10 ms·

Supreme Court to Hear Aereo Case

87 points by pgrote 13y ago

pravda 13y ago
I think we all know how this will turn out.
jaynos 13y ago
I don't trust the Supreme Court to produce a proper ruling on this one. I assume Aereo will lose. That said, I don't see how it could be argued that Aereo is breaking any law.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Given that that Aereo business model was taken directly from a Supreme Court ruling, I think that they should have a strong argument. With the broadcasters going to different circuit courts with cases, this might be done to deal with having different rulings in lower courts. This should probably seen as a good thing for Aereo that it is their case that is being heard vs another (shakier) business model.
  - matthewmcg 13y ago
    It is more accurate to say their business is based on a Supreme Court ruling and an appeals court ruling. PART of the business model comes from a Supreme Court ruling (the Sony Betamax case) that permitted home recordings as fair use. The other part is based on a Second Circuit case (Cablevision) that authorized remote DVR service. There is a circuit split on several elements in the Cablevision holding so it is quite possible the Supreme Court could rule against Aereo.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      Yep... you're right. I had forgotten that the Supremes had just let the Cablevision Second Circuit case stand and didn't rule on it themselves. Wasn't their another remote DVR case though that they ruled on that had de-duplicated the data for multiple users? The difference in the Cablevision remote DVR being that they didn't de-duplicate data.
- jonknee 13y ago
  Aereo has done well in court so far, I don't think this will be too much different. They have common sense on their side, no technical knowledge needed (everyone on the court will know about TV antennas).
- rayiner 13y ago
  1) Why don't you trust them? I've personally never read a Supreme Court ruling that got the technology angle fundamentally wrong, though I have seen a number where the Supreme Court's principles are at odds with certain values and beliefs often held by technologists. 2) What's so defensible about a business model that is based entirely on taking advantage of someone else's product? Without the content produced by the networks, there would be absolutely no reason for Aereo to exist. I think Aereo will win, because the precedent is on its side. However, I also think the company is just taking advantage of a loophole and should try actually producing content people want to watch instead of simply taking some other company's content for free.
  - gergles 13y ago
    I have never understood the concept of "taking content for free" and the implied judgment about doing so, with regards to 'retransmission consent'. If you run an organization that broadcasts content to anybody with an antenna, you should not be shocked, just shocked when somebody picks it up and uses it as they see fit. If you don't want that to happen, don't broadcast your content and don't abuse the public spectrum to try to still exact control over the use of your broadcasted content.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Just because you agree to do N doesn't mean you agree to do N+1 or N+2, etc. The networks do broadcast content, that's very expensive to produce, for free, in return for use of the public spectrum. That's the bargain. But the bargain doesn't mean that they agree to let other people do whatever "they see fit" with the broadcasted content. One part of that bargain, embodied in the copyright rules, is that you can't take the broadcast video and perform it publicly. I.e. I can't tape NBC shows and then open up a movie theater playing them. That's not part of the bundle of rights NBC agreed to give up in the process of broadcasting the show over the air. All Aereo does is take advantage of a loophole. They couldn't record the shows and stream them, because that would violate the networks' copyright. So they try to shoehorn effectively the same service into the exception for time-shifting.
- ori_b 13y ago
  If using one antenna to capture and retransmit a show is not legal, and it isn't (or Aereo would simply do that) I don't see how using more private, leased antennas to retransmit a show is anything but a blatant violation of the spirit of the law. While I think the law making this distinction is silly, and the law is dumb and needs to be changed, I don't see Aereo's workaround as something that fits within that law.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's not dumb. It captures the very common sense notion that there is a difference between playing a DVD for some friends at home (private performance), and setting up a movie theater with said DVD (public performance).
    - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
