4 ms·
> They're a company that streams TV into people's homes. Other companies (the cable companies) have to pay a fee to the content creators to do that. Why should
by davorak 12y ago
> They're a company that streams TV into people's homes. Other companies (the cable companies) have to pay a fee to the content creators to do that. Why should it be different for Aereo?
The fee was already paid then that party decided to stream it over the air. If the content creator does not want that they they do not have to allow for that usage. Or charge more for it.
- harryh 12y agoThat is wrong. The law specifically says that cable companies cannot transmit TV that is broadcast over the air unless they pay rebroadcasting fees.
- davorak 12y ago> That is wrong. I was proposing an alternate solution that looks equally viable under the law(not considering the recent supreme court ruling of course). It also seems more reasonable/fair then the Supreme Court ruling in question. If you thought my stated idea less fair then the supreme court ruling I hoped you would say why and provide evidence. I was not trying to inform you about current laws. >The law specifically says that cable companies cannot transmit TV that is broadcast over the air unless they pay rebroadcasting fees. If that was obvious to everyone that Aero fell under these restrictions then I do not think the case would have made it to the supreme court or be a topic that would attract much conversation on Hacker News.