16 ms·

I listened to a talk by an Aereo exec at SXSW and he made it clear then that there was no plan B. This was an all or nothing fight. Unfortunately the Supreme

by DevX101 12y ago

I listened to a talk by an Aereo exec at SXSW and he made it clear then that there was no plan B. This was an all or nothing fight. Unfortunately the Supreme Court squashed them, but they really could have changed the world had the ruling gone the other way. ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die like the Blockbusters of the world. Despite the fact that it didn't work out, I respect teams like this with ambitious goals that put everything on the line without compromise. Kudos to the team and investors that supported Aereo.

rayiner 12y ago
Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. The Blockbuster analogy is frankly insulting to people who built real technology for video delivery. Blockbuster went bankrupt because technology made their middle-man position obsolete. In contrast, there is nothing obsolete about making content. Even in the face of modern technology that makes content creation cheap, peoples' demand for high-quality studio content is higher than ever.
- wdewind 12y ago
  >Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. I think I mostly agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate: this is broadcast television. It's already being given away for free. I could easily and legally build a kit to record this broadcast without a cable box/official dvr. I could also rewatch that stuff any time legally. In theory I could legally pay someone to do this for me, head over and pick up the DVDs/VHS tapes in person and rewatch them myself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but up until this point it's all legal right? But doing all this over the internet is suddenly illegal? (Or is it the point where I pay someone else to do it for me? Either way seems kind of arbitrary to me...)
  - iolsantr 12y ago
    Doing it in someone else's facility I think is what makes it illegal. IF you had exactly the same scheme but hosted the equipment in your customer's houses, Aero's business model would be perfectly legit. (I think, it's been a while since i read the opinion)
    - varelse 12y ago
      That makes about as much sense to me as the Vatican saying it's OK to employ the rhythm method as contraception technique but don't you dare put on a condom! Sigh...
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      I think that's right. Its about the similarity of Aero to any other cable company, who also use antennae to distribute media. Its about where we're at and taking small steps. So maybe it seems odd from close up (why does it matter if I rent/own the receiver?), it makes whatever sense it makes from a bigger view - the state of the current industry of cable and broadcast.
  - acomjean 12y ago
    More to the point, they sell USB->Digital TV Antennas adapters and software to turn your computer into a DVR. I had one (eye-tv) with an antenna, my computer is essentially a DVR (You subscribe to a program guide too, which makes picking programs to record tivo easy). I don't use it anymore, the computer died and I pretty much stopped watching tv. At the very least, if the court said Aereo was a cable company the other brances of government should have at least respected that and given them the license to be a cable company. What else is going to made illegal when renting a cloud computer?
    - danielweber 12y ago
      The court didn't buy that you were "renting a cloud computer." They were selling a service. There are things that you can do personally and not as a business. Sometimes businesses try to thread this needle. It depends on many factors and luck whether they succeed.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tons of legal businesses are built upon the same concept, especially in media distribution.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The bedrock of which are voluntary, consensual distribution arrangements.
    - ubernostrum 12y ago
      If by "voluntary and consensual" you mean "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation", then sure.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Only to the extent that any property right or contractual arrangement is "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation."
        icebraining 12y ago
        Contractual arrangement? How is that involuntary?
- venomsnake 12y ago
  The main problems right now are the IP laws IMO. They are way too heavily skewed for the benefit of the creator and not society, which makes building any innovation a game of begging. And gives the creator power to kill said innovation. I would love shorter terms and some form of FRAND compulsory licensing.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - pc86 12y ago
    The content I create does not belong to society. It belongs to me. If I want to kill it that is my right.
    - lbotos 12y ago
      I agree with you in theory, in practice we know this isn't the case. The way content is shared in 2014 and data is duplicated you don't have that right anymore if you are creating any type of digital content. Not out of some "overarching evil" but out of people's desire to share.
      - pc86 12y ago
        A right is not a right if the desires of people I have never met abrogates it.
        lbotos 12y ago
        Aren't you agreeing with me then? Let's use a real world example: Flappy Bird. It was the author's right to take down his creation from the App Store and he did. He owned that. People are still using it (he can't remove it from their devices) and as long as one copy exists outside of his hand's people can infringe on his right: http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch/ http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad... I want to understand you better. Can you clarify?
    - 12y ago
- disposition2 12y ago
  What is your opinion on TuneIn? I feel like if Aereo is illegal, TuneIn is just as illegal...they basically provide the exact same service just different sources. Also, would you consider it equally illegal if I paid "Bill" 6 miles down the road to put up and antenna and stream the feed online for me (and only me) to view?
- tomp 12y ago
  What legal hack? The content is flowing freely over the air, they are just transforming it's timing and delivery... Just like banks (for current accounts), or like batteries (for electricity). The model was even opt-in; only content that was already broadcast was available, and if any producer didn't want to be offered on Aereo, they could simply stop broadcasting!
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. So did cable television which, in the early days, was notorious for not paying for broadcast network programming they could get over the air. That was solved by introducing a compulsory licensing scheme: any cable company could retransmit an over-the-air broadcast network, so long as they paid up. Which also solved a massive logistical headache of each cable provider potentially having to negotiate a license with the parent network (for its programming) and each affiliate (for the local programming such as news or local sports), by creating a consolidated administered fund to collect and distribute the payments. All Aereo really needs is enough money to buy itself a few members of Congress and get a similar scheme set up. That is the real, literal legal "hack".