      Aereo is doing almost exactly what cable television once did, putting a radio receiver on one end of a cable and a bunch of customers on the other. (I assume that cable companies probably have direct physical links to local stations by now, but it's not relevant). The fact that their transmission medium is the web rather than coax seems inconsequential to me. That seems to fall on the `movie theater' end of the dichotomy, but it's legal.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Yes, and in 1992 the law was changed to require cable companies to get retransmission consent in order to engage in that practice (usually by paying fees).
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        "a bunch of customers" A single customer. One radio receiver per customer if I understand their model correctly.
      - triptychs 13y ago
        > Aereo is doing almost exactly what cable television once did, putting a radio receiver on one end of a cable and a bunch of customers on the other. No, Aereo is putting a radio receiver on one end and one customer on the other. Each customer has their own antenna. It's exactly the same as having an antenna on your home TV, only you're renting the antenna and it comes with a DVR.
- isamuel 13y ago
  If you're actually curious about what the argument is, the broadcasters' petition for Supreme Court review lays it out: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Aereo102813.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Aereo102813...
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    the broadcasters says "Aereo retransmits". If Aereo were doing retransmission, even using individual antenna per customer, it would still be a public performance (Zediva case comes to mind here), and thus broadcasters would have a case. If Aereo only rents the antenna to customer, it is the customer who is doing broadcast capture and retransmission using the rented equipment - seems to be a well established legal activity (i'm wondering why such an argument didn't work for Zediva, though i don't think they "rented" DVD player to customer, only DVD itself - they were arguing that they can do anything like Netflix or Blockbuster, only by way of online streaming instead of physical transfer of the DVD, so it seems they didn't argue that it is customer who plays and streams rented DVD on rented equipment).
- Natsu 13y ago
  While it's true that the Supreme Court often grants cert to overturn cases, I'm not so sure they'll come down on the wrong side of this. I don't have a lot to base this on, but I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
PaulHoule 13y ago
I can't see why anybody cares about Aereo. Do people think it is unclean to receive DVB? I mean, why spend money on a service so you can spend more money on your metered mobile data plan to pick up a signal that is travelling right by you for free. I'd certainly pay for the ability to stream TV in distant markets, like IVI.TV did, but it seems like Aereo was created just to have a lawsuit, not satisfy any need.
- cjensen 13y ago
  Having Aereo handle this for me is a service. Why should I have to hook up the DDR myself? It's like web hosting: sure I could rent a cabinet and populate it with my own computer, but it sure is more convenient to have someone else do it for me.
- bri3d 13y ago
  To pick up my local ATSC-TV lineup would require me to have an 8+ft antenna on my roof. Not really practical seeing as how I live in an apartment. That's the use case Aereo fills. Their monthly subscription fee is also lower than the upcharge for buying HDTV from Comcast (who started encrypting their HD local channels because the FCC started letting them).
- pbreit 13y ago
  I just want to watch free TV on my Mac, iPad or iPhone. How do I do that?
  - matthewmcg 13y ago
    Easy way: get a Slingbox and use the SlingPlayer App Harder way: get an Elgato EyeTV Most complex (but versatile way): get a tuner like the Silicon Dust HDHomerun and set up a Mythtv or Plex system. (All of the above require an antenna.) Edit: obviously, you can also use Aereo!
- joezydeco 13y ago
  A cloud-based DVR for a few bucks a month isn't that bad a deal.
cjensen 13y ago
As of this week ABC's iOS app no longer allows users to watch over-the-air shows unless they have a cable contract. There's only one reason I can think of for this boneheaded move: ABC wants people to have cable because ABC owns ESPN and ESPN makes more money than any other network. In the US, they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the networks and hope Aereo will prevail.
- untog 13y ago
  But the public airwaves are still publicly accessible. ABC's app change has nothing to do with the public airwaves.
  - cjensen 13y ago
    ABC is trying to control what can be done with a video sent over the public airways, so yes, it has everything to do with public airwaves. No one is arguing here about use of stuff sent over non-public-owned cable systems. The question is, given that it is legal for me to record a show broadcast over the public airwaves, is it also legal for me to pay a company to do that for me.
- mbreese 13y ago
  Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates. That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still getting something from iOS users. This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission fees. (Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and you see that it's all a big mess)
