3 ms·

I've not used Aero and haven't heard their argument but I bet their business model is they rent antennas to customers. I'd be curious to know where that argumen

I've not used Aero and haven't heard their argument but I bet their business model is they rent antennas to customers. I'd be curious to know where that argument failed because surely I could create a business that rented antennas to customers and installed them on houses. Why does it matter the location of the antenna? Either way this is bad for the consumer, bad for technology, and bad for innovation.

mikeash 12y ago
I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.
- djb_hackernews 12y ago
  So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I don't think anything is wrong with renting an antenna and streaming the signal. What's illegal here (not that I think it should be, but it seems clear enough that this is what the law says) is providing a streaming TV service without obtaining the appropriate licenses. The implementation details on the backend are irrelevant. I don't think you'd have any trouble setting up DJB's Internet-Accessible Antenna Rental if that's what you actually offered. Stick some SDR equipment on the antenna and give me access to the raw bitstream. If I want to watch TV with the service, then I can tell your equipment to tune to the appropriate frequency, and then decode the bitstream locally. But if you set up DJB's TV Streaming without paying any license fees, and you just implement that by receiving signals from an antenna, it's a different beast even if it looks the same technologically.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Of course you can put an antenna on your roof. You can probably also put an antenna on your neighbor's roof. Your neighbor cannot get into the business of rebroadcasting TV signals, though. Your intent to figure out exactly where the line is drawn is a failure that geeks have when going about the law. The law isn't written for a robot to unfailingly interpret. You won't get a good answer for the same reason the tribes making headphones out of coconuts won't get a good answer for how exactly they need to wear them for the cargo planes to come back.
  - vibrolax 12y ago
    You are allowed to put an antenna on your roof. If your neighbor allows you to, you can put the antenna on his roof. You can even rent the antenna. You are executing a private performance. You cannot subscribe to a streaming service that "rents you an antenna" unless the service licenses retransmission of the broadcaster's content.
    - kd0amg 12y ago
      What is it about GP's scenario that makes it a private performance? It sure looks like he's "subscribing to a streaming service that 'rents [him] an antenna'".
      - vibrolax 12y ago
        I hope I understand your question. I think the court has found that the "distribution for pay", i.e. "Cable TV" aspects of aereo's service outweighs the "antenna rental" aspects, and that makes it charging for a public performance. If you rent an antenna on top of the Empire State Building, digitize the signal, and set up your own means to stream it over the internet to your house in Peoria, that is probably a private performance. If you effectively sell someone access to the stream (like a Cable TV company), that is a public performance.
        kd0amg 12y ago
        The part I'm confused about is the distinction between what the Empire State Building management is doing in this setup and selling someone access.
        vibrolax 12y ago
        The SC ruled that the number of antennas or where they're located is not the heart of the issue. Aereo effectively supplied a data stream with broadcast content to subscribers (just like a cable tv company) without licensing the right to supply that content. The issue is commercial rights, not technological means. If you personally lease space for an antenna, and engineer a means to get it to your TV to watch, that's ok. If you sell access to the content stream, you are a cable TV company and have to pay redistribution license for the content.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    With this ruling renting an antenna will basically never be a valid workaround. The argument is that because Aereo is the one dealing with the antennas, they are the ones doing the broadcasting. Now, if the equipement were sold instead of rented, and obstensibly Aereo was only providing electricity to the antenna/DVR setup, then things might have been different (at least it was implied in the oral arguments). But obstensibly the service being provided by Aereo was one of broadcasting, not of hardware hosting.
- dublinben 12y ago
  You could say the exact same thing about Cablevision and their 'cloud DVR', but they won their case before the Supreme Court. Aereo was relying on that decision to enable a similarly inefficient system (1 antenna and DVR per subscriber) for broadcast TV.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I agree, and crazy workarounds like that aren't very nice either. However, I don't think the two decisions are inconsistent. As I understand it, Cablevision was already paying license fees for rebroadcasting, and the case was just about exactly what they could or could not do with that license. Aereo's case is about whether they need to pay license fees at all.

mikeash 12y ago

I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.

djb_hackernews 12y ago
So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I don't think anything is wrong with renting an antenna and streaming the signal. What's illegal here (not that I think it should be, but it seems clear enough that this is what the law says) is providing a streaming TV service without obtaining the appropriate licenses. The implementation details on the backend are irrelevant. I don't think you'd have any trouble setting up DJB's Internet-Accessible Antenna Rental if that's what you actually offered. Stick some SDR equipment on the antenna and give me access to the raw bitstream. If I want to watch TV with the service, then I can tell your equipment to tune to the appropriate frequency, and then decode the bitstream locally. But if you set up DJB's TV Streaming without paying any license fees, and you just implement that by receiving signals from an antenna, it's a different beast even if it looks the same technologically.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Of course you can put an antenna on your roof. You can probably also put an antenna on your neighbor's roof. Your neighbor cannot get into the business of rebroadcasting TV signals, though. Your intent to figure out exactly where the line is drawn is a failure that geeks have when going about the law. The law isn't written for a robot to unfailingly interpret. You won't get a good answer for the same reason the tribes making headphones out of coconuts won't get a good answer for how exactly they need to wear them for the cargo planes to come back.
- vibrolax 12y ago
  You are allowed to put an antenna on your roof. If your neighbor allows you to, you can put the antenna on his roof. You can even rent the antenna. You are executing a private performance. You cannot subscribe to a streaming service that "rents you an antenna" unless the service licenses retransmission of the broadcaster's content.
  - kd0amg 12y ago
    What is it about GP's scenario that makes it a private performance? It sure looks like he's "subscribing to a streaming service that 'rents [him] an antenna'".
    - vibrolax 12y ago
      I hope I understand your question. I think the court has found that the "distribution for pay", i.e. "Cable TV" aspects of aereo's service outweighs the "antenna rental" aspects, and that makes it charging for a public performance. If you rent an antenna on top of the Empire State Building, digitize the signal, and set up your own means to stream it over the internet to your house in Peoria, that is probably a private performance. If you effectively sell someone access to the stream (like a Cable TV company), that is a public performance.
      - kd0amg 12y ago
        The part I'm confused about is the distinction between what the Empire State Building management is doing in this setup and selling someone access.
        vibrolax 12y ago
        The SC ruled that the number of antennas or where they're located is not the heart of the issue. Aereo effectively supplied a data stream with broadcast content to subscribers (just like a cable tv company) without licensing the right to supply that content. The issue is commercial rights, not technological means. If you personally lease space for an antenna, and engineer a means to get it to your TV to watch, that's ok. If you sell access to the content stream, you are a cable TV company and have to pay redistribution license for the content.
- rtpg 12y ago
  With this ruling renting an antenna will basically never be a valid workaround. The argument is that because Aereo is the one dealing with the antennas, they are the ones doing the broadcasting. Now, if the equipement were sold instead of rented, and obstensibly Aereo was only providing electricity to the antenna/DVR setup, then things might have been different (at least it was implied in the oral arguments). But obstensibly the service being provided by Aereo was one of broadcasting, not of hardware hosting.
dublinben 12y ago
You could say the exact same thing about Cablevision and their 'cloud DVR', but they won their case before the Supreme Court. Aereo was relying on that decision to enable a similarly inefficient system (1 antenna and DVR per subscriber) for broadcast TV.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I agree, and crazy workarounds like that aren't very nice either. However, I don't think the two decisions are inconsistent. As I understand it, Cablevision was already paying license fees for rebroadcasting, and the case was just about exactly what they could or could not do with that license. Aereo's case is about whether they need to pay license fees at all.