- kevincennis 12y ago
  DISCLAIMER: Former Aereo employee. Views do not reflect those of my former employer. Blah blah blah. This all goes back to the core of the argument though: Is Aereo a content provider or an equipment company? Obviously SCOTUS disagreed with several lower courts and determined that we were infringing. But to paint it as a black and white issue strikes me as a gross oversimplification. Just out of curiosity (I'm legitimately not trying to start an argument), do you think Cablevision* should have been overturned? If not, how do you reconcile the fact that their RS-DVR doesn't publicly perform, but Aereo did? *I seem to recall seeing you comment on Aereo stuff a bunch in the past and knowing a fair bit about the case, so I assume you're familiar with the Cablevision decision. Apologies if I misremembered or assumed incorrectly.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - brianfitz 12y ago
    I'm having trouble understanding the ruling, so maybe those here with more knowledge can help. As a thought experiment, assume I live in a building that gets spotty OTA reception on my antenna. However, there is an apartment for rent on the top floor, and I decide to rent it for the sole purpose for storing property. If I set up an antenna in that apartment, but do not live in the space, and run a long cable from the top floor to my apartment, am I in violation of the law? I do not own the apartment that the antenna resides in, and I do not physically live there. If this is not illegal, does it become illegal when I cut the cord between the apartments and instead encode the signal and stream it to my laptop? So, said a different way, does the legality depend on whether I live in the same physical space as the antenna, or the fact that I have digitized the content between my two rented spaces? It would seem that the courts view a company such as SlingMedia as a hardware provider and Aereo like the landlord of my second rented apartment. However, I can't resolve at what point what I do with my rented space and equipment becomes illegal. Can anyone explain?
    - wvenable 12y ago
      Where you would probably cross the line is you sold this as a service. Doing this for personal use is one thing, selling your apartment's antenna connection over the internet to a single other person is another.
- joelberman 12y ago
  Isn't the content paid for by advertisers in exchange for your eyeballs? Wouldn't Aero increase the eyeballs? Wouldn't the advertisers be happy about more eyeballs? First the engineers run the company, then the marketers, then the finance people, then the lawyers. TV is being run by lawyers.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - harryh 12y ago
    It's telling that in your list of jobs there you completely left out any of the creative people (writers, directors, actors, etc) that actually make TV shows.
    - Pxtl 12y ago
      Replace "engineers" with "the people who actually do the real work" and your complaint goes away.
    - joelberman 12y ago
      Use these synonyms if you do not like engineer. synonyms: originator, deviser, designer, architect, inventor, developer, creator; mastermind "the prime engineer of the approach" If you do not think that engineers can be creative then we disagree. And if you think that every writer, actor, director is creative, then we also disagree.
  - lbotos 12y ago
    In the future, it's not just eyeballs, but qualified eyeballs. Marketing used to be regional now it's getting really personal. Tracking data allows you to do so much stuff: facebook look-alike audiences google data etc.
- varelse 12y ago
  Content being broadcast on ostensibly publicly owned airwaves (not that the "public" ever seemingly gets any say in this). While I agree with your point that they didn't own the content, making it illegal to provide a service that improves the reception on those public airwaves to local customers doesn't sit well with me. I'm equally annoyed with the shenanigans employed with Dish and DirectTV to block their broadcast of local channels to local customers. If the content owners are really that concerned here, they can simply move their content to privately owned channels. Not that I ever expect a court ruling to say anything close to this because lobbyists and money, just saying...
raverbashing 12y ago
" ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die" But here's the thing. They still have to do that TV viewing is at an all-time low. Broadcast TV has a different business model than Cable, but viewings have been going down for both. Aereo's was too much a bet for too small of a win. "Now you can watch open TV on the internet" Any broadcaster could decide to do this in house and it's done, no Aereo needed.
- hawleyal 12y ago
  In-house is the problem. I don't want 200 separate media apps.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    You actually watch 200 TV channels? Also, why would apps be required? If they did this it would probably also work on the web. Take a look at BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD in the UK. On demand and streaming via the web or mobile apps. Works pretty well.
    - samelawrence 12y ago
      Sure, but for things like tight integration with set-top boxes / consoles / mobile devices, a thick application would be required (unless every device gets magical, stable browsers with good non-desktop UXs), and if each provider creates their own media streams, you'll have enormous fragmentation of experiences and interfaces, as well as software clutter.
    - hawleyal 12y ago
      I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al. It doesn't matter if they are web apps or other apps. They are separate, and because of this, shitty. Edit: Itunes for music was massively dominant because it has everything. Separate stores for every single music publisher would be ridiculous. The same goes for other media.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Except that Chapter 11 is a reorganization, not a liquidation. Aero are planning some level of operations going forward. Though the posting seems to suggest there's not a lot in play. Curious.
- PublicEnemy111 12y ago
  Isn't chapter 11 a liquidation or reorganization with the debtee liquidating the debt while chapter 7 is when the debtor does the liquidation?
  - FrobeniusTwist 12y ago
    No. In a Chapter 11, the debtor (referred to in this context as the "debtor in possession") remains in control of the proceeding (with court oversight). Generally, the purpose of an 11 is to reorganize or restructure, but a company can also liquidate itself in an 11. Presumably by "debtee" you mean a creditor. Creditors can participate in a Chapter 11 proceeding as part of an "official committee", but they have limited powers and generally are left to complain from the sidelines. In a chapter 7, on the other hand, a trustee is appointed to liquidate the debtor's non-exempt assets, and the debtor is more or less out of the picture.

