4 ms·

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

by 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.
- DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
  So a business that would be legal if Aero were leasing the equipment to people in their homes is illegal because it's instead in the Aero office and people connect to it over traditional telecommunications?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    If you go to a strip club, and pay the $20 cover, you get to watch the show. Does that mean a company can show up with a camera, broadcast a feed on the internet, and pay $20 for each person who is logged in? It's the same thing right?
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      What kind of nonsense analogy is this? Of course it's legal to do that, they can only kick you out if they don't like your camera. But public broadcasts are.. public. A private issue of patronage has nothing to do with a public issue of legality. You can't make any meaningful connections between the scenarios.
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      The conditions of admission to the show forbid the audience from recording or retransmitting. So you can't do that from inside the theater. But let's just say the stage is set up next to a huge window, and anyone standing on the sidewalk can see the whole thing. The cameraman sets up there, and now he's golden. This is what Aereo is doing. The broadcast station has a huge window on their stage, because they want as many people as possible to watch the show (and accompanying advertisements). When you broadcast, you are granting implicit license to everyone who can receive to have and keep a copy of that event. Were it otherwise, I could set up an antenna, broadcast a video of me flipping the bird to the camera, and maliciously prosecute everyone receiving on that frequency for copyright violation. If you want control over who sees your show, you can't really be doing it in front of a huge picture window visible from public property, or by pumping it out over radio signals, which is metaphorically the same thing.
    - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
      > brodcast a feed on the internet ... for each person who is logged in? The analogous situation would be if they paid $20 per watcher to the strip club, and had one blind dude come in with a whole array of webcams that linked up to people on the internet, with one webcam per person. To which I'd ask you, why do you think this is a bad thing? (The difference, of course, being that strip clubs are private whereas the public airwaves are public.)
    - nooneelse 13y ago
      I am really confused about your analogic intent here. Who in the real world is being mapped to the strip club which is taking the cover charge money in the analogy? It seems to be that in the analogy's codomain, the strip club might very well love the camera situation as it allows them to make more money per performance. So they can't be standing in for the tv broadcasters. Are they the antenna makers? The tv broadcasters might more naturally map to the strippers themselves. Except that strippers don't get revenue by something that communicates as easily through the real world video signal like advertisements do. Perhaps if the strippers in the analogy were paid to wear brand logos and messages and such like race car drivers, but they would have to be on the skin, so temporary tattoos then. Or perhaps if the remote viewers in the analogy could hit a button to have the camera toss $X dollar bills onto the stage. Oh, and the bar... strip clubs also hope to make money on drinks and a cut of the lap dances, is that why you assumed the strip clubs might not like the camera? The cover doesn't actually cover all of the expenses and desired profit. If so, I feel it could have been better spelled out or mentioned at all. But then, maybe the analogy's bar and lap dances are better stand ins for the advertisers in the real world (so we don't have to add in logo tattoos at all). So, I'm still unsure about this analogy, including about it's value in adding clarity.

by gergles 13y ago

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.

DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
So a business that would be legal if Aero were leasing the equipment to people in their homes is illegal because it's instead in the Aero office and people connect to it over traditional telecommunications?
- rayiner 13y ago
  If you go to a strip club, and pay the $20 cover, you get to watch the show. Does that mean a company can show up with a camera, broadcast a feed on the internet, and pay $20 for each person who is logged in? It's the same thing right?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    What kind of nonsense analogy is this? Of course it's legal to do that, they can only kick you out if they don't like your camera. But public broadcasts are.. public. A private issue of patronage has nothing to do with a public issue of legality. You can't make any meaningful connections between the scenarios.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    The conditions of admission to the show forbid the audience from recording or retransmitting. So you can't do that from inside the theater. But let's just say the stage is set up next to a huge window, and anyone standing on the sidewalk can see the whole thing. The cameraman sets up there, and now he's golden. This is what Aereo is doing. The broadcast station has a huge window on their stage, because they want as many people as possible to watch the show (and accompanying advertisements). When you broadcast, you are granting implicit license to everyone who can receive to have and keep a copy of that event. Were it otherwise, I could set up an antenna, broadcast a video of me flipping the bird to the camera, and maliciously prosecute everyone receiving on that frequency for copyright violation. If you want control over who sees your show, you can't really be doing it in front of a huge picture window visible from public property, or by pumping it out over radio signals, which is metaphorically the same thing.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    > brodcast a feed on the internet ... for each person who is logged in? The analogous situation would be if they paid $20 per watcher to the strip club, and had one blind dude come in with a whole array of webcams that linked up to people on the internet, with one webcam per person. To which I'd ask you, why do you think this is a bad thing? (The difference, of course, being that strip clubs are private whereas the public airwaves are public.)
  - nooneelse 13y ago
    I am really confused about your analogic intent here. Who in the real world is being mapped to the strip club which is taking the cover charge money in the analogy? It seems to be that in the analogy's codomain, the strip club might very well love the camera situation as it allows them to make more money per performance. So they can't be standing in for the tv broadcasters. Are they the antenna makers? The tv broadcasters might more naturally map to the strippers themselves. Except that strippers don't get revenue by something that communicates as easily through the real world video signal like advertisements do. Perhaps if the strippers in the analogy were paid to wear brand logos and messages and such like race car drivers, but they would have to be on the skin, so temporary tattoos then. Or perhaps if the remote viewers in the analogy could hit a button to have the camera toss $X dollar bills onto the stage. Oh, and the bar... strip clubs also hope to make money on drinks and a cut of the lap dances, is that why you assumed the strip clubs might not like the camera? The cover doesn't actually cover all of the expenses and desired profit. If so, I feel it could have been better spelled out or mentioned at all. But then, maybe the analogy's bar and lap dances are better stand ins for the advertisers in the real world (so we don't have to add in logo tattoos at all). So, I'm still unsure about this analogy, including about it's value in adding clarity.