3 ms·

This seems to be the nut graf of the decision: "This Court recognizes one particular difference between Aereo's system and the cable systems at issue in Fortni

by jawns 12y ago

This seems to be the nut graf of the decision: "This Court recognizes one particular difference between Aereo's system and the cable systems at issue in Fortnightly and Teleprompter: The systems in those cases transmitted constantly, whereas Aereo's system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that she wants to watch a program. 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 given Aereo's overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here." So, if I understand this correctly, the Court is rejecting Aero's argument that it provides private performances because it gives users the ability to control the rented antennaes, and only transmits what the individual user requests. I'm a little baffled by how this differs from how people use DVRs. To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different.

random28345 12y ago
> To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different. More specifically, the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo".
- uaygsfdbzf 12y ago
  I know very little (read: nothing) about any relevant laws, but I'm still struck by your answer. You say two things: (1) the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. (2) The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo". Aren't those two very different statements? I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that (1) leads to them saying (2), or whether (1) and (2) are two different things that both happen to be true. I'm not trying to nit pick. (1) seems like a good thing: There is intent behind law, and I see it as an important, worthwhile, and even critical part of the judicial system to treat laws as more than hardcoded rules -- intent (i.e. the difference between following "the letter" vs abiding by "the spirit" of a law) and similar contextual aspects of law seem like essential things to take into account when applying old laws to new, previously unforseen situations (which most commonly occur as a result of technological and social changes). This is certainly a very debatable and controversial question, and I'm not qualified to argue for either side, but as far as I can tell this is a controversial and fundamental issue that divides people, including experts (judges, lawyers, scholars of law). (2), on the other hand, sounds like something you'd expect to hear from a group of people who are some combination of stupid, xenophobic, very conservative (as in "hate progress", not just the "old-fashioned/traditional" sense) and/or have vested interests in embellishing the status quo. In other words, not something you ever want to see from a supreme court, though clearly (a) it may actually be true and (b) these traits aren't necessarily negative in trace amounts, especially for an institution as powerful as the supreme court. Basically, my question is: (1) suggests something I find arguably good, but certainly worthy of debate. (2) reeks of dangerous bigotry. Are you saying that (1) and (2) are both true based on this ruling? Do you agree that (1) and (2) are entirely separate questions, or do you think I am wrong in drawing that distinction?
bradleyjg 12y ago
> To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different. Not just the modern cable providers, the historical CATV analogy is much tighter. The original cable entrepreneurs served valley communities that couldn't get OTA signals. They put up giant antennas at the top of the valley and cables from there to individual houses below. The broadcast television industry tried to destroy those companies using very similar arguments as in this case, and the Supreme Court sided with the CATV companies (Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390 (1968) and Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U. S. 394 (1974)) But those decisions were a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional law. Such decisions are always subject to be overruled by Congress, and that's exactly what happened in 1976 with the The Copyright Act of 1976. In passing that law, Congress specifically intended to overrule the earlier Supreme Court cases. Aereo's technology might be slightly different, but if you can't run a passive cable from an antenna to a subscriber's house which is perhaps the most straightforward possible arrangement, it's hard to see how anything along these lines is going to pass muster. It's easy enough to blame the Supreme Court and accuse them of not understanding technology, but it is Congress that specifically went out of its way to advantage broadcast companies in this way. The fault and solution lies there.

by jawns 12y ago

random28345 12y ago

> To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different. More specifically, the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo".

uaygsfdbzf 12y ago
I know very little (read: nothing) about any relevant laws, but I'm still struck by your answer. You say two things: (1) the Court is hung up on how Aereo uses technology to circumvent the intent of the law. (2) The ruling is basically saying, "Don't bother trying to follow the law as it's written if you threaten the status quo". Aren't those two very different statements? I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that (1) leads to them saying (2), or whether (1) and (2) are two different things that both happen to be true. I'm not trying to nit pick. (1) seems like a good thing: There is intent behind law, and I see it as an important, worthwhile, and even critical part of the judicial system to treat laws as more than hardcoded rules -- intent (i.e. the difference between following "the letter" vs abiding by "the spirit" of a law) and similar contextual aspects of law seem like essential things to take into account when applying old laws to new, previously unforseen situations (which most commonly occur as a result of technological and social changes). This is certainly a very debatable and controversial question, and I'm not qualified to argue for either side, but as far as I can tell this is a controversial and fundamental issue that divides people, including experts (judges, lawyers, scholars of law). (2), on the other hand, sounds like something you'd expect to hear from a group of people who are some combination of stupid, xenophobic, very conservative (as in "hate progress", not just the "old-fashioned/traditional" sense) and/or have vested interests in embellishing the status quo. In other words, not something you ever want to see from a supreme court, though clearly (a) it may actually be true and (b) these traits aren't necessarily negative in trace amounts, especially for an institution as powerful as the supreme court. Basically, my question is: (1) suggests something I find arguably good, but certainly worthy of debate. (2) reeks of dangerous bigotry. Are you saying that (1) and (2) are both true based on this ruling? Do you agree that (1) and (2) are entirely separate questions, or do you think I am wrong in drawing that distinction?

bradleyjg 12y ago

> To me, it seems like the Court is hung up on how similar the end result is to the cable providers', even though the means are different. Not just the modern cable providers, the historical CATV analogy is much tighter. The original cable entrepreneurs served valley communities that couldn't get OTA signals. They put up giant antennas at the top of the valley and cables from there to individual houses below. The broadcast television industry tried to destroy those companies using very similar arguments as in this case, and the Supreme Court sided with the CATV companies (Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U. S. 390 (1968) and Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 415 U. S. 394 (1974)) But those decisions were a matter of statutory interpretation, not constitutional law. Such decisions are always subject to be overruled by Congress, and that's exactly what happened in 1976 with the The Copyright Act of 1976. In passing that law, Congress specifically intended to overrule the earlier Supreme Court cases. Aereo's technology might be slightly different, but if you can't run a passive cable from an antenna to a subscriber's house which is perhaps the most straightforward possible arrangement, it's hard to see how anything along these lines is going to pass muster. It's easy enough to blame the Supreme Court and accuse them of not understanding technology, but it is Congress that specifically went out of its way to advantage broadcast companies in this way. The fault and solution lies there.