by DevX101 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. The Blockbuster analogy is frankly insulting to people who built real technology for video delivery. Blockbuster went bankrupt because technology made their middle-man position obsolete. In contrast, there is nothing obsolete about making content. Even in the face of modern technology that makes content creation cheap, peoples' demand for high-quality studio content is higher than ever.

wdewind 12y ago
>Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tragic it didn't work out. I think I mostly agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate: this is broadcast television. It's already being given away for free. I could easily and legally build a kit to record this broadcast without a cable box/official dvr. I could also rewatch that stuff any time legally. In theory I could legally pay someone to do this for me, head over and pick up the DVDs/VHS tapes in person and rewatch them myself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but up until this point it's all legal right? But doing all this over the internet is suddenly illegal? (Or is it the point where I pay someone else to do it for me? Either way seems kind of arbitrary to me...)
- iolsantr 12y ago
  Doing it in someone else's facility I think is what makes it illegal. IF you had exactly the same scheme but hosted the equipment in your customer's houses, Aero's business model would be perfectly legit. (I think, it's been a while since i read the opinion)
  - varelse 12y ago
    That makes about as much sense to me as the Vatican saying it's OK to employ the rhythm method as contraception technique but don't you dare put on a condom! Sigh...
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    I think that's right. Its about the similarity of Aero to any other cable company, who also use antennae to distribute media. Its about where we're at and taking small steps. So maybe it seems odd from close up (why does it matter if I rent/own the receiver?), it makes whatever sense it makes from a bigger view - the state of the current industry of cable and broadcast.
- acomjean 12y ago
  More to the point, they sell USB->Digital TV Antennas adapters and software to turn your computer into a DVR. I had one (eye-tv) with an antenna, my computer is essentially a DVR (You subscribe to a program guide too, which makes picking programs to record tivo easy). I don't use it anymore, the computer died and I pretty much stopped watching tv. At the very least, if the court said Aereo was a cable company the other brances of government should have at least respected that and given them the license to be a cable company. What else is going to made illegal when renting a cloud computer?
  - danielweber 12y ago
    The court didn't buy that you were "renting a cloud computer." They were selling a service. There are things that you can do personally and not as a business. Sometimes businesses try to thread this needle. It depends on many factors and luck whether they succeed.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. Tons of legal businesses are built upon the same concept, especially in media distribution.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The bedrock of which are voluntary, consensual distribution arrangements.
  - ubernostrum 12y ago
    If by "voluntary and consensual" you mean "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation", then sure.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Only to the extent that any property right or contractual arrangement is "involuntary and imposed by statute and regulation."
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Contractual arrangement? How is that involuntary?
venomsnake 12y ago
The main problems right now are the IP laws IMO. They are way too heavily skewed for the benefit of the creator and not society, which makes building any innovation a game of begging. And gives the creator power to kill said innovation. I would love shorter terms and some form of FRAND compulsory licensing.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 12y ago
  The content I create does not belong to society. It belongs to me. If I want to kill it that is my right.
  - lbotos 12y ago
    I agree with you in theory, in practice we know this isn't the case. The way content is shared in 2014 and data is duplicated you don't have that right anymore if you are creating any type of digital content. Not out of some "overarching evil" but out of people's desire to share.
    - pc86 12y ago
      A right is not a right if the desires of people I have never met abrogates it.
      - lbotos 12y ago
        Aren't you agreeing with me then? Let's use a real world example: Flappy Bird. It was the author's right to take down his creation from the App Store and he did. He owned that. People are still using it (he can't remove it from their devices) and as long as one copy exists outside of his hand's people can infringe on his right: http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch/ http://techzend.com/download-install-flappy-bird-iphone-ipad... I want to understand you better. Can you clarify?
  - 12y ago
disposition2 12y ago
What is your opinion on TuneIn? I feel like if Aereo is illegal, TuneIn is just as illegal...they basically provide the exact same service just different sources. Also, would you consider it equally illegal if I paid "Bill" 6 miles down the road to put up and antenna and stream the feed online for me (and only me) to view?
tomp 12y ago
