4 ms·

I'd really like to see them challenge the FCC's silly geographical restriction too. There is no good reason not to let us watch NYC broadcast television from an

I'd really like to see them challenge the FCC's silly geographical restriction too. There is no good reason not to let us watch NYC broadcast television from anywhere.

rayiner 14y ago
The geographical limitation is inextricable from the copyright limitation. Just because I intended to let you watch my TV show for free in NYC (by broadcasting it over the air) doesn't mean I wanted to let you watch it anywhere in the country.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Copyright holders are going to have to learn that the Internet is here to stay, that it is free from geographical restrictions, and that we are not going to halt the progress of technology for the sake of their antiquated business models. It takes less time to send a HD feature-length movie from Japan to New York than it takes to go to a video rental store. Times have changed, technology has improved, and we are not stuck with the same restrictions we had in the 1960s. Red flag laws did not stop the automobile; why should copyright stop innovative uses of the Internet?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The fact that the internet is free from geographical restrictions doesn't mean that copyright holders don't get to impose whatever terms they want on your right to view the content they create. > Red flag laws did not stop the automobile; why should copyright stop innovative uses of the Internet? Terrible analogy. With red flag laws, the obsolete industry was just getting between the transactional relationship between car manufacturers and drivers. In this case, the "obsolete" industry is creating the thing that's of real value, the thing that people want: content.[1] There is nothing stopping internet-savvy content creators from allowing their content to be distributed over the internet under liberal terms, other than the fact that people don't want that content, they want the big name content from the big name content producers. And internet companies, like Youtube, etc, who make money off other peoples' content have tremendous incentive to make it seem like a battle of "progress versus outdated industries" when what they want is to be able to make a profit by inserting themselves in the middle of these transactions.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "The fact that the internet is free from geographical restrictions doesn't mean that copyright holders don't get to impose whatever terms they want on your right to view the content they create." In fact, copyright holders cannot impose restrictions on my right to view their work. The only difference here is that the viewing involves the Internet and the outdated assumptions about copying and media distribution upon which copyright is based. A very long time ago, geographic restrictions made sense, but those days are decades past. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the law is handed down from the heavens. Laws can be out of date, and laws that were once good at promoting progress can wind up impeding it. "With red flag laws, the obsolete industry was just getting between the transactional relationship between car manufacturers and drivers" No, with red flag laws an obsolete industry was trying to impose restrictions on the use of a new technology to the point of making it impractical. It had nothing to do with car manufacturers, it was a law that targeted the users of automobiles. That is exactly what is happening in this case: the broadcasters and media conglomerates are trying to impose enough restrictions on Aereo's technology that it becomes impractical. The problem with your view of this is that you are connecting the production of entertainment to a specific business model. Broadcast TV killed Vaudeville, and the Internet is killing broadcast TV. We had entertainment before copyright, we have had it with copyright, and we will continue to have it in the hypothetical post-copyright world (if we are lucky enough to see such a day). "Indeed, it's internet companies like Youtube, etc, trying to profit by getting in-between the content producers and the content consumers..." You are ignoring the history of those companies. Youtube would never have existed had the RIAA and MPAA not conspired, lobbied, and abused the justice system for the purpose of killing peer to peer filesharing. A promising, decentralized technology that allowed anyone to broadcast entertainment on a global scale was destroyed and companies like Youtube took its place.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        > That is exactly what is happening in this case: the broadcasters and media conglomerates are trying to impose enough restrictions on Aereo's technology that it becomes impractical. What restrictions are they trying to impose exactly, other than "do whatever the hell you want just with your own damn content?" You're completely ignoring that crucial distinction between this situation and red flag laws. Cars were not taking advantage of horse driven carriages in any way. Aero exists only to distribute the content of the big media networks. Nobody would subscribe to their service without that content. Nobody is suing to restrict the technology--they're suing to force Aero to not free-ride on their content. > A promising, decentralized technology that allowed anyone to broadcast entertainment on a global scale was destroyed and companies like Youtube took its place. Nobody "killed" P2P. Last I checked, I could still torrent Ubuntu ISO's all day long. You keep bringing up stuff like "allowed anyone to broadcast entertainment on a global scale" then ignore the fact that nobody has shut down the technology that allows people to do this. You can put together your 18th century murder mystery home movie and distribute it over Bittorrent and it's 100% legal. It's just that nobody wants the random crap filmed by some guy in their basement. They want $100 million Hollywood blockbusters. What's happening is that content companies are fighting to protect companies like Napster, Youtube, etc, from free-riding on content they didn't create. And I don't think technology changes anything in this regard. Just because technology makes it easier to profit from other peoples' creations doesn't mean that it's "holding back innovation" to keep people from doing so.
- baddox 14y ago
  Using the analogy in the article, would it be illegal for me, sitting just outside the NY border, to watch NY broadcast television via a cable attached to an antenna that is inside NY?
- bickfordb 14y ago
  I don't see how the intention of copyright holders in this case is pertinent to what is legal. This line of thinking seems pretty similar to the arguments made in first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine) intending to close grey markets. If one can legally bridge a "free" over the air broadcast over TCPIP one mile (or whatever the size of a broadcast area is), why not one hundred miles or even across the country?

