the matter and our discussions on it.

As to the outcome, well, it's not often I agree with Justice Scalia, but this is the second time it's happened this year! I have the sense, as he did, that the majority worked its way to a conclusion it felt was right -- and which most of us, I would imagine, believe is the way things ultimately ought to be -- but which actually is not the outcome dictated by current law. Remember that the issue before the court was not a claim the Aereo infringed on the exclusive right to sell, license, or distribute a copyrighted work; rather the claim at issue in this decision was that Aereo itself directly infringed on the exclusive right to perform the work publicly. So the questions raised are whether Aereo "performed" any works, and whether it did so "publicly." To my mind it is a close case, but the answers probably should be no. Aereo's business model was cleverly designed to put all the decisionmaking in the hands of the individual user, with equipment assigned to him or her alone. By way of analogy, imagine if you lived up in the Adirondacks, and leased some space on the rooftop of a building in NYC to capture broadcasts and then store them digitally so you could retrieve them over the Web from home. Would that be illegal? I don't think it would be, even under the majority's decision. So why is Aereo's service illegal? Well, according to the majority, it's because they did the same thing for a lot of people, and therefore look like a cable company. That's not compelling legal analysis, nor is it reliable guidance on the meaning of the law to the marketplace. Aereo found a loophole, and the answer to that is for Congress to close it. Justice Scalia said it well: