2 ms·
No, this is about killing modern technology. The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once
by betterunix 14y ago
No, this is about killing modern technology. The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting. They are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the only way for entertainment to be distributed over the Internet is for the Internet to become a fancy cable TV system.
Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources. This is a debate about whether or not that kind of technology is acceptable, not about whether or not antenna arrays are acceptable. There would have been no antenna arrays if the copyright lobbyists had been shown the door; we got to this point because outdated industries want to stop technological progress that threatens their antiquated business models.
- rayiner 14y ago> The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting. The internet is already a distribution system for entertainment. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA suing Youtube because people are posting funny videos of their cat on there. They're suing to keep the internet from being a distribution system for the entertainment they create. > Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources. Aereo didn't get sued for its technology. If they had been broadcasting their own content nobody would've cared. Look at it another way: where is all the wonderful Kickstarter-funded, Creative Commons-licensed, torrent-seeded content that everyone is just dying to watch? There are zero legal hurdles to replacing the existing content industry if you can come up with a product people actually want.
- jchavannes 14y agoThe underlying issue is that broadcasters are creating an artificial scarcity to drive demand. I find that to be more unethical than exploiting a loophole.
- rayiner 14y agoAn artificial scarcity of what? The country is literally flooded with broadcast TV.
- Karunamon 14y agoWhich makes the whole "copyright" argument in this case even more specious, IMAO. You're broadcasting your content, for free, into the air, for anyone who cares to listen. What gives the broadcaster the right to dictate where someone has to be physically located in order to receive the broadcast?
- learc83 14y agoExactly. What's next? Going after makers of antennas that allow you to receive broadcasts from too far away?
- chii 14y ago>An artificial scarcity of what? scarcity of option to format change, timeshifts, rebroadcasting, and choice. Broadcast tv (discounting DVR's) has set times for set programs, and i do not want that - it was only recently that recording broadcast TV was made legal in australia (can't recall how long ago off top of my head).
- kyllo 14y ago>I don't see the MPAA/RIAA suing Youtube because people are posting funny videos of their cat on there. So you've never seen this image before? http://blog.asmallorange.com/wp-content/uploads/youtube-copyright-claim.jpeg http://blog.asmallorange.com/wp-content/uploads/youtube-copy... If YouTube weren't afraid of being sued by the MPAA, RIAA, or TV producers, why would they remove allegedly infringing content and replace it with these claim notices?