What legal hack? The content is flowing freely over the air, they are just transforming it's timing and delivery... Just like banks (for current accounts), or like batteries (for electricity). The model was even opt-in; only content that was already broadcast was available, and if any producer didn't want to be offered on Aereo, they could simply stop broadcasting!
ubernostrum 12y ago
Yes, changed the world by making it legal to build a business off someone else's content that you got for free through a legal hack. So did cable television which, in the early days, was notorious for not paying for broadcast network programming they could get over the air. That was solved by introducing a compulsory licensing scheme: any cable company could retransmit an over-the-air broadcast network, so long as they paid up. Which also solved a massive logistical headache of each cable provider potentially having to negotiate a license with the parent network (for its programming) and each affiliate (for the local programming such as news or local sports), by creating a consolidated administered fund to collect and distribute the payments. All Aereo really needs is enough money to buy itself a few members of Congress and get a similar scheme set up. That is the real, literal legal "hack".
kevincennis 12y ago
DISCLAIMER: Former Aereo employee. Views do not reflect those of my former employer. Blah blah blah. This all goes back to the core of the argument though: Is Aereo a content provider or an equipment company? Obviously SCOTUS disagreed with several lower courts and determined that we were infringing. But to paint it as a black and white issue strikes me as a gross oversimplification. Just out of curiosity (I'm legitimately not trying to start an argument), do you think Cablevision* should have been overturned? If not, how do you reconcile the fact that their RS-DVR doesn't publicly perform, but Aereo did? *I seem to recall seeing you comment on Aereo stuff a bunch in the past and knowing a fair bit about the case, so I assume you're familiar with the Cablevision decision. Apologies if I misremembered or assumed incorrectly.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- brianfitz 12y ago
  I'm having trouble understanding the ruling, so maybe those here with more knowledge can help. As a thought experiment, assume I live in a building that gets spotty OTA reception on my antenna. However, there is an apartment for rent on the top floor, and I decide to rent it for the sole purpose for storing property. If I set up an antenna in that apartment, but do not live in the space, and run a long cable from the top floor to my apartment, am I in violation of the law? I do not own the apartment that the antenna resides in, and I do not physically live there. If this is not illegal, does it become illegal when I cut the cord between the apartments and instead encode the signal and stream it to my laptop? So, said a different way, does the legality depend on whether I live in the same physical space as the antenna, or the fact that I have digitized the content between my two rented spaces? It would seem that the courts view a company such as SlingMedia as a hardware provider and Aereo like the landlord of my second rented apartment. However, I can't resolve at what point what I do with my rented space and equipment becomes illegal. Can anyone explain?
  - wvenable 12y ago
    Where you would probably cross the line is you sold this as a service. Doing this for personal use is one thing, selling your apartment's antenna connection over the internet to a single other person is another.
joelberman 12y ago
Isn't the content paid for by advertisers in exchange for your eyeballs? Wouldn't Aero increase the eyeballs? Wouldn't the advertisers be happy about more eyeballs? First the engineers run the company, then the marketers, then the finance people, then the lawyers. TV is being run by lawyers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- harryh 12y ago
  It's telling that in your list of jobs there you completely left out any of the creative people (writers, directors, actors, etc) that actually make TV shows.
  - Pxtl 12y ago
    Replace "engineers" with "the people who actually do the real work" and your complaint goes away.
  - joelberman 12y ago
    Use these synonyms if you do not like engineer. synonyms: originator, deviser, designer, architect, inventor, developer, creator; mastermind "the prime engineer of the approach" If you do not think that engineers can be creative then we disagree. And if you think that every writer, actor, director is creative, then we also disagree.
- lbotos 12y ago
  In the future, it's not just eyeballs, but qualified eyeballs. Marketing used to be regional now it's getting really personal. Tracking data allows you to do so much stuff: facebook look-alike audiences google data etc.
varelse 12y ago
Content being broadcast on ostensibly publicly owned airwaves (not that the "public" ever seemingly gets any say in this). While I agree with your point that they didn't own the content, making it illegal to provide a service that improves the reception on those public airwaves to local customers doesn't sit well with me. I'm equally annoyed with the shenanigans employed with Dish and DirectTV to block their broadcast of local channels to local customers. If the content owners are really that concerned here, they can simply move their content to privately owned channels. Not that I ever expect a court ruling to say anything close to this because lobbyists and money, just saying...