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    ^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I think it's high time for some changes, though. Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna-to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV. Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be required to host their own DVRs. (Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)
brohoolio 13y ago
I hope they win. It's one of the services that has helped convince my family to ditch cable. I can see them continuing to expand beyond the broadcast market to an internet version of TV. Aereo might not even need the broadcast networks in a few years but they definitely need them now.
untog 13y ago
I do sympathise with both sides, here. Right now, broadcast TV companies are able to charge cable companies "retransmission fees" in order to carry their channels. It's a decent revenue stream. Aereo have side-stepped this for their purposes. Aereo are entitled to do this. But I don't blame the broadcast companies for freaking out - if Aereo can do this then the cable companies can too - the broadcast networks will lose their retransmission fee revenue (at a time when they're not exactly swimming in cash anyway) and the cable companies get to boost their profits even more. Which they don't deserve. The only other solution for the broadcast companies will be to switch off their antenna broadcasts, which would also be a big shame.
- cma 13y ago
  They don't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there. It really should have little-to-no bearing on the case other than the networks' eargerness to pursue. In my opinion it wouldn't be bad if the networks had to pay the cable companies to get carried--after all, they are essentially just improving reception for viewers, letting the networks display more ads than they otherwise could.
  - untog 13y ago
    The broadcast networks paying the cable networks would all but guarantee they go bankrupt. So the most likely answer here is that NBC, ABC, etc. just shut off their antenna broadcasts. Which would be a real shame. They don't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there. True. But I'd argue that Aereo's $7 a month charge to rebroadcast content they have nothing to do with is a dubious revenue stream, too.
    - fennecfoxen 13y ago
      That content is broadcast for $0. It's logically similar to renting an antenna on your roof and a cable connecting that to the TV. Considering that antennas are ugly, and not the cheapest... antenna-invisibility services are a reasonable thing to pay money for.
zaroth 13y ago
I think Aereo will prevail because they have explicitly engineered a personal device for personal consumption of a legal public broadcast. Using personal digital equipment in order to personally consume a public broadcast is obviously legal. The legal theory is that Aereo is essentially an antenna company. If their service is the legal equivalent of an 'antenna', perhaps antennae are now so powerful that the compulsory licensing law needs to be changed somehow in response. In that case, you don't sue the antenna maker, you lobby congress to change the law. It will be entertaining to see this argued and ruled on. A parallel scenario... Have you seen the telepresence robots (iPad on a stick) that have started to become available? Lets say you're disabled, can't leave your house, but want to "go out for dinner and a movie" with your friends. Your robot rolls into the movie theater, pays for a ticket, and grabs a seat, streaming the video back to you individually. One camera, one stream, one brain on the other end of the wire, and no backing store. Have you violated copyright laws? I think not. I would also love to see the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) vs. Anti-Camcording argued in the Supreme Court. From Wikipedia on ADA -- 'Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.'
- pudquick 13y ago
  Unfortunately in this scenario, ADA is pretty much gutted. A movie theater is not required to provide for someone with a disability in any way, shape, or form, if they cannot themselves physically (at least) arrive at the location - and I mean their actual body, not telepresence. About the most they're required to do is ramps for access into / out of the building, disabled seating and bathroom access.
  - cstejerean 13y ago
    I'd love to see the movie theaters though try to balance that against the PR nightmare that would come out of them fighting such a case.
hemancuso 13y ago
Seems like a good opportunity for a Roku-like aereo box. External antenna. 16gb of flash. Couldn't you make a good box with a few antenna options that replicated the exact functionality sold as a consumer product? I can't imagine it would cost much to produce, and a company like roku already has most of the software in place (sans tv schedule and recording facilities) to make this happen.
JSadowski 13y ago
The thing that always annoyed me about Aereo is how they restrict who can "rent an antenna". If they are to stick to their legal argument that they're just renting an antenna, then why can I not rent an antenna based in New York City, even though I live in Wisconsin?

87 points by pgrote 13y ago

I think we all know how this will turn out.

I don't trust the Supreme Court to produce a proper ruling on this one. I assume Aereo will lose. That said, I don't see how it could be argued that Aereo is breaking any law.

mbreese 13y ago
Given that that Aereo business model was taken directly from a Supreme Court ruling, I think that they should have a strong argument. With the broadcasters going to different circuit courts with cases, this might be done to deal with having different rulings in lower courts. This should probably seen as a good thing for Aereo that it is their case that is being heard vs another (shakier) business model.
- matthewmcg 13y ago
  It is more accurate to say their business is based on a Supreme Court ruling and an appeals court ruling. PART of the business model comes from a Supreme Court ruling (the Sony Betamax case) that permitted home recordings as fair use. The other part is based on a Second Circuit case (Cablevision) that authorized remote DVR service. There is a circuit split on several elements in the Cablevision holding so it is quite possible the Supreme Court could rule against Aereo.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Yep... you're right. I had forgotten that the Supremes had just let the Cablevision Second Circuit case stand and didn't rule on it themselves. Wasn't their another remote DVR case though that they ruled on that had de-duplicated the data for multiple users? The difference in the Cablevision remote DVR being that they didn't de-duplicate data.
jonknee 13y ago
Aereo has done well in court so far, I don't think this will be too much different. They have common sense on their side, no technical knowledge needed (everyone on the court will know about TV antennas).
rayiner 13y ago
1) Why don't you trust them? I've personally never read a Supreme Court ruling that got the technology angle fundamentally wrong, though I have seen a number where the Supreme Court's principles are at odds with certain values and beliefs often held by technologists. 2) What's so defensible about a business model that is based entirely on taking advantage of someone else's product? Without the content produced by the networks, there would be absolutely no reason for Aereo to exist. I think Aereo will win, because the precedent is on its side. However, I also think the company is just taking advantage of a loophole and should try actually producing content people want to watch instead of simply taking some other company's content for free.
- gergles 13y ago
  I have never understood the concept of "taking content for free" and the implied judgment about doing so, with regards to 'retransmission consent'. If you run an organization that broadcasts content to anybody with an antenna, you should not be shocked, just shocked when somebody picks it up and uses it as they see fit. If you don't want that to happen, don't broadcast your content and don't abuse the public spectrum to try to still exact control over the use of your broadcasted content.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Just because you agree to do N doesn't mean you agree to do N+1 or N+2, etc. The networks do broadcast content, that's very expensive to produce, for free, in return for use of the public spectrum. That's the bargain. But the bargain doesn't mean that they agree to let other people do whatever "they see fit" with the broadcasted content. One part of that bargain, embodied in the copyright rules, is that you can't take the broadcast video and perform it publicly. I.e. I can't tape NBC shows and then open up a movie theater playing them. That's not part of the bundle of rights NBC agreed to give up in the process of broadcasting the show over the air. All Aereo does is take advantage of a loophole. They couldn't record the shows and stream them, because that would violate the networks' copyright. So they try to shoehorn effectively the same service into the exception for time-shifting.
ori_b 13y ago
If using one antenna to capture and retransmit a show is not legal, and it isn't (or Aereo would simply do that) I don't see how using more private, leased antennas to retransmit a show is anything but a blatant violation of the spirit of the law. While I think the law making this distinction is silly, and the law is dumb and needs to be changed, I don't see Aereo's workaround as something that fits within that law.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's not dumb. It captures the very common sense notion that there is a difference between playing a DVD for some friends at home (private performance), and setting up a movie theater with said DVD (public performance).
  - koenigdavidmj 13y ago
    Aereo is doing almost exactly what cable television once did, putting a radio receiver on one end of a cable and a bunch of customers on the other. (I assume that cable companies probably have direct physical links to local stations by now, but it's not relevant). The fact that their transmission medium is the web rather than coax seems inconsequential to me. That seems to fall on the `movie theater' end of the dichotomy, but it's legal.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Yes, and in 1992 the law was changed to require cable companies to get retransmission consent in order to engage in that practice (usually by paying fees).
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      "a bunch of customers" A single customer. One radio receiver per customer if I understand their model correctly.
    - triptychs 13y ago
      > Aereo is doing almost exactly what cable television once did, putting a radio receiver on one end of a cable and a bunch of customers on the other. No, Aereo is putting a radio receiver on one end and one customer on the other. Each customer has their own antenna. It's exactly the same as having an antenna on your home TV, only you're renting the antenna and it comes with a DVR.
isamuel 13y ago
If you're actually curious about what the argument is, the broadcasters' petition for Supreme Court review lays it out: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Aereo102813.pdf http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Aereo102813...
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  the broadcasters says "Aereo retransmits". If Aereo were doing retransmission, even using individual antenna per customer, it would still be a public performance (Zediva case comes to mind here), and thus broadcasters would have a case. If Aereo only rents the antenna to customer, it is the customer who is doing broadcast capture and retransmission using the rented equipment - seems to be a well established legal activity (i'm wondering why such an argument didn't work for Zediva, though i don't think they "rented" DVD player to customer, only DVD itself - they were arguing that they can do anything like Netflix or Blockbuster, only by way of online streaming instead of physical transfer of the DVD, so it seems they didn't argue that it is customer who plays and streams rented DVD on rented equipment).
Natsu 13y ago
While it's true that the Supreme Court often grants cert to overturn cases, I'm not so sure they'll come down on the wrong side of this. I don't have a lot to base this on, but I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

