6 ms·

The problem with the argument against Aereo is that (regardless of the Justice Department's statement) it unravels rental services. Where is the line drawn? Can

by ynniv 13y ago

The problem with the argument against Aereo is that (regardless of the Justice Department's statement) it unravels rental services. Where is the line drawn? Can I not rent a hotel room and watch television in it? Can I not rent a hotel room, put a networked camera in it, and watch the television in the room while I am not physically in it? Can I not rent a hotel room that already has such a camera in it? Can I not rent a 1x1x1 hotel room with a miniature television and network camera in it? Can the television and camera not be one device? The "room" of Aereo is much smaller, but does size change legality?

bduerst 13y ago
Only if you were to redistribute said content. The argument they're making looks like they're saying that Aereo can't stream copyrighted content over the internet, because the copyright owners (the broadcasters) don't want their content used in the manner. This is weird because broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyrights on material once it's been broadcast. That's been Aereo's edge. Basically they're trying to close the loophole by saying Aereo isn't consuming the signal, hence they are interfering with the broadcast to the real consumer.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Hum, who says the broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyright on the material? That makes no sense, if they didn't everyone could just capture it and rebroadcast to the whole world at will. I believe Aereo's position is not that the broadcasters don't hold the copyright, it's that they aren't violating it since they just do "location-shifting".
  - ynniv 13y ago
    they aren't violating it since they just do "location-shifting" This is my understanding. For $8/mo, people are renting the physical space that contains an antenna. The crux of the case is whether renting a sensor, or access to a space with a sensor, is illegal.
    - jsz0 13y ago
      The antenna by itself is useless until Areo transcodes and transports the content it receives. That is the issue.
      - arg01 13y ago
        Doesn't that just shift the argument to renting computation time? Edit: Thinking on this I'd assume the whole argument is based on this whole sum of the parts thing. Obviously I wouldn't question if a machine shop is legal or any particular operation in making a gun is legal but I understand regulations on gun production as a reasonable law. But then it comes to the sum of the parts thing I see Aero enabling a customer to do something legal he in theory could do already in an easier manner rather than broadcasting companies being screwed out of legitimate revenue (mostly because they don't offer equivalent services).
      - ynniv 13y ago
        Why? If the stream is not HDCP (which currently it cannot be by law), then why does Aereo have a special obligation to treat the content as protected? Congress could end this whole debate by allowing broadcast DTV to require HDCP, which they have so far explicitly denied. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag ]
  - bduerst 13y ago
    >The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling on Monday in a 2-to-1 decision, saying that Aereo’s streams of TV shows to individual subscribers did not constitute “public performances,” and thus the broadcasters’ copyright infringement lawsuits against the service “are not likely to prevail on the merits.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-in-appeals-court-setting-stage-for-trial-on-streaming-broadcast-tv.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-...
    - icebraining 13y ago
      That doesn't say they don't hold copyright over the material. In fact, it implies that they do, since otherwise, whether Aereo is doing a public performance or not would be irrelevant.
      - bduerst 13y ago
        It only says they only copyright for those who are doing public performances with the broadcast, and that they don't have copyright on the signal itself.

by ynniv 13y ago

bduerst 13y ago

Only if you were to redistribute said content. The argument they're making looks like they're saying that Aereo can't stream copyrighted content over the internet, because the copyright owners (the broadcasters) don't want their content used in the manner. This is weird because broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyrights on material once it's been broadcast. That's been Aereo's edge. Basically they're trying to close the loophole by saying Aereo isn't consuming the signal, hence they are interfering with the broadcast to the real consumer.

icebraining 13y ago
Hum, who says the broadcasters aren't supposed to have copyright on the material? That makes no sense, if they didn't everyone could just capture it and rebroadcast to the whole world at will. I believe Aereo's position is not that the broadcasters don't hold the copyright, it's that they aren't violating it since they just do "location-shifting".
- ynniv 13y ago
  they aren't violating it since they just do "location-shifting" This is my understanding. For $8/mo, people are renting the physical space that contains an antenna. The crux of the case is whether renting a sensor, or access to a space with a sensor, is illegal.
  - jsz0 13y ago
    The antenna by itself is useless until Areo transcodes and transports the content it receives. That is the issue.
    - arg01 13y ago
      Doesn't that just shift the argument to renting computation time? Edit: Thinking on this I'd assume the whole argument is based on this whole sum of the parts thing. Obviously I wouldn't question if a machine shop is legal or any particular operation in making a gun is legal but I understand regulations on gun production as a reasonable law. But then it comes to the sum of the parts thing I see Aero enabling a customer to do something legal he in theory could do already in an easier manner rather than broadcasting companies being screwed out of legitimate revenue (mostly because they don't offer equivalent services).
    - ynniv 13y ago
      Why? If the stream is not HDCP (which currently it cannot be by law), then why does Aereo have a special obligation to treat the content as protected? Congress could end this whole debate by allowing broadcast DTV to require HDCP, which they have so far explicitly denied. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag ]
- bduerst 13y ago
  >The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling on Monday in a 2-to-1 decision, saying that Aereo’s streams of TV shows to individual subscribers did not constitute “public performances,” and thus the broadcasters’ copyright infringement lawsuits against the service “are not likely to prevail on the merits.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-in-appeals-court-setting-stage-for-trial-on-streaming-broadcast-tv.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-...
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That doesn't say they don't hold copyright over the material. In fact, it implies that they do, since otherwise, whether Aereo is doing a public performance or not would be irrelevant.
    - bduerst 13y ago
      It only says they only copyright for those who are doing public performances with the broadcast, and that they don't have copyright on the signal itself.