3 ms·
Fed argument hinges on this "Under the 1976 Copyright Act, a company that retransmits copyrighted broadcast television programs must obtain a license, though qu
by snorkel 13y ago
Fed argument hinges on this "Under the 1976 Copyright Act, a company that retransmits copyrighted broadcast television programs must obtain a license, though qualifying retransmission services may avail themselves of the detailed statutory licensing schemes established by Congress."
All television broadcasts are copyrighted, and local broadcasters, cable providers, and satellite providers all have attained licenses to retransmit those works. Feds are arguing that Aereo is charging customers for public retransmission of copyrighted works without a licence from the copyright holders. Of course current TV providers welcome this stance because they're also trying to sell DVR services.
- diminoten 13y agoAereo isn't retransmitting to the public though, it's allowing you the ability to remotely deploy an antenna in a place where reception is good, and forwarding that signal onto you.
- kej 13y agoIt's a stretch to say they're letting me deploy an antenna. It's not like they're just an antenna colocation company where I go install it myself.
- deelowe 13y agoIf they were, would this change your mind? What if they acted as if they were a subcontractor? At a certain point the line isn't so clear anymore. I don't know the correct answer here, but I'm concerned about the precedent this could set.
- icebraining 13y agoThat's an interesting proposition. If you did have different companies doing the job - say, Aereo would rent you the roof space and provide a dumb Internet pipe, another would sell you the device and yet another would install it for you -, who would be to blame?
- koenigdavidmj 13y agoSuppose that you were filthy rich, owned property that included a hill, and hired people to put an antenna on your hill and run cable back to your house so you could watch TV. Now suppose you leased a part of your hill to your neighbour so that they could do the same thing. What's different about Aereo's model, other than the scale?
- icebraining 13y agoAn Aereo opposer could claim that leasing to your neighbor would itself be a copyright violation.
- maxerickson 13y agoAre they somehow streaming the ATSC signal over the internet? Or are they changing the signal into some other format, storing and then sending it later? That's at least a difference.
- jsz0 13y ago> What's different about Aereo's model, other than the scale? From a legal perspective the wording of the contract between parties matters an awful lot. A quick look at Areo's site shows they are offering something very different. If your property owner and neighbor entered a similar contract for these services I suspect they would indeed face the same legal risks. Once you become a middle man who is tuning/transcoding/transporting you fit the mold of a cable TV service provider far more than a property owner leasing land.