PaulHoule 13y ago

I can't see why anybody cares about Aereo. Do people think it is unclean to receive DVB? I mean, why spend money on a service so you can spend more money on your metered mobile data plan to pick up a signal that is travelling right by you for free. I'd certainly pay for the ability to stream TV in distant markets, like IVI.TV did, but it seems like Aereo was created just to have a lawsuit, not satisfy any need.

cjensen 13y ago
Having Aereo handle this for me is a service. Why should I have to hook up the DDR myself? It's like web hosting: sure I could rent a cabinet and populate it with my own computer, but it sure is more convenient to have someone else do it for me.
bri3d 13y ago
To pick up my local ATSC-TV lineup would require me to have an 8+ft antenna on my roof. Not really practical seeing as how I live in an apartment. That's the use case Aereo fills. Their monthly subscription fee is also lower than the upcharge for buying HDTV from Comcast (who started encrypting their HD local channels because the FCC started letting them).
pbreit 13y ago
I just want to watch free TV on my Mac, iPad or iPhone. How do I do that?
- matthewmcg 13y ago
  Easy way: get a Slingbox and use the SlingPlayer App Harder way: get an Elgato EyeTV Most complex (but versatile way): get a tuner like the Silicon Dust HDHomerun and set up a Mythtv or Plex system. (All of the above require an antenna.) Edit: obviously, you can also use Aereo!
joezydeco 13y ago
A cloud-based DVR for a few bucks a month isn't that bad a deal.

cjensen 13y ago

As of this week ABC's iOS app no longer allows users to watch over-the-air shows unless they have a cable contract. There's only one reason I can think of for this boneheaded move: ABC wants people to have cable because ABC owns ESPN and ESPN makes more money than any other network. In the US, they're called the "public airwaves" for a reason: we the public own them and networks just license the use. I frown upon the behavior of the networks and hope Aereo will prevail.

untog 13y ago
But the public airwaves are still publicly accessible. ABC's app change has nothing to do with the public airwaves.
- cjensen 13y ago
  ABC is trying to control what can be done with a video sent over the public airways, so yes, it has everything to do with public airwaves. No one is arguing here about use of stuff sent over non-public-owned cable systems. The question is, given that it is legal for me to record a show broadcast over the public airwaves, is it also legal for me to pay a company to do that for me.
mbreese 13y ago
Cable companies also usually pay re-transmission fees to the local affiliates. That's probably the main reason. The affiliates have some power over the networks, so the networks would want to make sure that the locals are still getting something from iOS users. This is actually the main business model that Aereo threatens... not because Aereo is all that threatening to re-transmission fees, but that if they are successful, then all cable companies could just use multiple antennas to capture the over-the-air signal and avoid paying the (large) retransmission fees. (Then you get into cable companies owning networks that own broadcasters, and you see that it's all a big mess)
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  ^ Exactly this. It's not Aereo they're worried about, it's the precedent. And if it stands, there will be some major shakeups in the network TV world. I think it's high time for some changes, though. Aereo basically let's you lease a colocated TV antenna, and streams the content from that antenna to you over the Internet. It's one-to-one, antenna-to-subscriber. This is the core of the business, and the most threatening to broadcasters. But it's also the part where it's really hard for me to imagine how a legal opinion against Aereo could be crafted, without abridging the principles of public access to broadcast TV. Aereo also leases you DVR services. And I understand that this is where the Cablevision precedent comes into play. But even if that precedent were overturned, it seems to me that it would still be possible for the most disruptive aspects of the service to live on. People would perhaps just be required to host their own DVRs. (Disclosure: my girlfriend does works for a company that works for Aereo)

brohoolio 13y ago

I hope they win. It's one of the services that has helped convince my family to ditch cable. I can see them continuing to expand beyond the broadcast market to an internet version of TV. Aereo might not even need the broadcast networks in a few years but they definitely need them now.