I'd really like to see them challenge the FCC's silly geographical restriction too. There is no good reason not to let us watch NYC broadcast television from anywhere.

rayiner 14y ago

The geographical limitation is inextricable from the copyright limitation. Just because I intended to let you watch my TV show for free in NYC (by broadcasting it over the air) doesn't mean I wanted to let you watch it anywhere in the country.

betterunix 14y ago
Copyright holders are going to have to learn that the Internet is here to stay, that it is free from geographical restrictions, and that we are not going to halt the progress of technology for the sake of their antiquated business models. It takes less time to send a HD feature-length movie from Japan to New York than it takes to go to a video rental store. Times have changed, technology has improved, and we are not stuck with the same restrictions we had in the 1960s. Red flag laws did not stop the automobile; why should copyright stop innovative uses of the Internet?
- rayiner 14y ago
  The fact that the internet is free from geographical restrictions doesn't mean that copyright holders don't get to impose whatever terms they want on your right to view the content they create. > Red flag laws did not stop the automobile; why should copyright stop innovative uses of the Internet? Terrible analogy. With red flag laws, the obsolete industry was just getting between the transactional relationship between car manufacturers and drivers. In this case, the "obsolete" industry is creating the thing that's of real value, the thing that people want: content.[1] There is nothing stopping internet-savvy content creators from allowing their content to be distributed over the internet under liberal terms, other than the fact that people don't want that content, they want the big name content from the big name content producers. And internet companies, like Youtube, etc, who make money off other peoples' content have tremendous incentive to make it seem like a battle of "progress versus outdated industries" when what they want is to be able to make a profit by inserting themselves in the middle of these transactions.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "The fact that the internet is free from geographical restrictions doesn't mean that copyright holders don't get to impose whatever terms they want on your right to view the content they create." In fact, copyright holders cannot impose restrictions on my right to view their work. The only difference here is that the viewing involves the Internet and the outdated assumptions about copying and media distribution upon which copyright is based. A very long time ago, geographic restrictions made sense, but those days are decades past. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the law is handed down from the heavens. Laws can be out of date, and laws that were once good at promoting progress can wind up impeding it. "With red flag laws, the obsolete industry was just getting between the transactional relationship between car manufacturers and drivers" No, with red flag laws an obsolete industry was trying to impose restrictions on the use of a new technology to the point of making it impractical. It had nothing to do with car manufacturers, it was a law that targeted the users of automobiles. That is exactly what is happening in this case: the broadcasters and media conglomerates are trying to impose enough restrictions on Aereo's technology that it becomes impractical. The problem with your view of this is that you are connecting the production of entertainment to a specific business model. Broadcast TV killed Vaudeville, and the Internet is killing broadcast TV. We had entertainment before copyright, we have had it with copyright, and we will continue to have it in the hypothetical post-copyright world (if we are lucky enough to see such a day). "Indeed, it's internet companies like Youtube, etc, trying to profit by getting in-between the content producers and the content consumers..." You are ignoring the history of those companies. Youtube would never have existed had the RIAA and MPAA not conspired, lobbied, and abused the justice system for the purpose of killing peer to peer filesharing. A promising, decentralized technology that allowed anyone to broadcast entertainment on a global scale was destroyed and companies like Youtube took its place.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > That is exactly what is happening in this case: the broadcasters and media conglomerates are trying to impose enough restrictions on Aereo's technology that it becomes impractical. What restrictions are they trying to impose exactly, other than "do whatever the hell you want just with your own damn content?" You're completely ignoring that crucial distinction between this situation and red flag laws. Cars were not taking advantage of horse driven carriages in any way. Aero exists only to distribute the content of the big media networks. Nobody would subscribe to their service without that content. Nobody is suing to restrict the technology--they're suing to force Aero to not free-ride on their content. > A promising, decentralized technology that allowed anyone to broadcast entertainment on a global scale was destroyed and companies like Youtube took its place. Nobody "killed" P2P. Last I checked, I could still torrent Ubuntu ISO's all day long. You keep bringing up stuff like "allowed anyone to broadcast entertainment on a global scale" then ignore the fact that nobody has shut down the technology that allows people to do this. You can put together your 18th century murder mystery home movie and distribute it over Bittorrent and it's 100% legal. It's just that nobody wants the random crap filmed by some guy in their basement. They want $100 million Hollywood blockbusters. What's happening is that content companies are fighting to protect companies like Napster, Youtube, etc, from free-riding on content they didn't create. And I don't think technology changes anything in this regard. Just because technology makes it easier to profit from other peoples' creations doesn't mean that it's "holding back innovation" to keep people from doing so.
baddox 14y ago
Using the analogy in the article, would it be illegal for me, sitting just outside the NY border, to watch NY broadcast television via a cable attached to an antenna that is inside NY?
bickfordb 14y ago
I don't see how the intention of copyright holders in this case is pertinent to what is legal. This line of thinking seems pretty similar to the arguments made in first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine) intending to close grey markets. If one can legally bridge a "free" over the air broadcast over TCPIP one mile (or whatever the size of a broadcast area is), why not one hundred miles or even across the country?