4 ms·

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

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.

untog 13y ago
If I recorded NBC TV shows, burnt them to DVD and sold them on for profit I would be violating the law, despite it also being "logically similar". It isn't as simple as that broadcast being "for $0".
- lelandbatey 13y ago
  Yes, but then you'd be unfairly duplicating the content without permission. With Aereo, you are renting the antenna (just far away) and streaming from that. Every customer has an antenna. It is the logical scaling up of a currently allowable business model. It has the same end result as many less savory models, but it is not illegal at all. Whether it should continue to be legal is up for debate, but right now it's squarely in the right.
  - untog 13y ago
    Oh sure, I agree. I think that what Aereo is doing is legally correct. As you say, the question of whether it should be at least deserves some discussion.
  - qq66 13y ago
    You could argue that Aereo's copying of the received signal to an output stream is also unlicensed duplication.
    - melvinram 13y ago
      Well that's for the Supreme Court to decide now but logically speaking, it's not an unlicensed duplication. It's not duplicated at all. The broadcast is recorded once, played back by the original recorder, and is not distributed as it's not being transferred from one entity to another. The whole argument obviously relies on the premise that Areo is renting you the antenna, so you're the one doing the recording using rented equipment far away.
    - gareim 13y ago
      But then what of the people that have antennas at home, record shows for later playback (which is legal)? This is the same concept, just remote.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  In the 'ideal' scenario where you: 1. record a broadcast onto a single disc for time-shifting purposes 2. never watch the broadcast or disc 3. do not edit to remove commercials or make any changes from the original form 4. later sell the disc 5. no longer have a copy What law are you violating?
  - untog 13y ago
    ...copyright law?
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Which step violates which aspect of copyright law? Explain in a way that takes into account the fact that cloud DVRs were ruled to be acceptable.
      - untog 13y ago
        4. later sell the disc I'm a little unsure what you think copyright law is. It has personal use exemptions that allow you to time-shift content. You are not allowed to sell that content.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        I can sell my factory-produced legal copies. Why can't I sell my self-produced legal copies? Does the first sale doctrine not apply when the original was $0?
        untog 13y ago
        I can sell my factory-produced legal copies Your factory-produced legal copies of what? NBC's content? No you can't. Making DVDs in a factory doesn't magically assign copyright to you. You need NBC's permission.
        13y ago

untog 13y ago

If I recorded NBC TV shows, burnt them to DVD and sold them on for profit I would be violating the law, despite it also being "logically similar". It isn't as simple as that broadcast being "for $0".

lelandbatey 13y ago
Yes, but then you'd be unfairly duplicating the content without permission. With Aereo, you are renting the antenna (just far away) and streaming from that. Every customer has an antenna. It is the logical scaling up of a currently allowable business model. It has the same end result as many less savory models, but it is not illegal at all. Whether it should continue to be legal is up for debate, but right now it's squarely in the right.
- untog 13y ago
  Oh sure, I agree. I think that what Aereo is doing is legally correct. As you say, the question of whether it should be at least deserves some discussion.
- qq66 13y ago
  You could argue that Aereo's copying of the received signal to an output stream is also unlicensed duplication.
  - melvinram 13y ago
    Well that's for the Supreme Court to decide now but logically speaking, it's not an unlicensed duplication. It's not duplicated at all. The broadcast is recorded once, played back by the original recorder, and is not distributed as it's not being transferred from one entity to another. The whole argument obviously relies on the premise that Areo is renting you the antenna, so you're the one doing the recording using rented equipment far away.
  - gareim 13y ago
    But then what of the people that have antennas at home, record shows for later playback (which is legal)? This is the same concept, just remote.
Dylan16807 13y ago
In the 'ideal' scenario where you: 1. record a broadcast onto a single disc for time-shifting purposes 2. never watch the broadcast or disc 3. do not edit to remove commercials or make any changes from the original form 4. later sell the disc 5. no longer have a copy What law are you violating?
- untog 13y ago
  ...copyright law?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Which step violates which aspect of copyright law? Explain in a way that takes into account the fact that cloud DVRs were ruled to be acceptable.
    - untog 13y ago
      4. later sell the disc I'm a little unsure what you think copyright law is. It has personal use exemptions that allow you to time-shift content. You are not allowed to sell that content.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        I can sell my factory-produced legal copies. Why can't I sell my self-produced legal copies? Does the first sale doctrine not apply when the original was $0?
        untog 13y ago
        I can sell my factory-produced legal copies Your factory-produced legal copies of what? NBC's content? No you can't. Making DVDs in a factory doesn't magically assign copyright to you. You need NBC's permission.
        13y ago