untog 13y ago

I do sympathise with both sides, here. Right now, broadcast TV companies are able to charge cable companies "retransmission fees" in order to carry their channels. It's a decent revenue stream. Aereo have side-stepped this for their purposes. Aereo are entitled to do this. But I don't blame the broadcast companies for freaking out - if Aereo can do this then the cable companies can too - the broadcast networks will lose their retransmission fee revenue (at a time when they're not exactly swimming in cash anyway) and the cable companies get to boost their profits even more. Which they don't deserve. The only other solution for the broadcast companies will be to switch off their antenna broadcasts, which would also be a big shame.

cma 13y ago
They don't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there. It really should have little-to-no bearing on the case other than the networks' eargerness to pursue. In my opinion it wouldn't be bad if the networks had to pay the cable companies to get carried--after all, they are essentially just improving reception for viewers, letting the networks display more ads than they otherwise could.
- untog 13y ago
  The broadcast networks paying the cable networks would all but guarantee they go bankrupt. So the most likely answer here is that NBC, ABC, etc. just shut off their antenna broadcasts. Which would be a real shame. They don't have a right to a revenue stream just because it is there. True. But I'd argue that Aereo's $7 a month charge to rebroadcast content they have nothing to do with is a dubious revenue stream, too.
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    That content is broadcast for $0. It's logically similar to renting an antenna on your roof and a cable connecting that to the TV. Considering that antennas are ugly, and not the cheapest... antenna-invisibility services are a reasonable thing to pay money for.

zaroth 13y ago

I think Aereo will prevail because they have explicitly engineered a personal device for personal consumption of a legal public broadcast. Using personal digital equipment in order to personally consume a public broadcast is obviously legal. The legal theory is that Aereo is essentially an antenna company. If their service is the legal equivalent of an 'antenna', perhaps antennae are now so powerful that the compulsory licensing law needs to be changed somehow in response. In that case, you don't sue the antenna maker, you lobby congress to change the law. It will be entertaining to see this argued and ruled on. A parallel scenario... Have you seen the telepresence robots (iPad on a stick) that have started to become available? Lets say you're disabled, can't leave your house, but want to "go out for dinner and a movie" with your friends. Your robot rolls into the movie theater, pays for a ticket, and grabs a seat, streaming the video back to you individually. One camera, one stream, one brain on the other end of the wire, and no backing store. Have you violated copyright laws? I think not. I would also love to see the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) vs. Anti-Camcording argued in the Supreme Court. From Wikipedia on ADA -- 'Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.'

pudquick 13y ago
Unfortunately in this scenario, ADA is pretty much gutted. A movie theater is not required to provide for someone with a disability in any way, shape, or form, if they cannot themselves physically (at least) arrive at the location - and I mean their actual body, not telepresence. About the most they're required to do is ramps for access into / out of the building, disabled seating and bathroom access.
- cstejerean 13y ago
  I'd love to see the movie theaters though try to balance that against the PR nightmare that would come out of them fighting such a case.

hemancuso 13y ago

Seems like a good opportunity for a Roku-like aereo box. External antenna. 16gb of flash. Couldn't you make a good box with a few antenna options that replicated the exact functionality sold as a consumer product? I can't imagine it would cost much to produce, and a company like roku already has most of the software in place (sans tv schedule and recording facilities) to make this happen.

JSadowski 13y ago

The thing that always annoyed me about Aereo is how they restrict who can "rent an antenna". If they are to stick to their legal argument that they're just renting an antenna, then why can I not rent an antenna based in New York City, even though I live in Wisconsin?