6 ms·
The logic of the ruling is that Aereo, if you looked at it as a black box, was essentially acting as a cable company. The internal workings of its technology ar
by harryh 12y ago
The logic of the ruling is that Aereo, if you looked at it as a black box, was essentially acting as a cable company. The internal workings of its technology aren't as important as the actual functionality being provided.
- shmerl 12y agoThat's not what I was asking. The commenter above said: > They made the same claim Aereo is making now - we're not rebroadcasting, we're just a big antenna connected to multiple homes. The law was written specifically to address this, but it was written in a generic way to avoid loopholes... like exactly the loophole Aereo claimed existed. I was asking to explain the logic of that law. What is wrong with renting the antenna? Why it should be forbidden while using the personal antenna is permitted?
- Dylan16807 12y agoWell if you trust the ruling quoted in http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_17625637 http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_17625637 then the distinction is that a transmission from equipment you own to equipment you own is private, but transmission from equipment you rent to equipment you own is public. Don't ask me to explain why.
- shmerl 12y agoThis area looks like a mess. What is the intent of that law to begin with? To charge for special right to "perform" the copyrighted work in public. I don't really get why this principle is extended to delivering the "performance" to the single user. Isn't it about "public" i.e. multiple aspect needs to be present?
- harryh 12y agoThe intent of the law is to allow over the air broadcasts (seen as a public good) to exist without completely undermining the ability of content creators to get paid.
- Dylan16807 12y agoHow does a stereotypical cable company undermine payment for the public performance? They are only assisting in the reception of the performance for people with bad antenna locations. The stereotypical cable company doesn't extend the range, either, it's just a shared antenna.
- harryh 12y agoCable companies pay the broadcasters rebroadcasting fees.
- Dylan16807 12y agoI meant before the law was passed, when they didn't pay those fees. I cannot figure out how payment is undermined on a free broadcast. Can you explain how to me?
- Dylan16807 12y agoIf you draw a black box around an antenna salesman and the equipment they've installed, you also get something that appears to be a cable company.
- dllthomas 12y agoNot if you need more than one customer to be "a cable company".
- Dylan16807 12y agoSaid antenna salesman would have sold antennas to much more than one household.
- dllthomas 12y agoBut he does not continue to own the antenna, and you do not continue to pay him.
- shmerl 12y agoWhat if he rents you an antenna, but you install it in your house?
- dllthomas 12y agoI don't think that's clear, and it would probably call for a new ruling, informed by the particulars of the case...
- vibrolax 12y agoThe rental of an antenna is not a public performance. Offering a subscription streaming service including broadcast content to the public is a public performance.
- harryh 12y agoI think there's a big different between paying money all at once to buy and install hardware that I own vs paying a recurring fee for a service.
- belorn 12y agoThat is the argument of the ruling, but it seems arbitrary defined. I would ask what law grounds the definition of the black box. If one would try to do the same to a illegal content hosted on a website, where should I start drawing this box? At my ISP, since it is the edge where I as a customer receives the content? At the websites ISP, since it is the one that broadcast the content? The coo-location of the server, as it is there that the mechanism for broadcast is happening? The hardware, which produced broadcast? Or is it the person who acted on the machine in order to create the broadcast? As with a onion, each layer covers the internal workings of the next one. The actual functionality being provided (ie content) is the same at each step.
- harryh 12y agoWelcome to the world of common law. It's not source code with precisely defined rules. It's a set of values adjudicated by judges attempting to issue rulings that most would consider fair.
- davorak 12y ago> It's not source code with precisely defined rules. I do not see anyone making the argument that it is. > It's a set of values adjudicated by judges attempting to issue rulings that most would consider fair. belorn is offering arguments/evidence that an unfair decision was reached by the court in this case.