2 ms·

Aereo did the TV version of this, renting each user an antenna instead of renting DVDs. Its outcome may be instructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo htt

Aereo did the TV version of this, renting each user an antenna instead of renting DVDs. Its outcome may be instructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo: …the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo's services breached copyright laws. It ruled that, "viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly", and that "insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service."

bonzini 3y ago
The suggestion in the parent comment is a bit different because one would think that the first sale doctrine applies. Unfortunately the courts are chipping at it more and more every year.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- VanTheBrand 3y ago
  First sale doctrine doesn’t give you at right to publicly perform something any more than tuning in with an antenna does. Wouldn’t make a difference here.
LeoPanthera 3y ago
Aereo had this ludicrous legal defense of "one antenna per customer" which was clearly bogus. Their "antennas" were tiny and inside datacenters. There was no way they actually worked, and they clearly had one real antenna on the roof somewhere.
- rasz 3y ago
  The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof and system indeed worked. "antenna" was whole tuner system outputting digitized video feed, one per customer - USB TV tuners have been single digit dollar cheap for last 10 years. Supreme Court (donors/lobbyists) simply didnt like the business model. 'these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems' means it doesnt matter how you provide content as long as end effect is similar to cable TV. Imo bad ruling.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    > The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof Engineers often think the law is a computer program. You put the same inputs in and get the same inputs out. If you find a bug, then you can exploit that until the bug is fixed via a new version. It's not. The spirit of what the law is supposed to do is far more important than the letter of the law.

bonzini 3y ago

The suggestion in the parent comment is a bit different because one would think that the first sale doctrine applies. Unfortunately the courts are chipping at it more and more every year.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
VanTheBrand 3y ago
First sale doctrine doesn’t give you at right to publicly perform something any more than tuning in with an antenna does. Wouldn’t make a difference here.

LeoPanthera 3y ago

Aereo had this ludicrous legal defense of "one antenna per customer" which was clearly bogus. Their "antennas" were tiny and inside datacenters. There was no way they actually worked, and they clearly had one real antenna on the roof somewhere.

rasz 3y ago
The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof and system indeed worked. "antenna" was whole tuner system outputting digitized video feed, one per customer - USB TV tuners have been single digit dollar cheap for last 10 years. Supreme Court (donors/lobbyists) simply didnt like the business model. 'these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems' means it doesnt matter how you provide content as long as end effect is similar to cable TV. Imo bad ruling.
- ta1243 3y ago
  > The sad thing is technologically their argument was 100% bulletproof Engineers often think the law is a computer program. You put the same inputs in and get the same inputs out. If you find a bug, then you can exploit that until the bug is fixed via a new version. It's not. The spirit of what the law is supposed to do is far more important than the letter of the law.