4 ms·

It'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.

by kej 13y ago

deelowe 13y ago
If 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 ago
That'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 ago
Suppose 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 ago
  An Aereo opposer could claim that leasing to your neighbor would itself be a copyright violation.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Are 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.

It'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.

by kej 13y ago

It'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 ago

If 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 ago

That'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 ago

Suppose 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 ago
An Aereo opposer could claim that leasing to your neighbor would itself be a copyright violation.
maxerickson 13y ago
Are 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.