3 ms·

nope, aereo didn't have a Y in the wire, still found to be infringing. of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they

by paulmd 2y ago

nope, aereo didn't have a Y in the wire, still found to be infringing. of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they are easily taken away by a plaintiff with money. if you don't have the money to defend the right, you don't have the right (and in fact stand a good chance of getting the right taken away for everyone else too).

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
Didn't Aereo lose because they were basically found to be a cable company which then subjects them to a specific set of different rules?
- sp332 2y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't change the setup. They had a separate antenna and a separate server making separate copies of the shows for each user. But, even after the Supreme Court said they were operating more like a cable company https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-puts-aereo-out-of-business/?comments=1&comments-page=1 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-pu... they were not allowed to actually operate like a cable company. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/in-win-for-broadcasters-court-shuts-down-aereos-live-tv-feature/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/in-win-for-broad...
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Sounds like they had bad lawyers (or bad judges). Shouldn't be simultaneously possible to be a cable company and not. But as IA isn't to my knowledge doing controlled digital lending with broadcast television, is there any plausible argument they would be found to be a cable company?
    - paulmd 2y ago
      IA is doing a whole lot of digital lending other than television and that’s part of what this lawsuit is about iirc.
- paulmd 2y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re asking - they lost because the “we just host personal antennas for subscribers, it’s 1:1 between antennas and subscribers with no Y therefore it’s not rebroadcasting” was found to not be a viable argument, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Like this is a weird “that’s not true, weren’t they actually…” that recites all the same reasons I just said they were found to be infringing?

by paulmd 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

Didn't Aereo lose because they were basically found to be a cable company which then subjects them to a specific set of different rules?

sp332 2y ago
Yes, but that doesn't change the setup. They had a separate antenna and a separate server making separate copies of the shows for each user. But, even after the Supreme Court said they were operating more like a cable company https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-puts-aereo-out-of-business/?comments=1&comments-page=1 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-pu... they were not allowed to actually operate like a cable company. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/in-win-for-broadcasters-court-shuts-down-aereos-live-tv-feature/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/in-win-for-broad...
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Sounds like they had bad lawyers (or bad judges). Shouldn't be simultaneously possible to be a cable company and not. But as IA isn't to my knowledge doing controlled digital lending with broadcast television, is there any plausible argument they would be found to be a cable company?
  - paulmd 2y ago
    IA is doing a whole lot of digital lending other than television and that’s part of what this lawsuit is about iirc.
paulmd 2y ago
I’m not sure what you’re asking - they lost because the “we just host personal antennas for subscribers, it’s 1:1 between antennas and subscribers with no Y therefore it’s not rebroadcasting” was found to not be a viable argument, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Like this is a weird “that’s not true, weren’t they actually…” that recites all the same reasons I just said they were found to be infringing?