raverbashing 12y ago

" ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the other broadcast networks would have had to change their business model and adapt or slowly die" But here's the thing. They still have to do that TV viewing is at an all-time low. Broadcast TV has a different business model than Cable, but viewings have been going down for both. Aereo's was too much a bet for too small of a win. "Now you can watch open TV on the internet" Any broadcaster could decide to do this in house and it's done, no Aereo needed.

hawleyal 12y ago
In-house is the problem. I don't want 200 separate media apps.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  You actually watch 200 TV channels? Also, why would apps be required? If they did this it would probably also work on the web. Take a look at BBC iPlayer/ITV Player/4OD in the UK. On demand and streaming via the web or mobile apps. Works pretty well.
  - samelawrence 12y ago
    Sure, but for things like tight integration with set-top boxes / consoles / mobile devices, a thick application would be required (unless every device gets magical, stable browsers with good non-desktop UXs), and if each provider creates their own media streams, you'll have enormous fragmentation of experiences and interfaces, as well as software clutter.
  - hawleyal 12y ago
    I don't want BBC iPlayer, ITV player, 40D, Fox Sports player, HBO player, Showtime player, Paramount player, Miramax player, Comedy Central player, AMC player, NBC player, Sony Pictures player, et al. It doesn't matter if they are web apps or other apps. They are separate, and because of this, shitty. Edit: Itunes for music was massively dominant because it has everything. Separate stores for every single music publisher would be ridiculous. The same goes for other media.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Except that Chapter 11 is a reorganization, not a liquidation. Aero are planning some level of operations going forward. Though the posting seems to suggest there's not a lot in play. Curious.

PublicEnemy111 12y ago
Isn't chapter 11 a liquidation or reorganization with the debtee liquidating the debt while chapter 7 is when the debtor does the liquidation?
- FrobeniusTwist 12y ago
  No. In a Chapter 11, the debtor (referred to in this context as the "debtor in possession") remains in control of the proceeding (with court oversight). Generally, the purpose of an 11 is to reorganize or restructure, but a company can also liquidate itself in an 11. Presumably by "debtee" you mean a creditor. Creditors can participate in a Chapter 11 proceeding as part of an "official committee", but they have limited powers and generally are left to complain from the sidelines. In a chapter 7, on the other hand, a trustee is appointed to liquidate the debtor's non-exempt assets, and the debtor is more or less out of the picture.