14 ms·
The really interesting question is the implications for future precedent/innovations. The ruling says "But this difference [Aero's technological setup] means no
by themgt 12y ago
The really interesting question is the implications for future precedent/innovations. The ruling says "But this difference [Aero's technological setup] means nothing to the subscriber. It means nothing to the broadcaster. We do not see how this single difference, invisible to subscriber and broadcaster alike, could transform a system that is for all practical purposes a traditional cable system into “a copy shop that provides its patrons with a library card.”
In other cases involving different kinds of service or technology providers, a user’s involvement in the operation of the provider’s equipment and selection of the content transmitted may well bear on whether the provider performs within the meaning of the Act. But the many similarities between Aereo and cable companies, considered in light of Congress’ basic purposes in amending the Copyright Act, convince us that this difference is not critical here."
What this seems to leave open is the question of whether a company that was e.g. a generic cloud service with various features and functions, among them the ability to rent a mini-antenna and stream recorded data from it to your computer, would still be infringing. It suggests the infringement is largely due to the way Aereo positioned and marketed itself to customers - the common sense reality of the service overrode the technological loophole they attempted to exploit.
- skottk 12y agoThe user involvement bit is addressing the Cartoon Network case regarding Cablevision's remote DVR architecture that Aereo is based on. Cablevision designed a remote DVR system that made transient, user-specific copies based on the user's pressing a button on their set-top-box remote. In their defense against Cartoon Network et al., Cablevision made the "volitional conduct" defense that Scalia talks about in the dissent here- essentially, that the user who pressed the button was responsible for making the copy. Cablevision won at trial and on appeal in the Second Circuit. The biggest difference between the Cablevision case and the Aereo case is that Cablevision has and pays for the broadcast licenses that Aereo was trying to avoid having to obtain.
- rayiner 12y agoI find the use of "innovation" here irritating. There's nothing "innovative" in 2014 about a service that streams TV over the internet. The only thing "innovative" about Aereo is its legal strategy of exploiting a loophole in the law.
- ganeumann 12y ago"innovative" !== "technologically innovative"
- rayiner 12y agoI won't concede that point, but even assuming you're right: there's nothing "innovative" about the business model of distributing in-demand content for profit without compensating the content creators.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mordero 12y agoIsn't that the point of advertisements for OTA broadcasts?
- bediger4000 12y ago"Exploiting a loophole in the law" - does that phrase really mean anything? Aereo did their system in a way that very carefully conformed to the law. The bizarre system that resulted is a reflection of the contorted, illogical, false-to-fact nature of copyright law, more than "exploiting a loophole". The Supreme Court ruled wrong in this case.
- rayiner 12y agoThere's nothing "contorted" or "illogical" or "false-to-fact" about the copyright law in this case. The studios spend a lot of money to make this content. Users want to watch this content. To redistribute this content to users, you have to pay money to the people who created it. There is a narrow exception for free over the air TV. Aereo tried to shoehorn their internet streaming service, which is functionally no different than something like Hulu, into this narrow exception. The Supreme Court basically said: "if it quacks like a duck it should be treated like a duck."
- sp332 12y agoThat's crazy. The whole point of copyright law is that you can get the same content in different ways, some of which are legal [edit:authorized] and some are not. Now the Supreme Court says that all ways of getting content are the same?
- icebraining 12y agoThey're not the same, but they are almost all covered under copyright, yes.